War on Terror is Wrong - Page 10 - 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 08-03-2005, 02:34 PM   #136
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 12:42 AM
VERY LONG POST BUT I THINK IT'S PRETTY LOGICALLY SOLID

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


What more diplomatic measures were there to take? And who was there to be diplomatic with? Sadam Hussein? The guy who tortured olympic athletes for not winning? The guy who used rape squads to rape the wives and daughters of political dissenters? No one "whined" that diplomatic measures would take too long. Diplomatic measures didn't work. We'd been dealing with Saddam since prior to '91. We even left him in power after Desert Storm to renew a diplomatic solution. At that point he committed genocide against the Kurds.
Do you even remember why we went to war in Iraq. It wasn't because of torturing athletes. It wasn't because of raping women. It wasn't because of the Kurds. It was Saddam Hussein "sought significant quantities of Uranium from Africa" (by the way, that sentence was the reason we went to war and Bush was supposed to take it out of his speech because there wasn't enough intelligence to back it up). Then after, no weapons of mass destruction were found. After hundreds of Americans died and thousands of Iraqis died, Bush shifted the reason for going to war from WMDs to saying that Saddam was a terrible ruler, etc. It's true Saddam WAS a terrible leader, but America had no reason to go and occupy the country. You realize how dumb it is to think that Saddam was a terrible leader, who posed no threat to the US, so now the US must go and destroy the country and kill thousands of people in the process. Bush41 didn't go into Baghdad and remove Saddam from power because he knew it would turn into a QUAGMIRE. Bush41 had a good reason to go to Iraq. Dubya didn't.

Quote:
As to a better standing in the world... Make no mistake; the main European dissenters to the Iraq war: France, Germany & Russia had MAJOR oil contracts signed with Saddam and were just waiting for the embargo to be lifted. They knew without Saddam in power, those contracts would be null and void.
I highly doubt that this is the ONLY reason, although this is a valid point if it's true. But after the war ended, the US gave no-bid contracts to its own companies.

and oh yeah........AMERICANS ARE DYING WITHOUT ENOUGH SUPPORT FROM OTHERS COUNTRY! (maybe it's because those other countries realized that Iraq posed no threat to them so it's not smart to send soldiers there to die)

Quote:
By dealing directly with terrorists; what you are doing is recognizing them. And more than anything; recognition is what terrorists crave. So you are in fact "caving" whether that is what you intended or not. And how do you negotiate anyway with Al Queda when our very existence is what Al Queda takes offense to? They made no claims prior to the 9/11 attack. There were no demands. They don't want anything. So what exactly are we supposed to negotiating? That we won't live the way we do? That we won't breathe so much?
I think this is a large misconception about terrorists. Bush always says on TV that the terrorists HATE our liberty and they HATE our freedom. This is complete rubbish. These people aren't retarted. They don't hate our very existence. Our support of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a stimulus for them hating us. They hate that we often times don't support Islamic countries in many situations. They hate us because in general they are an oppressed people. Especially in Europe, there are A LOT of poor Muslim communities. They feel that it is the mainstream government that is the cause of their problems. Their own oppression is a stimulus for them hating us. They don't hate our liberty. That's such a dumb thought.

Quote:
Who cares about threats? And why does the fact that making threats mean the war isn't working? I can threaten the IRS that I won't pay taxes till I'm blue in the face. But on tax day, there I am in front of the computer with TaxCut cussing my guts out. In other words, you can plot and plot and be angry; but as long as your actions still conform to the guidlines (ie, no terrorist attacks, still paying taxes, etc) seriously; I don't have a problem.
Are you saying that we shouldn't care about terrorist threats?


Quote:
Why? Was it supposed to be an overnight deal? It's a process. Would you have said the same thing during the first year of WWII? Or any war for that matter. You can lose battles but still win a war. That's so true it's become probably the most common cliche in the English language. You seem to have a major reasoning contradiction here: You say you are looking for a long term solution; but at the same time you are criticizing the war because it isn't moving fast enough for you.
You can't win the war on terror (or the struggle against extremism as we're supposed to call it now . That's like saying we are going to win the war on hate. Or saying we will prevail in the war against anger. As long as Muslims are oppressed, or they have any of these stimuli, the extremists ones will hate us a lot.


Quote:
As to soldiers; listen, soldiers bitch. It's part of being a soldier. I certainly wouldn't be a happy camper in plus-120 degree heat wearing a full pack and someone taking pot shots at me and trying to blow me up. And on top of that the VAST VAST VAST majority of soldiers believe in what they're doing in Iraq. All you have to do to know that's true is look at who overwhelmingly the soldiers voted for in the last election.
Soldiers believe in what they are doing because they do what they are ordered to do. It's part of the code that they live by. The President of the United States is their commander, they strongly believe that he will make the right decisions before sending them into battle.

This doesn't mean the President can send soldiers into battle without having a reason. There was not enough intelligence to prove that Saddam had nuclear (nucular) weapons. He didn't have the right reasons to go to war but he did anyways and the soldiers are trained to follow those orders.

Quote:
If it weren't for the terrorists coming into Iraq from other countries; it would be relatively peaceful at this point. Which leads to another telling fact; if the Iraqis were so unhappy with us there would be more of an Iraqi resistance. Which there isn't. It's a foreign resistance.
First of all, the first sentence you wrote is very odd. "If it wasn't for the terrorists, it would be peaceful"?? Secondly, there is also a heavy Iraqi resistance. Yes, there are terrorists coming from other countries but that doesn't form 100% of the resistance. My friend just got back from Iraq and you still can't walk down any street in Baghdad safely. Are you saying that these are ALL foreign people who are shooting at people in Baghdad.
__________________

__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 03:19 PM   #137
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14
VERY LONG POST BUT I THINK IT'S PRETTY LOGICALLY SOLID



Do you even remember why we went to war in Iraq. It wasn't because of torturing athletes. It wasn't because of raping women. It wasn't because of the Kurds.


Yes I "even" remember why (more smugness, love it). I also remember a few other facts. Prior to 9/11, we were going to fight a war in Iraq. It was always going to happen. In fact, it was predicted to happen a lot sooner than it did; but 9/11 got in the way. I'm not debating the existence of WMD. Faulty intelligence happens; no one has a crystal ball. There's still no proof that it wasn't there or no proof that it wasn't destroyed just prior to the invasion. But I'm not debating any of that.

