NationStates Jolt Archive

There are many reasons we could have gone to war with the middle east. For 9/11, for Alcada, hell if Bush had even said the original real reason he went over, OIL. I don't believe any of this weapons of mass destruction crap. He went over right after 9/11 which he just decided to write off. Guns blaring, I'm going to find weapons of mass destruction! Did he find anything, no. Then suddenly the campaign changed, wait no it's not about that anymore, now we are going to free the Iraqi people. I feel the lives that were lost and are still being lost in the middle east all died in vein for a government who doesn't give a damn about them in the first place. My belief is that he still went over simply for oil and is still trying to cover up for it by staying over there and making up new reasons to stay. First-Weapons of Mass Destruction, 2nd-Freeing The Iraqi people and stopping Alcada(They freed the people, but Alcada still roams and has a large impact, get the hell out of there.) 3rd-To set up democracy and try to turn them into a little US that we can control. The Iraqi's hate us anyways, he "satisfied" himself in finding nothing, let's leave this bogus rant we are on and stop killing our men and women who love our country who in the end screws them over.

This is not a flame post towards the military, the have the utmost respect for all military personnel and their not questioning, but fighting for their country because they love it and WILL fight for it. This is a flame towards the government, I will be turning 18 soon, and I don't plan on supporting Bush at all. Maybe some of you think I'm too young to even voice an opinion, well screw you, the coming adults are this age are a whole hell of a lot smarter then you were and are more aware then you think.

Well, when you got a vote. Use it!

:)

There are many reasons we could have gone to war with the middle east. For 9/11, for Alcada, hell if Bush had even said the original real reason he went over, OIL. I don't believe any of this weapons of mass destruction crap. He went over right after 9/11 which he just decided to write off. Guns blaring, I'm going to find weapons of mass destruction! Did he find anything, no. Then suddenly the campaign changed, wait no it's not about that anymore, now we are going to free the Iraqi people. I feel the lives that were lost and are still being lost in the middle east all died in vein for a government who doesn't give a damn about them in the first place. My belief is that he still went over simply for oil and is still trying to cover up for it by staying over there and making up new reasons to stay. First-Weapons of Mass Destruction, 2nd-Freeing The Iraqi people and stopping Alcada(They freed the people, but Alcada still roams and has a large impact, get the hell out of there.) 3rd-To set up democracy and try to turn them into a little US that we can control. The Iraqi's hate us anyways, he "satisfied" himself in finding nothing, let's leave this bogus rant we are on and stop killing our men and women who love our country who in the end screws them over.

This is not a flame post towards the military, the have the utmost respect for all military personnel and their not questioning, but fighting for their country because they love it and WILL fight for it. This is a flame towards the government, I will be turning 18 soon, and I don't plan on supporting Bush at all. Maybe some of you think I'm too young to even voice an opinion, well screw you, the coming adults are this age are a whole hell of a lot smarter then you were and are more aware then you think.

Yes, Bush is sending our young men to die so he can control Iraq's 3% of the world oil supply...

Yes, Bush is sending our young men to die so he can control Iraq's 3% of the world oil supply...
How stupid is the guy?



hmmmmm

No wonder we couldn't find them if they're up there!

Weapon of Mass Destruction: My Butt

Fixed.

You know my butt can be a Weapon of Mass Destruction after Mexican Supper night!

It was obvious that Bush was going to attack Iraq from the very first moment he brought it up. Did anyone think otherwise? Bush stalled for time in the UN knowing full well support for invasion would be non-existent. What did he do meanwhile? Brought tens of thousands of troops and a couple of carrier groups to the area. How could anyone think the government would spend all that money in moving troops and then not use them? Did anyone think Saddam would turn over any phantom WMD's since it turns out he was telling the truth and DIDN'T have any? Whatever Iraq was it certainly wasn't about 9/11, terrorism in general, WMD's or freeing the Iraqi people. All this was an afterthought to oil and and settling old scores. I believe the government did truly believe though that forcing Iraq to become democratic would cause the rest of the Middle East to throw of the yoke of Muslim theocracy and embrace democratic ideals. What a laugh.

