Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I agree with Exel.

 

Reasons given to attack Iraq was about as valid as reasons to attack Sweden (well, if you exclude UN resolutions, organization many of those advocating attack of Iraq want to detest and disband..UNLESS there is some resolution to support their claims..quite ironic).

 

Did I support the OIF and removal of Saddam, yes.

 

Did I support the reasons given (WMD, AQ, etc.), no. Those were lame...and shame for politicians who cooked them up in co-operation of intelligence services persons too ambitious for their job.

 

Those were ridiculous and wrong reasons..and it cost USA huge amount (almost all) goodwill it had from 9/11 attacks and Afghanistan operation. I see that OIF was solution seeking problem, made from petty political viewpoints. Contrast to Afghanistan OEF is staggering, both from public and military standpoint.

 

About only good thing I see about OIF is that it filled the vacuum with AQ-inclined to seek to fight US military. That is good. Problem is that US military is now occupying hostile land and has also multitude of local insurgencies that have nothing to do with AQ..since they were not there before invasion. But from my point of view, it's beneficial to have AQ hurl themself to attack US troops there than suicide-bomb things in Europe/US.

 

If "War on Terror" is wanted, US troops are in totally wrong country.

Edited by Sardaukar
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
What have you been smoking? Or did you just take a time trip back to 2003?

 

The war on Iraq was justified mainly by the removal of Saddam Hussein and the claimed threat of his (non-existent) WMDs and links to al-Qaeda. The WMDs were nowhere to be found, and the links to al-Qaeda were never proven. So I guess "EVERYONE" knew wrong. Of course they were still used to justify the war, but you don't need to act as if the justifications were and remain valid. It could have been validly justified with humanitarian reasons (preventing genocide), removing an evil dictator or with Saddam violating cease fire terms, but that's not relevant because it wasn't.

 

Of course, EVERYONE knows that Sweden has developed WMDs and has the technology to continue doing so readily available, and that it is also known to have harbored al-Qaeda terrorists. So let's all attack Sweden!

Try getting your news from some place OTHER than the main stream media.

 

We have spoken to the Iraqi scientists working on Iraq's WMD programs, we HAVE found WMD in Iraq (not in the kind of numbers neccessary for the main stream media to report it). A direct link to Al-Qaeda WAS NOT one of the reason's for going into Iraq, links to NUMBEROUS terrorists oraganizations was.

Guest aevans
Posted
Try getting your news from some place OTHER than the main stream media.

 

Try getting your opinions from somewhere other than Right-Wing-Pathos-R-Us.

 

We have spoken to the Iraqi scientists working on Iraq's WMD programs,
All of whom credibly report that they were working on WMD reconstitution capabilities, not covert WMD development and stockpiling. They have also reported, again with some degree of credibility, that their work was more in the nature of keeping Saddam happy, not in making real progress towards WMD reconstitution goals.

 

we HAVE found WMD in Iraq (not in the kind of numbers neccessary for the main stream media to report it).

 

Even the most committed supporters of the invasion have generally admitted that these were inventory management errors WRT 1980s weapons that should have been destroyed.

 

A direct link to Al-Qaeda WAS NOT one of the reason's for going into Iraq, links to NUMBEROUS terrorists oraganizations was.

 

Horsesh!t. The housing and medical treatment of excatly one al Qaeda mid level leader was blown up very publicly into some kind of regime level QPQ between al Qaeda and Saddam. As for the real significance of this or any of the other "NUMBEROUS" (sic -- but pretty good as a malapropism) terrorist organization contacts is probably the same as that of any other ME state that keeps tabs on terrorist organizations by way of giving them a place to squat and some baksheesh from time to time. It was all just part of the standard "better the devil you know than the one you don't" political economy of the region.

Posted
Try getting your news from some place OTHER than the main stream media.

 

Fox News? No thanks. I'll stick to the "OTHER" media, ie. everything else except Fox.

