NationStates Jolt Archive

I just want to know if you all feel the war in Iraq was the right thing to do . Im sure you all know my position on this, so I will let you all discuss. Poll coming

It certainly wasn't worth it if you wanted to safeguard available oil capacity, though it was if you wanted to increase prices. Politics trumped sane energy policy considerations.

By the way, whether something was worth it and the right thing to do, is not the same thing.

By the way, whether something was worth it and the right thing to do, is not the same thing.

Quoted for truth.

By the way, whether something was worth it and the right thing to do, is not the same thing.
Thank you.

Aside from that, I'm not even sure it would have been a bad thing if done right. Let the inspectors finish their jobs. Build up international support. Go in with 400,000 troops as many in the Pentagon said would be needed to hold the country after take over so the borders could be secured and the infrastructure rebuilt. The problem with this war, in my opinion, is that it is being run by a bunch of ideolgues led by a moron. Ideological rigidity prevents them from being flexible in the face of shifting challenges and stupidity results in bad decisions.

By the way, whether something was worth it and the right thing to do, is not the same thing.
Yeah, i don't like any of those choices because it definately isn't worth it, but I believe it was the right thing to get Saddam out of power, even though we helped put him there in the first place.

By the way, whether something was worth it and the right thing to do, is not the same thing.
ok, sorry I shall edit

taking out saddam : good
oil : bad
saving the oppressed : good
taking their oil : bad
taking out oppressive ruler : good
lying about it : bad
fighting terrorism : good
creating terrorism : bad

simple, really :p

I just want to know if you all feel the war in Iraq was the right thing to do and if it was worth it. Im sure you all know my position on this, so I will let you all discuss. Poll coming

Neither. As the two premises for war were invalid, it has re-ignited distrust of the US and made sure that whatever Government arises from the invasion in Iraq will always be viewed as illegitamate by some. Its further highlighted the dangers of a powerless UN, and the hypocrisy of many in the west. As American loss of life has been relatively low, it means that there is some risk US adventurism may linger into the future, after Bush has gone.

Thank you.

Aside from that, I'm not even sure it would have been a bad thing if done right. Let the inspectors finish their jobs. Build up international support. Go in with 400,000 troops as many in the Pentagon said would be needed to hold the country after take over so the borders could be secured and the infrastructure rebuilt. The problem with this war, in my opinion, is that it is being run by a bunch of ideolgues led by a moron. Ideological rigidity prevents them from being flexible in the face of shifting challenges and stupidity results in bad decisions.
I think it would have been better to go in with as little troops possible. Just load up on ground intelligence, not satellite pictures, but real people on the ground gathering solid information, then send in special forces to get the job done. That would have been ideal.

I don't think the war in Iraq was worth it. Saddam wasn't a threat to the USA, but the terrorists who are getting combat experience and networking with other terrorists in Iraq are a threat. The war is costing way too much money. That money could have been better spent elsewhere. I believe that the war in Iraq is taking resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda terrorists. Iraq is also making the US more unpopular in the Muslim world and in the rest of the world too.

Iraq is also making the US more unpopular in the Muslim world and in the rest of the world too.
I think our irrational blind support of Israel has more to do with our unpopularity, but Im sure Iraq doesnt help, especially with the new prison photos coming out. The ones shown on arab news stations Ive seen are much worse than the ones they put on the air in the west. Those even made me say "wtf"

There are far better way to remove someone from power than going in with an "international" military and getting 30,000 of that country's civilians killed. Any action taken against Hussein should have been a purely UN endevour, and military solutions should have been an absolute LAST resort. Saddam wasn't going to be blowing up any other countries anytime soon.

THAT BEING SAID, a complete pullout of US forces is not the right thing to do either. Until the Iraqi government is confident they can handle things on their own, US forces need to be slowly fazed out and replaced with UN ones, so everyone, both inside and outside of Iraq, can see that this is a Worldwide effort, and not an attempt at American empirialism.

By the way, whether something was worth it and the right thing to do, is not the same thing.
How about it wasn't worth it AND it wasn't it wasn't the right thing to do.

I don't think the war in Iraq was worth it. Saddam wasn't a threat to the USA, but the terrorists who are getting combat experience and networking with other terrorists in Iraq are a threat. The war is costing way too much money. That money could have been better spent elsewhere. I believe that the war in Iraq is taking resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda terrorists. Iraq is also making the US more unpopular in the Muslim world and in the rest of the world too.

I agree.

And your last statement, I believe, shows that this is in fact the goal - to instigate a "culture war" between all Muslims and The West. Not to punish terrorists for 9/11, not to make the world safer, but to annihilate a culture and religion.

Sure, the war-wanting bastards may not exactly be a majority yet. Most people can still differentiate between "Muslim" and "Terrorist."

I figure, another major terrorist attack - the kind that people like Osama bin Laden, or Men in Black want to happen - would change that.

It was the right thing to do, done in the worst way possible. Unfortunately, when it comes to international affairs, it is not "the thought that counts." The US should have done much more in the way of trying to garner inernational support, or at the least, took more time to consider the long-term effects of their actions.

In the defense of the US, hindsight is in 20/20 and suggesting these changes is often much easier than their execution. Hopefully, the US will learn from its mistakes, and do a better job in the future.

Looking at it like a game of risk...yes. Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon Iran. We'll have Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt in no time. So when India comes to power we'll be ready to strike. Oho well played Mr. Bush, well played.

Looking at it like a game of risk...yes. Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon Iran. We'll have Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt in no time. So when India comes to power we'll be ready to strike. Oho well played Mr. Bush, well played.
ohhh i can't wait! :D

if it was for oil: making the pipeline from the Caspian divert Iraq would of been cheaper (and safer for the oil supply) not worth it

if it was to topple a cruel dictator: the fall of Saddam was relatively quick and easy the Iraqi people are happy to be rid of Saddam success

if it was to fight terrorism: hatred has been sparked by the invasion but many arms and terrorists have been destroyed which has been a good thing for the region particularly in focusing terrorism on a well defended area this leads to a maybe

If it was to find and destroy W.M.D: it has been a failure though it has made WMD’s less accessible to the wrong hands all of the alleged weapons have not been found which is worrying to say the least failure

i think that freeing a people from a corrupt & brutal dictator is good.

people die in war, but the new democratic Iraq will mean (hopefully) that Iraqis will be able to live without the fear that they endured under Saddam... the torture, the murders by Saddam's version of the Gestapo, the acid baths, etc... if that shit comes to an end, and the people continue to have the ability to elect their leaders, then it will have been worth it. If the best case scenario comes to fruition and Iraq is able to set a good example for other oppressive/totalitarian middle eastern regimes ... and they become stable democracies... then there will be no doubt that it will have been worth it.

if it was for oil: making the pipeline from the Caspian divert Iraq would of been cheaper (and safer for the oil supply) not worth it

if it was to topple a cruel dictator: the fall of Saddam was relatively quick and easy the Iraqi people are happy to be rid of Saddam success

if it was to fight terrorism: hatred has been sparked by the invasion but many arms and terrorists have been destroyed which has been a good thing for the region particularly in focusing terrorism on a well defended area this leads to a maybe

If it was to find and destroy W.M.D: it has been a failure though it has made WMD’s less accessible to the wrong hands all of the alleged weapons have not been found which is worrying to say the least failure

it..wasn't..for..oil

or provide proof that it was. Haliburton's work there -- a job that must be done -- notwithstanding, it's not like we're trucking all their oil back to the States. cripes. Bald eagles aren't carrying sacks of Iraqi oil back either. If we had their oil, our oil prices would be great ly decreased due to the influx of additional supply (assuming demand remains fairly inelastic).

if it was to topple a cruel dictator: the fall of Saddam was relatively quick and easy the Iraqi people are happy to be rid of Saddam success

I don't think it quite qualifies to be "relatively quick." We've taken out many governments in Central and South America with hardly any work at all (and hardly anyone noticing)

ohhh i can't wait! :D

China and India we'll probably be at each other's throats by then and we'll be sitting in the middle east with our armies just picking our moment to "liberate" the losing side, followed by sanctioning the hell out of the winning side for attacking. Then when they're at their weakest we'll invade for W.M.D.s or terrorism or whatever we call it.

Now we just have to worry about the damned EU. *shakes fist*

it..wasn't..for..oil

or provide proof that it was. Haliburton's work there -- a job that must be done -- notwithstanding, it's not like we're trucking all their oil back to the States. cripes. Bald eagles aren't carrying sacks of Iraqi oil back either. If we had their oil, our oil prices would be great ly decreased due to the influx of additional supply (assuming demand remains fairly inelastic).
That's not true at all. Oil companies are using this as an excuse to gouge prices. Remeber Exxon's ~$10,000,000,000 profit last quarter? Remember, that's profit in a single quarter. Gas is cheaper, but not for you or me.

it..wasn't..for..oil

or provide proof that it was. Haliburton's work there -- a job that must be done -- notwithstanding, it's not like we're trucking all their oil back to the States. cripes. Bald eagles aren't carrying sacks of Iraqi oil back either. If we had their oil, our oil prices would be great ly decreased due to the influx of additional supply (assuming demand remains fairly inelastic).

"for oil" can merely mean "more political control over oil production resources."

As in, having a pro-US Iraqi government. One that won't use it's oil resources - or the sudden stoppage thereof - as a weapon against us. That's all.

I think you and others are deliberately taking the "for oil" statement too literally as a way to dismiss the idea that Iraq's oil resources had anything to do with our interest in this.

was their profit appreciably greater than it's been in other quarters?

(making money isn't a crime)

our gas prices rise and fall with the price set in the middle east...

demand is high, with all the freaking SUVs getting 10 miles to the gallon -- people aren't driving small cars anymore, they're driving hulking wastes of resources.


...this drives high demand

if supply remains the same or decreases (as it did after Katrina)... and the price of a barrel is increasing anyway, as set in the Middle East... prices can justifiably be raised. I don't like it, but do you really think if our demand decreased and/or our supply increased, our gas prices wouldn't drop?

I don't think the war in Iraq was worth it. Saddam wasn't a threat to the USA, but the terrorists who are getting combat experience and networking with other terrorists in Iraq are a threat. The war is costing way too much money. That money could have been better spent elsewhere. I believe that the war in Iraq is taking resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda terrorists. Iraq is also making the US more unpopular in the Muslim world and in the rest of the world too.

I was going to reply, but this sums up what I was going to say.

But I will say this, this government is running up bills like a drunk teenage girl with a no-limit credit card, and one day, the bill will come due. Then it will really suck around here and people will get a sobering reality check about the price of ridiculous, far-flung wars. But then again, we're talking about people who last saw foreign troops on its soil in 1812.