In fact, my resonse to Moon and the examples I laid out were in her point that we should have let diplomacy work. And I'm saying diplomacy with who!? And that's what I'm debating.

Quote:
After hundreds of Americans died and thousands of Iraqis died, Bush shifted the reason for going to war from WMDs to saying that Saddam was a terrible ruler, etc.
And that's where you're just flat out wrong. If there was a shift, it was to add the terrorism aspect to it. Read old news reports; we were always going in there.


Quote:
It's true Saddam WAS a terrible leader, but America had no reason to go and occupy the country. You realize how dumb it is to think that Saddam was a terrible leader, who posed no threat to the US, so now the US must go and destroy the country and kill thousands of people in the process. Bush41 didn't go into Baghdad and remove Saddam from power because he knew it would turn into a QUAGMIRE. Bush41 had a good reason to go to Iraq. Dubya didn'.
We had a ton of reasons to go in there. We were sick of the pussy footing around with him for ten years that we did. Tired of the small skirmishes with SAM sites and their planes in no fly zones. Tired of him thumbing his nose at weapons inspectors. If he was such an upstanding guy why did he do that? I think also that post 9/11 we needed to send a message to the Middle East despots and what will happen to them in this new world we've all found ourselves in. Traditional terrorist breeding grounds and aggressive regimes like Syria and Iran are extremely nervous now with us as their new neighbors.

Quote:
I highly doubt that this is the ONLY reason, although this is a valid point if it's true. But after the war ended, the US gave no-bid contracts to its own companies.
So? Did you know there's only two or three companies in the entire world that can provide the services Haliburton did? But I'm certainly not arguing that it was the most above board thing the administration's ever did. After all, these are politicians we're dealing with here. At the same time, what does that have to do with the state of relations with our allies in regards to how they feel about going into Iraq? They were dissenting prior to any contracts. So the fact that there were possibly shady contracts doesn't address the point of the argument at all.

Quote:
and oh yeah........AMERICANS ARE DYING WITHOUT ENOUGH SUPPORT FROM OTHERS COUNTRY! (maybe it's because those other countries realized that Iraq posed no threat to them so it's not smart to send soldiers there to die)
Or because of those oil contracts. I'll just stick with facts. Heresay is up to you.

Quote:
I think this is a large misconception about terrorists. Bush always says on TV that the terrorists HATE our liberty and they HATE our freedom. This is complete rubbish. These people aren't retarted. They don't hate our very existence.
You are just flat out wrong here. Bin Laden attacked us because literally our soldiers walked on a holy area during Desert Storm. The presence of infidels was what was offensive to him.

Quote:
Our support of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a stimulus for them hating us. They hate that we often times don't support Islamic countries in many situations. They hate us because in general they are an oppressed people.
And yet here we are allieviating oppression and you are against that. Al Queda never mentioned Palestine as a reason for 9/11; nor the previous WTC attack, nor the attacks on our embassies prior to 9/11 either. All heresay again. If we were talking about the PLO; sure. But we're not.

Quote:
Especially in Europe, there are A LOT of poor Muslim communities. They feel that it is the mainstream government that is the cause of their problems. Their own oppression is a stimulus for them hating us. They don't hate our liberty. That's such a dumb thought.
Really. We're hated because we're viewed as a morally corrupt society. Again, it's just a frickin' fact. Such a dumb thought.. Here's a smart one, watch the news instead of MTV and the Daily Show for your current events.



Quote:
Are you saying that we shouldn't care about terrorist threats?
Never said we shouldn't. People have the right to believe whatever they want. If that belief is hating us, then so be it. If they want to make threats; well I can live with that so long as the threats don't materialize. Again; the point I'm responding to is the fact the the initial poster claimed the mere fact that there were threats means the war on terror isn't working. My response is that even in the face of threats there's been no attacks so the war on terror must be working.

Quote:
You can't win the war on terror (or the struggle against extremism as we're supposed to call it now .
Loving the smugness. The Daily Show really shouldn't be your main source of current events.

Quote:
That's like saying we are going to win the war on hate. Or saying we will prevail in the war against anger. As long as Muslims are oppressed, or they have any of these stimuli, the extremists ones will hate us a lot.
Gah!!! Yet you rail against the effort that's going on right under your nose to remove the oppression!

Quote:
Soldiers believe in what they are doing because they do what they are ordered to do. It's part of the code that they live by. The President of the United States is their commander, they strongly believe that he will make the right decisions before sending them into battle.
Ah, so soldiers are not smart enough to have their own opinions when those opinions don't agree with your own. Well certainly I hope you can educated them with your vast wisdom soon.

Quote:
This doesn't mean the President can send soldiers into battle without having a reason. There was not enough intelligence to prove that Saddam had nuclear (nucular) weapons. He didn't have the right reasons to go to war but he did anyways and the soldiers are trained to follow those orders.
The reasons are well stated. You want to disagree with them, disagree with them. But at least prior to forming an opinion, get the real facts of the situation. All of them; not just the ones that help strengthen your argument.

Quote:
First of all, the first sentence you wrote is very odd. "If it wasn't for the terrorists, it would be peaceful"?? Secondly, there is also a heavy Iraqi resistance. Yes, there are terrorists coming from other countries but that doesn't form 100% of the resistance. My friend just got back from Iraq and you still can't walk down any street in Baghdad safely. Are you saying that these are ALL foreign people who are shooting at people in Baghdad.
No there is not a "heavy" Iraqi resistance. This is a resistance that is funded and organized by outside influences. Are there Iraqi's fighting? Sure. But they are not leading this. As to 100% or not? So, are we debating percetage points now? Or are we trying to exagerate?
__________________

__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 03:43 PM   #138
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
What more diplomatic measures were there to take? And who was there to be diplomatic with? Sadam Hussein? The guy who tortured olympic athletes for not winning? The guy who used rape squads to rape the wives and daughters of political dissenters? No one "whined" that diplomatic measures would take too long. Diplomatic measures didn't work. We'd been dealing with Saddam since prior to '91. We even left him in power after Desert Storm to renew a diplomatic solution. At that point he committed genocide against the Kurds.
Um, I believe I made it quite clear that we shouldn't be diplomatic with the terrorists. I just think we should've found some way to take people like him out without putting innocent people in the line of fire. We have done it before, after all.

