NationStates Jolt Archive

"I am absolutely convinced the terrorists would see this as vindication." He predicted terrorism would spread around the world, and eventually reach the United States.
Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)

After a 93-6 vote shooting down a bill that would ask Bush to withdraw most troops by the end of the year, Senate Majority Leader Billy Bob Frist made that comment.

Now wasn't the domino theory "knocked over" quite some...30 years ago?

Also, anyone know who those 6 patriots who voted for the bill are?

I would guess 6 of the 9 people in Congress who are actually veterans.

The republicans and Bush are setting up Iran for a military showdown just prior to the 2008 election. Republicans win when there is war and fear. Having troops in Iraq for the impending invasion of Iran only makes sense to them, or they would all be coming home shortly.....

If they invade Iran, then the Bush administration is signing their own death warrant. *is investigated by the Secret Service*

I would guess 6 of the 9 people in Congress who are actually veterans.
Really, that bring the issue that most soldiers over there support the war because they see all the good that is happening over there. Most military men don't oppose the war. The main group of vets that are anti-military are those from Vietnam because of the wreched way they were treated when they reterned.

Perhaps it's just that 93% of the Senate can appreciate the obvious; namely, that the new Iraqi parliament's opinion of the usefulness of our troops should be given greater weight than some arbitrary date sent by Congress. I'm all for prodding the Iraqis to take control as soon as possible, but the situation is not predictable.

Powerless governments are not governments. The Iraqi "government" is just a facade. They have no power and it's all garbage that you seem you seem to have bought.

I would guess 6 of the 9 people in Congress who are actually veterans.
Really, that bring the issue that most soldiers over there support the war because they see all the good that is happening over there. Most military men don't oppose the war. The main group of vets that are anti-military are those from Vietnam because of the wreched way they were treated when they reterned.

Really, that bring the issue that most soldiers over there support the war because they see all the good that is happening over there. Most military men don't oppose the war. The main group of vets that are anti-military are those from Vietnam because of the wreched way they were treated when they reterned.

Good happening over there? Such as...?

The Iraqi "government" is just a facade.

As much as I disagree with this statement, I can't help but ask: If the Iraqi Government, in your opinion, has no power, why support a (more or less) immediate withdrawal? What do you expect would happen if we knowingly left a power vacuum in that country? You're in favor of this?

"Using this diagram of a tooth to represent any small country, we can see how international communism works, by eroding away from the inside. When one country or tooth falls victim to international communism, the others soon follow. In dentistry, this is known as the Domino Theory."

That's what I think of domino theory. Dominoes are fun but they're not very much like countries at all.

Pepe, you fool! Don't question the argument! The argument must be left to stand without questioning! Bush bad! If Bush says something, we oppose!

As much as I disagree with this statement, I can't help but ask: If the Iraqi Government, in your opinion, has no power, why support a (more or less) immediate withdrawal? What do you expect would happen if we knowingly left a power vacuum in that country? You're in favor of this?
I think his point was that it would make little difference, because US military presence in Iraq inflames the populace more than enough to make up for any order or stability we may bring, and the current government is powerless to prevent terrorism anyway.

Good happening over there? Such as...?
the building of public buildings like schools, free elections, and generaly lessening human suffering.
Do you actually know anyone over there? It's amazing how most people I meet who think that don't actually know anyone in the military.

I think his point was that it would make little difference, because US military presence in Iraq inflames the populace more than enough to make up for any order or stability we may bring, and the current government is powerless to prevent terrorism anyway.

Responding preemptively to this point which may or may not eventually be presented outright by the fellow who says Iraq's powerless, I say pish posh.

While the US is most certainly an inflammatory agent at present, it is capable of partially checking the even more inflammatory ethnic crazies. With the US we get less overall inflamation. And less inflamation is good. Especially considering that weak governments are extremely sensitive to inflammation, and the whole thing would go to Pooville if we let it naturally inflame after removing the anti-inflammatory controls inherent in government.

Looking back, I wish I'd gone full-out on the inflammation metaphor and referred to Iraq as a human body. That would have been so much more awesome.

the building of public buildings like schools, free elections, and generaly lessening human suffering.
Do you actually know anyone over there? It's amazing how most people I meet who think that don't actually know anyone in the military.

Baghdad is now the most dangerous city in the world. People are shot by yanks, have their heads cut off by terrorists, inmates are raped by their american captors and the elections will not prevent a civil war from breaking out as soon as the braindead American public changes the channel.

And no, I don't know anyone in "the" military over there, I don't associate with murderers.