And I will say this, you may have liked or hated Saddam, but with him gone, expect a civil war to break out. Like Phil Donahue said (to Bill O'Reilly), "he may have been a bastard, but he was OUR bastard". Yeah, they have a "parliament" for now, but as SOON as the last troop is gone, the Kurds, Shia and Sunni are going to battle it out because the Kurds are sitting on top of the oil, the Shia outnumber everyone else and the Sunni do not want to be regulated to permanent, powerless, minority status.

I was going to reply, but this sums up what I was going to say.

But I will say this, this government is running up bills like a drunk teenage girl with a no-limit credit card, and one day, the bill will come due. Then it will really suck around here and people will get a sobering reality check about the price of ridiculous, far-flung wars. But then again, we're talking about people who last saw foreign troops on its soil in 1812.

And I will say this, you may have liked or hated Saddam, but with him gone, expect a civil war to break out. Like Phil Donahue said (to Bill O'Reilly), "he may have been a bastard, but he was OUR bastard". Yeah, they have a "parliament" for now, but as SOON as the last troop is gone, the Kurds, Shia and Sunni are going to battle it out because the Kurds are sitting on top of the oil, the Shia outnumber everyone else and the Sunni do not want to be regulated to permanent, powerless, minority status.

that's why it's important to keep the Sunnis involved in the political process. I'm not certain of this, but i read somewhere that parliament seats in Iraq went roughly according to percentage of population: Shi'a got something like half the seats, while Sunnis got about a fourth and Kurds the remaining fourth.

Yeah, I think it wasn't for immediate oil gain, it was just for control of oil, which will be a lot harder to get when its running low and countries start to fight over control of oil producing locations.

I work in the Chrysler Building in Manhattan.


http://image24.webshots.com/24/6/52/92/33765292Pzaylh_ph.jpg
(For those of you not in the know: the UN is the squarish building in the foreground, Chrysler is the towering art deco masterpiece on the left.)

I'm 3 blocks from the UN, 2 blocks from Grand Central Station, and less than a mile from the Empire State Building, Madison Square Garden, St. Patrick's Cathedral and Rockefeller Center. Nevermind sitting on a major subway station.

The building I work in is itself a likely terrorist target, as is the way I get into the city (train to Grand Central).

If fighting in Iraq diverted several thousand would-be terrorists to go fight jihad there... then that's fine with me.

Yes, that's cold and calculating. Yes, that can be called selfish. I seriously doubt you'd feel much different in my shoes, either. :(

i think that freeing a people from a corrupt & brutal dictator is good.

people die in war, but the new democratic Iraq will mean (hopefully) that Iraqis will be able to live without the fear that they endured under Saddam... the torture, the murders by Saddam's version of the Gestapo, the acid baths, etc... if that shit comes to an end, and the people continue to have the ability to elect their leaders, then it will have been worth it. If the best case scenario comes to fruition and Iraq is able to set a good example for other oppressive/totalitarian middle eastern regimes ... and they become stable democracies... then there will be no doubt that it will have been worth it.

Keep on dreamin'!

Western nations have this love affair with the idea that democracy will solve every problem (that's like saying everyone should drive a Cadillac Escalade). It WON'T. "Democracy" now has allowed Hamas to run Palestine. Fantastic! "Democracy" put Ahmadinejad in power in Iran. Fantastic! It also put Hitler in power. Another plus.

Some people need socialist governments, some need monarchies and some end up with whatever they have and don't try to change it. Did you know that before the Seventeenth Amendent was passed that we did not elect our senators? Is that "democratic"?

And if the United States' raison d'etre is to free people from oppressive dictatorships, there's whole continent teeming with them. It's called Africa. They have oil in Nigeria and I don't see the US rushing out there (Royal Dutch Shell buys off the government so the government can "silence" the critcs; see also Ken Saro-Wiwa). In Cameroon, the French speaking population oppresses the minority English speaking population, and I don't see the US. In Equitorial Guinea, the same thing is happening -- the president is trying to force people off their land because they happen to have oil, and I don't see the US there either. There's also another one called Saudi Arabia (you know, our "ally" that provided the majority of the September 11 kill squad) and they've got oil too and I don't see the US rushing with a "coalition of the willing" -- Palau, Costa Rica, Dominica and all -- to Mecca.

War in Iraq worth it? / War in Iraq the right thing to do?No, a waste of time, life, and tax payers' money.

this is two or three weeks old now but might be of some interest to this thread:

American deaths as a result of international terrorism (1994-2003): 2,970
American servicemen killed in Iraq since invasion: 2,152
Iraqi dead since invasion: 30,000
Cost of war to date: $226,000,000,000
Population of the U.S.A: 295,734,134
Population of Iraq: 26,074,906
Now, some simple math:
The chance of an individual U.S. citizen having died as a result of international terrorism: 1 in 99,573
The chance of an Iraqi citizen having died as a result of the war in Iraq: 1 in 869
Price of war per American Citizen: $764
Now, let’s assume for the moment that that the ‘war on terror’ was 100% effective, and that not a single American would die as a result of international terrorism for the next 10 years. The price paid per life saved would be $76,094,276. That’s seventy-six million dollars and change. And, of course, ten civilian Iraqi dead for every American death prevented.
We’ve killed a hundred times as many Iraqi as a percentage of the population as we have lost to international terrorism in a decade, or ten times as many in absolute numbers.
"Staying the course" means to continue killing 30 Iraqi civilians a day and spending 200 million dollars a day for the privilege. Our president has directly caused the death of ten times as many civilians as he was out to avenge and he says we must stay the course. He spends more on the war in Iraq than he does on education, even excluding other military expenditures. When the president says "stay the course", he means "continue to kill civilians at an astonishing rate while bankrupting the country in the process". If he stays the course for another few months, he will have gotten more Americans killed since the war started than "the terrorists" have in a decade. This man calls himself a christian.

=^^=
.../\...

this is two or three weeks old now but might be of some interest to this thread:

American deaths as a result of international terrorism (1994-2003): 2,970
American servicemen killed in Iraq since invasion: 2,152
Iraqi dead since invasion: 30,000
Cost of war to date: $226,000,000,000
Population of the U.S.A: 295,734,134
Population of Iraq: 26,074,906
Now, some simple math:
The chance of an individual U.S. citizen having died as a result of international terrorism: 1 in 99,573
The chance of an Iraqi citizen having died as a result of the war in Iraq: 1 in 869
Price of war per American Citizen: $764
Now, let’s assume for the moment that that the ‘war on terror’ was 100% effective, and that not a single American would die as a result of international terrorism for the next 10 years. The price paid per life saved would be $76,094,276. That’s seventy-six million dollars and change. And, of course, ten civilian Iraqi dead for every American death prevented.
We’ve killed a hundred times as many Iraqi as a percentage of the population as we have lost to international terrorism in a decade, or ten times as many in absolute numbers.
"Staying the course" means to continue killing 30 Iraqi civilians a day and spending 200 million dollars a day for the privilege. Our president has directly caused the death of ten times as many civilians as he was out to avenge and he says we must stay the course. He spends more on the war in Iraq than he does on education, even excluding other military expenditures. When the president says "stay the course", he means "continue to kill civilians at an astonishing rate while bankrupting the country in the process". If he stays the course for another few months, he will have gotten more Americans killed since the war started than "the terrorists" have in a decade. This man calls himself a christian.

=^^=
.../\...

But how many Iraqis died as a result of the imposed sanctions,? Because I've heard various figures extimating that number and none were any where near as small as 30,000, for instance UNICEF puts the number of child deaths as 500,000. It's OK sitting back and calling for inaction and more sanctions, but you must accept that that too is a decision, and one thatcost Iraqis their lives.

We won't really know for 50 years. Ask me then.

was their profit appreciably greater than it's been in other quarters?

(making money isn't a crime)

our gas prices rise and fall with the price set in the middle east...

demand is high, with all the freaking SUVs getting 10 miles to the gallon -- people aren't driving small cars anymore, they're driving hulking wastes of resources.


...this drives high demand

if supply remains the same or decreases (as it did after Katrina)... and the price of a barrel is increasing anyway, as set in the Middle East... prices can justifiably be raised. I don't like it, but do you really think if our demand decreased and/or our supply increased, our gas prices wouldn't drop?

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1029991

Oil profit margins are much higher than they were, say, five years ago. The Oil companies are using things like terrorism and wars as reasons to arbitrarially raise oil prices higher than they need to to maintain profit.

now what i like most about this whole campaign ( well not like i hate it ) is the way that bush has managed to spin his reasons for war around
at the start it was all
wmd, wmd, wmd, wmc, wmd, wmd, ready in 45 mins wmd ooh hes gonna get us look at this evidence of a convoy of trucks in the desert, obviously he is moving his wmd we must save the world help us save you

but now that they havent found them the whole point of the war wasnt there looks like bad luck for bush but wait he has another ace up his sleeve

911 911 911 911 911 saddam was evil 911 911 he was in league with osama ( not tru the two men hated each other) he was harbouring terrorists 911 he needed overthrowing.

now either everyone is stupid or is holding their tounge because i must admit at first i didnt notice, but it soon became clear how well he had mananged to spin it to save face. to be honest i think its terrible and whats worse is that he gets away with it simply by druming 911 911 911 911 into our heads trying to keep us scared and suporting the war


so yeah as you can see i am against the war

but we are there now and we cant back out its too late we had no reason to go in the first place

But how many Iraqis died as a result of the imposed sanctions,? Because I've heard various figures extimating that number and none were any where near as small as 30,000, for instance UNICEF puts the number of child deaths as 500,000. It's OK sitting back and calling for inaction and more sanctions, but you must accept that that too is a decision, and one thatcost Iraqis their lives.

Did he say we should have sanctions? No.

However, if saddam had been willing to collaberate with the west, and had made an active effort, I believe the UN would have cast off the sanctions. If he made an effort to stop corruption, provide for his people, etc, then the sanctions would have been taken off.

Those deaths are on his hands, not ours.

It certainly wasn't worth it if you wanted to safeguard available oil capacity, though it was if you wanted to increase prices. Politics trumped sane energy policy considerations.

The war in Iraq was useless. It took a non-existant threat and created an even worse threat. It only increase the popularity of terrorist groups, and gave Iran to get rid of Saddam Hussein which allowed them to create new kind of weapons without Saddam's capability to refuse that.

This kind of shows that the US is lead by dangerously inept politicians who try to mantain a power in decline.

Why does it matter if you are American or not? Other countries invaded Iraq too, you know.

*mutters about bloody yanks*

Whatever good came out of the whole Iraq episode is overwhelmed by the bad of letting go of the fleeing taliban and AQ.

