Who supports U.S Occupation in Iraq?

[Creek]

Liberals & Muslims don't have to be afarid to speak up.This is a free speech message board.So please voice your thoughts........

I support a major U.S. influence of power for all the middle east,especialy Muslim countries......where ever they might be.

 

[NightTrain]

May I just say this:

Any Liberal that bitches about the war of liberation in Iraq is free to stand in George W. Bush Square (formerly Saddam Hussein Square) and tell all those millions of previously oppressed peasants that they don't deserve a democratic government with the backing & protection of the world's greatest nation and that they don't deserve a free country.

Any takers?

Be careful, I will contribute to your plane ticket there. I also will hire a photographer to record the bloody festivities and post the resulting photos on this board.

 

[_dmp_]

I think it'll be a good thing...

 

[NewGuy]

I am not a liberal, but I cannot see any Constitutional basis for us being there.

That being said, since we are there, there ain't a whole lot we can do to turn back the clock.

 

[Comrade]

It's like Spain, all over again.

I went into linkagable detail over the Aznar's "lies" and researched my heart out to prove the left conspiracy lied behind these accusations in the post-bombing political reality.

Now that the 9/11 commission has completed a survey of the government again the question over the true cause of 9/11 has become an issue of public debate.

Tell you what… I still believe Al-Qeada did it!

 

[DKSuddeth]

I have this to say about it.

No free country was EVER obtained by having someone else provide it. We here in the US didn't have another nation hand us our freedom. Neither did Scotland or any other country in the balkans and former USSR. Their free governments were obtained by the people of that nation rising up and providing it for themselves.

That said, we should not be in the business of liberating countries unless the people of that nation were willing to sacrifice themselves like many other nations before it.

I want first class on my ticket please :

and all royalties for the photos go to the 'sharpton for president' campaign

 

[Atticus]

Hi,

Why do you believe that the USA has a moral right to invad other countries?

If you were to ask the people of Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatamala, Panama, Niceragua, Grenada, Indonesia to name but a few to choose between Iraq and USA as the country that had caused them most suffering either by projected influence or by direct intervention, which do you think they would choose?

You might ask the same question of Hiati or ask Venezualans who they fear will cause most suffering.

You might also want to check out USA voting patterns at the United Nations in particular the admirably consistent pattern of votes against human rights.

Atticus

 

[clumzgirl]

Ok, for the moment, forget that we have a "moral right" to liberate oppressed people (btw, weren't we criticized for NOT entering WWII fast enough to liberate concentration camps?)

Anyway, even if we didn't feel the need to help the people of Iraq, we had a right to invade the MOMENT we discovered that the Iraqi gov't was supporting terrorists. This is war. Case closed.

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by Atticus
Why do you believe that the USA has a moral right to invad other countries?

Who said anything about moral rights? We had the desire, the will, and the ability.

If you were to ask the people of Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, El Salvador, Guatamala, Panama, Niceragua, Grenada, Indonesia to name but a few to choose between Iraq and USA as the country that had caused them most suffering either by projected influence or by direct intervention, which do you think they would choose?

Your point is illogical.

Which do you think Iran or Kuwait would choose?

Which do you think the Iraqi's themselves would choose? Looks like they prefer us.

 

[William Joyce]

I fully support the Jewish occupation of the Defense Department, American media, American school system and judiciary. Oh wait. Pointing those facts out makes me an anti-Semite. Oh well.

 

[Atticus]

Hi,

The issue I was raising was one of perceptions.

I specifically asked about a range of countries in which USA has intervened or excercised its considerable ifluence. Of course there are countries that would turn naturally to USA. Of the three Zhukov mentioned, I would be surprised if you are correct regarding either Iran or Iraq notwithstanding recent history.

In the responses there are two things as a non-US citizen I find really disturbing.


1. Re. the moral right to invade another country......

Who said anything about moral rights? We had the desire, the will, and the ability.

Zhukov

I am sorry have to say it Z but I can't help imagining these words coming from the mouth of a German during the 1930s rather than a US citizen at the start of 21st century.


2. even if we didn't feel the need to help the people of Iraq, we had a right to invade the MOMENT we discovered that the Iraqi gov't was supporting terrorists. This is war. Case closed.

Clumzgirl

The problem with this is that Iraq was not supporting terrorists. There was absolutely no connection between Iraq and 911. Despite a considerable search by CIA there is no plausible link between Saddam Hussein / Baath Party and Al Quaeda.

This is easily verifiable from just about any source including recent stumbling admissions from the current US administration.

In fact Iraq was a secular country, a natural enemy of a islamic fundamentalist organisation like Al Quaeda. Before the war it was a country in which Al Quaeda found it difficult to operate. Now watch your news to see if that is still the case.

Invading the wrong country in an already volatile region is not the path to global peace and the defeat of the terrorist scourge.

Atticus

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Atticus
The problem with this is that Iraq was not supporting terrorists. There was absolutely no connection between Iraq and 911. Despite a considerable search by CIA there is no plausible link between Saddam Hussein / Baath Party and Al Quaeda.