Also, we were friends with Saddam for the longest time, and we're friends with other countries in which the dictators there treat their people as bad as Saddam did, if not worse, so pardon me if I didn't quite feel our efforts to suddenly remove him were sincere.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
As to a better standing in the world... Make no mistake; the main European dissenters to the Iraq war: France, Germany & Russia had MAJOR oil contracts signed with Saddam and were just waiting for the embargo to be lifted. They knew without Saddam in power, those contracts would be null and void.
And yet there were other people who opposed this who weren't involved in that sort of thing, they opposed it because they just didn't see how our doing it this way would help the situation.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
By dealing directly with terrorists; what you are doing is recognizing them. And more than anything; recognition is what terrorists crave. So you are in fact "caving" whether that is what you intended or not. And how do you negotiate anyway with Al Queda when our very existence is what Al Queda takes offense to? They made no claims prior to the 9/11 attack. There were no demands. They don't want anything. So what exactly are we supposed to negotiating? That we won't live the way we do? That we won't breathe so much?
Again, not negotiate. Capture. Find ways to capture them, put them in jail, and let the people who suffered under their horrid rule come up with the best punishment possible for the person.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
Who cares about threats?
Uh...I do. It would be quite nice to not have our country constantly being threatened by extremists.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
And why does the fact that making threats mean the war isn't working?
Well, the way the administration and a lot of people who supported this war were making it seem, this stuff was supposed to stop as a result of this war, the world was going to love us and everyone would be happy. We're supposed to be ending terorrism, and the extremists' threats are a part of their terror tactics. Their threats make people paranoid and antsy, which is what they enjoy.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
I can threaten the IRS that I won't pay taxes till I'm blue in the face. But on tax day, there I am in front of the computer with TaxCut cussing my guts out. In other words, you can plot and plot and be angry; but as long as your actions still conform to the guidlines (ie, no terrorist attacks, still paying taxes, etc) seriously; I don't have a problem.
Yeah, but terrorists have threatened before and actually acted upon their threats, and they could do it again. So I'd say it's worth taking seriously.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
Why? Was it supposed to be an overnight deal? It's a process. Would you have said the same thing during the first year of WWII? Or any war for that matter. You can lose battles but still win a war. That's so true it's become probably the most common cliche in the English language.
But this war, I honestly don't know if we can win. Sure, we have the greatest military available, we can win in the battles on the ground. I just don't think the long-term effects on the people will be all that great, that is where I think we'll lose. History has proven that people tend to hold grudges, and sometimes those grudges come back to bite people in the ass big time.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
You seem to have a major reasoning contradiction here: You say you are looking for a long term solution; but at the same time you are criticizing the war because it isn't moving fast enough for you.
No, again, I have no problem with things moving slowly, but if they're moving slowly and only adding to the violence, I don't see how it's working. I do want long-term solutions, it's just that I would like it if those solutions were non-violent ones, because the long-term effects of those will be a lot better for all involved than violent ones. That's all.

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
As to soldiers; listen, soldiers bitch. It's part of being a soldier. I certainly wouldn't be a happy camper in plus-120 degree heat wearing a full pack and someone taking pot shots at me and trying to blow me up. And on top of that the VAST VAST VAST majority of soldiers believe in what they're doing in Iraq. All you have to do to know that's true is look at who overwhelmingly the soldiers voted for in the last election.
So they voted for Bush in the last election. So what? The thoughts they had then aren't necessarily the ones they have now. People can and have changed their minds. And even if the majority feels they're still doing something good, the fact that a minority has some complaints is something worth considering, too...is it just because they're in a crappy situation, or is it because they genuinely don't feel we're doing as well as we claim to be?

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
And look at what's happening over there. Despite the attacks, the new Iraqi government is forging ahead. A new constitution is being written, a new police force is being trained. If it weren't for the terrorists coming into Iraq from other countries; it would be relatively peaceful at this point. Which leads to another telling fact; if the Iraqis were so unhappy with us there would be more of an Iraqi resistance. Which there isn't. It's a foreign resistance.
And that takes time. So how long exactly do we intend on staying there? And how are we going to be able to stay there as long as we might without it starting to look like an occupation instead of a liberation?

Besides that, there have been some stories in various news reports that I've read over time in which some Iraqis aren't happy with us, and would kinda like us to go away now. We got Saddam out for them, great, they appreciate that. Now we should leave them alone and let them set up their government their way, let them deal with the rogue people who try and oppose them having control over their own government. It just seems that with us having our hands in the government building process over there that it doesn't quite make them 100% "free".

Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
I know; you were exaggerating. Which is insanely common from the anti war crowd.
For the love of god, will you get off that already? Both sides are guilty of that, too. They're both guilty of smugness and both guilty of exaggeration. Let it go.

Sorry, that's just really starting to bug me.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 04:42 PM   #139
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14
VERY LONG POST BUT I THINK IT'S PRETTY LOGICALLY SOLID



Do you even remember why we went to war in Iraq. It wasn't because of torturing athletes. It wasn't because of raping women. It wasn't because of the Kurds. It was Saddam Hussein "sought significant quantities of Uranium from Africa" (by the way, that sentence was the reason we went to war and Bush was supposed to take it out of his speech because there wasn't enough intelligence to back it up). Then after, no weapons of mass destruction were found. After hundreds of Americans died and thousands of Iraqis died, Bush shifted the reason for going to war from WMDs to saying that Saddam was a terrible ruler, etc. It's true Saddam WAS a terrible leader, but America had no reason to go and occupy the country. You realize how dumb it is to think that Saddam was a terrible leader, who posed no threat to the US, so now the US must go and destroy the country and kill thousands of people in the process. Bush41 didn't go into Baghdad and remove Saddam from power because he knew it would turn into a QUAGMIRE. Bush41 had a good reason to go to Iraq. Dubya didn't.