Did he say we should have sanctions? No.

However, if saddam had been willing to collaberate with the west, and had made an active effort, I believe the UN would have cast off the sanctions. If he made an effort to stop corruption, provide for his people, etc, then the sanctions would have been taken off.

Those deaths are on his hands, not ours.
I think that's a very nice thought. But assuming that Saddam didn't want to play ball, Heaven forfend, I don't think it's as simple as saying that it was Saddam alone causing those deaths. In my mind at least, those sanctions were imposed, in the name of the UN, under the guns of American and British planes. For me that doesn't leave me any room to wash my hands of it and and say those deaths have nothing to do with me.

i think that freeing a people from a corrupt & brutal dictator is good.

people die in war, but the new democratic Iraq will mean (hopefully) that Iraqis will be able to live without the fear that they endured under Saddam... the torture, the murders by Saddam's version of the Gestapo, the acid baths, etc... if that shit comes to an end, and the people continue to have the ability to elect their leaders, then it will have been worth it. If the best case scenario comes to fruition and Iraq is able to set a good example for other oppressive/totalitarian middle eastern regimes ... and they become stable democracies... then there will be no doubt that it will have been worth it.
Oh yea, oh yea, Saddam is gone and now what? A theocracy (not democracy) in Iraq? A crushing of Iraq has meant an imbalance of power in the region. The following is a good read:

Big winner of Bush's Iraq war (http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=233&fArticleId=3080468)

I am writing this from Qatar, a tiny peninsula jutting into the Persian Gulf and a good vantage point for observing the turbulent events in the Middle East. And every observer I have spoken to here agrees on one thing - the big winner of George W Bush's war on Iraq is none other than America's arch-enemy, Iran.

It has emerged as the regional superpower. Iran's power used to be balanced by that of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a fact highlighted by the bloody eight-year war they fought in the 1980s - in which the US gave military aid, including chemical weapons, to Iraq in the hope that it would crush the fundamentalist mullahs of Iran, but which ended inconclusively with a truce of mutual exhaustion.

Now Bush has waged his war to overthrow America's erstwhile ally and "democratise" the shattered country with an election, whose results, announced last week, disempower Saddam's old power base among the minority Sunni Muslims and install a coalition of Shi'ite Muslim parties in power - co-religionists and political allies of the Iranian mullahs.

Not only has the one country in the Middle East capable of counterbalancing Iran's power been removed from the geo-political equation, it has been turned into an Iranian ally. The irony is breathtaking.

A war launched to start a domino process of pro-Western democratisation throughout the Middle East is having the opposite effect - the emergence of an anti-American regional superpower whose revolutionary influence is likely to spread right across the Gulf region over the next decade.

What was a secular dictatorship is being turned into a radical Shi'ite theocracy.

The rest of the story makes a lot of sense.

War has been declared then? I thought Bush's GOP had arranged the invasion on their own initiative without going through the procedures to declare war.

Why does it matter if you are American or not? Other countries invaded Iraq too, you know.

*mutters about bloody yanks*

Tak!
But then, Poles and Brits are used to being overlooked. I personally blame Monty for going a bridge too far. ;)

I think that's a very nice thought. But assuming that Saddam didn't want to play ball, Heaven forfend, I don't think it's as simple as saying that it was Saddam alone causing those deaths. In my mind at least, those sanctions were imposed, in the name of the UN, under the guns of American and British planes. For me that doesn't leave me any room to wash my hands of it and and say those deaths have nothing to do with me.

And if Saddam hussein hadn't declared war on Kuwait, and done horrid things to people in his country, the sanctions wouldn't have occured. I don't think saddam was a horrible guy; he did ok for his country, other than the whole military thing and genocide against the kurds thing(kinda like hitler, though I can see at least some reason with the kurds, not the jews). However, Saddam brought all this upon himself. We were just tools for him to screw himself over with.

I don't think the war in Iraq was worth it. Saddam wasn't a threat to the USA, but the terrorists who are getting combat experience and networking with other terrorists in Iraq are a threat. The war is costing way too much money. That money could have been better spent elsewhere. I believe that the war in Iraq is taking resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda terrorists. Iraq is also making the US more unpopular in the Muslim world and in the rest of the world too.

I agree. It makes me feel dirty, but its true nonetheless....

Yes it was, though it should of been better planned.

Plus having more public support would help

I work in the Chrysler Building in Manhattan.


http://image24.webshots.com/24/6/52/92/33765292Pzaylh_ph.jpg
(For those of you not in the know: the UN is the squarish building in the foreground, Chrysler is the towering art deco masterpiece on the left.)

I'm 3 blocks from the UN, 2 blocks from Grand Central Station, and less than a mile from the Empire State Building, Madison Square Garden, St. Patrick's Cathedral and Rockefeller Center. Nevermind sitting on a major subway station.

The building I work in is itself a likely terrorist target, as is the way I get into the city (train to Grand Central).

If fighting in Iraq diverted several thousand would-be terrorists to go fight jihad there... then that's fine with me.

Yes, that's cold and calculating. Yes, that can be called selfish. I seriously doubt you'd feel much different in my shoes, either. :(

This is highly unlikely, as the Al Qaeda-esque organisations specialise in "spectaculars" against very high profile targets. Therefore the US will always be a prime priority target, with its assets in Europe second and so on. Plus theres the risk of one or two individuals outraged at events just acting spontaneously.

How about it wasn't worth it AND it wasn't it wasn't the right thing to do.
that one has my vote!

it wasnt right to invade a country that had never done anything to us and had no real capability to do so.

and its SOO not worth spending hundreds of billions to destabilize iraq, make civil war there all but inevitable, create thousands of new terrorists, and hundreds of thousands of people hate us.

I'm 3 blocks from the UN, 2 blocks from Grand Central Station, and less than a mile from the Empire State Building, Madison Square Garden, St. Patrick's Cathedral and Rockefeller Center. Nevermind sitting on a major subway station.

The building I work in is itself a likely terrorist target, as is the way I get into the city (train to Grand Central).

If fighting in Iraq diverted several thousand would-be terrorists to go fight jihad there... then that's fine with me.

Yes, that's cold and calculating. Yes, that can be called selfish. I seriously doubt you'd feel much different in my shoes, either

yeah that might well be worth it if it were true. but the war in iraq has created and contintues to create new terrorists who would never have been willing to blow themselves up for allah if the US didnt invade countries with no justification. dont kid yourself that none of them are willing to take the extra trip to the US if they can do so.

Did he say we should have sanctions? No.

However, if saddam had been willing to collaberate with the west, and had made an active effort, I believe the UN would have cast off the sanctions. If he made an effort to stop corruption, provide for his people, etc, then the sanctions would have been taken off.

Those deaths are on his hands, not ours.
yeah i used to think that too

the (probable) truth is much uglier. those sanctions were never going to be lifted unless saddam hussein was removed from power by whatever means

the sanctions were put onto iraq as an incentive to get them out of kuwait. they didnt work so the UN forces led by the US went in an pushed him out of kuwait.

so no more need for sanctions eh?

nooooo then we decided that iraq had to completely disarm. (even though this would put them in a disastrous position vis a vis iran).

the UN sent in weapons inspectors who DID THEIR JOB. the US/CIA made up reports of additional wmd. pulled them out of their asses. there was no way to find nonexistant wmd so the weapon inspection program could never "succeed".

it was impossible for iraq to comply with the process when it meant destroying nonexistant weapons. not to mention the problems of admitting utter vulnerability to an attack by iran eh?

we were responsible for every one of those deaths caused by sanctions.

oh yeah and even though we wanted the removal of hussein we didnt want it enough to support the kurds who rose up to overthrow him. we let him slaughter them. those deaths are our responsibility too.

taking out saddam : good
oil : bad
saving the oppressed : good
taking their oil : bad
taking out oppressive ruler : good
lying about it : bad
fighting terrorism : good
creating terrorism : bad

simple, really :p
Seconded.

Seconded.
Thirded? :p

people die in war, but the new democratic Iraq will mean (hopefully) that Iraqis will be able to live without the fear that they endured under Saddam... the torture, the murders by Saddam's version of the Gestapo, the acid baths, etc... if that shit comes to an end, and the people continue to have the ability to elect their leaders, then it will have been worth it.

Not when members of said government run death squads to eliminate whole groups of people. Run by head of government? Maybe not, but whether the guy who puts a bullet in your head did so on the orders of the executive head or some mid level flunky makes no difference in the grand scheme of things does it?

Are people free from torture, murders and general terror via assassinations and bombings down in Iraq? No. Not really. Any better than it was under Saddam? Given the numbers dead in the time span under occupation compared to Saddam's rule, maybe, maybe not.

Or haven't you been paying attention to the news?


If the best case scenario comes to fruition and Iraq is able to set a good example for other oppressive/totalitarian middle eastern regimes ... and they become stable democracies... then there will be no doubt that it will have been worth it.

With the way the current administration is alienating all the other middle eastern regimes, thus stampeding the popular support towards hardliners, only in a drug induced la la land is that possible.

Democracies don't tend to form very well with a big nasty threat saying "DO AS I SAY OR ELSE!!!" looming over the horizon.

Imagine if that kind of government had been forced on the settlers in the Americas by an outside power like say, the French. Not only would the British Empire have some heated responses, so would the settlers.

(making money isn't a crime)

No, but caving in your skull with a tire iron to lighten your wallet for money is.


our gas prices rise and fall with the price set in the middle east...

Bollocks. Gas prices rise and fall like the stock market. Remember how they shot up just after 9/11? Sure, the administration tried to limit it, but that was on the local scale. With the big corporations themselves, they raise prices and nobody says anything.

War is good for business. Especially if you run it in a place where you get your goods from.


I don't like it, but do you really think if our demand decreased and/or our supply increased, our gas prices wouldn't drop?

Demand isn't going down, but supply as it is, is controlled by the megacorporations. It is up to them how much supply they allow out on the market. You can't hide hoarding easily in normal times, but in wartimes, it is easier to excuse and hide. If you don't think this doesn't happen, you fail at business.

yeah i used to think that too

the (probable) truth is much uglier. those sanctions were never going to be lifted unless saddam hussein was removed from power by whatever means

the sanctions were put onto iraq as an incentive to get them out of kuwait. they didnt work so the UN forces led by the US went in an pushed him out of kuwait.

so no more need for sanctions eh?

nooooo then we decided that iraq had to completely disarm. (even though this would put them in a disastrous position vis a vis iran).

the UN sent in weapons inspectors who DID THEIR JOB. the US/CIA made up reports of additional wmd. pulled them out of their asses. there was no way to find nonexistant wmd so the weapon inspection program could never "succeed".

it was impossible for iraq to comply with the process when it meant destroying nonexistant weapons. not to mention the problems of admitting utter vulnerability to an attack by iran eh?

we were responsible for every one of those deaths caused by sanctions.

oh yeah and even though we wanted the removal of hussein we didnt want it enough to support the kurds who rose up to overthrow him. we let him slaughter them. those deaths are our responsibility too.
Yup, it sure looks like you have all the talking points covered here. Well done. :)

Worth it? No

Right thing to do? Hell no

Can I do anything to stop it? Absolutely no

Will I try? With every fiber of my being

:)

I don't think saddam was a horrible guy; he did ok for his country,

He did ok for his tribe. He and many Iraqi sunnis don't have the concept of equal citizens with shared power.