There are many reasons we could have gone to war with the middle east. For 9/11, for Alcada, hell if Bush had even said the original real reason he went over, OIL. I don't believe any of this weapons of mass destruction crap. He went over right after 9/11 which he just decided to write off. Guns blaring, I'm going to find weapons of mass destruction! Did he find anything, no. Then suddenly the campaign changed, wait no it's not about that anymore, now we are going to free the Iraqi people. I feel the lives that were lost and are still being lost in the middle east all died in vein for a government who doesn't give a damn about them in the first place. My belief is that he still went over simply for oil and is still trying to cover up for it by staying over there and making up new reasons to stay. First-Weapons of Mass Destruction, 2nd-Freeing The Iraqi people and stopping Alcada(They freed the people, but Alcada still roams and has a large impact, get the hell out of there.) 3rd-To set up democracy and try to turn them into a little US that we can control. The Iraqi's hate us anyways, he "satisfied" himself in finding nothing, let's leave this bogus rant we are on and stop killing our men and women who love our country who in the end screws them over.

This is not a flame post towards the military, the have the utmost respect for all military personnel and their not questioning, but fighting for their country because they love it and WILL fight for it. This is a flame towards the government, I will be turning 18 soon, and I don't plan on supporting Bush at all. Maybe some of you think I'm too young to even voice an opinion, well screw you, the coming adults are this age are a whole hell of a lot smarter then you were and are more aware then you think.

How much do you pay for gas? I pay about $1.85 for the cheap stuff. If we were there for oil, don't you think we would have taken some? Since we haven't, that argument is bogus. And so old it voted for Adam to be leave the Garden.

Also, we didn't go to war with the Middle East. Just Iraq. And if waiting from 09/11/01 until March 19, 2003 (beginning of operations in Iraq) is 'right after', I hate to think what a delay would have looked like.

Did anyone think Saddam would turn over any phantom WMD's since it turns out he was telling the truth and DIDN'T have any?

If that was so, why block inspections which could have proved it? Saddam moved to block access, limit inspections, and generally play around. And paid for it.

How much do you pay for gas? I pay about $1.85 for the cheap stuff. If we were there for oil, don't you think we would have taken some? Since we haven't, that argument is bogus. And so old it voted for Adam to be leave the Garden.

Also, we didn't go to war with the Middle East. Just Iraq. And if waiting from 09/11/01 until March 19, 2003 (beginning of operations in Iraq) is 'right after', I hate to think what a delay would have looked like.

Insurgents are still blowing the hell out of everything, including oil pipelines.
Bush just can't even secure what we can actually use.

If that was so, why block inspections which could have proved it? Saddam moved to block access, limit inspections, and generally play around. And paid for it.

If someone tried to order me around my own country I'd say screw you, and so did Saddam.

Iraq's 3% of the world oil supply...


Euh or you are a republican (then it is normal that you give this propaganda answer) or you lack numbers and knowledge about oil and the quality in different regions.

Euh or you are a republican (then it is normal that you give this propaganda answer) or you lack numbers and knowledge about oil and the quality in different regions.


The DOE puts it at around 10%, although estimates vary. Of course, 10% is quite a large amount.

The War with Iraq was an illegal coup, end of story.

This is not a flame post towards the military, the have the utmost respect for all military personnel and their not questioning, but fighting for their country because they love it and WILL fight for it. This is a flame towards the government, I will be turning 18 soon, and I don't plan on supporting Bush at all. Maybe some of you think I'm too young to even voice an opinion, well screw you, the coming adults are this age are a whole hell of a lot smarter then you were and are more aware then you think.
you may not intend to flame the military, but its our job to protect the gov't and seeing people i know volintere to go back for second tours in country makes me proud

The DOE puts it at around 10%, although estimates vary. Of course, 10% is quite a large amount.

Paxania said 3%, DOE 10 and OPEC 12%, in any way, the Paxania pro Bush Goebels propaganda was AGAIN a lie. Nice try of him. But so BUSTED

If that was so, why block inspections which could have proved it? Saddam moved to block access, limit inspections, and generally play around. And paid for it.
Saddam was playing a dangerous game. He wanted us to believe he didn't have WMDs (which he didn't), but he wanted his people and neighbors to believe he did have them. Therefore, he had to give enough token resistance to inspections to convince his neighbors and citizens that he was hiding something, but not give so much resistance that we would think he was hiding them. It was a dangerous gamble, and he lost. Of course, I have been saying this since before we invaded and finally found that out. If I, just an average citizen of the U.S. can realize this, why can't our President?

The War with Iraq was an illegal coup, end of story.

Really? Hmm. 12 UN resolutions, and a law passed by Clinton forcing all US Presidents to seek the removal of Saddam and it is illegal?

Woah.