Posted

All you people really need to see the real MSM, the one that REALLY tells the truth.

 

I'm of course talking 'bout Michael "I'm a Socialist Asshole" Moore (he is after all the greatest capitalist I have ever known, he makes a tonload of money criticizing the decadent America who should be less materialistic and more Socially conscious, isn't that simply Genius).

 

Iraq was just a conspiracy that began before some of us were even born. It was built by "El Diablo" when he was on the crib, it was all on gettin' a whole country motivated by a "terrorist attack" (I think Tank-Net is a bastion where that theory has been proven again and again. 9/11 was an inside job), so we could invade the two best places in the world to do so, Iraq and Afghanistan, right in the hotzone of the ME, so Halliburton could make money.

 

Its like this, the US goes out, and then the corporations sit, in their corporationny buildings, and then they attack, and the corporations make money.

 

Some people need to stop infecting TN with this "Afganistan and Iraq were an ACTUAL threat" nonsense and REALLY stop being ignorannus.

Posted
we HAVE found WMD in Iraq (not in the kind of numbers neccessary for the main stream media to report it)

 

I would guess many countries have chemical weapons in small quantities in order to make their defensive research in the area effective. For example, how are you going to test the effects of chemical weapons on animals if you don't have any chemical weapons? And how are you going to test your protective equipment and detecting equipment to be sure they work as they should if you don't have any chemical weapons?

Posted

A couple of comments and observations.

 

* Without Iraq ongoing would it be two or three times worse in A-stan ? As Iraq is the main Jihadist attraction. Without Iraq A-stan might be much , much worse.

* As to invading Iraq. The main purpose was to try and combat Islamic Jihadists by establishing democracy in Iraq/ME under the cover of the mis-behaving Saddam. Evaluating Saddam's intentions were basically the glass is half-full vs. half-empty with Bush and company saying the glass was filling up fast and needed to be capped sooner then later.

* Rummy and company blew the planning beyond all belief. Rummy , Wolfowitz and Feith should rot in hell.

* History a generation from now will determine if Bush should be rotting in hell.

Posted

The "we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" argument is spurious because it assumes that there's some set number of Terrorists that will never increase. As someone better at analogies than I am said (I'll look it up later), it's like saying "let's build one really dirty hospital so we can lure all the germs there and kill them!"

Posted
The "we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" argument is spurious because it assumes that there's some set number of Terrorists that will never increase. As someone better at analogies than I am said (I'll look it up later), it's like saying "let's build one really dirty hospital so we can lure all the germs there and kill them!"

 

Agreed, that line of thought dates back to the Cold War and Korea and Viet Nam.

But I do think that Iraq takes the heat off of A-stan and possibly Somalia and Darfur and other places. AQ does want to engage but the leadership controls the money flow as to what mayhem it decides to finance . AQ money in Iraq May lessin the chances of $xxx money coming to America but I have no proof.

OTOH , without Iraq being a battleground much less money maybe collected.

Posted
Agreed, that line of thought dates back to the Cold War and Korea and Viet Nam.

But I do think that Iraq takes the heat off of A-stan and possibly Somalia and Darfur and other places. AQ does want to engage but the leadership controls the money flow as to what mayhem it decides to finance . AQ money in Iraq May lessin the chances of $xxx money coming to America but I have no proof.

OTOH , without Iraq being a battleground much less money maybe collected.

 

I dunno, though -- I agree with you that Rummy et al botched Iraq horribly, but I still think that invading the country was a really mis-aimed way to defeat Islamic terrorism. There's still a hell of a lot of debate over how closely connected Al-Qaeda in Iraq is to the Al-Qaeda that caused 9/11 -- whether they're just wannabes, a farm team, closely connected or what; I've heard a lot of conflicting opinions by very intelligent people about this. I do think, though, that in hindsight if I was given hundreds of billions of dollars, most of the US Army being deployed for a long period of time (with all of the attendant lost civilian jobs, divorces, etc.) and 3,000-plus dead Americans (and orders of magnitude more horribly wounded ones) and massive loss of international stature, I'd choose to spend that budget directly targeting the people who blew up the World Trade Center. The fact that after all of this we never got Osama is utterly mind-boggling to me.