I believe that the war in Iraq is taking resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda terrorists.

Now think why would the admin do that when their rhetoric was "we're gonna smoke em out..dead or alive..etc"

I just want to know if you all feel the war in Iraq was the right thing to do . Im sure you all know my position on this, so I will let you all discuss. Poll coming

Hehehe... No. That's about it. :cool:

It's not about being right it's about being smart. The invasion of Iraq was pointless and stupid, we aren't getting much oil out of them, and all we've done is pissed off a ton of Arabs. The only reason I see to go to war is to line the pockets of war profiteers.

Worth it? No

Right thing to do? Hell no

Can I do anything to stop it? Absolutely no

Will I try? With every fiber of my being

:)

So you applaud everytime an innocent Iraqi is killed by an insurgent? You applaud everytime a Coalition Soldier is killed? I will try, with every fiber of my being, to stop people like you from ruining the chance for Iraqi Democracy.

So you applaud everytime an innocent Iraqi is killed by an insurgent? You applaud everytime a Coalition Soldier is killed? I will try, with every fiber of my being, to stop people like you from ruining the chance for Iraqi Democracy.

Wait, how does that follow exactly?

Because he thinks the war is wrong and wasn't worth it and wants to try to stop it he applauds the deaths of innocent Iraqis at the hands of "insurgents" and applauds every time a "coalition soldier" is killed?

I don't quite understand your reasoning here.

So you applaud everytime an innocent Iraqi is killed by an insurgent? You applaud everytime a Coalition Soldier is killed? I will try, with every fiber of my being, to stop people like you from ruining the chance for Iraqi Democracy.

You know, I read, and re-read, Keruvalia's statements at least a half dozen times. And I'll be damned if I know where you got the idea that he "applauds everytime an innocent Iraqi is killed," or a "Coalition Soldier" for that matter.

I would *guess* however, that this whole "applause" notion you've put forth comes not from Keruvalia but actually, the fissures of your own ass.

Wait, how does that follow exactly?

Because he thinks the war is wrong and wasn't worth it and wants to try to stop it he applauds the deaths of innocent Iraqis at the hands of "insurgents" and applauds every time a "coalition soldier" is killed?

I don't quite understand your reasoning here.

He said that he will do everything he can to stop it, thus I assumed he supported the killing of innocent Iraqis, Iraqi Soldiers, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Government officials, and Coalition Soldiers. Perhaps he did not mean it that way, but he should have said so.

He said that he will do everything he can to stop it, thus I assumed he supported the killing of innocent Iraqis, Iraqi Soldiers, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Government officials, and Coalition Soldiers. Perhaps he did not mean it that way, but he should have said so.

You assumed? Oh okay, I assume that since you supported the invasion of Iraq, you also support the 25,000-30,000 innocent Iraqis killed by it? Yes, that makes sense. You "applauded" every one of those deaths!

It was not the right thing to do, nor is it worth it.

You assumed? Oh okay, I assume that since you supported the invasion of Iraq, you also support the 25,000-30,000 innocent Iraqis killed by it? Yes, that makes sense. You "applauded" every one of those deaths!

You may assume that, if you wish, but it would be a false assumption. I never applauded their deaths, innocent deaths are a sad fact of war. That is harsh, I know, but it is the truth.

So you applaud everytime an innocent Iraqi is killed by an insurgent? You applaud everytime a Coalition Soldier is killed? I will try, with every fiber of my being, to stop people like you from ruining the chance for Iraqi Democracy.
You mean an Iraqi Theocracy dominated by Shiites that have strong connections with Iran?

U.S. hope of secular rule in Iraq fading (http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2006/01/01/build/world/20-iraq.inc)

You mean an Iraqi Theocracy dominated by Shiites that have strong connections with Iran?

U.S. hope of secular rule in Iraq fading (http://www.billingsgazette.com/newdex.php?display=rednews/2006/01/01/build/world/20-iraq.inc)

Well I would hope that doesn't happen, but if it does it will be the Iraqis own choosing. Of course, we can always help them change their mind in 20-30 years.

He said that he will do everything he can to stop it, thus I assumed he supported the killing of innocent Iraqis, Iraqi Soldiers, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Government officials, and Coalition Soldiers. Perhaps he did not mean it that way, but he should have said so.

I believe those killings are actually a part of the war, and results of the war, so if he wanted to stop the war he would naturally be opposed to those killings as well as those committed by "Coalition Soldiers".

I believe those killings are actually a part of the war, and results of the war, so if he wanted to stop the war he would naturally be opposed to those killings as well as those committed by "Coalition Soldiers".

Interesting point, but somehow, I don't think that was what he meant.

You may assume that, if you wish, but it would be a false assumption. I never applauded their deaths, innocent deaths are a sad fact of war. That is harsh, I know, but it is the truth.

I see. It's a false assumption when I assume you applaud death by supporting war, but it's a correct assumption when you assume that by opposing war, Keru (or anyone else) applauds death?

Keru says he opposes the war. You imply it's bad to support the deaths of innocent Iraqis. Then you say you are for the war, and that the deaths of innocent Iraqis is "sad" but you implicitly support it. So which is it? Are you in this to prevent the deaths of innocent Iraqis, or cause them?

Because you know, the insurgents haven't killed as many innocent Iraqis as the invasion.

I see. It's a false assumption when I assume you applaud death by supporting war, but it's a correct assumption when you assume that by opposing war, Keru (or anyone else) applauds death?

Keru says he opposes the war. You imply it's bad to support the deaths of innocent Iraqis. Then you say you are for the war, and that the deaths of innocent Iraqis is "sad" but you implicitly support it. So which is it? Are you in this to prevent the deaths of innocent Iraqis, or cause them?

Because you know, the insurgents haven't killed as many innocent Iraqis as the invasion.

That is debatable.

I support the war because I believe in freedom and democracy.

I support the war because I believe in freedom and democracy.
Naw, sorry mate.

Never met a person who supported this war for those reasons. Australians, Germans, Americans...everyone I talked to decided either for or against this war along partisan lines.

Face it, you supported the war because the US Government supported it. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the way people use the words "freedom" and "democracy" these days, it just devalues some very worthwhile concepts.

That is debatable.

I support the war because I believe in freedom and democracy.

Fuck yeah it's debatable, but you're not debating it.

You didn't answer the question. Are you, or are you not, in favor of the deaths of innocent Iraqis?

Naw, sorry mate.

Never met a person who supported this war for those reasons. Australians, Germans, Americans...everyone I talked to decided either for or against this war along partisan lines.

Face it, you supported the war because the US Government supported it. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the way people use the words "freedom" and "democracy" these days, it just devalues some very worthwhile concepts.

Well you just met one.

Fuck yeah it's debatable, but you're not debating it.

You didn't answer the question. Are you, or are you not, in favor of the deaths of innocent Iraqis?

You are forcing me to answer a question to which no answer is really right. I do not support their deliberate killing, but if they die by accident as a result of Coalition or Insurgent fire then that is the sad cost of war.

Well you just met one.
So then, I have a neat list for you which you should have a look at. If you start making up justifications, you have your answer.

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

You are forcing me to answer a question to which no answer is really right. I do not support their deliberate killing, but if they die by accident as a result of Coalition or Insurgent fire then that is the sad cost of war.

Yet you support the war. So, you support the "accidental" killing of tens of thousands. You pay lip service to how "sad" this is, but that's all it is - lip service.

There IS a right answer to this, you see. It's this: deaths of innocent civilians = bad. Invading and Occupying Iraq = deaths of innocent civilians. Invading and Occupying Iraq = bad.

[Especially as there wasn't an "insurgency" until we began occupying the nation. A move that was totally unnecessary even if you see the removal of Saddam as necessary. (And I generally do.)]

Basically, you slammed Keruvalia for "applauding" the deaths of innocent Iraqis, yet the policies you yourself support cause those very deaths of those very innocents.

So then, I have a neat list for you which you should have a look at. If you start making up justifications, you have your answer.

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm

While the list is certainly vast, it is not detailed. It not giving reasoning for any of the actions, and it would make it seem like they were all down for the wrong reasons. Overall, a piece of shit source.

Yet you support the war. So, you support the "accidental" killing of tens of thousands. You pay lip service to how "sad" this is, but that's all it is - lip service.

There IS a right answer to this, you see. It's this: deaths of innocent civilians = bad. Invading and Occupying Iraq = deaths of innocent civilians. Invading and Occupying Iraq = bad.

[Especially as there wasn't an "insurgency" until we began occupying the nation. A move that was totally unnecessary even if you see the removal of Saddam as necessary. (And I generally do.)]

Basically, you slammed Keruvalia for "applauding" the deaths of innocent Iraqis, yet the policies you yourself support cause those very deaths of those very innocents.

It is well that war is so terrible— otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

So then, I have a neat list for you which you should have a look at. If you start making up justifications, you have your answer.

http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/interventions.htm
You forgot Iraq!! :D

While the list is certainly vast, it is not detailed. It not giving reasoning for any of the actions, and it would make it seem like they were all down for the wrong reasons. Overall, a piece of shit source.
"Reasoning"? What "reasoning"?

Either you want freedom and democracy, or you want US interests. You can't have both.

"Reasoning"? What "reasoning"?

Either you want freedom and democracy, or you want US interests. You can't have both.

I support freedom and democracy, I am Canadian not American. I was pointing out that your list gives no reasons for any of the actions listed, merely picking them because US forces were involved.

It is well that war is so terrible— otherwise we should grow too fond of it.
So why wage it?

It is well that war is so terrible— otherwise we should grow too fond of it.

Nice quote. Robert E. Lee, right?

Unfortunately, this isn't the ACW anymore. War may be terrible for the innocents who "accidentally" and "sadly" get bombed or mined or otherwise killed. But for the most advanced and powerful military in the world, it's much less of a problem. Heck, for those of us sitting at home watching it on TV, it's actually entertaining is it not?

