11 myths of iraqi war

[LuvRPgrl]

Right because Marines go thousands of miles away to defend my freedom of speech so they can come home and beat me up me for exercising my freedom of speach. That makes a lot of damn sense. Very mature viewpoint to have - that people who don't share your particular view should be beat up. I suggest you build a time machine, set it to 1939, and join Hitler's SS.

Oh, no, just that some people dont understand reasonable limits. Do you have the right to cuss my wife out to her face while Im standing there? Yes, you do, will I kick your ass, yes I will, any problems?

But you miss the point, point is, you are not supporting the soldiers, nor are they happy at all to hear what is being said about them, yea, you have the right to free speech, doesnt mean you arent an asshole because you exercise that right....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Actually, the people didn't choose Bush in 2000 - the college of electors did. The people chose Al Gore - reflected by the fact that more people voted for Al Gore than for Bush..

Like I said, the PEOPLE of the United States of America voted in PRESIDENT BUSH, I will explain the political science dynamics of an INDIRECT democracy, aka REPUBLIC,,,but only if you pay me by the hour.

Oh, so guess what, if she doesnt get approved, he just leaves it vacant? UH, it is a FACT that he will appoint SOMEONE? DID I say he was going to APPOINT her specifically? or did I just say he was going to make TWO appointments? You think it will just sit vacant for three years? what an idiot. Yea, I resort to childish insults, cuz you and your anti war, hate PRESIDENT Bush liberal freaks talk like children. I have some little ones, its like telling them to clean up their mess, you tell them day after day after day, yet they still dont always get it,,,same as talking to a liberal..

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So why do you fabricate lies about your ideological opponents? Is it because you can't make a real argument??

So you can for once see how it feels, what you do to others, CONSTANTLY.

Why do you revel and enjoy so much when US bombs destroy wedding parties??

Hmmm, mostly because I hated seeing those Nazis get married, so when the B-52's dropped bombs on their weddings, I relished it greatly, made me think of Jews escaping the death camps because of it.

Why do you beat your spouse??

Oh, mainly cuz I hate losing to her in scrabble, so I try hard and beat her every time (course english is her second language, so I dont have much to gloat about)

When did you realize you were gay??

Oh, I've pretty much been happy all my life, WHY?

Why do you love war and hate peace?

I think you should go find and ask that kid who pounded saddam face with a shoe when they toppled his statue, seemed they were pretty happy about the war.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Bonnie:
Yes God does and so he gives many the good fortune by having rescources, money and the freedom to do something about all the suffering which many people do here and abroad............We are a very generous country here in the U.S. and give away billions of dollars in aid etc to help end hunger and disease and it's getting a bit tiring to hear other countries insult and diminish that daily just because we are not as socialistic as other countries seem to think we should be..........

You may spend whatever you like on foreign aid.
Although my country spends quite a bit more per capita than America, that's no reason for me to critisize you for that. Although I do think that the war on terror and the enormous amounts your country spends on defence is a large reason why the number is low in America. Here's a list:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_eco_aid_don_cap

Originally posted by Insein:
No. I think we should stop the pussyfooting around, announce islamo-facism as the enemy and work towards ELIMINATING them not temporarily stopping them. Then i think we should drill for our own oil here in the US. We have more deposits locked in shale then all of saudi arabi. Why are we not drilling for that? Why are we off if foreign countries trying to secure a region with these animals just so we can have oil? Because the environmental-facists have prevented this country from growing into modern times.

Drill our own oil and KILL the enemy. Thats how we should approach the war on terror.

I can actually agree with this.

Originally posted by Bonnie:
Do the American people ever want war of course not, however we may have to go to war with Iran, N Korea, if they continue their nuclear goals, we may not have a choice if diplomacy fails.

Did you happen to see how happy the Iraqi people, men and women were to actually vote?? Are you seriously saying they are not better off now and will be in the coming future than they were under Hussein??

