Why US Is In Iraq

[Ali]

Bush is trying to protect us, as per his job description.

Bush is trying to get re-elected, as per his job description.

 

[NightTrain]

Interesting.

Where does it say in the POTUS description that the job demands re-election?

I'm sure you've got yet another gem to enlighten us with.

 

[KarlMarx]

The world's going to hell- we'll be in an unending -unwinnable war for year's if not decades to come, thank's george, the future look's like shit. :firing: :crutch:

Exactly what "they" said when we went to war against Fascism and then again against Communism. We won both times.

"One cannot avoid war, but only defer it one's disadvantage" --- Machiavelli

If Clinton had seriously tried to battle terrorism in the 1990s, 9/11 would not have happened.

"You don't win a war by dying for your country, you win a war by getting the other side to die for theirs" --- Patton

The single best thing that the Islamofascists can do to advance the cause of world peace is to die.

Remember, we lost the Vietnam war here at home years before we lost it in the jungles of that country.

As long as we give serious consideration to those voices that tell us that this war is not just, not winnable and not worth it, we are bound to lose this war.

because nobody will listen to you until you get violent. Peaceful demonstrators get teargassed and beaten with clubs by policemen. Do you think the Palestinians could ever be taken seriously by Israel and the US?----NEVER

You mean those "peaceful" antiwar activists that blocked traffic, rioted, and destroyed property in the weeks leading up to the war?

You mean the peaceful antiwar activists that were supported in part by the likes of Communist front organizations like the World Worker's Party, which in turn were funded by Castro, Kim Il Jong and the PRC?

 

[padisha emperor]

Karl Marx and Night train, you're so.......weak.

rejected the faults of Iraq's war on the Clinton's shoulders.....so you think - if it is a fault - that this war was bad . Thank you ! I see a light in your brain ! small, but there is one ! you are able to think now.

now....1991 : end of the Gulf War. 1991 : Busg senior was still President. from 91 to 92, i'm sure he did a lot against Saddam regime, i mean to push it down. His son finished the job in 2003. Finished ? no.....it is not finished in Iraq, eraly unfortunaltly for US and british troops.

You mean that Clinton is the asshole in this story....no. it is Bush....trying to reject the fault upon somebody else is a proof of cowardice.


If you want to return in the past, before Clinton there is Bush senior, who did the war...so..........

You're wrong, dears....


and Ali is right : bush is trying to be re-elected . He would be able to do everythig to be re-elected. Like...use the tragedy of 9/11 to get moer voices, during the Convention of the reps, in NY. NY hates Bush, he know it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ah but the controversy on the war with Iraq was all about oil. France decided that they would rather keep a ruthless dictator propped up so they could violate sanctions with Iraq and keep the oil supply flowing to them.

 

[dilloduck]

Karl Marx and Night train, you're so.......weak.

rejected the faults of Iraq's war on the Clinton's shoulders.....so you think - if it is a fault - that this war was bad . Thank you ! I see a light in your brain ! small, but there is one ! you are able to think now.

now....1991 : end of the Gulf War. 1991 : Busg senior was still President. from 91 to 92, i'm sure he did a lot against Saddam regime, i mean to push it down. His son finished the job in 2003. Finished ? no.....it is not finished in Iraq, eraly unfortunaltly for US and british troops.

You mean that Clinton is the asshole in this story....no. it is Bush....trying to reject the fault upon somebody else is a proof of cowardice.


If you want to return in the past, before Clinton there is Bush senior, who did the war...so..........

You're wrong, dears....


and Ali is right : bush is trying to be re-elected . He would be able to do everythig to be re-elected. Like...use the tragedy of 9/11 to get moer voices, during the Convention of the reps, in NY. NY hates Bush, he know it.

The people that like Bush are trying to get him re-elected !!! Personally, I don't like any politician but it's what we have to deal with do Americans will pick the one they like the best. I still blame the war on the UN and Saddam. The UN refused to put pressure on Saddam by allowing him to stay comfortable while the people starved. Saddam could have left Iraq and the US would never have invaded !!!!!

 

[CSM]

It was about oil all right. The UN was busy skimming their take, just like France, Russia and Germany.

PE keeps mentioning a "fair" war. I have news for him, there is nothing "fair" about war not should there be. If ANY country goes to war, they should go to war to WIN. If they do not plan on winning, they should not go. Period.

 

[padisha emperor]

...
I have less vocabulary of english than you....
i meant : illegal

And...war is always chaos and destruction...BUT...

XVIIIth C. : the English and French did war from 1745 to 1783. (in fact, again after the FR...)
always, the officers were polite, elegant;..the famous sentence "messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers !"...
In France we call this wars "les Guerres en Dentelle" : the wars in lace.
because all was fair pretty, nice, officers repect themselves, people didn't shoot on ennemy officers....

At this time...the word HONOUR had really a sense.
So this kind of war could be fair - not really for the soldiers...but more than now all the same -

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

...
I have less vocabulary of english than you....
i meant : illegal

And...war is always chaos and destruction...BUT...

XVIIIth C. : the English and French did war from 1745 to 1783. (in fact, again after the FR...)
always, the officers were polite, elegant;..the famous sentence "messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers !"...
In France we call this wars "les Guerres en Dentelle" : the wars in lace.
because all was fair pretty, nice, officers repect themselves, people didn't shoot on ennemy officers....