So might not your Robert E. Lee quote be actually saying that war is not so terrible (for us) and that that is why we're fond of it? You know, having invaded two countries this past administration so far, with a third possible, it does seem that we - and people like you - are awful fond of war.

Nice quote. Robert E. Lee, right?

Unfortunately, this isn't the ACW anymore. War may be terrible for the innocents who "accidentally" and "sadly" get bombed or mined or otherwise killed. But for the most advanced and powerful military in the world, it's much less of a problem. Heck, for those of us sitting at home watching it on TV, it's actually entertaining is it not?

So might not your Robert E. Lee quote be actually saying that war is not so terrible (for us) and that that is why we're fond of it? You know, having invaded two countries this past administration so far, with a third possible, it does seem that we - and people like you - are awful fond of war.

The effects of war are terrible, but what it can achieve can be amazing if used correctly.

It is obvious that the war should never have happened that the reasons Bush gave were bullshit. Now that the Iraqis have a government we need to let them decide their own fate. We have no business staying there propping up a government if it can't stand on its own. If it can then we should leave before killing any more Iraqi civilians and having more of our own soldiers die.

So, the quick answer: hell no, the war in Iraq was not worth it.

I support freedom and democracy, I am Canadian not American. I was pointing out that your list gives no reasons for any of the actions listed, merely picking them because US forces were involved.
Don't you see that by trying to impose "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East, we're really kicking over a giant hornet's nest, because they obviously don't want "freedom and democracy." Why do we want them to have "freedom and democracy" when they don't? All we're doing in the Middle East is actively and agressively carrying out actions in our own interest, and that is doing nothing, but upsetting the world. This war accomplished nothing. Sure, Saddam's out, but is it really a better place there? Obviously not.

It is obvious that the war should never have happened that the reasons Bush gave were bullshit. Now that the Iraqis have a government we need to let them decide their own fate. We have no business staying there propping up a government if it can't stand on its own. If it can then we should leave before killing any more Iraqi civilians and having more of our own soldiers die.

So, the quick answer: hell no, the war in Iraq was not worth it.

I really must try to dig up that article from the post-war occupation of Germany, might prove useful in this thread.

Don't you see that by trying to impose "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East, we're really kicking over a giant hornet's nest, because they obviously don't want "freedom and democracy." Why do we want them to have "freedom and democracy" when they don't? All we're doing in the Middle East is actively and agressively carrying out actions in our own interest, and that is doing nothing, but upsetting the world. This war accomplished nothing. Sure, Saddam's out, but is it really a better place there? Obviously not.

We will see who was right in time.

I really must try to dig up that article from the post-war occupation of Germany, might prove useful in this thread.
Germany != Iraq. Last time I checked the Germans weren't fundamentalist Muslims as angry as the people are in the Middle East right now.

We will see who was right in time.
Exactly, and for the sake of humanity, I do hope I'm wrong.

Germany != Iraq. Last time I checked the Germans weren't fundamentalist Muslims as angry as the people are in the Middle East right now.

True, but it should still be interesting to read.

I really must try to dig up that article from the post-war occupation of Germany, might prove useful in this thread.
That is the absolute best-case ideal scenario.
Don't count on it - the similarities are far outshone by the differences.

I really must try to dig up that article from the post-war occupation of Germany, might prove useful in this thread.

I don't see how Germany and Iraq can be compared. Totally different situations.

The effects of war are terrible, but what it can achieve can be amazing if used correctly.

Yeah, like tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed.

(See, I can come up with one-line responses too. How was that one?)

That is the absolute best-case ideal scenario.
Don't count on it - the similarities are far outshone by the differences.

After just 3 years people are calling for us to cut and run? After less than 3,000 Coalition dead, people are already calling defeat. There is something very wrong with our culture.

Yeah, like tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed.

(See, I can come up with one-line responses too. How was that one?)

It was fine.

I don't think the war in Iraq was worth it. Saddam wasn't a threat to the USA, but the terrorists who are getting combat experience and networking with other terrorists in Iraq are a threat...no threat huh?

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says

Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html

After just 3 years people are calling for us to cut and run? After less than 3,000 Coalition dead, people are already calling defeat. There is something very wrong with our culture.
Since you're Canadian, I don't think you are being called to do anything anyway.

Note that I am not calling for anyone to leave, because now the best possible result needs to be achieved with the situation we've got on our hands.

As for the 3000 dead...if you actually take those numbers, and compare them to those of the USSR's war in Afghanistan, they are remarkably similar. And people call that a defeat, don't they?

Whether or not anything has been one will remain to be seen.

Since you're Canadian, I don't think you are being called to do anything anyway.

Note that I am not calling for anyone to leave, because now the best possible result needs to be achieved with the situation we've got on our hands.

As for the 3000 dead...if you actually take those numbers, and compare them to those of the USSR's war in Afghanistan, they are remarkably similar. And people call that a defeat, don't they?

Whether or not anything has been one will remain to be seen.

Again, it has only been three years. Alot could happen in the next three, if we remain and help the Iraqi government secure itself.

I really must try to dig up that article from the post-war occupation of Germany, might prove useful in this thread.check out these:
LIFE (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential2/life.Par.0001.ImageFile.jpg)
assorted articles (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential2/newsoccupationww2.Par.0001.ImageFile.gif)

After just 3 years people are calling for us to cut and run? After less than 3,000 Coalition dead, people are already calling defeat. There is something very wrong with our culture.

You disgust me. "less than 3,000 coalition dead," ONE IS TOO MANY! Soldiers' lives are not just statistics for people like you to use to decide if we should "cut and run" yet.

The only true defeat is to continue a struggle that CANNOT BE WON. The Iraqis do not want us there, and there is no real good that can come of us staying there as we are, so we should leave as fast as we safetly can. No true American would call that a defeat.

This is highly unlikely, as the Al Qaeda-esque organisations specialise in "spectaculars" against very high profile targets. Therefore the US will always be a prime priority target, with its assets in Europe second and so on. Plus theres the risk of one or two individuals outraged at events just acting spontaneously.

New York is always the prime target. Even a gas attack or a dirty bomb (say) on the subway in Grand Central could very well hit most if not all of the targets I mentioned. Heck, how about in a FedEx truck at the corner of 3rd and 42nd? You don't think attacking a million people in midtown Manhattan at noon on a random workday wouldn't be spectacular? :confused:

Sorry if I sound a little more paranoid that most, by then our business *was* six blocks from the WTC when the planes flew in.

Sorry if I sound a little more paranoid that most, by then our business *was* six blocks from the WTC when the planes flew in.
And yet, you are more likely to get killed by bees.

And yet, you are more likely to get killed by bees.

That's no comfort at all to any of us that knew people there and saw it happen.

That's no comfort at all to any of us that knew people there and saw it happen.
Maybe not, but that's not what it's about either. It's about keeping these things in perspective.

Terrorism is a ridiculously small threat to us. Yet our response is huge, violent and probably entirely disproportionate.

You need to remember that the next time some moron from the government asks you to support something "...because of the durrn turrists!"

[x] No, it wasnt right(not American)

It was definitely *very* wrong :mad: They just used a ridiculously made up excuse to invade the country and raid it for it's ressources (mostly oil). How pitiful.
No wonder the Muslims are so pissed at the US.

Maybe not, but that's not what it's about either. It's about keeping these things in perspective.

Terrorism is a ridiculously small threat to us. Yet our response is huge, violent and probably entirely disproportionate.

You need to remember that the next time some moron from the government asks you to support something "...because of the durrn turrists!"

Terrorism DOES effect us. It's been effecting us for 40 years, and it's only been recently that the US has decided to take notice. The IRA achieved nothing for decades. Nor has Al-Quaeda or the Taleban, other than inflicting pain (both direct and indirect) on innocent people.
Indeed, the only instances when terrorists achieve their goals is when the other side decides to quit. What GOOD has terrorism done for the world? Does blowing up innocent people in trains or buildings or planes advance an agenda? How about assaulting athletes at an Olympic Games, which are supposed to be all about PEACE and GOODWILL??

You need to remember that next time some moron from Hollywood asks you to protest something "because of that durn hick Bush and his lust for oil!"

[x] No, it wasnt right(not American)

It was definitely *very* wrong :mad: They just used a ridiculously made up excuse to invade the country and raid it for it's ressources (mostly oil). How pitiful.
No wonder the Muslims are so pissed at the US.

Yep. That explains the entire Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire: Bush wanted oil. :rolleyes: Thank goodness that we can blame Bush for the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa and the 1993 WTC bombing! :headbang:

No ti wasn't right, and I've already explained why, (On a verity of your threads UN,) persoanlly I think your using this to pedal your ideas of hate and rascism.

Yep. That explains the entire Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire: Bush wanted oil. :rolleyes: Thank goodness that we can blame Bush for the attacks on the US Embassies in Africa and the 1993 WTC bombing! :headbang:
Actually, maybe you can blame Bush. Bush Senior that is:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html

In 1990, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Saudi government allowed American troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was incensed that non-believers (American soldiers) were stationed in the birthplace of Islam. He also charged the Saudi regime with deviating from true Islam.

Bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991 because of his anti-government activities. He eventually wound up in Sudan, where he worked with Egyptian radical groups in exile.

Anti-U.S. Attacks

In 1992 bin Laden claimed responsibility for attempting to bomb U.S. soldiers in Yemen and for attacking U.S. troops in Somalia the following year. In 1994 pressure from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia prompted Sudan to expel bin Laden, and he returned to Afghanistan.

In 1998 bin Laden called for all Americans and Jews, including children, to be killed. He has since been accused of increasing his terrorist activities, such as the 1998 bombings at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The date, Aug. 7, was the anniversary of the deployment of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia.

Where did Bin Laden get funding and training from? Oh yeah, the CIA

Bin Laden comes home to roost (http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1)

At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback.

Common denominator = Bush

And yet, you are more likely to get killed by bees.

And as a young male I'm more likely to kill myself than I am to be killed by terrorists.

They just used a ridiculously made up excuse to invade the country and raid it for it's ressources (mostly oil). How pitiful.

You know, that's the sort of quote that makes me want to support the PRO-war side. It's utterly moronic, because no matter what happened the US simply wasn't going to get ahold of that oil. The US COULD NOT simply annex the country, which is the only way to get the resources. Of all the things the war was about, Oil was least on the list.

Which was not to say it was a good war. It was a war that, very simply, had no good reason to be fought. Therefore it was not worth fighting.

You know, that's the sort of quote that makes me want to support the PRO-war side. It's utterly moronic, because no matter what happened the US simply wasn't going to get ahold of that oil. The US COULD NOT simply annex the country, which is the only way to get the resources. Of all the things the war was about, Oil was least on the list.