Posted
I would guess many countries have chemical weapons in small quantities in order to make their defensive research in the area effective. For example, how are you going to test the effects of chemical weapons on animals if you don't have any chemical weapons? And how are you going to test your protective equipment and detecting equipment to be sure they work as they should if you don't have any chemical weapons?

It is one thing to have small amounts of chemical &/or biological agents in a lab & having them in munitions (artillery & missile) warheads.

Posted
There's still a hell of a lot of debate over how closely connected Al-Qaeda in Iraq is to the Al-Qaeda that caused 9/11 -- whether they're just wannabes, a farm team, closely connected or what; I've heard a lot of conflicting opinions by very intelligent people about this.

Yeah, on one side you have people you have listened to Al-Qaeda say that there is no difference between Al-Qaeda in Iraq & Al-Qaeda anywhere else around the world & how important the "war" in Iraq is to Al-Qaeda, and on the other side you have those who are not paying attention (or are ignoring or dismissing) to what Al-Qaeda itself is saying.

Posted

While I agree with those who say they started as entirely different fronts and for very different justifications, I guess that the longer the insurgency goes on in both countries, the greater the links. But they are still quite different. Hell, the main problem with Iraq's insurgency is that there are lots of different chaps fighting EACH OTHER (including Al-Qaeda types).

 

On the more/less terrorism without Iraq thing: If you think of radical Islamism as an ideological threat in the same way that radical Marxism was it’s clear that any blatant injustice/shitty move by “The West”/US is fodder for greater dislike. The way I see it, for every active terrorist, there are 10 active supporters/logs people, 100 connected activists/sympathizers, 1000 ‘party members’, 10,000 sympathetic assholes in positions of some importance in the media/economy/other governments and 1,000,000 credulous morons in the street. OIF has added maybe 50-100 million morons who went form broadly disliking the US/West to a stronger level of dislike. Example: before British participation in OIF there had never been any serious, recurring terrorism aside from IRA in London. Not the case now. Would have happened anyhow SOME day? Maybe. Maybe not. But it’s happening now.

Posted
3,000-plus dead Americans (and orders of magnitude more horribly wounded ones)

Actually, only one order of magnitude of all wounded (27,279 as of 31 July 2007), mostly not requiring medical air transport (19,116).

 

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Guest aevans
Posted
The fact that after all of this we never got Osama is utterly mind-boggling to me.

 

He's in a place we've decided we can't go and where our supposed friends that are there don't care to find him. Nothing mind-boggling about that.

Posted

Doubtful at best on the Afghanistan piece - the Afghans are generally intolerent of Arabs or outsiders, and it's not an easy place to get to from any direction.

 

Agreed - along with more than a few General Officers who kowtowed to their politcal masters in hope of something better down the line.

 

It won't take nearly that long.

 

A couple of comments and observations.

 

* Without Iraq ongoing would it be two or three times worse in A-stan ? As Iraq is the main Jihadist attraction. Without Iraq A-stan might be much , much worse.

* Rummy and company blew the planning beyond all belief. Rummy , Wolfowitz and Feith should rot in hell.

* History a generation from now will determine if Bush should be rotting in hell.

Posted
He's in a place we've decided we can't go and where our supposed friends that are there don't care to find him. Nothing mind-boggling about that.

 

Uh, I'd say it's mind-boggling that we'd let _any_ factors, whether geographic for political, deter us from tracking down and killing somebody who's responsible for the deaths of close to 3,000 of our citizens, given that we're by far the most powerful country on earth.

Posted
You are obviously incapable of seeing the big picture.

The reason to the Iraq war changed only once. That was when the war to remove Saddam Hussein (& the threat he posed) was won & the war to keep the terrorist from taking over the region began.