There's a good chance that they will be better off in the future.
But when you study international politics for a bit, you will soon realize that countries do not really make moves to further the goals of other countries: rather, they further their own goals, and dress them up in a way that makes them look good.

Under Hussein the Iraqi's had a pretty bad time, which was made even worse by the oil for food schandal, a scabdal which the whole world should bow their heads in shame for. Did the people of the world want this to happen? Of course not, but then it is not the people that determine the policy, but rather the leaders. And they are there to further their own goals first, their nation's goals second, and other nation's goals third. Think about this.
Is your government better off now than it was 6 years ago?
Definately.
Is your country better off now than it was 6 years ago?
You should know this better than me.
Is Iraq better off now than it was 6 years ago?
At present, not yet, but there may be hope on the horizon.

Originally posted by Bonnie:
That is exaclty what we are doing, leading by example, because other Muslim countries are now seeing what is happening in Iraq and wanting that for themselves, they are finally seeing that America wants to help them to be free, for women to have rights etc. And in the process it is good for America to have a friendly government in that region yes!

I don't think there's many countries in the Middle East jumping for joy at the idea of a shock and awe campaign to be coming near them any time soon.

It saddens me that this war is sold so effectively that the American people really did believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11, or that your government is in Iraq to liberate Iraq first, while making trillions of dollars for themselves and their friends second. That's not my idea of valour.

Of course, you shouldn't go bankrupt yourself while trying to help a poor man on the streets, but making millions over his back while doing so raises doubts to your actual goals.

Are you suggesting that while Hitler planned to take over the world we should have sat back and allowed it to happen????? I see no logic in that whatsoever!!

How would you feel living in brutal dictatorship and listening to someone else say this..

No. Although that did actually happen - the world did not respond until after Hitler had invaded Poland and his warmachine was already in full swing.

Am I suggesting we should wait for the radical Islamists to establish their own state, build a massive army and attack the world? No, but then, that is never going to happen. If it gets anywhere close to a situation such as that, Europe and possibly even China and Russia will step in to prevent this.

We're faced now with a situation that can rapidly escalate if people keep on applying pressure through threat of force alone, without considering the idea of a break to get back to negotiating with the parties involved.

Originally posted by Bonnie:
Would you like to live that way????????????????

If the choice would be between a total war that will reach the borders of my country, or some distant countries that are going through the same shit my ancestors have been through, I choose the second option.
Harsh as it may be.

The best solution for me would be something more like the present however.
I would like to see a UN approved army, working with NATO, China and Russia for example, to invade Sudan, get between the warring factions and get the present regime into a descent trial. At which they will be convicted of mass murder and whatnot, ensuring their demise.
This truly multilateral force will then write out elections, and gather representatives from the multiple ethnic groups to declare ceasefire or else, and get them to write a constitution. To which they will abide under threat of force if need be. Hopefully, lasting peace can be the result.

But that is yet far fetched even for a fantasy.
Originally posted by Said1:
I'm sure you would agree that there have been many revolutions, that were nessesary in order to rid certain nations of monarchy and colonial rule that goes above an beyond the the nations you have listed above. Some changes happened peacefully to avoid the catastrophic results you claim.

These revolutions, as the word means, were instigated by the local populace to overthrow their own (installed) regimes. Mostly this happened after years of growing oppression by their dictators.
Installed regimes have continuously been overthrown, and as the word implies, were installed (mostly by force).

Originally posted by no1tovote4:
i believe iran, NK, syria and whoever else should be allowed to do as they please within their own borders.....unless they are invited into another country.....that said....i belive the US should be allowed to do the same.....the US was invited into both israel and SA.....OSB hezbola etc.... declared war......against israel, SA, the US and the west in general....what should the reaction of the west be?

holland seems to have some experience in this:

Basically yes, they should be free to do as they please. If the people don't like it, they can revolt. The US was invited by the South Vietnamese to a certain extent. The US was willing to be invited for fear of the "domino effect" of communism rule in Vietnam spilling out into the South East Asia region.