There will be a power vaccum either way...filled by Iran and some other country. Kurdistan would complete its breakaway. I say go for it.

the building of public buildings like schools, free elections, and generaly lessening human suffering.
Do you actually know anyone over there? It's amazing how most people I meet who think that don't actually know anyone in the military.

lessening human suffering?wtf? so haditha and abu grave are not causing human suffering.I agree that elections in iraq are a good sign-but they are no more than a sign!the usa needs to pull out allow un troop in instead-us precence only inflames the iraqi populace.I am not saying a milatary precence is not needed-far from it-but not the us-their precence is about as useful as putting in danish troops with t-shirts depicting mohammed on them.
This however does not negate the fact that sadaam hussain was about as innocent as hitler-but if people are going to invade based on regieme change-due to human rights violations-then why not invade north korea-or china-or any number of dictatorships that explouit people across the world.

the building of public buildings like schools, free elections, and generaly lessening human suffering.
Do you actually know anyone over there? It's amazing how most people I meet who think that don't actually know anyone in the military.

yeah actually I do know three people(good friends of mine) in iraq seving for the british army.

Baghdad is now the most dangerous city in the world. People are shot by yanks, have their heads cut off by terrorists, inmates are raped by their american captors and the elections will not prevent a civil war from breaking out as soon as the braindead American public changes the channel.

And no, I don't know anyone in "the" military over there, I don't associate with murderers.
I'll give you one thing, your crazy/ignorent enough to be unperswadeable.
lets take this one step at a time, what proof do you use to define everyone in the military as murderers? A statement including some of the greatest citizens in history?

I think manslaughterers is a more acceptable term...it is involuntary murder. Who really expected a war when they signed up?

lessening human suffering?wtf? so haditha and abu grave are not causing human suffering.I agree that elections in iraq are a good sign-but they are no more than a sign!the usa needs to pull out allow un troop in instead-us precence only inflames the iraqi populace.I am not saying a milatary precence is not needed-far from it-but not the us-their precence is about as useful as putting in danish troops with t-shirts depicting mohammed on them.
This however does not negate the fact that sadaam hussain was about as innocent as hitler-but if people are going to invade based on regieme change-due to human rights violations-then why not invade north korea-or china-or any number of dictatorships that explouit people across the world.

Well atleast one thing thats causing extreme suffering is reading your thread. Learn English please. Your good message loses it's point when reading it is a pain in the ass.

I think manslaughterers is a more acceptable term...it is involuntary murder. Who really expected a war when they signed up?

Well not everyone in Iraq signed before the war. I think that about 60-70% of the troops have signed up to be part of the war.

I think not and I know someone who is going into the military, and I don't think he wants to go to Iraq, but jokes about it a lot...

Well atleast one thing thats causing extreme suffering is reading your thread. Learn English please. Your good message loses it's point when reading it is a pain in the ass.
sorry my english offends you.I will try harder in future to meet your demands.
(funny i thought this was a debate not an english class, but whatever)

Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq)

After a 93-6 vote shooting down a bill that would ask Bush to withdraw most troops by the end of the year, Senate Majority Leader Billy Bob Frist made that comment.

Now wasn't the domino theory "knocked over" quite some...30 years ago?

Also, anyone know who those 6 patriots who voted for the bill are?

I wonder if he's noticed that terrorism has already spread to the United States.

I'll give you one thing, your crazy/ignorent enough to be unperswadeable.
lets take this one step at a time, what proof do you use to define everyone in the military as murderers? A statement including some of the greatest citizens in history?

Whats the point of the military other than killing? And whats that about citizens?

Also, this "crazy/ignorant" foreigner kicks your ass at your own native language. Learn to spell, or at least disguise your shortcomings with l33tsp33k or something.

Whats the point of the military other than killing? And whats that about citizens?

Also, this "crazy/ignorant" foreigner kicks your ass at your own native language. Learn to spell, or at least disguise your shortcomings with l33tsp33k or something.
The point of the American military in Iraq is to establish a successful democracy. If that means killing any jihadist prick that would get in the way of that, then so be it. Most soldiers are serving with honor in Iraq. We hear all about Haditha and Abu Ghraib, but nothing about all the good, productive things that American soldiers do in Iraq, as well as their acts of bravery.

As for the domino theory: It's true. The American prescense in Vietnam prevented a communist takeover of Indonesia, Thailand, and possibly even India. So although Vietnam was lost, the commies were too exhausted to undertake any other major wars(except in Cambodia, but that was waged by Cambodians). Now, you could make a strong case of saying that the best way to fight communism is to fight poverty(an opinion I myself hold), but I think that the Vietnam War definetely prevented large scale communist takeovers.