First you say Iraq is not supporting terrorists and then you say there is no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Since when is AQ the only terrorist organization in the world? First off, Saddam and his regime were terrorists themselves. Secondly, there is plenty of proof of Iraq supporting terrorism in general.

This is a war against terrorism, not specifically against terrorists responsible for 9/11.

 

[Atticus]

First you say Iraq is not supporting terrorists and then you say there is no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Since when is AQ the only terrorist organization in the world? First off, Saddam and his regime were terrorists themselves. Secondly, there is plenty of proof of Iraq supporting terrorism in general.

This is a war against terrorism, not specifically against terrorists responsible for 9/11.

Hi J

Fine, It could indeed be the case that Saddam was linked to terrorism. I would be interested in seeing proof of that before accepting it as fact.

Also, I always thought of Saddam Hussein as a hideously oppressive dictator but not a terrorists, which starts to raise some interesting issues.

You mention that this is a war against all terrorists. What actually is a terrorist?

There is also a saying that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. With such a broad definition

How do you define the difference? Who makes that decision? Are terrorists people who fight against any state or simply who disagree with US foreigh policy?

Were the Iraqi's who fought against Saddam Hussein terrorists or freedom fighters? Was Saddam Hussein a terrorist or freedom fighter when he fought against the previous regime with CIA backing.

Its pretty important that in every case we are clear about the difference between the bad guys and the good guys before you crack out the guns, dont you think?

Gosh if you were'nt clear about who the primary terrorist targets were you might even invade the wrong country. Now there's a thought.

Atticus

 

[_dmp_]

It's sort of funny that a thread I brought back from AUGUST generates so much talk

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Atticus
Hi J

Fine, It could indeed be the case that Saddam was linked to terrorism. I would be interested in seeing proof of that before accepting it as fact.

Saddam bankrolled suicide bombers in Israel:
http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/218085.htm

Iraq supported several terrorist groups in the past. For example, Baghdad has harbored the May 15 Organization -- a Palestinian group known for bombing airplanes -- and gave sanctuary to the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF) -- infamous for the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the murder of Leon Klinghoffer. Iraq helped form the Abu Nidal Organization (ANO), using it to assassinate Syrian and Palestinian opponents. Most of Iraq's support to these groups has consisted of logistical support, such as bases, training and supplies. Nevertheless, the scale of its backing of terrorist groups was dwarfed by others like Iran, which tried to create large popular insurgencies from whole cloth.

Iraq has provided more extensive support to the anti-Tehran Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and the anti-Turkey Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) as means of exerting pressure on their northern and eastern neighbors. In both cases, Iraq has helped these groups establish a safe haven in Iraq itself where they could base their guerrilla wars and plan terrorist attacks. Ties to the MEK are particularly close, and it has in essence become a wholly owned proxy of Baghdad for use against Iran.

Iraq has worked with Christians and Islamic fundamentalists, with Persians and Kurds, with fellow Ba'thists and pure killers -- as long as they have suited the regime's interests.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/2003/0303iraq.htm

Also, I always thought of Saddam Hussein as a hideously oppressive dictator but not a terrorists, which starts to raise some interesting issues.

He was that as well, but also DEFINITELY a terrorist supporter.

You mention that this is a war against all terrorists. What actually is a terrorist?

There is also a saying that one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. With such a broad definition

A freedom fighter doesn't set out with murder as their goal to achieve their agenda.

How do you define the difference? Who makes that decision? Are terrorists people who fight against any state or simply who disagree with US foreigh policy?

I believe it's very clear. If you purposely kill innocent civilians as your goal to meet an agenda, you are a terrorist.

Were the Iraqi's who fought against Saddam Hussein terrorists or freedom fighters? Was Saddam Hussein a terrorist or freedom fighter when he fought against the previous regime with CIA backing.

Fighting against someone to achieve freedom is a far cry from using terror tactics to promote an agenda.

Its pretty important that in every case we are clear about the difference between the bad guys and the good guys before you crack out the guns, dont you think?

Yes, and in this instance it was crystal clear, Saddam was a terrorist within his own country and supported terrorist organizations and harbored terrorists.

Gosh if you were'nt clear about who the primary terrorist targets were you might even invade the wrong country. Now there's a thought.

It's a good thing we were clear and invaded the proper country then!

 

[Atticus]

Talk Good
Violence Bad

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Atticus
Talk Good
Violence Bad

Saddam should have heeded that advice. Too bad talking with that nitwit for 12 years was a waste of time. He gambled and lost.

The US does not negotiate with terrorists. They deserve one thing - elimination.

 

[_dmp_]

Okay...last time...

Freedom Fighter =

Terrorist =

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Atticus
Talk Good
Violence Bad

One of the greatest disservice popular culture is doing to kids is teaching them that nothing is WORTH fighting, or even dying for.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Atticus
Talk Good
Violence Bad

Being attacked by terrorists Bad

Removing threats Good

Speaking like Frankenstein Fun