I highly doubt that this is the ONLY reason, although this is a valid point if it's true. But after the war ended, the US gave no-bid contracts to its own companies.

and oh yeah........AMERICANS ARE DYING WITHOUT ENOUGH SUPPORT FROM OTHERS COUNTRY! (maybe it's because those other countries realized that Iraq posed no threat to them so it's not smart to send soldiers there to die)



I think this is a large misconception about terrorists. Bush always says on TV that the terrorists HATE our liberty and they HATE our freedom. This is complete rubbish. These people aren't retarted. They don't hate our very existence. Our support of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a stimulus for them hating us. They hate that we often times don't support Islamic countries in many situations. They hate us because in general they are an oppressed people. Especially in Europe, there are A LOT of poor Muslim communities. They feel that it is the mainstream government that is the cause of their problems. Their own oppression is a stimulus for them hating us. They don't hate our liberty. That's such a dumb thought.



Are you saying that we shouldn't care about terrorist threats?




You can't win the war on terror (or the struggle against extremism as we're supposed to call it now . That's like saying we are going to win the war on hate. Or saying we will prevail in the war against anger. As long as Muslims are oppressed, or they have any of these stimuli, the extremists ones will hate us a lot.




Soldiers believe in what they are doing because they do what they are ordered to do. It's part of the code that they live by. The President of the United States is their commander, they strongly believe that he will make the right decisions before sending them into battle.

This doesn't mean the President can send soldiers into battle without having a reason. There was not enough intelligence to prove that Saddam had nuclear (nucular) weapons. He didn't have the right reasons to go to war but he did anyways and the soldiers are trained to follow those orders.



First of all, the first sentence you wrote is very odd. "If it wasn't for the terrorists, it would be peaceful"?? Secondly, there is also a heavy Iraqi resistance. Yes, there are terrorists coming from other countries but that doesn't form 100% of the resistance. My friend just got back from Iraq and you still can't walk down any street in Baghdad safely. Are you saying that these are ALL foreign people who are shooting at people in Baghdad.
You asked Snowlock if he new why we went to war in Iraq and offered your own answer that it was because Saddam "sought significant quantities of Uranium from Africa".

It is true that Saddam had sought and obtained Uranium from Africa many years ago, whether he had currently just prior to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom is open to debate. Regardless, the reason the United States and other member states of the UN launched operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 had little to do with Saddam's dealings in Africa.

Saddam had invaded Kuwait in August of 1990 setting off a terrible crises that threatened the planets energy supply. A Coalition was formed and multiple resolutions were passed, approving the invasion to remove Saddam's military from Kuwait. Once this was accomplished in early 1991, Saddam signed a ceacefire agreement under which he agreed to verifiably disarm of all WMD. Based on UN resolutions 678 and 687, Saddam was required to verifiably disarm of all WMD or face renewed military action to accomplish the requirement.

From 1991 to 1998, United Nations inspectors worked hard to insure that Saddam was fully disarming and meeting the obligations laid down in the ceacefire agreement and resolutions. Unfortunately, Saddam would often play games with the UN inspection teams and would often hold up inspections of key buildings, while large numbers of Iraqi troops removed the contents of the buildings into trucks from the back. While Saddam early on had worked with UN inspectors, starting in the mid-1990s, cooperaration became almost impossible and the classic scene of UN inspectors being blocked by the Iraqi military while their troops removed unknown materials from the building became the norm. By 1998, inspectors were unable to do anything and had to be withdrawn. The United States and coalition forces launched massive airstrikes but Saddam would not back down. He also would not let the UN inspectors back in.

Now out of Iraq in November 1998, the UN inspectors reported to the United Nations that Saddam had failed to verifiably disarm of over 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of Mustard Gas, 500 pounds of Sarin Gas, and over 20,000 Bio Chem Capable artillery shells. From the start of 1999 to the Summer of 2002, little was done about this. The Clinton administration passed the difficult situation onto the Bush administration.

From 1998 to 2002, United Nations Sanctions and the weapons embargo against Saddam began to seriously erode. By 2002, Saddam was able to smuggle 4 Billion dollars worth of unknown good across his border. In the Summer of 2002, the world faced a dictator that was no longer held in box by tight sanctions and a weapons embargo, and had failed to disarm of thousands of stocks of WMD. Faced with a continued and potentially growing WMD threat, a 400,000 man military, and the potential for further harm to a majority of the planets energy supply located just across the border in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, the United States and the rest of the world had let the situation with Saddam deteriorate far to much. Action had to be taken given the circumstances.

Bush went to the UN and although the United States and coalition members already had legal grounds to invade Iraq based on two previous United Nations resolutions, Bush decided to go to the UN for one more resolution to essentially give Saddam a chance to do something he had failed to do for nearly 12 years, comply with all 17 UN resolutions passed against him under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations as well as meeting the obligations of the UN ceacefire agreement.

The new resolution, 1441, was passed with a 15-0 vote and authorized military action if Saddam failed his one last chance. Saddam had the perfect opportunity to come clean to the United Nations Weapon's inspectors. The WMD, whether it was intact or dismantled could have been rolled out in front of the inspectors by Saddam, but he did not do this. Instead, the claim was that the WMD in question had been destroyed and the evidence of the destruction or dismantlement had been destroyed as well. Essentially, typical mid 1990s Saddam rubbish in regards to disarmament. That was it, given the deteriorating situation and Saddam's unwillings to cooperate, the UN coalition had no choice but to use military action to enforce the multiple UN resolutions that Saddam had failed to comply with. It was an absolute necessity that Saddam be disarmed.

Saddam had invaded and attacked four different countries, threatened the planets energy supply with siezure and sabotage, used WMD more times than any leader in history, murdered 1.7 million people, was in violation of 17 UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the UN and in violation of the 1991 UN Ceacefire agreement in regards to his unprovoked invasion and occupaton of Kuwait and was now violating the UN sanctions and weapons embargo to the tune of 4 Billion dollars a year in smuggled goods. To allow a leader with this past behavior and current and renewed capability to continue going on the current path, not disarmed and in violation of multiple UN resolutions, would put the region and planet in an unacceptable situation of risk and danger.