yeah because its cool to kill communists, and muslims, because it stops them from doing things we disapprove of.
Vietnam was a sucess?I dont hear the people of mai lai saying that it was?
these kind of wars only inflame the situation, and if people didnt think the usa was hateful before vietnam or iraq then they sure as hell do now.
I agree that sadaam hussain should have been removed, but not tby the usa.
And vietnam, I think we all agree that it was a diodaster for the vietnamese and a disaster for the poor troops that were sent there by their government(the almighty us of a)

yeah because its cool to kill communists, and muslims, because it stops them from doing things we disapprove of.
Vietnam was a sucess?I dont hear the people of mai lai saying that it was?
these kind of wars only inflame the situation, and if people didnt think the usa was hateful before vietnam or iraq then they sure as hell do now.
I agree that sadaam hussain should have been removed, but not tby the usa.
And vietnam, I think we all agree that it was a diodaster for the vietnamese and a disaster for the poor troops that were sent there by their government(the almighty us of a)
I didn't say Vietnam was a success, but it wasn't a complete failure either. No, it's not "cool" to kill anyone, and we should try to get along, but America has national interests like every other country, the only difference being that America has more power to carry out those interests.

Vietnam is different from Iraq. The American prescense may inflame the situation, but it is infinitely better than having Iraq turn into a radical islamist state. I think we need to put all we've got into this war and support it fully so that 1) Iraq can become a success, and make everyone better off, or 2)If we fail, we will know better than to engage in such foolish endeavors in the future

The point of the American military in Iraq is to establish a successful democracy. If that means killing any jihadist prick that would get in the way of that, then so be it. Most soldiers are serving with honor in Iraq. We hear all about Haditha and Abu Ghraib, but nothing about all the good, productive things that American soldiers do in Iraq, as well as their acts of bravery.

Yeah...Great job, right? Iraq is heading towards becoming a theocracy, so eventually you'll have to execute "jihadist pricks" on a massive scale. Maybe installing gas-chambers with zyklon-B might speed things along? "So be it".

Honor? Anyone who sends a person off to a place such as Guantanamo to be raped and tortured does not have honor. Acts of bravery? Such as Private Lynch? :rolleyes:

Why do we not hear about "the good things"? The yanks have managed to turn Iraq into a chaotic shithole (new&improved, now with 100% more al-qaeda). Good things generally don't happen in chaotic shitholes.

Yeah...Great job, right? Iraq is heading towards becoming a theocracy, so eventually you'll have to execute "jihadist pricks" on a massive scale. Maybe installing gas-chambers with zyklon-B might speed things along? "So be it".

Honor? Anyone who sends a person off to a place such as Guantanamo to be raped and tortured does not have honor.

Why do we not hear about "the good things"? The yanks have managed to turn Iraq into a chaotic shithole (new&improved, now with 100% more al-qaeda). Good things generally don't happen in chaotic shitholes.
Schools and hospitals are being built every day, just not as efficiently as we would like them to be built. I don't know who's fault that is, the contractors, or the government, but it needs to be fixed. In case you've been living in a cave for the last year, Iraq now has a democratic government, jnot a theocracy.
So you're gonna single out 1 American from the half a million who have served so far?
We don't hear about the good things because the press considers a car bombing to be more newsworthy, and while it is the job of the press to be critical, what you see and hear on TV should be taken with a grain of salt. Think for yourself, man.

I didn't say Vietnam was a success, but it wasn't a complete failure either. No, it's not "cool" to kill anyone, and we should try to get along, but America has national interests like every other country, the only difference being that America has more power to carry out those interests.

Vietnam is different from Iraq. The American prescense may inflame the situation, but it is infinitely better than having Iraq turn into a radical islamist state. I think we need to put all we've got into this war and support it fully so that 1) Iraq can become a success, and make everyone better off, or 2)If we fail, we will know better than to engage in such foolish endeavors in the future
What if the iraqi people want a radical islamic state,I dont know im not iraqi,and since america has more power to carry out their interest, america should exercise restraint and temper their self interst before it becomes exploitative.Before long america will have no allies, what do you advise then-nuke every country that hasnt sent you a christmas card in the last 25 years?
before you give me the whole,america is the world policeman act remember, america is the only country to EVER use an atomic bomb(more than once i should add aimed at civilian targets)America is acting as if international law doesnt apply to them by using guantanimo bay and renditions.
America has NO moral highground.

I know, lets stop america from becoming a theocracy(thanks to bush and his 'christian'neo cons)and invade them(says rest of the world) how do you like it.
anyway that was not why you went into iraq.you said there are wmd's ready to be fired at western cities in 45 mins-uh hu, where I ask you.
Saddam Hussain has links with al qaeda, yeah whatever.
Yes, saddam was evil-no doubts there-but it was america who gave him weapons(and britain) to fight iran,it was america who didnt depose him in 91 and it is america who are making a mess out of the situation now(helpfully aided by blair the poodle)