At this time...the word HONOUR had really a sense.
So this kind of war could be fair - not really for the soldiers...but more than now all the same -

Yeah, I'm sure that would all mean a whole lot to people that are willing to fly planes into buildings so they can have 72 virgins.

Get out of the 18th Century. Times have changed a bit since then.

 

[CSM]

...
I have less vocabulary of english than you....
i meant : illegal

And...war is always chaos and destruction...BUT...

XVIIIth C. : the English and French did war from 1745 to 1783. (in fact, again after the FR...)
always, the officers were polite, elegant;..the famous sentence "messieurs les anglais, tirez les premiers !"...
In France we call this wars "les Guerres en Dentelle" : the wars in lace.
because all was fair pretty, nice, officers repect themselves, people didn't shoot on ennemy officers....

At this time...the word HONOUR had really a sense.
So this kind of war could be fair - not really for the soldiers...but more than now all the same -

Times certainly have changed since then. Words like "fair, pretty, nice..." are seldom used to describe todays conflicts. Honor, like many other ideas, really depends on the perspective of the individual. For example, the concept of honor held by many Japanese officers during WWII included suicide, beheading of prisoners of war, and the raping and pillage of entire cities (Nanking). Some honor.

 

[padisha emperor]

CSM

PE keeps mentioning a "fair" war. I have news for him, there is nothing "fair" about war not should there be. If ANY country goes to war, they should go to war to WIN. If they do not plan on winning, they should not go. Period.

jimmyeatworld

Yeah, I'm sure that would all mean a whole lot to people that are willing to fly planes into buildings so they can have 72 virgins.

Get out of the 18th Century. Times have changed a bit since then.

I did my answer, jimmyeatworld......not thinking of the beauty of the XVIII.
CSM semmed to think fair war is unpossible.

Only to show : before, wars were fair, to show to him that a fair war is possible - was possible -

 

[padisha emperor]

CSM : honour, for the european sense - common for USA, France, UK.....

 

[CSM]

CSM

jimmyeatworld


I did my answer, jimmyeatworld......not thinking of the beauty of the XVIII.
CSM semmed to think fair war is unpossible.

Only to show : before, wars were fair, to show to him that a fair war is possible - was possible -

That was also a time when both sides marched in straight lines, got within a hundred yards of each other and shot muskets at each other. However, both sides were always looking for the edge (technological or otherwise) that would eliminate the enemy unfairly. Thus breech loading cannon, repeating rifles and eventually machine guns, tanks, and airplanes appeared on the battlefield. I can assure you that neither side shared their secret weapons iwith their enemy out of a sense of fairness.

 

[padisha emperor]

honour on the battlefield. honour between ennemise officers. and repect. Hate, but respect.


(the line strategy was not bad at this time : the best prepared and with the best moral was sure to win. Look to the AR : the continental army lost so many battles against red coats, for the fights in line against them - Gates did it often - suicide !)

 

[CSM]

honour on the battlefield. honour between ennemise officers. and repect. Hate, but respect.


(the line strategy was not bad at this time : the best prepared and with the best moral was sure to win. Look to the AR : the continental army lost so many battles against red coats, for the fights in line against them - Gates did it often - suicide !)

You are again correct. Fortunately for the US, the Amercan revolutionaries were more interested in winning than preserving their honor. Before you start criticizing the American forefathers, I suggest you take a look at how much honor was displayed by the French during their own revolution. If that does not suffice, look at the French in Algiers and Libya.

 

[padisha emperor]

I was spoken of the XVIII.
and you will see, I do on purpose to not take the FR in the war against England : when you fight to survive, you forgezt sometimse honour. Like you during AR.

France in Algeria : against a guerilla. hard to have conventional fight. the torture are a shame for France.
but the french army, like the english army, has always this sense of honour.

(when you said i was correct, it was for the line tactic ?)

 

[CSM]

I was spoken of the XVIII.
and you will see, I do on purpose to not take the FR in the war against England : when you fight to survive, you forgezt sometimse honour. Like you during AR.

France in Algeria : against a guerilla. hard to have conventional fight. the torture are a shame for France.
but the french army, like the english army, has always this sense of honour.

(when you said i was correct, it was for the line tactic ?)

Yes I was speaking of the line tactics. I am glad that you admit that when fighting a guerilla war it is difficult to fight in a conventional manner. I also am glad that you realize that France too had its share of torture incidents. The events at Abu Graib are not unique to the US and in many ways not nearly as horrific as those used by the French in Algiers and Libya.

 

[padisha emperor]

Lybia, I didn'(t know..are you sure ?
In Algeria, yes.
But is was not for the fun...it was to have some informations. It is a shame, of course. But not to have some fun, like in Abu Graib. Only to have informations. Like the US in Vietnam.

For the guerrilla : of course i admit it : Algeria, Indochina...guerrilla.

 

[William Joyce]

The War on Terrorism is not a "world" war. It is a war between Jewish and Muslim interests.

http://nowarforisrael.com/

 

[Annie]

The War on Terrorism is not a "world" war. It is a war between Jewish and Muslim interests.

http://nowarforisrael.com/

William, I respect some of your posts, but on this thread, stfu! respectfully of course.