The US was invited in Israel, but that is not a nation that is oppressed by another nation, rather a nation that is oppressing another nation itself. The Palestinians are the oppressed here, whereas in Vietnam, it was the South Vietnamese.

Yes, Israel would very likely be invaded by Iran or Syria or whatnot were it not for the US presence. But that does still not serve as an opology to keep on oppressing the Palestinians.

The reaction in the west should be to leave countries alone to govern themselves, such as Iran, Iraq or any other country. Unless some grave human disaster is taking place, such as Sudan.

I'd rather we would be able to prevent these disasters, but humanity seems inclined to fall for the promise of blood, thus they keep on happening.
If prevent them we cannot, than at least we can step in when they have started. The disastrous rule of Saddam over his people was not half the disaster of what has been happening in Sudan. It now is almost at an end, for the Mujahadeen have run out of blacks to murder and rape.

Suppose you accept Saddam was an enemy of Osama as well, for as a dictator he was not interested in sharing power. If really the bringing of democracy and freedom is the goal, why not start where you can save the most lives? Then why Iraq instead of Sudan?

As for our experience, yes we were a colonial power.
We've slaughtered civilians to make our point that we were their overlords.
We brought them "regime change" and all we wanted in return were their natural resources for mirrors and marbles, and they could just go back to the things were before we arrived.
It worked for a while.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Bonnie:
Just wondering what nations those might be??

I meant to say that there were no alternatives that could bring even better advancement to the countries that are, apparently, to be invaded.
There was no alternative for the Romans, the French or Spanish posed an alternative to British rule, but their targets were mostly unaware of the other European colonial powers until they had been transformed into a colony.

Nowadays, there is the Internet, and television, and telephone networks, in short: global communication. Mostly thanks to America, truly, appreciated throughout the world. But that means that the nations that are on the lists to be invaded, know of all the other forces in the world. And all the other forces can see how the game is being played. Which makes us far more aware of the dirty business that is global politics and war.

This instills in many a sense we should look for alternatives.
Looking back through history for clues as to what may be a wise choice, I think it is fair to say "regime change" has proved to be a very blunt tool that often resulted in killing the "patient" so to speak.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Hey guess what - Miers hasn't been appointed yet. Its pending Senatorial approval. You don't put to much stock in facts, do you? Seems to me all you care to do is hurl childish insults.

So, you scream about your freedom of speech rights as a basis for why its ok to insult the soldiers, who are putting their life and limbs on the line, then you complain about a few insults you receive on the internet?????

 

[Said1]

These revolutions, as the word means, were instigated by the local populace to overthrow their own (installed) regimes. Mostly this happened after years of growing oppression by their dictators.
Installed regimes have continuously been overthrown, and as the word implies, were installed (mostly by force).

Sweet, semantics.

Do a little more study. You will see this isn't always the case as you are asserting.

And back to one of my original points, the results were not mostly "catastrophic".

 

[Bonnie]

I don't think there's many countries in the Middle East jumping for joy at the idea of a shock and awe campaign to be coming near them any time soon.

Shock and awe is not what I meant by setting an example for freedom, my point was (and I think you already knew this but I'll answer anyway) was that when Iraq does establish their own free government whatever form that happens to take it will still be one they elect to have and so it would be this that sets precedent for other countries in the region.

It saddens me that this war is sold so effectively that the American people really did believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11, or that your government is in Iraq to liberate Iraq first, while making trillions of dollars for themselves and their friends second. That's not my idea of valour.

Watch it with the elitist tone you set, because I could say how it saddens me to see so many foolhardy Europeans that buy into their governments folly of blaming America for everything bad that happens, evil empire blah blah, and that peace can be achieved by a do nothing insitution like the UN that has itself raped the Iraqis for money the head of which has a son buried so ass deep in trouble he can't smell fresh air. There is plenty of evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam many of which are already posted on this board if you get a chance you may want to read some of them. Facts are facts and don't need to be "sold as a bill of goods" to the American people. We Americans know full well why we are in Iraq and that knowledge includes no illusions that we are soley there to liberate Iraqi citizens, just one good outcome of this, the others have also been posted many times here on the board.