This is why the United States and Coalition forces acted when they did. The Central case for war against Iraq was laid down in resolution 1441. Mobile Trucks, Uranium from Africa, or conversations recorded among Iraqi troops, were NEVER the central case for war, they were supporting cases for military action.

The fact that WMD has not been found in Iraq is not relevant to the case for military action. It does not change the fact reported by UN weapons inspectors that Saddam has yet to account for 1,000 Liters of Anthrax, 500 pounds of mustard gas, 500 pounds of sarin gas, and over 20,000 Bio Chem capable shells. It does not change the fact that Saddam did not comply with any of the 17 UN resolutions passed against him or comply with the obligations of the 1991 UN ceacefire agreement. It does not show that the unaccounted for WMD was left intact or dismantled. Theories are numerous as to where the WMD is and whether its intact or dismantled. But they are theories, not facts. The only facts that are known is that Saddam still has failed to verifiably disarm of thousands of stocks of WMD, which was the central case for military action in the first place. But now that Saddam and his regime have been removed from power, the world community can insure that the regime leaders are no longer in possession of such materials and their capabilities. The planets energy supply is safer and more secure than it has been at any time over the past 3 decades.





As for the terrorist, they hate more than just are freedoms, they hate the western way of life and western culture. Just look at what the Taliban and Al Quada did to Afghanistan from the mid 1990s up to 2001. The terrorist want to spread their idealogy and their perverted version of Islam around the world. Accept their idea's and way of life, or die. We see these idea's put into action in Israel, where Palestinian men and women, barely out of their childhood are strapped with bombs and are sent to the supermarket or the cafe to murder as many innocent civilians as possible. They also bomb Israely disco's filled with teens listening to Eminem and U2. There is simply no justification for such acts. If one is angry about a particular occupation, you don't go to an unoccupied territory to blow up innocent childern that are not at all involved in what you allege to be a crime.

More proof that the terrorist are motivated by simple hatred is the fact that they ignore what the United States did for millions of muslims in the mid-1990s in Bosnia and Kosovo. It was the United States, NOT the Arab world or any other Islamic country or group that saved the Muslim populations of Bosnia and Kosovo from slaughter by the Serbs. Less than 5 years after the United States stopped the slaughter of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, men claiming to follow the Muslim religion crashed planes into the World Trade Center building and Pentagon killing 3,000 innocent civilians! Was this their way of saying thank you?


As far as United States troops are concerned, it is true that they must follow the orders of the President, but they do not have to vote for that particular president in a presidential election. The ARMY TIMES did a survey of thousands of US military personal and found that over 80% of them were voting for George W Bush in the November 2004 election.

Most of the resistence in Iraq comes from what remains of Saddam's regime and military along with the Sunni population. The vast majority of the people in the Country do not support the insurgency at all. Case in point the election in which 8 million people showed up to VOTE! The Sunni population as a whole accounts for less than 20% of Iraq's population. There are 18 provinces in Iraq, but only 4 of them have any sort of serious fighting.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 05:06 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Um, I believe I made it quite clear that we shouldn't be diplomatic with the terrorists. I just think we should've found some way to take people like him out without putting innocent people in the line of fire. We have done it before, after all.

Also, we were friends with Saddam for the longest time, and we're friends with other countries in which the dictators there treat their people as bad as Saddam did, if not worse, so pardon me if I didn't quite feel our efforts to suddenly remove him were sincere.



And yet there were other people who opposed this who weren't involved in that sort of thing, they opposed it because they just didn't see how our doing it this way would help the situation.



Again, not negotiate. Capture. Find ways to capture them, put them in jail, and let the people who suffered under their horrid rule come up with the best punishment possible for the person.



Uh...I do. It would be quite nice to not have our country constantly being threatened by extremists.



Well, the way the administration and a lot of people who supported this war were making it seem, this stuff was supposed to stop as a result of this war, the world was going to love us and everyone would be happy. We're supposed to be ending terorrism, and the extremists' threats are a part of their terror tactics. Their threats make people paranoid and antsy, which is what they enjoy.



Yeah, but terrorists have threatened before and actually acted upon their threats, and they could do it again. So I'd say it's worth taking seriously.



But this war, I honestly don't know if we can win. Sure, we have the greatest military available, we can win in the battles on the ground. I just don't think the long-term effects on the people will be all that great, that is where I think we'll lose. History has proven that people tend to hold grudges, and sometimes those grudges come back to bite people in the ass big time.



No, again, I have no problem with things moving slowly, but if they're moving slowly and only adding to the violence, I don't see how it's working. I do want long-term solutions, it's just that I would like it if those solutions were non-violent ones, because the long-term effects of those will be a lot better for all involved than violent ones. That's all.



So they voted for Bush in the last election. So what? The thoughts they had then aren't necessarily the ones they have now. People can and have changed their minds. And even if the majority feels they're still doing something good, the fact that a minority has some complaints is something worth considering, too...is it just because they're in a crappy situation, or is it because they genuinely don't feel we're doing as well as we claim to be?



And that takes time. So how long exactly do we intend on staying there? And how are we going to be able to stay there as long as we might without it starting to look like an occupation instead of a liberation?

Besides that, there have been some stories in various news reports that I've read over time in which some Iraqis aren't happy with us, and would kinda like us to go away now. We got Saddam out for them, great, they appreciate that. Now we should leave them alone and let them set up their government their way, let them deal with the rogue people who try and oppose them having control over their own government. It just seems that with us having our hands in the government building process over there that it doesn't quite make them 100% "free".



For the love of god, will you get off that already? Both sides are guilty of that, too. They're both guilty of smugness and both guilty of exaggeration. Let it go.

Sorry, that's just really starting to bug me.

Angela
The United States had much larger roles in developing Germany and Japan, both politically and economically after World War II than it has had in Iraq. Few people would claim that the United States intervention there was a bad thing, the results in 2005 speak for themselves.

Iraq had its first election in decades thanks to the coalition. The Majority of Iraqi's want US and coalition forces to stay and defend their country against the terrorist while a new Iraqi military force is being built. Just like Germany, Japan, and the former Yugoslavia are better off from long term US military intervention, so will it be the case in Iraq.