Ok here's a list of reasons why the administration has said we went to Iraq:

Establish Democracy

Eliminate Hussein

Attack Al-Queda cells

Stop (imaginary) WMD's

I'm sorry but that looks like quite a few reasons to me. Also if you knew anything you'd know saddam posed no threat to us. He disliked al-queda and was a secularist which made them incompatible. He also had no weapons with which the throw at us, not to mention no means of sending those non-existant weapons at us.

 

Since the terrorists see/saw the war in Iraq as a significant front in their war (hint hint), they have continued the fight there (expending untold amounts of resources which could have been used elsewhere) to try & turn a defeat into victory. Something that they COULD succeed in doing if we pull out before the new democratically elected government is able to independently provide for its own security with its own security forces.

So we should just give in to the terrorists?

Give in? No you see the key difference between us is that you don't care that we're sending our soldiers to die while attempting to liberate a country that doesn't want to be liberated, I care about our troops and want them to stop dying for a people that I don't think is worth having our boys die for. This is the fundamental difference between us, you care about the cause of the war, and I actually care about the lives of our troops, and the way you support the troops and not the war is to bring them home and have them stop dying in a country that doesn't want us there. Maybe if you actaually supported our troops like many of your right wing nut-jobs say you do you'd care that they were dying for a democracy that people don't want in a place where a good portion of america couldn't point to on a map when people are dying in our very own country. I care about our country and to be honest, it seems you don't nearly as much.

Posted
Ok here's a list of reasons why the administration has said we went to Iraq:

Establish Democracy

Eliminate Hussein

Attack Al-Queda cells

Stop (imaginary) WMD's

I'm sorry but that looks like quite a few reasons to me. Also if you knew anything you'd know saddam posed no threat to us. He disliked al-queda and was a secularist which made them incompatible. He also had no weapons with which the throw at us, not to mention no means of sending those non-existant weapons at us.

You are confusing having more than one reason for changing reasons.

 

I thought Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq, so how could that have been a reason for going into Iraq. ;)

 

Iraq's WMD were not imaginary. EVERYBODY knew Iraq had them, it had used them, we have talked with the Iraq scientist working on them & we have found them (although in not anywhere near the quantity neccessary to satisfy the mainstream media & others).

 

 

 

Give in? No you see the key difference between us is that you don't care that we're sending our soldiers to die while attempting to liberate a country that doesn't want to be liberated, I care about our troops and want them to stop dying for a people that I don't think is worth having our boys die for. This is the fundamental difference between us, you care about the cause of the war, and I actually care about the lives of our troops, and the way you support the troops and not the war is to bring them home and have them stop dying in a country that doesn't want us there. Maybe if you actaually supported our troops like many of your right wing nut-jobs say you do you'd care that they were dying for a democracy that people don't want in a place where a good portion of america couldn't point to on a map when people are dying in our very own country. I care about our country and to be honest, it seems you don't nearly as much.

BS. I have friends who have been & are in Iraq.

 

Don't give me that BS about you caring about our troops & our country, if you did you would be supporting them (most of which have chosen to do so - do you not realize how many of the current troops in Iraq have already been their, come home & chosen to go back again because THEY believe in what we are doing) rather than undermining what they are doing.

 

Iraq has ALREADY been liberated. The VAST majority of the Iraq people have embraced democracy (more so than many Americans).

Posted (edited)
You are confusing having more than one reason for changing reasons.

 

I thought Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq, so how could that have been a reason for going into Iraq. ;)

 

They weren't in Iraq, that was simply a reason given, honesty hasn't been a key virtue of the current administration ;)

 

Iraq's WMD were not imaginary. EVERYBODY knew Iraq had them, it had used them, we have talked with the Iraq scientist working on them & we have found them (although in not anywhere near the quantity neccessary to satisfy the

mainstream media & others).