What if the iraqi people want a radical islamic state,I dont know im not iraqi,and since america has more power to carry out their interest, america should exercise restraint and temper their self interst before it becomes exploitative.Before long america will have no allies, what do you advise then-nuke every country that hasnt sent you a christmas card in the last 25 years?
before you give me the whole,america is the world policeman act remember, america is the only country to EVER use an atomic bomb(more than once i should add aimed at civilian targets)America is acting as if international law doesnt apply to them by using guantanimo bay and renditions.
America has NO moral highground.
A radical islamic state is a country that is very authoritarian, and functions based on the laws as prescribed in the koran. Iraq is a democratic government, that while, less permissive than other democracies, is still definetely NOT an islamic state.
America does act with restraint. Not as much as we used to, before Bush, but we aren't out to conquer the whole world. Are you forgetting how America helps countries that are afflicted by tsunamis, or how America stopped the genocide in Bosnia?
As for the atomic bombs, they put a quick end to WW2. Or would you rather have even more Japanese die during the invasion(not to mention Americans, but I'm guessing you don't really care how many Americans die).

What if the iraqi people want a radical islamic state,I dont know im not iraqi,and since america has more power to carry out their interest, america should exercise restraint and temper their self interst before it becomes exploitative.Before long america will have no allies, what do you advise then-nuke every country that hasnt sent you a christmas card in the last 25 years?
before you give me the whole,america is the world policeman act remember, america is the only country to EVER use an atomic bomb(more than once i should add aimed at civilian targets)America is acting as if international law doesnt apply to them by using guantanimo bay and renditions.
America has NO moral highground.
A radical islamic state is a country that is very authoritarian, and functions based on the laws as prescribed in the koran. Iraq is a democratic government, that while, less permissive than other democracies, is still definetely NOT an islamic state.
America does act with restraint. Not as much as we used to, before Bush, but we aren't out to conquer the whole world. Are you forgetting how America helps countries that are afflicted by tsunamis, or how America stopped the genocide in Bosnia?
As for the atomic bombs, they put a quick end to WW2. Or would you rather have even more Japanese die during the invasion(not to mention Americans, but I'm guessing you don't really care how many Americans die).

Schools and hospitals are being built every day, just not as efficiently as we would like them to be built. I don't know who's fault that is, the contractors, or the government, but it needs to be fixed. In case you've been living in a cave for the last year, Iraq now has a democratic government, jnot a theocracy.
So you're gonna single out 1 American from the half a million who have served so far?
We don't hear about the good things because the press considers a car bombing to be more newsworthy, and while it is the job of the press to be critical, what you see and hear on TV should be taken with a grain of salt. Think for yourself, man.

Wow...There weren't any schools and hospitals before the invasion? Or do you mean rebuilding the ones that were blown up? Or is the plan to have a school and a hospital on every block in baghdad?

Democracy? So there were elections, so what? Surprise: Elections do not = democracy. Stalin held elections, as did Hitler. The Iraqi constitution was written by Americans, doesn't sound very free to me.

What do I see on TV? I see the US president stating that what he saw on his recent trip to Iraq had given him perspective and erased any doubts he had about the developement in Iraq. The man stayed there for 2 hours. Now that's fast perspective and affirmation.

Besides, I thought the reason for the war was non-existant nuclear bombs.

Think for yourself, yank.

What if the iraqi people want a radical islamic state,I dont know im not iraqi,and since america has more power to carry out their interest, america should exercise restraint and temper their self interst before it becomes exploitative.Before long america will have no allies, what do you advise then-nuke every country that hasnt sent you a christmas card in the last 25 years?
before you give me the whole,america is the world policeman act remember, america is the only country to EVER use an atomic bomb(more than once i should add aimed at civilian targets)America is acting as if international law doesnt apply to them by using guantanimo bay and renditions.
America has NO moral highground.
A radical islamic state is a country that is very authoritarian, and functions based on the laws as prescribed in the koran. Iraq is a democratic government, that while, less permissive than other democracies, is still definetely NOT an islamic state.
America does act with restraint. Not as much as we used to, before Bush, but we aren't out to conquer the whole world. Are you forgetting how America helps countries that are afflicted by tsunamis, or how America stopped the genocide in Bosnia?
As for the atomic bombs, they put a quick end to WW2. Or would you rather have even more Japanese die during the invasion(not to mention Americans, but I'm guessing you don't really care how many Americans die).

What if the iraqi people want a radical islamic state,I dont know im not iraqi,and since america has more power to carry out their interest, america should exercise restraint and temper their self interst before it becomes exploitative.Before long america will have no allies, what do you advise then-nuke every country that hasnt sent you a christmas card in the last 25 years?
before you give me the whole,america is the world policeman act remember, america is the only country to EVER use an atomic bomb(more than once i should add aimed at civilian targets)America is acting as if international law doesnt apply to them by using guantanimo bay and renditions.
America has NO moral highground.
A radical islamic state is a country that is very authoritarian, and functions based on the laws as prescribed in the koran. Iraq is a democratic government, that while, less permissive than other democracies, is still definetely NOT an islamic state.
America does act with restraint. Not as much as we used to, before Bush, but we aren't out to conquer the whole world. Are you forgetting how America helps countries that are afflicted by tsunamis, or how America stopped the genocide in Bosnia?
As for the atomic bombs, they put a quick end to WW2. Or would you rather have even more Japanese die during the invasion(not to mention Americans, but I'm guessing you don't really care how many Americans die).