We couldn't simply have the new government give our oil companies rights to large portions of their oil fields? We don't have to formally annex Iraq to do that. Isn't that what all the Western nations did after WWI? Took control of the oil away from the Middle Eastern nations?

Actually, maybe you can blame Bush. Bush Senior that is:

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/osamabinladen.html

In 1990, in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the Saudi government allowed American troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was incensed that non-believers (American soldiers) were stationed in the birthplace of Islam. He also charged the Saudi regime with deviating from true Islam.

Bin Laden was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991 because of his anti-government activities. He eventually wound up in Sudan, where he worked with Egyptian radical groups in exile.

...so, it's Bush (41)'s fault that the Saudis expelled him instead of JAILING him?!? After the Coalition *saved* SA & liberated Kuwait from Iraqi agression?!? ROTFLMAO!

No President is a saint (particularly not that one), but can I try on those glasses you're wearing? ;)


Anti-U.S. Attacks

In 1992 bin Laden claimed responsibility for attempting to bomb U.S. soldiers in Yemen and for attacking U.S. troops in Somalia the following year. In 1994 pressure from the U.S. and Saudi Arabia prompted Sudan to expel bin Laden, and he returned to Afghanistan.

In 1998 bin Laden called for all Americans and Jews, including children, to be killed. He has since been accused of increasing his terrorist activities, such as the 1998 bombings at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The date, Aug. 7, was the anniversary of the deployment of U.S. troops to Saudi Arabia.

Yep. That's the reason we've got to capture/kill this guy.

Where did Bin Laden get funding and training from? Oh yeah, the CIA

Bin Laden comes home to roost (http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1)

Timing is everything... the US used Saddam to fight the Iranians. They used Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. So what? When did the CIA last give him cash??

At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback.

Common denominator = Bush

Yep. And? Was the US wrong to support the USSR against the Nazis, too? (Yes, that's from that same article...)

Common denominator = US foreign policy.

We couldn't simply have the new government give our oil companies rights to large portions of their oil fields? We don't have to formally annex Iraq to do that. Isn't that what all the Western nations did after WWI? Took control of the oil away from the Middle Eastern nations?
And people wonder why Muslims don't like the Western world.

You know, that's the sort of quote that makes me want to support the PRO-war side. It's utterly moronic, because no matter what happened the US simply wasn't going to get ahold of that oil. The US COULD NOT simply annex the country, which is the only way to get the resources. Of all the things the war was about, Oil was least on the list.

Which was not to say it was a good war. It was a war that, very simply, had no good reason to be fought. Therefore it was not worth fighting.
Oil? (http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3071521/)

Who said anything about the Iraq War being about Oil (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18841-2002Sep14&notFound=true)?

Surely, it was about WMD and not Oil (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1122-03.htm)?

Then again, maybe Wolfowitz was right and that the Iraq war was about oil (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/aboutoil.htm)?

I don't think the war in Iraq made a whole lot of sense for anyone in America. If the reason was to create democracy in the mideast, they were already occupying Afghanistan (which was a perfectly legitimate action in my view), and could have used Afghanistan as their 'blueprint for democracy.'

If it was about weapons of mass destruction, then the Bush administration wouldn't really have had to try too hard to find evidence, as opposed to the arm-twisting it took to cough up 'evidence.'

If it was about keeping the cost of oil down, it doesn't seem to be working. Not to mention the hidden tax on gas, called the American Military.

From what I can tell, the average Iraqi likes the idea of democracy, but not Americans. It's time America started pulling out. It's a waste of money, lives, resources, to 'defend' a people who don't even want them there.

We couldn't simply have the new government give our oil companies rights to large portions of their oil fields? We don't have to formally annex Iraq to do that. Isn't that what all the Western nations did after WWI? Took control of the oil away from the Middle Eastern nations?

Not really, no. Pre-WWI all of the Middle East was conquered territory of one of the Great Powers, and this was also true after WWI - just a different one of the Great Powers. As colonies, they didn't have any say in what happened to their resources.

But today, colonisation is considered extremely distasteful. And the simple fact is, you can't tell an independent government what to do with their own resources, because sooner or later they'll just tell you to stuff it. The Suez fiasco is the perfect example; while France and Britain could have retaken the canal, so much shit dropped on their heads for trying it the whole thing ground to a halt.

Unless the US annexed Iraq, Iraq was always going to be able to decide where it's oil went and for what. And the US planners knew that going in.

Unless the US annexed Iraq, Iraq was always going to be able to decide where it's oil went and for what. And the US planners knew that going in.
...which is why the U.S. soldiers who first went in to "liberate" the country were told to guard the oil fields? Not the museums of priceless artifacts dating back to the dawn of civilization, not the infrastructure, but oil fields?

Not really, no. Pre-WWI all of the Middle East was conquered territory of one of the Great Powers, and this was also true after WWI - just a different one of the Great Powers. As colonies, they didn't have any say in what happened to their resources.

From what I remember the only true colonies were what became Syria, Lebanon, Palestine. The countries that had oil were propped up government, but not a true colony. Still they got their independence but the Western control remained. The Western nations managed to keep a lock on oil in the region until the Arab countries got sick of it and formed OPEC to contorl their own oil.

Because once the Oil Fields are back in production, Iraq should be able to rebuild fairly quickly. That's also why the insurgents target the fields - they don't want the situation to get better.

Also, it's a lot easier to rebuild a museum than it is to snuff and cap a burning oil well.

Oh, and Utracia, you're thinking of post World War TWO. Even Saudi was an occupied colony post WWI.

...so, it's Bush (41)'s fault that the Saudis expelled him instead of JAILING him?!? After the Coalition *saved* SA & liberated Kuwait from Iraqi agression?!? ROTFLMAO!

No President is a saint (particularly not that one), but can I try on those glasses you're wearing? ;)
Mine are transitional lenses. Apparently yours are rose coloured?

Yep. That's the reason we've got to capture/kill this guy.
Yup, after being trained and fed by Bushco, they finally realize the errors of their ways.

Timing is everything... the US used Saddam to fight the Iranians. They used Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. So what? When did the CIA last give him cash??
The fact is that the US and Bushco created a monster, and you can't see that according to your previous post?

Yep. And? Was the US wrong to support the USSR against the Nazis, too? (Yes, that's from that same article...)
Nope, not from same article at all, or you just read it wrong?

At the bottom of the article that you misread is this:

Given that context, a decision was made to provide America’s potential enemies with the arms, money - and most importantly - the knowledge of how to run a war of attrition violent and well-organized enough to humble a superpower.

That decision is coming home to roost.

Common denominator = US foreign policy.
Common denominator = Bushco's failed US foreign policies.

Because once the Oil Fields are back in production, Iraq should be able to rebuild fairly quickly. That's also why the insurgents target the fields - they don't want the situation to get better.
They want the situation to get better, they just want the U.S. out first.
Also, it's a lot easier to rebuild a museum than it is to snuff and cap a burning oil well.
And recover every priceless artifact that was stolen?

Any action taken against Hussein should have been a purely UN endevour...

And with the wonderful job they've done with the genocides going on in Africa, they might actually have become a threat when Saddam's great grandson was about to pass on the family's dictatorship franchise.

...which is why the U.S. soldiers who first went in to "liberate" the country were told to guard the oil fields? Not the museums of priceless artifacts dating back to the dawn of civilization, not the infrastructure, but oil fields?
Yup, I do remember Bush's speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html):

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

I wonder when the war criminals will be prosecuted????

What is the problem with protecting the oil fields?! They are definitely the ONLY worldly thing the Iraqi people have going for themselves now that they are free.

I think every American owes a very big THANK YOU to our president for taking the war to the terrorists, which has definitely kept more radicals over there rather than here.

For all of you "Bring home the troops now" Fu**tards: Have you forgotten? The twin towers, our Pentagon, the brave souls that crashed in PA---The USS Cole---The US Embassy---and every other terrorist action that killed Americans?! Since we took the fight to them, how many major acts have terrorism have we seen in the US?

Before you reply to this with a nasty message, just sit back and thank God you are sleeping in a bed tonight, for many of our troop, who are proud to protect us over in Iraq, are sleeping in the mud, sand, or propped up against a truck. Before you criticize me, have you stood a post for this country? Thank you if you have.

Yup, I do remember Bush's speech (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html):

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."

I wonder when the war criminals will be prosecuted????

They are being prosecuted.

...which is why the U.S. soldiers who first went in to "liberate" the country were told to guard the oil fields? Not the museums of priceless artifacts dating back to the dawn of civilization, not the infrastructure, but oil fields?

Because you don't build an economy on priceless artifacts.

Depends on whether or not you're in the arms manufacturing business.

What is the problem with protecting the oil fields?! They are definitely the ONLY worldly thing the Iraqi people have going for themselves now that they are free.

I think every American owes a very big THANK YOU to our president for taking the war to the terrorists, which has definitely kept more radicals over there rather than here.

For all of you "Bring home the troops now" Fu**tards: Have you forgotten? The twin towers, our Pentagon, the brave souls that crashed in PA---The USS Cole---The US Embassy---and every other terrorist action that killed Americans?! Since we took the fight to them, how many major acts have terrorism have we seen in the US?

Before you reply to this with a nasty message, just sit back and thank God you are sleeping in a bed tonight, for many of our troop, who are proud to protect us over in Iraq, are sleeping in the mud, sand, or propped up against a truck. Before you criticize me, have you stood a post for this country? Thank you if you have.
I have, several times, just check my posts

the reason we are told we went to war was for the oil but in reality, experts say in best case senario, we only have 50 years of oil supply left on earth. The war is simply a way to influence american democracy onto the "less priveledged" in waring 3rd world countires

now was it worth it? i dont think so
But was it the right thing to do? absolutely, the results that have been coming from the war have had significant effects on the freedoms of the iraqi ppl. For the first time in history over half the population had voted on issues they felt right

For all of you "Bring home the troops now" Fu**tards: Have you forgotten? The twin towers, our Pentagon, the brave souls that crashed in PA---The USS Cole---The US Embassy---and every other terrorist action that killed Americans?! Since we took the fight to them, how many major acts have terrorism have we seen in the US?

Before you reply to this with a nasty message, just sit back and thank God you are sleeping in a bed tonight, for many of our troop, who are proud to protect us over in Iraq, are sleeping in the mud, sand, or propped up against a truck. Before you criticize me, have you stood a post for this country? Thank you if you have.

I HAVE stood watch for my country, Brad. I served in the marines for eight years, and have nothing but pride for my service and my fellow soldiers around the world.