Saddam was playing a dangerous game. He wanted us to believe he didn't have WMDs (which he didn't), but he wanted his people and neighbors to believe he did have them. Therefore, he had to give enough token resistance to inspections to convince his neighbors and citizens that he was hiding something, but not give so much resistance that we would think he was hiding them. It was a dangerous gamble, and he lost. Of course, I have been saying this since before we invaded and finally found that out. If I, just an average citizen of the U.S. can realize this, why can't our President?

So, let the inspectors in, they find nothing (as they did not look in Syria...), and they leave. End of story. He then tells the rest of his cronies that he was so slick, the UN never found them. It's all PR anyway.

Insurgents are still blowing the hell out of everything, including oil pipelines.
Bush just can't even secure what we can actually use.

Because he is trying to minimize casualties. To really win this, and win it quickly, we need to realize that the only war that succeeds is unlimited war. Send in some B-52s, level Falluja, and then roll tanks. Make them understand that this is a war, not a paintball game.

And yes, dead civilians and frothing leftards. But that is how you win wars. This limited war concept is a failure, and needs to be tossed out.

Because he is trying to minimize casualties. To really win this, and win it quickly, we need to realize that the only war that succeeds is unlimited war. Send in some B-52s, level Falluja, and then roll tanks. Make them understand that this is a war, not a paintball game.

And yes, dead civilians and frothing leftards. But that is how you win wars. This limited war concept is a failure, and needs to be tossed out.
Now you want unlimited war against country you were going to liberate?

Yeah Onosendai, I thought this was supposed to be liberation for Iraq (but it's been so many things, so many different things, from one week to the next it's hard to tell, isn't it?) but you seem to be more into the whole war thing instead. To paint the happiest face possible on it, the US forces in Iraq are...and I can't believe I'm phrasing it this way...the guests...of the Iraqi people...don't you think that by going into full tactical mode they are actually coalescing the anger and resentment of increasingly large numbers of run-of-the-mill, ordinary Iraqis?

I know that proud Americans wouldn't stand for life under some foreign occupation, I've heard this time and time again. Why should that sense not be shared by Iraqi citizens?

Now you want unlimited war against country you were going to liberate?

It should have been that from the beginning. Look at the historic results. Japan; nuked, firebombed, now an economic powerhouse. Germany; leveled, firebombed, now an economic powerhouse (well, less than in the 80's, but still pretty good overall).

To leave so many enemeys intact is a strategic error. The army we expected to fight getting to Baghdad we face as shadows now. The concept of limited war and liberation are not mutually exclusive.

It should have been that from the beginning. Look at the historic results. Japan; nuked, firebombed, now an economic powerhouse. Germany; leveled, firebombed, now an economic powerhouse (well, less than in the 80's, but still pretty good overall).

To leave so many enemeys intact is a strategic error. The army we expected to fight getting to Baghdad we face as shadows now. The concept of limited war and liberation are not mutually exclusive.

Unfortunetly killing massive amounts of civilians isn't acceptable by todays standards and rightly so. Bush simply doesn't want many American casualties in one engagement. As I have heard it, most non combatants have left Falluja anyway. Send in the troops and pacify the city. Dragging it out isn't going to help things any.

Yes, Bush is sending our young men to die so he can control Iraq's 3% of the world oil supply...
You mean the world's 2nd largest proven reserves?

It should have been that from the beginning. Look at the historic results. Japan; nuked, firebombed, now an economic powerhouse. Germany; leveled, firebombed, now an economic powerhouse (well, less than in the 80's, but still pretty good overall).

To leave so many enemeys intact is a strategic error. The army we expected to fight getting to Baghdad we face as shadows now. The concept of limited war and liberation are not mutually exclusive.
You forgot to point out that Germany and Japan were the aggressors in WW 2, and had invaded numerous countries causing widespread damage and destruction.

Iraq did not attack any other countries after the Gulf War, so you suggestion of going in and levelling Iraqi cities is totally unacceptable and will only cause more anger and ill will towards the people of America.

It appears that the Iraqi people are determined to fight the will of their captors, come hell or high water. The sooner that people realize that, the sooner a sane exit plan can be devised.

For the oil story, we are running out of oil. Its not about making prices go down, its about sustaining the oil addiction america has for as long as possible. Peak oil is coming, or possibly already started. While going for a better alternative, such as nuclear power would be smarter, Bush realizes we are running out of oil. We need to have friendly reserves to keep us going as long as possible.

For total war, I completely agree. I don't agree with the war, but I feel war should be total. While nukes aren't feasible when invading, massive bombing, etc would be great. I think we should make large bombing runs on religious targets, suspected weapons depo's, etc.