I know, lets stop america from becoming a theocracy(thanks to bush and his 'christian'neo cons)and invade them(says rest of the world) how do you like it.
anyway that was not why you went into iraq.you said there are wmd's ready to be fired at western cities in 45 mins-uh hu, where I ask you.
Saddam Hussain has links with al qaeda, yeah whatever.
Yes, saddam was evil-no doubts there-but it was america who gave him weapons(and britain) to fight iran,it was america who didnt depose him in 91 and it is america who are making a mess out of the situation now(helpfully aided by blair the poodle)

I know, lets stop america from becoming a theocracy(thanks to bush and his 'christian'neo cons)and invade them(says rest of the world) how do you like it.
anyway that was not why you went into iraq.you said there are wmd's ready to be fired at western cities in 45 mins-uh hu, where I ask you.
Saddam Hussain has links with al qaeda, yeah whatever.
Yes, saddam was evil-no doubts there-but it was america who gave him weapons(and britain) to fight iran,it was america who didnt depose him in 91 and it is america who are making a mess out of the situation now(helpfully aided by blair the poodle)
Hey, Saddam was acting as if he had WMDs, what with not letting UN inspectors search all the sites they wanted to. For all we know, they could still be somewhere in the desert. Saddam was deposed because he was viewed as a threat, not because America wanted to stop Iraq from becoming a theocracy, which it wasn't before the invasion. Saddam harbored terrorists that struck at Europe, and there are documents revealing his cooperation with Al Qaida. I don't know the extent of this cooperation, but something was definetely going on.

A radical islamic state is a country that is very authoritarian, and functions based on the laws as prescribed in the koran. Iraq is a democratic government, that while, less permissive than other democracies, is still definetely NOT an islamic state.
America does act with restraint. Not as much as we used to, before Bush, but we aren't out to conquer the whole world. Are you forgetting how America helps countries that are afflicted by tsunamis, or how America stopped the genocide in Bosnia?
As for the atomic bombs, they put a quick end to WW2. Or would you rather have even more Japanese die during the invasion(not to mention Americans, but I'm guessing you don't really care how many Americans die).

Japan were on the verge of surrender.Of course I care whether americans are dying or not.It is american foreign policy I oppose not the soldiers that are sent out to die by their government, or the american people-who I genuinly think have been duped and decieved through no fault of their own, but through the fault of evil men like bush, who claim to be christian.

North Korea has wmd's, is bush going to invade them?

o, and by the way ,it was nato that stopped the genocides in bosnia, and the us was less generous than other poorer states in offering aid to the tsunami victims.(this does not negate the fact that many americans mad large individaul donations to the tsunami victims)

Japan were on the verge of surrender.Of course I care whether americans are dying or not.It is american foreign policy I oppose not the soldiers that are sent out to die by their government, or the american people-who I genuinly think have been duped and decieved through no fault of their own, but through the fault of evil men like bush, who claim to be christian.
Japan was also on the "verge of surrender" during the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, but the Japanese garrisons put up a heroic(and I hate to use that word, but it's the best word I can use) resistance to the invading American Marines. Japan was a fiercely nationalistic and militaristic nation, only shock and awe through a few powerful attacks (like the atom bombs) could prevent another 2-3 years of mindless bloodshed.

North Korea has wmd's, is bush going to invade them?

WMD are bad, but WMD in the hands of those who believe they have a religious duty to obliterate you and me are considerably worse.. Korea's goal is blackmail - financial - not global Islamic conquest..

North Korea has wmd's, is bush going to invade them?
No, for three major reasons.
1) They actually have WMDs, and are probably insane enough to use them.
2) Terrorists don't come from that part of the world.
3) We are already bogged down in Iraq.

What I think most people don't understand is that the Iraq War wasn't really about WMDs, it was about changing the middle east so that it could become more democratic and pro western through a model country, like Iraq. I think this is a worthy endeavor, but what I regret is that Bush played up the WMDs instead of really saying what the real goal was, and thus the American public didn't know what it got itself into. I fear this could lead to a cut and run policy in Iraq and an isolationist policy in general that would be disastrous for the cause of democracy.

and furthermore, if there had been a land invasion into japan then it would have been soldiers not two cities full of civians that dies(i am not saying a soldiers life is worth less or that civilians would not have been killed-just that they would not have been wiped out completly -and even the survivors suffer from the effects of radiation,as do their decendants-in fact speaking to japanese relatives who knew people from nagasake that survived-they would have rather been shot by soldiers than suffer from cancer and radiation poisoning)

and furthermore, if there had been a land invasion into japan then it would have been soldiers not two cities full of civians that dies(i am not saying a soldiers life is worth less or that civilians would not have been killed-just that they would not have been wiped out completly -and even the survivors suffer from the effects of radiation,as do their decendants-in fact speaking to japanese relatives who knew people from nagasake that survived-they would have rather been shot by soldiers than suffer from cancer and radiation poisoning)
No, every man, woman, and child would become combatants. It would be like Vietnam on a much more horrific, chaotic scale. It's naive to think that only "soldiers" (i.e. young men forced into the military) would fight other soldiers.