That doesn't change the fact that our elected representatives TOTALLY FUCKED THIS ONE UP! There were no WMDs, and Hussein was NOT aiding and abetting the terrorists. The reason there have been no major strikes against the US since the invasion are A) our fine security services got a wake up call (hey, it happens to everybody, you can't be alert 24/7) and B) we're flypapering the stupidest ones in Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't forget though, that the smart ones can still hit us, and have, in London, Bali, Madrid...these places hurt the US through our allies, who don't have our resources to protect them - because we're wasting our time, money and energy fighting a war that didn't need to be fought.

Afghanistan had a point. Iraq does not. Unfortunately, we really can't leave a job half-done, so we need to get Iraq back on it's feet as soon as we possibly can.

I think every American owes a very big THANK YOU to our president for taking the war to the terrorists, which has definitely kept more radicals over there rather than here.

For all of you "Bring home the troops now" Fu**tards: Have you forgotten? The twin towers, our Pentagon, the brave souls that crashed in PA---The USS Cole---The US Embassy---and every other terrorist action that killed Americans?! Since we took the fight to them, how many major acts have terrorism have we seen in the US?

Two points: The war in Iraq is not a part of 'taking the war to the terrorists' - Iraq had little or no connection to terrorist in the first place.
The attack on the USS Cole was by definition not an act of terrorism.

the reason we are told we went to war was for the oil but in reality, experts say in best case senario, we only have 50 years of oil supply left on earth. The war is simply a way to influence american democracy onto the "less priveledged" in waring 3rd world countires

now was it worth it? i dont think so
But was it the right thing to do? absolutely, the results that have been coming from the war have had significant effects on the freedoms of the iraqi ppl. For the first time in history over half the population had voted on issues they felt right

We have at least 200 years of oil supply left.

What is the problem with protecting the oil fields?! They are definitely the ONLY worldly thing the Iraqi people have going for themselves now that they are free.

I think every American owes a very big THANK YOU to our president for taking the war to the terrorists, which has definitely kept more radicals over there rather than here.

For all of you "Bring home the troops now" Fu**tards: Have you forgotten? The twin towers, our Pentagon, the brave souls that crashed in PA---The USS Cole---The US Embassy---and every other terrorist action that killed Americans?! Since we took the fight to them, how many major acts have terrorism have we seen in the US?

Before you reply to this with a nasty message, just sit back and thank God you are sleeping in a bed tonight, for many of our troop, who are proud to protect us over in Iraq, are sleeping in the mud, sand, or propped up against a truck. Before you criticize me, have you stood a post for this country? Thank you if you have.

i completely agree with u, war is a necessity that makes the world go round. Not only have u forgotten about the pentagon, world trade towers, and various terrosit attacks on american embassies that ppl have forgotten over the years but the reason you are allowed to speak the ways you [anti-military people] do is becaus eof the military. Why do u have freedom of speech, why arent u prosectued for actions that in other countries u would be hanged for. American Government/militry is taking every responsibilty to help the american ppl, Instead of ridiculing them we should salute their efforts.

You fucks who say bring home the troops, down with bush, the war is wrong, stfu. Its proven that if we stop the war there they will just bring the war onto American Soil!

There's no right way to enforce imperialism. That's it. The Iraq war was a result of a neo-colonial policy intended to defend our "way of life" or standard of living at the expense of other people. And don't go thinking Afghanistan was a benevolent, just war. Our government's policy created the problem in the Middle East, the terrorists were lashing out at America because they have every goddamn right to be pissed at our government. Does that mean I support Al Qaeda? No, because I'm not a militant fundamentalist Muslim. But it does mean I understand why they feel the way they do about America, and it does mean I support ending any foreign policy that treats people (not countries, people) as tools for profit or the maintenance of the American standard of living.

We have at least 200 years of oil supply left.
source?

i completely agree with u, war is a necessity that makes the world go round. Not only have u forgotten about the pentagon, world trade towers, and various terrosit attacks on american embassies that ppl have forgotten over the years but the reason you are allowed to speak the ways you [anti-military people] do is becaus eof the military. Why do u have freedom of speech, why arent u prosectued for actions that in other countries u would be hanged for. American Government/militry is taking every responsibilty to help the american ppl, Instead of ridiculing them we should salute their efforts. It is not because of the military there is freedom of speech. It is an integral part of the democratic system, and it is because of democracy that such freedoms exists in the west today. Sure, you can argue that the military has been a useful tool in safeguarding these freedoms, but the military is not a prerequisite for a democratic system.

You fucks who say bring home the troops, down with bush, the war is wrong, stfu. Its proven that if we stop the war there they will just bring the war onto American Soil!

The war is wrong. You're not arguing against that position with a 'stfu'. And how exactly is it proven that if you end the war (in Iraq?) you will bring the war onto American soil?

Two points: The war in Iraq is not a part of 'taking the war to the terrorists' - Iraq had little or no connection to terrorist in the first place.
The attack on the USS Cole was by definition not an act of terrorism.


"Little or no connection to terrorists in the first place."

Are you in the same reality as the rest of us? (Sincere question) I mean, there are those people who choose not to think and simply chant, "Blood for Oil!", (how stupid do they look now, btw?) Anyway, back to the no connection. Saddam is a terrorist. How much more can he get connected? And, "terrorists, or those who harbor them". But then I'm sure you'll say that Iraq, under Saddam, never harbored any naughty boys. Even though his former Generals, like Sada, would beg to disagree with you. But what do they know, they must be American puppets...

And, "by definition, not an act of terrorism". The people who bombed the ship were not part of any recognized military force. Therefore they were terrorists. Terrorists, committing an act of violence against unsuspecting people is not terrorism. Cool. Anyone feel like riding a bus in Israel today?

Mine are transitional lenses. Apparently yours are rose coloured?

Yup, after being trained and fed by Bushco, they finally realize the errors of their ways.

The fact is that the US and Bushco created a monster, and you can't see that according to your previous post?

Nope, not from same article at all, or you just read it wrong?

At the bottom of the article that you misread is this:

Given that context, a decision was made to provide America’s potential enemies with the arms, money - and most importantly - the knowledge of how to run a war of attrition violent and well-organized enough to humble a superpower.

That decision is coming home to roost.

Common denominator = Bushco's failed US foreign policies.

Yes, I agree Bin Laden was a US creation. So was Saddam and Noriega. In case you've not noticed, when someone funds a side in a confrontation, the attack dog often turns on it's erstwile benefactors once the cash and goodies stop. The US had a bad habit of dropping places it fundeded -- which later created the reasons for which the US had to go BACK and deal with Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Heck, I'm amazed that Columbia hasn't erupted.

However, your arguement that the US "should have known better" back in the 80s is hindsighted. That's like me saying that those four Canadian mounties that were (tragically) shot to death about a year ago should have known better and not approached the house.

We've had this exact same debate before, you know.

...which is why the U.S. soldiers who first went in to "liberate" the country were told to guard the oil fields? Not the museums of priceless artifacts dating back to the dawn of civilization, not the infrastructure, but oil fields?

Oil fields are nice, wide open areas that are relatively easy to patrol. The museum is in the middle of a city. Much harder to defend. Never mind that tanks can blow away Toyotas or whatever crossing the desert to attack the field, but are useless against mobs where you actually care that you not inflict lots of casualties or destroy what you're guarding.

Also, the US *has* stepped in and has worked to find the missing artefacts! Led by Matthew Bogdanos: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5024219

BTW: oil fields are infrastructure. And you'd need *millions of soldiers* to do it, not the paltry 100k the US invaded with.

I support the war because I believe in freedom and democracy.

If they had more people like you....well who knows, I'd emmigrate to mars before I had the chance to find out.


I do not support their deliberate killing, but if they die by accident as a result of Coalition or Insurgent fire then that is the sad cost of war..

It is true to say that the innocent will always die in any war, regardless of intent. It also true to say that this is a strong reason to make war a method of last resort. Bearing in mind that there were no WMD and no Al Qaeda link to justify the war, (and that the aftermath of the war was never adequately planned for thus leading to more suffering) isnt it then the case that those deaths need not have occurred at all?

Russia Warned U.S. About Iraq, Putin Says
..

A statement that he made while on a US visit and that contradicted his earlier ones on the matter Odd that the British intelligence makes no mention of it whatsoever. I'd say vladmir was being a good guest.


The IRA achieved nothing for decades...
An end to the sectarian regime at stormont, decades of discrimination, the disbandment of the B specials, UDR and RIR, orange mobs going on a rampage and burning out catholics.....


I think every American owes a very big THANK YOU to our president for taking the war to the terrorists, which has definitely kept more radicals over there rather than here. ...

Well "Brad" I'm not an American, so the only thing I owe George is a swift kick in the bollocks. As CIA stats say worldwide terror incidents have risen since the invasion, I wouldnt take bets on the "over there" bit.


Since we took the fight to them, how many major acts have terrorism have we seen in the US?...

That was Afghanistan...different country "Brad" baby...........


just sit back and thank God

God? What the fuck has the invisible man got to do with it? Spare me.


Anyone feel like riding a bus in Israel today?

Its a lot safer than one in the occupied territories....and I'd rather have children on it that in an Arab classroom in Gaza or the West bank.

I am strongly against the Iraqi war. I was and still am a full supporter of the anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan because the region was more volatile than Iraq. I believe, Saddam's government was more rational than the Taliban, (meaning, would Saddam have ignored America's demand to give up Osama Bin Laden if he was in Iraq?). Iraq under Saddam would have been a great ally for the West against Iran (and for some time in the past, it was). Now, with Saddam gone, Iraq is run by folks (mostly Shias) that have lived in Iran for decades who had become Irani sympathizers. Sadly, now, the once secular Iraq is now becoming little Iran or a mini-me of Iran. With what is going on in Iraq, constant terrorist activities, the region (middle-east) in overall has become more unstable and countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Israel, and even Iran) that should be relieved after Saddam's capture are or should be thinking otherwise. The hotel bombings in Jordan last year were related with Iraqis who came across the border into Jordan. Iraq is now more dangerous than when Saddam was siting on his golden chair, it's a no mans-land. There are places where even American troops don't dare go unless they recieve a full back-up from tanks, and air-cover. Although I'm against the Iraqi war, I'm not for leaving Iraq in amidst the chaos, that's far more worse. The world should not let America bleed in Iraq, we should all be involved in the Iraq war and route out these terrorists. It's not the average American soldier who has to pay the consequences of Bushe's mistakes, nor should they get the fault for it. They (American soldiers) are following orders, that's their job, they are not piad to question orders from higher chain of command. When two people are fighting in public, just standing there and doing nothing as a bystander is no excuse, and I believe the same goes for the rest of the world just watching this fight (or war) and not doing nothing, it's no excuse.

