11 myths of iraqi war

[manu1959]

Franco ring a bell with anyone?

spain claimed to be neutral but sent troops to the eastern front to fight with the germans

 

[SpidermanTuba]

i don't care....if they had not invaded kuwait then violated the cease fire they would all be alive.

Iraqi conscripts are the ones who decided to invade Kuwait? So the Iraqi Army under Hussein was run by the enlisted men? That's an interesting power structure.


Its interesting how we "save" innocent Iraqi children by killing their fathers for the horrible crime of being forced, on pain of death, into the Iraqi Army.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Aren't you paying attention? It was for the oil .....

My point apparently zoomed over your head. Invading is ACTING, not sitting doing nothing in fear of the consequences for one's actions.

Isn't starting wars - well, wrong? It would seem the best way to avoid a war is not to start one in the first place. If you don't start one - you might get a war, you might not - but if you do start one, you definitely have a war on your hands.

I used to think only fascists started wars without being in imminent danger.

 

[manu1959]

Isn't starting wars - well, wrong? It would seem the best way to avoid a war is not to start one in the first place. If you don't start one - you might get a war, you might not - but if you do start one, you definitely have a war on your hands.

I used to think only fascists started wars without being in imminent danger.

iraq invaded kuwait and paid the price

 

[Gem]

Wars, this one included, do not start with one country invading another and declaring the start of hostilities. They are the unfortunate end result of a series of events that people chose to deal with in the wrong way.

In this case, we ignored terrorist threats, attacks, declarations of jihad, buildups, evidence of planned attacks, etc. for years. From Presidents before Carter to Clinton and Bush, our nation closed our eyes to what was so obviously happening.

After September 11th, this nation turned to Bush and said "Why didn't you protect us BEFORE this happened?" And faced with that...Bush began looking at nations, men, organizations that might want to do us harm...and began to work on stopping them before they could act on their desires.

You say we should not go to war until we are attacked...yet I bet, like many of us, you are angry at how little was done prior to 9/11 to be pro-active against our enemies. Now, you probably feel that the bombings and attacks before 9/11 were attacks that should have been acted on. But you are playing Monday morning quarterback if you do not remember that prior to 9/11 very, VERY few people (liberal or conservative) felt that the attacks we saw were worthy of taking us to war over...

And so we have learned (or rather, some of us have learned), that in some cases it is NOT right to WAIT for a war to come to you...but rather it is right to take a war to your enemies...and to put everything you have into trying to stop them before they can carry out any more of their plans.

 

[theim]

Iraqi conscripts are the ones who decided to invade Kuwait? So the Iraqi Army under Hussein was run by the enlisted men? That's an interesting power structure.


Its interesting how we "save" innocent Iraqi children by killing their fathers for the horrible crime of being forced, on pain of death, into the Iraqi Army.

I know lefties are utterly clueless on national security so I'll help you out here:

To win a war, you must usually kill the other side's soldiers.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

iraq invaded kuwait and paid the price

Yeah. That's what we call the first Gulf War. Should we invade Japan since they bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941?

 

[theim]

Yeah. That's what we call the first Gulf War. Should we invade Japan since they bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941?

If Japan fires on our plane, tries to assasinate a former president, and undercuts humanitarian programs to fund death camps, yes.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Wars, this one included, do not start with one country invading another and declaring the start of hostilities. They are the unfortunate end result of a series of events that people chose to deal with in the wrong way.

Uhh, yeah, actually, you're wrong. We weren't at fullscale war with Iraq until we invaded them.

In this case, we ignored terrorist threats, attacks, declarations of jihad, buildups, evidence of planned attacks, etc. for years. From Presidents before Carter to Clinton and Bush, our nation closed our eyes to what was so obviously happening.

After September 11th, this nation turned to Bush and said "Why didn't you protect us BEFORE this happened?" And faced with that...Bush began looking at nations, men, organizations that might want to do us harm...and began to work on stopping them before they could act on their desires.


You say we should not go to war until we are attacked...yet I bet, like many of us, you are angry at how little was done prior to 9/11 to be pro-active against our enemies. Now, you probably feel that the bombings and attacks before 9/11 were attacks that should have been acted on. But you are playing Monday morning quarterback if you do not remember that prior to 9/11 very, VERY few people (liberal or conservative) felt that the attacks we saw were worthy of taking us to war over...

And so we have learned (or rather, some of us have learned), that in some cases it is NOT right to WAIT for a war to come to you...but rather it is right to take a war to your enemies...and to put everything you have into trying to stop them before they can carry out any more of their plans.