Of course, you shouldn't go bankrupt yourself while trying to help a poor man on the streets, but making millions over his back while doing so raises doubts to your actual goals.

Well I think building new shcools, roads, and other infrastructure in Iraq is millions well spent, and when more Iraqis start up their own businesses they will be able to help themselves to a nice comfortable existance.

You may spend whatever you like on foreign aid.
Although my country spends quite a bit more per capita than America, that's no reason for me to critisize you for that. Although I do think that the war on terror and the enormous amounts your country spends on defence is a large reason why the number is low in America. Here's a list

Yes that is our busniess how our country sees fit to spend money to protect our country against foreign enemies, we need to, end of story.

No. Although that did actually happen - the world did not respond until after Hitler had invaded Poland and his warmachine was already in full swing.

That's right, America took it's time getting involved much to our detriment and the detriment to other countries like UK who had no money to fight Germany. We had an isolationist view of the world at that time just as we are expected by Europe to have now. It wasn't Poland that got un involved so much as it was Pearl Harbour and the war htting our shores much as it did on 9/11..........So many of us here like to see a more proactive rather than reactive response to threats.

We're faced now with a situation that can rapidly escalate if people keep on applying pressure through threat of force alone, without considering the idea of a break to get back to negotiating with the parties involved

.

Here is where you really have a naive view of the world, there is no negotiating with terrorists. Re NK and Iran, there are measures being taken to try and broker deals for peace, and so far it's worked splendidly......that was sarcasm btw.

The disastrous rule of Saddam over his people was not half the disaster of what has been happening in Sudan. It now is almost at an end, for the Mujahadeen have run out of blacks to murder and rape.

I agree, but Tell that to Kofi!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh that's right he has his own legal problems right now. oh well

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No threat from Iraq = no justified invasion. Civilized people do not go off starting wars against people who aren't threats to them.

So you think PRESIDENT Bush Lied to us about WMD's? You think this was a Lie when the PRESIDENT said it?:

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us."????

As for fighting for your own freedom, sometimes you need help, fact is we would not have defeated the British if we didnt have help from the French.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Don't be assinine. Civilized powers have started wars all throughout history. From the Romans to the British.

Well if you're using the Roman's as your standard of what is civilized, I suppose you agree with slavery and religious persecution.

They tried after the Gulf War, which I know you remember but just choose not to mention. It didn't work.

They tried and Shrub Sr. stood by and offered no assistance. This is part of why I doubt the right wingers have the best interest of the Iraqi people at heart.

Of course, you know why Shrub Sr. didn't help the Shiites, right? Because the Shiites are as radical and fundamentalist as you can get.

Government only rules over people because the people decide to allow it. I could cite numerous examples of the people deciding they no longer wanted to be ruled by their government - but I'll cite just one. The people of the British Colonies. Only about half even supported breaking away from Britain - and that was enough to get the job done. If the Iraqi people wanted to get rid of Hussein they could have done it, provided they paid a price in blood. Instead it is the blood of American soldiers that is being paid for their freedom. In the end they may have needed our help like we needed the help of the French to boot out England - but offering assistance to a people who are currently involved in paying blood for freedom is profoundly different from deciding yourself that they, and you, will pay blood for their freedom.

Freedom, Mr. Stalin, is God's gift to human kind. It is earned by being born. Just because one country won their war and the other got gassed/gunned down doesn't mean they deserve to be fed into woodchippers and shredders. I know how much you love seeing that stuff, but still. Most think it's bad.

What is your point? Since when is the job of the U.S. military to enforce God's will? I don't see that written anywhere in the Constitution, do you?

1)Are you comparing buying a car to geopolitics?