I am strongly against the Iraqi war. I was and still am a full supporter of the anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan because the region was more volatile than Iraq. I believe, Saddam's government was more rational than the Taliban, (meaning, would Saddam have ignored America's demand to give up Osama Bin Laden if he was in Iraq?). Iraq under Saddam would have been a great ally for the West against Iran (and for some time in the past, it was). Now, with Saddam gone, Iraq is run by folks (mostly Shias) that have lived in Iran for decades who had become Irani sympathizers. Sadly, now, the once secular Iraq is now becoming little Iran or a mini-me of Iran. With what is going on in Iraq, constant terrorist activities, the region (middle-east) in overall has become more unstable and countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, Israel, and even Iran) that should be relieved after Saddam's capture are or should be thinking otherwise. The hotel bombings in Jordan last year were related with Iraqis who came across the border into Jordan. Iraq is now more dangerous than when Saddam was siting on his golden chair, it's a no mans-land. There are places where even American troops don't dare go unless they recieve a full back-up from tanks, and air-cover. Although I'm against the Iraqi war, I'm not for leaving Iraq in amidst the chaos, that's far more worse. The world should not let America bleed in Iraq, we should all be involved in the Iraq war and route out these terrorists. It's not the average American soldier who has to pay the consequences of Bushe's mistakes, nor should they get the fault for it. They (American soldiers) are following orders, that's their job, they are not piad to question orders from higher chain of command. When two people are fighting in public, just standing there and doing nothing as a bystander is no excuse, and I believe the same goes for the rest of the world just watching this fight (or war) and not doing nothing, it's no excuse.

This is by far the most sensible anti-Iraq war post I've ever read. Why? Because yours are well thought out arguements that aren't parroting pundits.

Bravo! I don't agree with all of your points, but I see how how derived them.

Saddam is a terrorist. How much more can he get connected? And, "terrorists, or those who harbor them". But then I'm sure you'll say that Iraq, under Saddam, never harbored any naughty boys.

Anyone feel like riding a bus in Israel today?
In what way was Saddam a terrorist, he was secular muslim who hated threats to his regime. name a group he harbored please

Anyone feel like being under brutual occupation to the point where your best option is to kill yourself?

The attack on the USS Cole was by definition not an act of terrorism.
then what was it a love tap with a firecracker?

"Little or no connection to terrorists in the first place."
*sigh*

Are you in the same reality as the rest of us? (Sincere question)
I don't know, how many of you are there? Are you even real? You could be a figment of my imagination for all I know. Then again, maybe I'm a figment of your imagination - the voice inside your head? And how do you know that you're in the same reality as the rest of them? :eek: Anyway...

I mean, there are those people who choose not to think and simply chant, "Blood for Oil!", (how stupid do they look now, btw?)
I have no idea what you are talking about... Blood for oil? :confused:

Anyway, back to the no connection. Saddam is a terrorist. How much more can he get connected? And, "terrorists, or those who harbor them". But then I'm sure you'll say that Iraq, under Saddam, never harbored any naughty boys. Even though his former Generals, like Sada, would beg to disagree with you. But what do they know, they must be American puppets...

Proof? Any links to verify that Saddam actively "harbored any naughty boys"? Sada is currently selling a book on the supposed transfer of WMD from Iraq to Syria, a claim unsubstantiated as far as I know. If he has said anything about terrorists, then I've not picked up on that.

And Saddam was a dictator - and a brutal one at that. Was he himself a terrorist? Debatable. I believe that, if anything, he was responsible for state-sponsored terror against his own nationals. Where does this bring us? Nowhere, because Bush has not argued that the US was going after all terrorists everywhere (He might have had to go after Putin then, for example. Or other countries. Remember that Noam Chomsky and others have described the U.S as "a leading terrorist state") The question is, did Iraq and Saddam connections to the al-Qa'ida terrorists? There is no credible evidence (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,,1240326,00.html) that he had any such connections.


And, "by definition, not an act of terrorism". The people who bombed the ship were not part of any recognized military force. Therefore they were terrorists. Terrorists, committing an act of violence against unsuspecting people is not terrorism. Cool. Anyone feel like riding a bus in Israel today? No. The U.S. National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) (http://www.tkb.org/documents/Downloads/NCTC_Report.pdf) described a terrorist act as "premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." To be classified as a terrorist you must be engaged in terrorism. Committing an act of violence against 'unsuspecting people' is not terrorism if other requirements are not fulfilled, but it will most likely be a crime.

Neither in US law (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00002656---f000-.html) nor in many other (http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jlewis/Outlines/TerrorismNotes.htm) widely accepted definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism) will an attack against a military target meet the legal definition of terrorism. I agree with those definitions, and I thereby don't believe that the attack on the USS Cole was an act of terrorism.

And I'm sure many people will ride the bus in Israel today, regardless of definitions.

then what was it I love tap with a firecracker?

It was an attack, but terrorism by definition targets civilians. This was a military warship.

then what was it I love tap with a firecracker?
You can call it that if you want, I still wouldn't classify it as terrorism.

It was an attack, but terrorism by definition targets civilians. This was a military warship.
eh, in a way your right. There are few different definitions what is considered terrorism, I've seen some that say attacks against military targets by non-state actors to further political goals is terrorism. And Ive seen some that say it has to be against civilians, so it just depends.

eh, in a way your right. There are few different definitions what is considered terrorism, I've seen some that say attacks against military targets by non-state actors to further political goals is terrorism. And Ive seen some that say it has to be against civilians, so it just depends.
Yep, it's not a clear consensus as to the exact definition of terrorism, but it seems to be quite common to define it as an attack against civilians. I also like that definition because it lets me differentiate between terrorism and guerrilla warfare.

(Then again, you have former president Clinton on your side ;) )"If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable". Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing)

source?
Oil wells, shale, tar sands, etc..... :rolleyes:

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I would say it is terrorism whenever it is carried out by people we would classify as terrorists, their target's military status is irrelevant. If it was one country's military attacking another's, that would be an act of warfare, and military attacking civilians would be an act of war and/or a massacre.

Distinguishing between a civilian and a terrorist in the field is the biggest problem we face, though.

Yes, I agree Bin Laden was a US creation. So was Saddam and Noriega. In case you've not noticed, when someone funds a side in a confrontation, the attack dog often turns on it's erstwile benefactors once the cash and goodies stop. The US had a bad habit of dropping places it fundeded -- which later created the reasons for which the US had to go BACK and deal with Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Heck, I'm amazed that Columbia hasn't erupted.
Yup, the US did develop a bad habit and apparently still have an addiction.

However, your arguement that the US "should have known better" back in the 80s is hindsighted. That's like me saying that those four Canadian mounties that were (tragically) shot to death about a year ago should have known better and not approached the house.
I wasn't suggesting that "the US should have known better", I was just reminding you of the truth, and trying to shake you out of your obvious denial. Your recollection of history is a bit shakey to say the least?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10452670&postcount=113

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10452931&postcount=125

We've had this exact same debate before, you know.
And you are still coming up with the same excuses? :rolleyes:

Yup, the US did develop a bad habit and apparently still have an addiction.


I wasn't suggesting that "the US should have known better", I was just reminding you of the truth, and trying to shake you out of your obvious denial. Your recollection of history is a bit shakey to say the least?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10452670&postcount=113

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10452931&postcount=125


And you are still coming up with the same excuses? :rolleyes:

You believe in every fibre of your being that you're right. My view is different from yours, therefore I MUST be wrong. Needless to say, I'm done discussing with you, as you either don't consider the possibility for other views, or that yours could be alterable. Good day.

They are being prosecuted.
Yeah, and the sun will rise in the west tomorrow. So many that should be prosecuted will never ever, be questioned.

What about those "enemy combatants" in Gitmo and Abu Gharib? When will they be prosecuted? Most of them haven't even been formally charged as yet and their basic human rights have been denied.

U.N. report calls for terrorism suspects to be tried or released (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/16/un.guantanamo/)

You believe in every fibre of your being that you're right. My view is different from yours, therefore I MUST be wrong.
You made some comments, and I replied. I even supported my comments with credible links. If those articles are wrong then you need to refute them in a proper manner, rather than engage in a rhetorical commentary. Many people have seen the excuses and most aren't buying them today.

If Bin Laden needed to be captured as you suggest:

Yep. That's the reason we've got to capture/kill this guy.
then the US should have stayed the course in Afghanistan instead of racing off to Iraq under questionable motives.

Needless to say, I'm done discussing with you, as you either don't consider the possibility for other views, or that yours could be alterable. Good day.
I always consider others' views but if the piece won't fit the puzzle, then I am not going to use a hammer to try and make the piece fit.

Most of the world was with Bush after 9/11 (I was one of them) and his approval rating was at 92%. The moment the bombs started dropping in Iraq, worldwide opinion reversed and Bush's approval rating in the US started to plummet. The war in Iraq was not only not worth it, it was totally the wrong thing to do. Next stop Iran?

Good day.

You made some comments, and I replied. I even supported my comments with credible links. If those articles are wrong then you need to refute them in a proper manner, rather than engage in a rhetorical commentary. Many people have seen the excuses and most aren't buying them today.

If Bin Laden needed to be captured as you suggest:

then the US should have stayed the course in Afghanistan instead of racing off to Iraq under questionable motives.

I always consider others' views but if the piece won't fit the puzzle, then I am not going to use a hammer to try and make the piece fit.

Most of the world was with Bush after 9/11 (I was one of them) and his approval rating was at 92%. The moment the bombs started dropping in Iraq, worldwide opinion reversed and Bush's approval rating in the US started to plummet. The war in Iraq was not only not worth it, it was totally the wrong thing to do. Next stop Iran?

Good day.

CH, please go back and look at #125. You fail to answer ANY of my questions or address any points of my post #117 with anything that isn't rhetorical commentary.

Further, your post #157 is more of the same in the first & third sections.
As for the second, you are claiming that you "have the truth" which "I am ignoring", then put up a couple of links to past posts with no supporting arguements. Am I to GUESS what you mean, especially when those posts were just snippy comments as well?

NEWSFLASH: Different people take away different things from articles.
I read the article on Bin Laden. I agreed he was a US creation, then asked WHEN the CIA stopped his funding. No answer from you.
THEN I point out that he was a tool, just like Saddam & Noriega. Still no real answer, just rhetoric.
So who hasn't "refuted in a proper manner"? Seriously, please re-read the thread.

terrorism by definition targets civilians.whose definition?

whose definition?

This has already been answered.

The United States National Counter Terrorism Center (http://www.tkb.org/documents/Downloads/NCTC_Report.pdf), ("...perpetrated against a noncombatant target"), US Code (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00002656---f000-.html), ("...the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets"), etc etc. See Gravlen's post, #150 on this thread.