Hey, Saddam was acting as if he had WMDs, what with not letting UN inspectors search all the sites they wanted to. For all we know, they could still be somewhere in the desert. Saddam was deposed because he was viewed as a threat, not because America wanted to stop Iraq from becoming a theocracy, which it wasn't before the invasion. Saddam harbored terrorists that struck at Europe, and there are documents revealing his cooperation with Al Qaida. I don't know the extent of this cooperation, but something was definetely going on.

Actually, that's total bullshit.
Saddam didn't have any links to terrorists. However, there are plenty of countries who shelter terrorists. Will we see an American imperialist invasion of those soon?

No, for three major reasons.
1) They actually have WMDs, and are probably insane enough to use them.
2) Terrorists don't come from that part of the world.
3) We are already bogged down in Iraq.

What I think most people don't understand is that the Iraq War wasn't really about WMDs, it was about changing the middle east so that it could become more democratic and pro western through a model country, like Iraq. I think this is a worthy endeavor, but what I regret is that Bush played up the WMDs instead of really saying what the real goal was, and thus the American public didn't know what it got itself into. I fear this could lead to a cut and run policy in Iraq and an isolationist policy in general that would be disastrous for the cause of democracy.

terrorists only come from the middle east do they(no inherant bigotry here)i think youll find there are north Korean terrorists, northern irish terrorists, and terrorist generally from all over the globe.

No, for three major reasons.
1) They actually have WMDs, and are probably insane enough to use them.
2) Terrorists don't come from that part of the world.
3) We are already bogged down in Iraq.

What I think most people don't understand is that the Iraq War wasn't really about WMDs, it was about changing the middle east so that it could become more democratic and pro western through a model country, like Iraq. I think this is a worthy endeavor, but what I regret is that Bush played up the WMDs instead of really saying what the real goal was, and thus the American public didn't know what it got itself into. I fear this could lead to a cut and run policy in Iraq and an isolationist policy in general that would be disastrous for the cause of democracy.

1) Bush claimed Saddam had WMD's and was probably insane enough to use them.
2) Actually, yes, there are terrorists in that part of the world.
3)Yes you are.

As for your "real" reasons: You should go into hiding, if the CIA finds out you are using ESP to read Bush's mind, they'll go democratic on your ass and libarete you to death in Cuba.

No, every man, woman, and child would become combatants. It would be like Vietnam on a much more horrific, chaotic scale. It's naive to think that only "soldiers" (i.e. young men forced into the military) would fight other soldiers.

They would have rathered that than to be obliterated by 2 atomic bombs and have their decendants suffer from cancer and radiation for generations to come.Dont forget how many childen got killed in their schools in nagasaki and hiroshima.Nuking is wrong, as is bloodshed of any kind, but nuking goes futher than bloodshed-much further.I am not naive enough to think that all soldiers volunteered to fight.

1) Bush claimed Saddam had WMD's and was probably insane enough to use them.
2) Actually, yes, there are terrorists in that part of the world.
3)Yes you are.

As for your "real" reasons: You should go into hiding, if the CIA finds out you are using ESP to read Bush's mind, they'll go democratic on your ass and libarete you to death in Cuba.
1) But Saddam probably wasn't crazy enough to use the WMDs, or if he was, he didn't have any that could cause a huge amount of damage.
2) Maybe, but we haven't had any problems with them, so there's no point in concerning ourself with them.
3) I'm not going to reitirate this.

Uh...America is a free nation. I can say what I want, when I want, how I want.

Japan was also on the "verge of surrender" during the battles of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, but the Japanese garrisons put up a heroic(and I hate to use that word, but it's the best word I can use) resistance to the invading American Marines. Japan was a fiercely nationalistic and militaristic nation, only shock and awe through a few powerful attacks (like the atom bombs) could prevent another 2-3 years of mindless bloodshed.

Actually, I want to correct this one more than some of the other things said.

Japan tried to surrender prior to the atomic bombs being dropped. The problem was, America wouldn't accept the surrender if it wasn't unconditional. Japan's only condition was that their ruler be allowed to continue ruling - which he was after the unconditional surrender following the atomic bombs. So, America could have ended the war quite a while before the drop of the bombs, and with less bloodshed than it had immediately prior to the drop of the bombs. So, no, that was not the only way to prevent another 2-3 years of mindless bloodshed. Accepting their surrender would have worked just as well.