First off it's obvious EVERYONE didn't because the weapons inspectors hadn't done enough study. Also don't give me that bullshit, 5 obselecent barely functional scuds do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction. Not to mention the biggest concern was about nuclear arms which our president said he had, when he didn't

 

BS. I have friends who have been & are in Iraq.

 

Don't give me that BS about you caring about our troops & our country, if you did you would be supporting them (most of which have chosen to do so - do you not realize how many of the current troops in Iraq have already been their, come home & chosen to go back again because THEY believe in what we are doing) rather than undermining what they are doing.

 

Iraq has ALREADY been liberated. The VAST majority of the Iraq people have embraced democracy (more so than many Americans).

Oh so wanting to get our troops out of a place where they are dying and being horribly wounded everyday is not BS? Ah yeah wanting to save our troops lives, that's BS. You say that the VAST majority of the people of Iraq have embraced democracy, you pulled that out of your ass. You don't know s(%t about it because I you have not talked to the vast majority of the people in Iraq, or are you looking at polls or something? You are making a nigh-impossible to substantiate claim when I am making the concrete claim that the Iraqis are killing hundreds of each other in sectarian violence and killing and horribly maiming our boys. And I believe many of our boys keep coming back because they are being fed the same lies, half-truths, and propaganda that I see all the time, and if there is one thing the military has been wonderful at not doing is telling the truth. Including to and ESPECIALLY to it's own soldiers. Though I would agree that many Americans don't support democracy. This is shown by you and your ilk who support totalitarian actions such as the patriot act, warrentless wire taps, the denial of habeas corpus for the first time in 150 years, and the ability of the president to put people in jail for an indefinite amount of time no questions asked. Oh and the last time habeas corpus was suspended, it was because a bunch of greedy, ignorant, plantation aristocrats ordered an unprovoked attack against a federal fort and had amassed an army on our border to support their unjust claims to the lives of other human beings. You talk big but your actions show nothing but contempt for democracy and our troops. You insist on keeping them in a horrible place filled with religious fundamentalists with guns when the situation has been compared by our own president to Vietnam. You agree to stripping away our freedoms (in the name of protecting freedom no less) to somehow "protect our democracy. To be honest I don't expect any of this to get through to you as you're already far to brainwashed or just plain ignorant to understand complex things like freedom and democracy, but on the off chance you do I really want you to really look at what's happening and see if it actually fits in the nature of freedom that our country was founding on.

Edited by Akhe100
Posted
They weren't in Iraq, that was simply a reason given, honesty hasn't been a key virtue of the current administration.

Yes Al-Queda WAS in Iraq.

 

No, going after Al-Queda in Iraq was NOT one of the reasons given for going into Iraq.

 

Quit trying to re-write history to support your BS views.

 

 

 

First off it's obvious EVERYONE didn't because the weapons inspectors hadn't done enough study. Also don't give me that bullshit, 5 obselecent barely functional scuds do not qualify as weapons of mass destruction. Not to mention the biggest concern was about nuclear arms which our president said he had, when he didn't.

What world are you living in? :rolleyes:

 

We found more than just a few SCUD warheads with chemical &/or biological warheads. Not huge stockpiles as it has been confirmed BY IRAQIS that the bulk of Iraq's WMD had been moved out of the country by the time we invaded.

 

Bush never said Iraq HAD nuclear weapons, he said they were working on getting nuclear weapons - which Iraqi nuclear scientists have confirmed. One of the reasons for going into Iraq was to PREVENT them from succeeding in getting them.

 

 

 

Oh so wanting to get our troops out of a place where they are dying and being horribly wounded everyday is not BS? Ah yeah wanting to save our troops lives, that's BS.

Try asking the troops. :)

 

And for your own well being I suggest you NOT mention to them which side you are on.

 

 

 

You say that the VAST majority of the people of Iraq have embraced democracy, you pulled that out of your ass. You don't know s(%t about it because I you have not talked to the vast majority of the people in Iraq, or are you looking at polls or something? You are making a nigh-impossible to substantiate claim when I am making the concrete claim that the Iraqis are killing hundreds of each other in sectarian violence and killing and horribly maiming our boys.