What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? Not one of the hijackers was from there, not one of the people who planned the hijacking was from there. A bunch of Saudi Arabians under the direction of people who planned the attack in Afghanistan and Pakistan attacks us - and this means we should invade the weakest Muslim nation we can find that had nothing to do with it? How does that make any sense? Didn't you read the 9/11 report? No collaborative efforts between Hussein and Al Qaeda.


So when you were a kid, if someone in the schoolyard hit you, you retaliated by walking up to another kid that had nothing to do with it but that you knew you could beat and hitting them?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I know lefties are utterly clueless on national security so I'll help you out here:

To win a war, you must usually kill the other side's soldiers.

So the reason we invaded Iraq was just so we could do it - and then pretend to care about the Iraqis?


Do you have to bomb TV stations to win wars?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

If Japan fires on our plane, tries to assasinate a former president, and undercuts humanitarian programs to fund death camps, yes.

Hmm, funny, I didn't hear Bush list any of those reasons as a reason to invade IRaq before we actually did it. If the war was actually justified by those reasons - you'd think he would have told us about it, don't you?


Why aren't we in N Korea? They've got plenty of death camps - I'm almost certain they would be shooting at our planes if our planes were flying over their country - and hey, they actually HAVE WMD and we know this for a FACT.

In fact, in North Korea, when you commit a "political" crime, they send you and your entire familiy for three generations above and below you to a death camp - where the average life expectancy is one year from the day you enter - where they feed infants born in the camp to dogs - and where they give guards money for college scholarships for every inmate they shoot. What is Bush doing to stop this inhumanity? Hmm. nothing.

So don't feed me that death camp BS. The right wingers didn't care about the IRaqi people when they were supporting Hussein in the 80's while he gassed the Kurds - if they claim to care about them now its only because its politically CONVENIENT to do so.

 

[theim]

So the reason we invaded Iraq was just so we could do it - and then pretend to care about the Iraqis?


Do you have to bomb TV stations to win wars?

First of all, if you had your way Iraqis would still be being fed into woodchippers, so don't you DARE claim to give a half a crap about them.

Secondly, taking out any modes of communication in war is essential.

 

[manu1959]

Iraqi conscripts are the ones who decided to invade Kuwait? So the Iraqi Army under Hussein was run by the enlisted men? That's an interesting power structure.


Its interesting how we "save" innocent Iraqi children by killing their fathers for the horrible crime of being forced, on pain of death, into the Iraqi Army.

yea that is what i said......college freshman?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

First of all, if you had your way Iraqis would still be being fed into woodchippers, so don't you DARE claim to give a half a crap about them.

You mean if I had it the way Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld preferred it in the 80's? And the way Bush Sr. preferred it in the early 90's? Hey - as long as the MONARCHY of Kuwait is restored - Hussein can gas as many Kurd's as he wants, right? As long as Hussein is in our pocket and attacking Iran and playing ball with us - hey, feed the Iraqi's to the woodchippers, we don't care! In fact, we'll even take him of the list of nations that sponsor terrorism!


No one on the right - or the left for that matter - gave a damn about what Hussein was doing to his people prior to invasion of the OIL RICH, west friendly, MONARCHY of Kuwait. Hmm, you think peoples' starting to all of a sudden "care" about the Iraqi people might just have something to do with Hussein invading Kuwait, and not actually about his mistreatement of his people?

Secondly, taking out any modes of communication in war is essential.

Talking about a public TV station meant for the civilian population. How does dropping a smart bomb on a TV station with civilian workers in it save civilian lives?

 

[manu1959]

Yeah. That's what we call the first Gulf War. Should we invade Japan since they bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941?

we did "invade" japan after pearl harbour....then they signed a treaty after the lost and they have not violated it....sadam did not follow in those footsteps.....

 

[theim]

Hmm, funny, I didn't hear Bush list any of those reasons as a reason to invade IRaq before we actually did it. If the war was actually justified by those reasons - you'd think he would have told us about it, don't you?

He DID, moron. Maybe if you relied on a news source other than The Onion and Democratic Underground you would have heard it.

Why aren't we in N Korea? They've got plenty of death camps - I'm almost certain they would be shooting at our planes if our planes were flying over their country[/qoute]

Because you and your ilk would blow out our eardrums with cries of NO BLOOD FOR WHATEVER THE HELL NORTH KOREA HAS!!!!

- and hey, they actually HAVE WMD and we know this for a FACT.[/qoute]

Yeah, well, we can thank your heroes The Peanut and Slick Willie for that.

In fact, in North Korea, when you commit a "political" crime, they send you and your entire familiy for three generations above and below you to a death camp - where the average life expectancy is one year from the day you enter - where they feed infants born in the camp to dogs - and where they give guards money for college scholarships for every inmate they shoot. What is Bush doing to stop this inhumanity? Hmm. nothing.