2)I know a kid whose parents his own car and has 0 tickets. I know more who bought their own and wrapped it around a telephon pole. Bad analogy.

Wow - there's an exception to a rule, that never happens.

Well at least your a consistant idealistic buffoon.

Unlike Mr. I'm not for Nation Building wait yes I am President.

That's because the "violence as a last resort" idea is the last bastion of idealistic buffoonery in political discussion.

Well then I guess that's what makes us different. You like violence, I don't.

The idea that if we just talk long enough dictators will realize the error of their ways is ludicrous.

The idea that it is the reponsbility of the United States to deal with the world's dictators is even more ridiculous - especially considering how many of them we've propped up over the years.


Here's a little clue for you - when a dictator is good for the people in Washington - we let him remain a dictator. Doesn't matter what he's doing to his people, doesn't matter how many women and children he has murdered or how many villages he gasses - when that dictator no longer behaves like the people in Washington want him to, then all of a sudden, out of left field, here comes this great outpouring of compassion from Washington for the people being ruled by this dictator.

Happens everytime. We put the Taliban in power - we put them in power knowing how they treated their women, how they dealt with political dissidents - then after 9/11 all of a sudden Washington cared about the people of Afghanistan.


You're a sucker if you think the powers in Washington every sent a single American soldier into combat to alleviate the suffering of innocent people.

Every great power in the world fought wars. Every weak nation-state whose name you don't remember shied away from fighting when necessary and was thus conquered and consigned to the garbage bin of history.

You mean the Roman Empire - hmm, not around anymore, are they? Or the Greeks. In fact - every Great Empire in history has fallen. Except Britain is still there - they realized the error of their ways. Hey look, France is still there, and they've been around longer than us. If you think the failure to beat people up when you don't need to beat people up makes you weak, you're wrong. Strength comes in having great power but exercising it only when absolutely neccessary.

Theres a reason everyone remembers Winston Churchill but no one really reminisces on the great Neville Chamberlain.

If you want to talk about stupid analogies you've just brought one up. Last I checked, Saddam Hussein wasn't in the business of conquering the world.

Where you in a coma? Oil-for-Food ring a bell?

Here's a clue - we didn't find any WMD in Iraq. So one of two things happened

A) Saddam Hussein never wanted to make WMD
B) The sanctions and inspections were preventing him from making WMD

Which do you think is more likely?

It has everything to do with 9/11. 9/11 happened because we let an evil organization fester and plot, instead of killing them outright, because they hadn't done anything major.

So what does that have to do with Iraq?

America does not have an unlimited number of soldiers. They will be toppled eventually, unless lefties have their way of course.

So you honestly believe we should go on this great crusade of toppling dictators, one by one, starting with Shrub's Pappie's personal enemy?

So when George Bush said in 2000 that he wasn't for nation building, what he meant was that he was for a prolonged, multi-decade, period of nation building?

OIL...FOR...FOOD.

No WMD.

We are not afraid of starting wars.

Neither were the Nazis.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Who are you to decide or make that judgment?

Who are you to decide that they shall shed their blood for freedom? Do you think Iraqi's are less of a human than American's? Because if you think all men and women are equal - it stands to reason that if we can decide we want freedom and fight for it and earn it - so to could the Iraqi's have.

 

[manu1959]

Who are you to decide that they shall shed their blood for freedom? Do you think Iraqi's are less of a human than American's? Because if you think all men and women are equal - it stands to reason that if we can decide we want freedom and fight for it and earn it - so to could the Iraqi's have.

would you rather live in a country ruled by clinton or sadam?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

You just CONFIRMED IT,

So you admit the only connection between Iraq and 9/11 was that Muslims are involved? Saudia Arabia is Muslim - why not invade them? You're saying we need to kill all Muslims, because the 9/11 hijackers were Muslim?

Here's a little clue - hate knows no religious boundaries. Tim McVeigh - not a Muslim. Adolf Hitler - not a Muslim. Stalin - not a Muslim.