So much has been accomplished in Iraq over the past 2 years. Unfortunately, certain political groups refuse to see this or acknowledge it. Its going to get tougher for these groups to continuing doing this in the years to come.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 05:22 PM   #141
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 12:42 AM
I think that 80% of the soldiers in Iraq voted for Bush in 2004 reflects the fact that they are a volunteer force who knew going into the service that they might go to war. I doubt a force made up of draftees would vote the same way.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 05:35 PM   #142
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 12:42 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snowlock
[B]

Quote:
Yes I "even" remember why (more smugness, love it). I also remember a few other facts. Prior to 9/11, we were going to fight a war in Iraq. It was always going to happen. In fact, it was predicted to happen a lot sooner than it did; but 9/11 got in the way. I'm not debating the existence of WMD. Faulty intelligence happens; no one has a crystal ball. There's still no proof that it wasn't there or no proof that it wasn't destroyed just prior to the invasion. But I'm not debating any of that.
There is proof that the CIA wanted Bush to take out the "significant quantites of Uranium" part out of the state of the union speech. Just something to think about. They didn't want him to say it for a reason, right?


Quote:
And that's where you're just flat out wrong. If there was a shift, it was to add the terrorism aspect to it. Read old news reports; we were always going in there.
This is very true. We are fighting a war on terror in Iraq right now. But the terrorists went there after we declared war in Iraq. By going to Iraq, I think we are effectively losing the struggle against extremism since many people think America is on a war against Islam.




Quote:
We had a ton of reasons to go in there. We were sick of the pussy footing around with him for ten years that we did. Tired of the small skirmishes with SAM sites and their planes in no fly zones. Tired of him thumbing his nose at weapons inspectors. If he was such an upstanding guy why did he do that? I think also that post 9/11 we needed to send a message to the Middle East despots and what will happen to them in this new world we've all found ourselves in. Traditional terrorist breeding grounds and aggressive regimes like Syria and Iran are extremely nervous now with us as their new neighbors.
I disagree. I clearly remember watching Colin Powell on TV giving a very eloquent address to the UN describing how Saddam Hussein had all these WMDs. He didn't make mention of all those other bad things Saddam did.

And I don't think that people are scared of the US now that we are in Iraq. In fact, because of this, there are more terrorists in the world willing to kill Americans because they think America is at war with them.

Quote:
You are just flat out wrong here. Bin Laden attacked us because literally our soldiers walked on a holy area during Desert Storm. The presence of infidels was what was offensive to him.

And yet here we are allieviating oppression and you are against that. Al Queda never mentioned Palestine as a reason for 9/11; nor the previous WTC attack, nor the attacks on our embassies prior to 9/11 either. All heresay again. If we were talking about the PLO; sure. But we're not.
I agree that they probably think our society is corrupt, but it's pretty clear that oppression and especially our support for Israel would cause hate towards us, right?

Quote:
Here's a smart one, watch the news instead of MTV and the Daily Show for your current events.
Do I detect some smugness?



Quote:
Never said we shouldn't. People have the right to believe whatever they want. If that belief is hating us, then so be it. If they want to make threats; well I can live with that so long as the threats don't materialize. Again; the point I'm responding to is the fact the the initial poster claimed the mere fact that there were threats means the war on terror isn't working. My response is that even in the face of threats there's been no attacks so the war on terror must be working.
There's been no threats because terrorists realize that it's easier to kill Americans in Iraq than going through so much trouble to do it in the US. In the last 48 hours, 20 marines have died in attacks in Iraq. About 2,000 soldiers have died in Iraq. I think that we are being smoked in the war on terror. We're having Americans die everyday as the result of terrorist attacks.

Quote:
Loving the smugness. The Daily Show really shouldn't be your main source of current events.
More smugness on your part as well?? Besides, the fact that the Daily Show made fun of the "struggle against extremism" stuff doesn't change the fact that the White House officially changed the name of the war on terror to the "struggle against extremism". Plus I also heard about it on that Tucker Carlson show on MSNBC. Is MSNBC reliable for news? Or is FOXNEWS the only fair and balanced news channel? (yes, that's more smugness)


Quote:
Gah!!! Yet you rail against the effort that's going on right under your nose to remove the oppression!
I mean oppression in Europe and the US, not oppression in Iraq.


Quote:
Ah, so soldiers are not smart enough to have their own opinions when those opinions don't agree with your own. Well certainly I hope you can educated them with your vast wisdom soon.
I'm not saying that the soldiers are incapable of independent thought. Many soldiers will not agree with the war, but they will still follow orders given by the President. I had a friend who just came back from Iraq, he was a front lines doctor. He was always in the most dangerous places (he even treated Saddam Hussein as a patient when they first caught him) and he didn't think we should've gone to war, but when he was out there he believed that what he was doing could cause good. Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they can't give support.


Quote:
No there is not a "heavy" Iraqi resistance. This is a resistance that is funded and organized by outside influences. Are there Iraqi's fighting? Sure. But they are not leading this. As to 100% or not? So, are we debating percetage points now? Or are we trying to exagerate?
1) I'm pretty certain that when people are being shot at in the streets of Baghdad, most of the fighters are people from Iraq.
2) I'm not exaggerating anything. I only used 100% to say that not ALL the terrorists in Iraq are foreign.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 05:38 PM   #143
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


So much has been accomplished in Iraq over the past 2 years. Unfortunately, certain political groups refuse to see this or acknowledge it. Its going to get tougher for these groups to continuing doing this in the years to come.
You cannot walk down a street in Baghdad safely anymore. Is that progress?

2,000 dead Americans. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Is that progress?
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-03-2005, 09:08 PM   #144
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14


You cannot walk down a street in Baghdad safely anymore. Is that progress?

2,000 dead Americans. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Is that progress?
Oh and it was safe to walk down the streets in Baghdad prior to 2003? I suggest reading a little more about Saddam's regime and what they did to particular neighborhoods in Baghdad as well as having 12 security services to watch over people, snatching anyone at any time of the day or night if they were viewed a threat to the regime.

There are not hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi's since the US invasion of Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of US military personal and civilian personal have served in Iraq over the past 2 years have helped move the country to a brighter future in ways many people fail to understand and realize.

8 million people voted in the elections at the end of January! That is progress! A Constitution is being written and will soon be voted on. A new election will then take place in December to elect a new government based on the new constitution. That is progress.