They would have rathered that than to be obliterated by 2 atomic bombs and have their decendants suffer from cancer and radiation for generations to come.Dont forget how many childen got killed in their schools in nagasaki and hiroshima.Nuking is wrong, as is bloodshed of any kind, but nuking goes futher than bloodshed-much further.I am not naive enough to think that all soldiers volunteered to fight.
How do you know what they wanted? To be honest, I don't know what they wanted either, but I know what I would have wanted if I was living in 1945: A quick end to the war with as little bloodshed as possible.

1) But Saddam probably wasn't crazy enough to use the WMDs, or if he was, he didn't have any that could cause a huge amount of damage.
2) Maybe, but we haven't had any problems with them, so there's no point in concerning ourself with them.
3) I'm not going to reitirate this.

Uh...America is a free nation. I can say what I want, when I want, how I want.

1) That's VERY different from what the republicans were saying in the days before the war
2) So the "war on terror" is not an all out one?
3)Me neither

I dare you to say "I'm a commie muslim terrorist" on the phone and then we'll see how free you are to say stuff.

Actually, I want to correct this one more than some of the other things said.

Japan tried to surrender prior to the atomic bombs being dropped. The problem was, America wouldn't accept the surrender if it wasn't unconditional. Japan's only condition was that their ruler be allowed to continue ruling - which he was after the unconditional surrender following the atomic bombs. So, America could have ended the war quite a while before the drop of the bombs, and with less bloodshed than it had immediately prior to the drop of the bombs. So, no, that was not the only way to prevent another 2-3 years of mindless bloodshed. Accepting their surrender would have worked just as well.
Sure, we could have accepted their surrender. But then, they wouldn't be really beaten, and they would know it. It would be like Germany at the end of WW1. I think it's better to get the job done, even if it involves tough choices, than to have a potential repeat of history.

By the way, their emperor, Hirohito, had to renounce his "divinity." That was the term of unconditional surrender. They didn't agree to this, hence Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

How do you know what they wanted? To be honest, I don't know what they wanted either, but I know what I would have wanted if I was living in 1945: A quick end to the war with as little bloodshed as possible.
as I said, I have japanese relatives who know survivours of nagasaki, and this is what they told them.

1) That's VERY different from what the republicans were saying in the days before the war
2) So the "war on terror" is not an all out one?
3)Me neither

I dare you to say "I'm a commie muslim terrorist" on the phone and then we'll see how free you are to say stuff.
1) Sure. I'm talking about the people who really knew what was going on. Hell, most republicans probably believed it too.
2) It's a war on terror. Not a war on the world.
3) Mohatma Gandhi.

*picks up phone* "you know what you are? A commie muslim terrorist."

*waits, nothing happens*

1) That's VERY different from what the republicans were saying in the days before the war
2) So the "war on terror" is not an all out one?
3)Me neither

I dare you to say "I'm a commie muslim terrorist" on the phone and then we'll see how free you are to say stuff.

its not a war on terror, its a war on islam,they just dont have the guts to admit theyre after the 'terrorists'because they dont accept jesus christ as their personal lord and saviour.

as I said, I have japanese relatives who know survivours of nagasaki, and this is what they told them.
That's because they saw the horrors firsthand. But what about the rest of the population that wasn't there? I hardly think they would agree.

its not a war on terror, its a war on islam,they just dont have the guts to admit theyre after the 'terrorists'because they dont accept jesus christ as their personal lord and saviour.
If it's a "war on islam" then how come we have muslims living in America who are free to practice their religion?

Hey, Saddam was acting as if he had WMDs, what with not letting UN inspectors search all the sites they wanted to. For all we know, they could still be somewhere in the desert. Saddam was deposed because he was viewed as a threat, not because America wanted to stop Iraq from becoming a theocracy, which it wasn't before the invasion. Saddam harbored terrorists that struck at Europe, and there are documents revealing his cooperation with Al Qaida. I don't know the extent of this cooperation, but something was definetely going on.
Strike One!!

Sure, we could have accepted their surrender. But then, they wouldn't be really beaten, and they would know it. It would be like Germany at the end of WW1. I think it's better to get the job done, even if it involves tough choices, than to have a potential repeat of history.

By the way, their emperor, Hirohito, had to renounce his "divinity." That was the term of unconditional surrender. They didn't agree to this, hence Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh, excuse me, I'd forgotten, it was the divinity, not the ruling. So - we have to use atomic bombs rather than allow someone to claim to be divine?