Uh, actually, yes. So you dont see a difference between murdering someone for refusing to join an army that is torturing its own people, and killing another soldier who is trying to kill you? .

The only reason Iraqi conscripts were trying to kill our boys is because we were there -seems to be a subtlty you glossed over.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Oh, no, just that some people dont understand reasonable limits.

If you think that not speaking out against a war you don't agree with is a "reasonable limit" on free speech - like I said, build a time machine, go back to 1939, and join Hitler's SS.

Do you have the right to cuss my wife out to her face while Im standing there? Yes, you do, will I kick your ass, yes I will, any problems?

Actually, while I would be charged with verbal assault, you would be charged with assault and battery on me. Soooooo...... what's your point?

But you miss the point, point is, you are not supporting the soldiers,

If supporting the soldiers means I need to keep my mouth shut when the President is sending them off to die for his political purposes - well, then perhaps you should build that time machine, head back to 1939.

nor are they happy at all to hear what is being said about them,

I've never said one bad word about them.

yea, you have the right to free speech, doesnt mean you arent an asshole because you exercise that right....

So do I have a right to speak out against wars I don't agree with or not? Make up your damn mind, you seem to be waffling back and forth. And if I do have that right - why would a Marine who risked his own life fighting for my right to have it beat me up for exercising it?

I have gotten into debates with a couple of Marines about this war. And with both we argued alot and shouted at each other - but neither of them even looked for a second like they were going to assault me. I think you give our Marines less credit than they deserve, they are perfectly capable of tolerating opposing views without being moved to break the law. They aren't the Nazi SS soldiers you wish they were - they are killers in combat and gentlemen outside of combat.

 

[manu1959]

....The only reason Iraqi conscripts were trying to kill our boys is because we were there....

wow....you finally stumbled across a sentence that i agree with

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Like I said, the PEOPLE of the United States of America voted in PRESIDENT BUSH, I will explain the political science dynamics of an INDIRECT democracy, aka REPUBLIC,,,but only if you pay me by the hour.

So, right, like I said, the people didn't pick the President in 2000. Unless of course by "pick" you mean that the 2nd highest vote getter is "picked". Most elections the people's pick corresponds to the electors pick, but not all.

Oh, so guess what, if she doesnt get approved, he just leaves it vacant?
UH, it is a FACT that he will appoint SOMEONE? DID I say he was going to APPOINT her specifically? or did I just say he was going to make TWO appointments? You think it will just sit vacant for three years? what an idiot.

Uhh, so guess what, you said Bush has already appointed two Supreme Court Justices - and that is as of now factually incorrect.

Yea, I resort to childish insults, cuz you and your anti war, hate PRESIDENT Bush liberal freaks talk like children.

The epitome of childishness is to act like a 5 year old because you think your opponent is acting like a 5 year old.

I have some little ones,

I'll pray for them.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I think you should go find and ask that kid who pounded saddam face with a shoe when they toppled his statue, seemed they were pretty happy about the war.

I'm sure all the children who lost their fathers in the bombing campaign were imminently pleased to be orphans. No doubt they'll grow up loving America for taking away their father.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So, you scream about your freedom of speech rights as a basis for why its ok to insult the soldiers, who are putting their life and limbs on the line, then you complain about a few insults you receive on the internet?????

When did I ever insult the soldiers? (Hint: Use cut and paste my words instead of making them up)



So far you are the only one to insult the soldiers by suggesting they aren't gentlemanly enough to restrain themselves from breaking the law when they encounter people who don't share their views.


When and where did you serve?

 

[Gunny]

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.

If you say so. I don't see where you think much about anything. You're pretty good at bleeting out of the Leftist Handbook of Backwards-Ass Logic though.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So you think PRESIDENT Bush Lied to us about WMD's? You think this was a Lie when the PRESIDENT said it?:

He at least lied when he said that was his reason for going.