Freedom Fighters from all over the middle east are pouring in, so while total war could bring more, i don't think someone is going to become one because our evil policies got more evil. The gain would be larger than the loss, militairaly.

Nice of you to use the term "Freedom Fighter." More PC than "terrorist" or "insurgent."

I don't support Bush though, don't misunderstand that.

Nice of you to use the term "Freedom Fighter." More PC than "terrorist" or "insurgent."

I don't support Bush though, don't misunderstand that.

I would use insurgent, but not terrorist. If you call them terrorists(other than the few that actually are, the ones who hold hostages, etc), then you can call american soldiers terrorists. They do create fear.

The insurgents, by large, are fighting america, not just trying to kill and create fear in iraqi's/americans. Calling them terrorists by large just galvanizes the idiotic belief that saddam supported terrorism.

I would use insurgent, but not terrorist. If you call them terrorists(other than the few that actually are, the ones who hold hostages, etc), then you can call american soldiers terrorists. They do create fear.

The insurgents, by large, are fighting america, not just trying to kill and create fear in iraqi's/americans. Calling them terrorists by large just galvanizes the idiotic belief that saddam supported terrorism.

I can understand that some may genuinely want the soldiers out and that's it, they only fight them. I doubt most are in that category and support or participate in the suicide bombings going on killing civilians mostly Iraqis. Here you become a terrorist.

Bush is a powerhungry madman that is just trying to get a percentage in iraq's oil supply , while british and american soliders are dieing for no reason what so ever. :eek: :sniper:

I can understand that some may genuinely want the soldiers out and that's it, they only fight them. I doubt most are in that category and support or participate in the suicide bombings going on killing civilians mostly Iraqis. Here you become a terrorist.

Those that suicide bomb, etc, get more attention by the media. It doesn't mean they are more numerous, and I doubt they are. Most come to iraq to get rid of america, any many are very moral. There are extremists that kill civilians, or terrorist ones that capture troops and blackmail countries, but the majority i believe are just fighting america.

Bush is a powerhungry madman that is just trying to get a percentage in iraq's oil supply , while british and american soliders are dieing for no reason what so ever. :eek: :sniper:

Actually, they are dying because they are being shot.

Those that suicide bomb, etc, get more attention by the media. It doesn't mean they are more numerous, and I doubt they are. Most come to iraq to get rid of america, any many are very moral. There are extremists that kill civilians, or terrorist ones that capture troops and blackmail countries, but the majority i believe are just fighting america.

I suppose the media is making it sound like everyone who doesn't want America there is a terrorist. I certianly haven't seen any interviews with fighters saying as soon as American troops leave they'll put down their arms. All you see are cheering Iraqis in front of bombed buidings and fighters with arms raised, weapons in hand. I still doubt that most would only attack military targets and nothing else if they felt it would get America out(not likely).

I suppose the media is making it sound like everyone who doesn't want America there is a terrorist. I certianly haven't seen any interviews with fighters saying as soon as American troops leave they'll put down their arms. All you see are cheering Iraqis in front of bombed buidings and fighters with arms raised, weapons in hand. I still doubt that most would only attack military targets and nothing else if they felt it would get America out(not likely).

Why? Because they just love seeing people die?

They want america out of the middle-east. Alot of them do whatever it takes. Alot of them only try to kill american's. Just because you havn't seen interviews of them, still doesn't mean anything. Suicide bomber baby killers get more ratings than freedom fighters only fighting americans.

Why? Because they just love seeing people die?

They want america out of the middle-east. Alot of them do whatever it takes. Alot of them only try to kill american's. Just because you havn't seen interviews of them, still doesn't mean anything. Suicide bomber baby killers get more ratings than freedom fighters only fighting americans.

They should just realize that the American people hardly want our troops there. If they would stop shooting then it would be much easier to stabalize a government and pull them out. By continuing this fight they are insuring our continued involvement in Iraq until it is "pacified."

They should just realize that the American people hardly want our troops there. If they would stop shooting then it would be much easier to stabalize a government and pull them out. By continuing this fight they are insuring our continued involvement in Iraq until it is "pacified."

Just like the vietcong only prolonged the pacification of vietnam, and we eventually won.

Just like the vietcong only prolonged the pacification of vietnam, and we eventually won.

Vietcong supported the North Vietnam invasion to bring communism to the South. The Americans simply interfered in their goal. Not really simple as just trying to kick what is seen as an American occupation force out of Iraq.