Thousands of Iraqi's volunteer every week to join the new military and often risk their lives at recruitment centers, a favorite target of insurgents. Iraqi's every day wake up and work hard for a better future despite the threats against them and those that tell them a better life is not possible. They know and see the progress that has been made which is why 8 MILLION of them voted in January and why the majority of Iraqi's support the coalition and are working hard to make their dream of a new Iraq come true.

20,000 French civilians were killed during the D-Day invasion in June 1944, an invasion designed to liberate France of German occupation. Certainly, if one were to only focus on the 20,000 French civilians that were killed and the Allied forces who died in storming the beaches that week, I suppose one would not see any progress. But how many people in France (or anywhere for that matter) today can you find who would say the D-DAY invasion was not something that helped the future of their country or the world?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 10:01 AM   #145
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Yes, it was safe to walk down a street in Baghdad prior to 2003. A man could go to the market to go buy some vegetables without fear of being blown up.

Your comparison to D-Day is very valid. Often times people have had to die in order for progress to be made (Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWII etc.) The only problem is that, like in Vietnam, people died in vain. I believe this is the same. As long as the US is there, terrorists will try to kill Americans and cause havoc in the nation, thus making us stay there for longer. Thus leading us in a positive feedback loop where more and more deaths pile up.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 02:47 PM   #146
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14
[B]

There is proof that the CIA wanted Bush to take out the "significant quantites of Uranium" part out of the state of the union speech. Just something to think about. They didn't want him to say it for a reason, right?
Sure, I agree with that to a point. If the CIA (Actually the intelligence came from Britain) were unsure, they would want Bush to pull it out. But unsure and incorrect are two different things. No one has said that Saddam actually trying to get the uranium was categorically false.

Quote:
very true. We are fighting a war on terror in Iraq right now. But the terrorists went there after we declared war in Iraq. By going to Iraq, I think we are effectively losing the struggle against extremism since many people think America is on a war against Islam.
Well, it's a matter of opinion I guess. But I've still got one fact that has I've repeated over and over... If it weren't working; there'd be attacks on US soil. The war on terror was designed to take the fight overseas. In fact, look at what AQ's second in command said today:

"Al-Qaida's No. 2 Threatens London, U.S
AP - 52 minutes ago
CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida's No. 2 embraced the London suicide bombings Thursday, warned Britain that more destruction lies ahead and promised tens of thousands of U.S. casualties in Iraq in a brazen assertion of the terror group's global reach. Ayman al-Zawahri also renewed terror threats to other countries with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming they had shunned Osama bin Laden's offer last year of a truce if foreign forces left the battleground."

Here's the Link: http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/osama...n_and_al_qaida

Notice the key part in that... Al-Za is threating our allies in their countries. But is threatening the US in Iraq. And with regards to threats against the US specifically, that's EXACTLY how the administration laid out their goals. The terrorists are threatening our soldiers; not our civillians.

And it further proves a point I laid out against Spain. Look at the snowball effect we're seeing after their pullout of Iraq in response to the madrid bombings. All that does is invite more threats. You don't deal with these people.

As to people believing it's a war against Islam... That's just propaganda and has NEVER been even intimated that's the case. If they want to believe that, so be it. But better they believe that then a chemical attack in Chicago or LA.


Quote:
I disagree. I clearly remember watching Colin Powell on TV giving a very eloquent address to the UN describing how Saddam Hussein had all these WMDs. He didn't make mention of all those other bad things Saddam did.
So? Powell gave a speech. He addressed something. Does that mean he wholistically addressed the war and all of it's reasons? Bush, Rumsfeld, and many others in the administration have also laid out their reasons and they tie into what I said as to the nature of Saddam. In fact, a large portion of the debate in the UN as to the reasons for going to war stemmed from how Saddam dealt with the guidlines laid out post-desert storm. And Bush AND Powell hammered on that; over and over. Hans was repeatedly getting thrown out of Iraq. Enough was enough.

Quote:
And I don't think that people are scared of the US now that we are in Iraq. In fact, because of this, there are more terrorists in the world willing to kill Americans because they think America is at war with them.
Again, look at Al-Za's statements today. Look at what's being stated by Bolton today in the UN regarding Iran and Syria. Look at what Quadaffi did post Iraqi Freedom. I think they're very very afraid of us.

Quote:
I agree that they probably think our society is corrupt, but it's pretty clear that oppression and especially our support for Israel would cause hate towards us, right?
Wrong. AQ has never in any major way stated their hatred for us is a result of Israel. Outside of Palestine, protests against America rarely have to do with Israel. They even call us the "Great Satan". That has nothing to do with Israel.

Quote:
Do I detect some smugness?
Just like BVS & Moon, no whining allowed. You open that door, I'll get down and dirty with you. But if you're willing to not be an ass from the get-go I'll play nice too.

Quote:
There's been no threats because terrorists realize that it's easier to kill Americans in Iraq than going through so much trouble to do it in the US. In the last 48 hours, 20 marines have died in attacks in Iraq. About 2,000 soldiers have died in Iraq. I think that we are being smoked in the war on terror. We're having Americans die everyday as the result of terrorist attacks.
Smoked? Keep in mind, I want NO American (Or any allies soldiers, or innocents for that matter) deaths. But 2000 soldiers is fewer even than Desert Storm. And statistically, for every 1 allied soldier killed, about 30 or 40 terrorists are dying. Hardly smoked. As to it being easier there; it's really not. It's much harder to kill someone in a tank than it is to kill someone in a shopping mall or a bus. It's much harder to kill someone that shoots back.

Quote:
More smugness on your part as well??
Whining again. You opened the door; don't bitch cause I followed you in.

Quote:
Besides, the fact that the Daily Show made fun of the "struggle against extremism" stuff doesn't change the fact that the White House officially changed the name of the war on terror to the "struggle against extremism".
Did you happen to notice the dates of the news clips where they used the "struggle" line? One was in June; the other... February! We suddenly changed the name? Suddenly six months ago? Perhaps instead they're using a repeated line in a speech and exaggerating it a bit? The Daily Show, exaggerate? Nah. And this "Official change" nonsense. I missed the press release from the administration that made the "change" official. Did you catch it?