Cut the horseshit. What are any of the Dhimmirats doing to stop the inhumanity? Hmmm. Nothing.

So don't feed me that death camp BS. The right wingers didn't care about the IRaqi people when they were supporting Hussein in the 80's while he gassed the Kurds - if they claim to care about them now its only because its politically CONVENIENT to do so.

And the left-wingers are still content to let people be fed into woodchippers. So long as Chimpy McBushitler doesn't to smirk about saving them, right? You disgust me.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

we did "invade" japan after pearl harbour....then they signed a treaty after the lost and they have not violated it....sadam did not follow in those footsteps.....

Iraq and the US did not enter into any treaty. The agreement was between Iraq and the U.N. We are not responsible for unilaterally enforcing the UN's treaties - the UN is responsible for that.

 

[theim]

You mean if I had it the way Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld preferred it in the 80's? And the way Bush Sr. preferred it in the early 90's? Hey - as long as the MONARCHY of Kuwait is restored - Hussein can gas as many Kurd's as he wants, right? As long as Hussein is in our pocket and attacking Iran and playing ball with us - hey, feed the Iraqi's to the woodchippers, we don't care! In fact, we'll even take him of the list of nations that sponsor terrorism!


No one on the right - or the left for that matter - gave a damn about what Hussein was doing to his people prior to invasion of the OIL RICH, west friendly, MONARCHY of Kuwait. Hmm, you think peoples' starting to all of a sudden "care" about the Iraqi people might just have something to do with Hussein invading Kuwait, and not actually about his mistreatement of his people?

Your feeble ramblings bore me. It is a FACT that you WANT people to still be tortured and killed in that manner. You would be HAPPY if children were still being raped in front of their parents. It takes a special kind of sick bastard to actually prefer child rape over contradicting decisions made 20 years ago. But you fit the bill. Congradulations.

So don't pull anymore of your "caring" bullshit. I know how much you loved the USSR and Iran for mocking America, but scoring victories against them WAS necessary. And hey, maybe we would've had the guts to fight firsthand instaed of by proxy if lefties hadn't forced us to LOSE in Vietnam and claimed our DEFEAT as their proudest moment.

My position: Realpolitik was necessary at the time, now we must make things right.

Your position: Realpolitik was a threat to the beloved Soviet Union so fire up those 'chippers! Better to let people shred than be a hypocrite, huh?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Why aren't we in N Korea? They've got plenty of death camps - I'm almost certain they would be shooting at our planes if our planes were flying over their country[/qoute]

Because you and your ilk would blow out our eardrums with cries of NO BLOOD FOR WHATEVER THE HELL NORTH KOREA HAS!!!!

That's BS! We did the same thing for Iraq that didn't stop you. You telling me you don't want to do what's right if its unpopular? Going to let a few liberals keep you from getting rid of a brutal dictator?

- and hey, they actually HAVE WMD and we know this for a FACT.[/qoute]

Yeah, well, we can thank your heroes The Peanut and Slick Willie for that.

Never voted for Clinton. I'd prefer it if you inquired as to my political beliefs before making assumptions.

Cut the horseshit. What are any of the Dhimmirats doing to stop the inhumanity? Hmmm. Nothing.

Ahh. So its OK to leave brutal dictators in power, as long as both parties are complicit.


Is this why it was OK for Reagan to stand by and support Hussein in the 80's when he was gassing the Kurds?

And the left-wingers are still content to let people be fed into woodchippers. So long as Chimpy McBushitler doesn't to smirk about saving them, right? You disgust me.

When did the right become so concerned with the plight of the Iraqi people, and why? Seriously - if they are so important to you guys, we did you support Hussein in the 80's? Are you going to answer this question - or be satisfied in leaving your blatant hypocrisy unexplained?


Really, when did you start caring, and why?

 

[theim]

That's BS! We did the same thing for Iraq that didn't stop you. You telling me you don't want to do what's right if its unpopular? Going to let a few liberals keep you from getting rid of a brutal dictator?

Never voted for Clinton. I'd prefer it if you inquired as to my political beliefs before making assumptions.





Ahh. So its OK to leave brutal dictators in power, as long as both parties are complicit.


Is this why it was OK for Reagan to stand by and support Hussein in the 80's when he was gassing the Kurds?






When did the right become so concerned with the plight of the Iraqi people, and why? Seriously - if they are so important to you guys, we did you support Hussein in the 80's? Are you going to answer this question - or be satisfied in leaving your blatant hypocrisy unexplained?


Really, when did you start caring, and why?

I added things, including the answer you seek, to my above post, read there. I am done with you.


/dismiss