No I do not know the exact % but check the Iraqi election results & statistics (& remember they voted while under direct threat of being killed just for leaving their homes). Also note that the VAST majority of the country is not only quite safe but BOOMING economically rather than literally.

 

Iraqis are not killing hundreds of each other, outside influences are killing hundreds of Iraqis hoping to destabilize the country. Of coarse the main stream media would have you beleive that most (if not all) violence in Iraq is sectarian in nature but it is not - at least not in terms of Iraqi vs Iraqi except when spurred on or even instigated by outside influences.

 

 

 

And I believe many of our boys keep coming back because they are being fed the same lies, half-truths, and propaganda that I see all the time, and if there is one thing the military has been wonderful at not doing is telling the truth. Including to and ESPECIALLY to it's own soldiers.

No, they are going back because they HAVE BEEN THERE & they SEE & LIVE the truth day in & day out while they are there.

 

 

 

Though I would agree that many Americans don't support democracy. This is shown by you and your ilk who support totalitarian actions such as the patriot act, warrentless wire taps, the denial of habeas corpus for the first time in 150 years, and the ability of the president to put people in jail for an indefinite amount of time no questions asked. Oh and the last time habeas corpus was suspended, it was because a bunch of greedy, ignorant, plantation aristocrats ordered an unprovoked attack against a federal fort and had amassed an army on our border to support their unjust claims to the lives of other human beings. You talk big but your actions show nothing but contempt for democracy and our troops. You insist on keeping them in a horrible place filled with religious fundamentalists with guns when the situation has been compared by our own president to Vietnam. You agree to stripping away our freedoms (in the name of protecting freedom no less) to somehow "protect our democracy. To be honest I don't expect any of this to get through to you as you're already far to brainwashed or just plain ignorant to understand complex things like freedom and democracy, but on the off chance you do I really want you to really look at what's happening and see if it actually fits in the nature of freedom that our country was founding on.

I am finding it had to find even one remotely true statement there...

 

And if you were capable of putting your own personal politics & hatred aside (or at least not put them AHEAD of everything else), you would probably see that too.

Posted (edited)

Hey, all I can say is that I tried to get through to him, if he's so far entrentched in his bs hey, that's his problem but I'm not arguing with him anymore, it's not worth it to argue with someone so blindly stubborn. PFCM obviously wouldn't know freedom if it bit him in the ass so why try talking to him about it when he's just going to spout memorized rhetoric.

Edited by Akhe100
Posted
Hey, all I can say is that I tried to get through to him, if he's so far entrentched in his bs hey, that's his problem but I'm not arguing with him anymore, it's not worth it to argue with someone so blindly stubborn. PFCM obviously wouldn't know freedom if it bit him in the ass so why try talking to him about it when he's just going to spout memorized rhetoric.

It is you who needs to be gotten through to.

 

Your facts are all wrong & you are putting your own personal politics ahead of what is right for our country (& the free world). It is you who does not know freedom or that freedom is not free & that it is VERY MUCH WORTH FIGHTING FOR, even if it is for someone else's freedom as much as it is your own. You are so blind you probably do not even realize that what you are doing (not on purpose but in effect) is actually giving aid & comfort to the enemy. All one has to do is pay attention to what the terrorist are saying to realize that they consider people like you as allies & that (again in effect) fighting on their side.

Posted
We found more than just a few SCUD warheads with chemical &/or biological warheads. Not huge stockpiles as it has been confirmed BY IRAQIS that the bulk of Iraq's WMD had been moved out of the country by the time we invaded.

 

Bush never said Iraq HAD nuclear weapons, he said they were working on getting nuclear weapons - which Iraqi nuclear scientists have confirmed.

 

I'm now going to make a request that's very uncustomary and unethical for internet debates, and I apologize for violating the convention:

 

Source, please?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...