Are they using that term as well? Absolutely. And there's valid reasons for it. But it still doesn't mean that there's a backing down on the war on terror. In fact, a change in terms just means that they're expanding it. But again, we're talking politicians and it's all marketing anyway. The Department of Defense used to be called the Department Of War

Quote:
Plus I also heard about it on that Tucker Carlson show on MSNBC. Is MSNBC reliable for news? Or is FOXNEWS the only fair and balanced news channel? (yes, that's more smugness)
Tucker. LOL. About as objective as Stewert himself. You confuse commentators with reporters.

Fox news... And here we are. Seriously, lets call a spade and spade here, shall we? This debate is NOT about the war on terror or the war in Iraq. It's really about American ideology. You folks hate Bush. If Clinton or Kerry were running this deal you wouldn't be saying anything much at all. But because it's Bush, you will slam anything he does because of his ideology. Even up to the point where you will basically side with terrorists to discredit the prez. And I know, I know. How dare I? Of course you are against terrorism. And seriously, no sarcasm, I'm sure you are against it. But it seems to me you would rather see Bush fail then terrorism be erradicated. Because if Bush succeeded, it would mean his ideology succeeded and you can't stand that.

So instead you eagerly look for any chink in the armor. You will exaggerate any minor point, skip over any victory, rely on the opinions of fringe "commentators", and engage in fanciful rationalizations to prove your points rather than just use cold hard fact.

So let's just give up the pretenses here, huh?

Quote:
I mean oppression in Europe and the US, not oppression in Iraq.
Of course you do. Let's address the problem with people who aren't really involved all that much. Forget Al Queda, or the terrorists that are coming from Syria, Morrocco, and Iran. You know, the overwhelming majority of them? Let's instead tell Britain and Germany how to run their countries. Let's open a dialog on terrorism with Islamics in the US who aren't committing terrorist acts. Perfect solution. Let's stop the fighting, get rid of the extra security, dismantle the terror warning system, and talk amongst ourselves instead. Careful, don't stand too close to any tall buildings!

You're just grasping at straws here. You're rationalizing to try and prove a point I think you don't really believe in. Go hate Bush and conservatives all you want, but don't discuss the war on terror.

Quote:
I'm not saying that the soldiers are incapable of independent thought. Many soldiers will not agree with the war, but they will still follow orders given by the President.
No, you just did say that. Here, I'll quote it again for you:

"Soldiers believe in what they are doing because they do what they are ordered to do."

Don't backpedal now. That quote was in response to my point that if soldiers didn't approve of what they were doing, why did they vote for Bush in such a high majority? Are there those like the Doc you mentioned that don't agree with how the war is being contducted, sure! But it's a vast vast minority. And on top of that, their disagreeing yet still supporting is VASTLY different from you. They've proved their support be being there. You ain't done shit but criticize.

Quote:
1) I'm pretty certain that when people are being shot at in the streets of Baghdad, most of the fighters are people from Iraq.
Again, just flat out wrong. In fact most of the attacks take place outside of Baghdad!

Quote:
2) I'm not exaggerating anything. I only used 100% to say that not ALL the terrorists in Iraq are foreign.
Okay, you're not exaggerating. You're splitting hairs instead.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 02:57 PM   #147
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock
Wrong. AQ has never in any major way stated their hatred for us is a result of Israel. Outside of Palestine, protests against America rarely have to do with Israel. They even call us the "Great Satan". That has nothing to do with Israel.
I don't think you can deny that Israel (whether the mere existence of an Israeli state, or the actions of the Israeli state) has influenced al-Qaeda. Just look at this quote from statement by al-Zawahiri which you referred to earlier in your post.

Quote:
Has sheikh Osama Bin Laden not informed you that you will not dream of security until we live it in reality in Palestine and before all infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad, may peace be upon him?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4746157.stm
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 03:04 PM   #148
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14
Yes, it was safe to walk down a street in Baghdad prior to 2003. A man could go to the market to go buy some vegetables without fear of being blown up.

Your comparison to D-Day is very valid. Often times people have had to die in order for progress to be made (Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWII etc.) The only problem is that, like in Vietnam, people died in vain. I believe this is the same. As long as the US is there, terrorists will try to kill Americans and cause havoc in the nation, thus making us stay there for longer. Thus leading us in a positive feedback loop where more and more deaths pile up.
The same things though, post D-Day, were being said about France and our occupation there. Same with Germany. I can't even guess at the amount of civillians that died as the result of the invasion of Germany; but I would say that they are better off now.

I don't believe you can compare Vietnam and Iraq. Sure, there is a tenuous link; but not really much of one. In Vietnam there were battles there that cost thousands of lives at one time, only to have the enemy melt away after being defeated and then return again. We really were in Vietnam facing a true army; and it was one that was being supported by another major super power.

But none of that applies here. There isn't an opposing army. There aren't any literal battles. And there is no super-power support for the other side. The war the terrorists are fighting isn't a guerilla war. There won't be a Tet Offensive in Iraqi because AQ doesn't have those types of resources.

American troops will leave once the government has been set up and the Iraqi army and police forces can stand on their own. And they will because Iraq is a much richer and advanced nation than 'Nam was.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 03:06 PM   #149
Refugee
 
Snowlock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,211
Local Time: 06:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


I don't think you can deny that Israel (whether the mere existence of an Israeli state, or the actions of the Israeli state) has influenced al-Qaeda. Just look at this quote from statement by al-Zawahiri which you referred to earlier in your post.

Saddam used the same tactic during Desert Storm. The war had nothing to do with Israel, he was using Israel as an excuse to further incite the Islamic world.
__________________
Snowlock is offline  
Old 08-04-2005, 03:09 PM   #150
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Snowlock


Saddam used the same tactic during Desert Storm. The war had nothing to do with Israel, he was using Israel as an excuse to further incite the Islamic world.
I'm not saying al-Qaeda, Saddam or any other lunatic is correct in their views about Israel. What I am saying is that the existence of the Israeli state, or specific policies of the Israeli government have often been cited as specific grievances by groups such as al-Qaeda. You seemed to suggest Israel isn't an influence on those groups, which I think is wrong.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees 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 07:42 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