And since the war was not started based upon the divinity bit, they would have been beaten, and they would have known it, if we hadn't demanded the divinity bit. They offered the surrender under the condition that the Hirohito didn't have to renounce his divinity. There was no reason why we couldn't accept that - we hadn't actually demanded that he renounce it prior to that surrender. We would have lost no face. We would not have looked weaker, or less victorious. It would not have been like WW1, which had the repeat with WW2 for completely different reasons than you seem to think.

1) But Saddam probably wasn't crazy enough to use the WMDs, or if he was, he didn't have any that could cause a huge amount of damage.
2) Maybe, but we haven't had any problems with them, so there's no point in concerning ourself with them.
3) I'm not going to reitirate this.

Uh...America is a free nation. I can say what I want, when I want, how I want.
Stike Two!!

No, every man, woman, and child would become combatants. It would be like Vietnam on a much more horrific, chaotic scale. It's naive to think that only "soldiers" (i.e. young men forced into the military) would fight other soldiers.
There has never been an incident involving a woman or a child in arms. Get over yourself, it's not gonna be like vietnam ever. Maybe you want it to be like Vietnam? Maybe you would like to see our troops fail? Maybe you want our cause to die out in shame, and maybe you don't really care about the soldiers opinions. Maybe you only care about your own. Because you think you know whats good for them, and everyone else. You wish everyone would think like you, because then the world would be a much better place where people could only think like you. And not think what their heart tells them.

That's because they saw the horrors firsthand. But what about the rest of the population that wasn't there? I hardly think they would agree.
so just because we dont witness an atrocity firsthand it isnt happening.Good logic there.

If it's a "war on islam" then how come we have muslims living in America who are free to practice their religion?
tell that to american muslims held without charge or trial in guantanimo.Tell me, if they are terrorists, and the bush administration claims they are -hence placing them in guantanimo-then why not charge them, or put them on trial.
If you were held agains your will by your own government-with out charge or speedy trial you would commit suicide too-It just shows how sick the bushh regieme is thatt ehy could think it was some kind of pr stunt.

1) Sure. I'm talking about the people who really knew what was going on. Hell, most republicans probably believed it too.
2) It's a war on terror. Not a war on the world.
3) Mohatma Gandhi.

*picks up phone* "you know what you are? A commie muslim terrorist."

*waits, nothing happens*

1) So, basically, the reason behind the war was to create this paradise full of schools and hospitals but the reason they gave was a fuzzy photo of a truck supposedly full of WMD's and terrorists?
2) So waging war on asian terrorists equals declaring war on the world?
3) Spongebob Squarepants

You didn't really pick up the phone. If you had, you'd be in Cuba having a quiran showed up your bum by Lynndie England as we speak.

There has never been an incident involving a woman or a child in arms. Get over yourself, it's not gonna be like vietnam ever. Maybe you want it to be like Vietnam? Maybe you would like to see our troops fail? Maybe you want our cause to die out in shame, and maybe you don't really care about the soldiers opinions. Maybe you only care about your own. Because you think you know whats good for them, and everyone else. You wish everyone would think like you, because then the world would be a much better place where people could only think like you. And not think what their heart tells them.
Of course there have been. There are even child soldiers in Africa today. If I am for the Iraq War, how do I want the troops to fail? That makes no sense.

You could go on a rant insulting, labeling, and patronizing me because I don't agree with you, or we could have a constructive debate. Your call.

Good happening over there? Such as...?

Free Iraqi elections
Schools
Jobs
Constitution
Teachings Iraqis to run their OWN gov't.

Etc


Really, that bring the issue that most soldiers over there support the war because they see all the good that is happening over there. Most military men don't oppose the war. The main group of vets that are anti-military are those from Vietnam because of the wreched way they were treated when they reterned.

The military is republican country...seriously.

Of course there have been. There are even child soldiers in Africa today. If I am for the Iraq War, how do I want the troops to fail? That makes no sense.

You could go on a rant insulting, labeling, and patronizing me because I don't agree with you, or we could have a constructive debate. Your call.

Its hard to have a constructive debate woth someone who thinks that nuking hiroshima and nagasaki was a good idea.Its okay to nuke them, even tho they were about to surrender,so in otherwords the word 'divind' was the reason america nuked japan-because they wanted to see japan completly humilated.There were no child soldiers in nagasaki or hiroshima.I just think america wanted to showe the world how powereful it was by nuking civilians and test out their nukey playings.

1) So, basically, the reason behind the war was to create this paradise full of schools and hospitals but the reason they gave was a fuzzy photo of a truck supposedly full of WMD's and terrorists?
2) So waging war on asian terrorists equals declaring war on the world?
3) Spongebob Squarepants

You didn't really pick up the phone. If you had, you'd be in Cuba having a quiran showed up your bum by Lynndie England as we speak.
1) As crazy as that sounds, yes.
2) I'll try to explain this as simple as I can: On 9/11, we were attacked by radical islamic terrorists, see? Now, these terrorists came from the mid east, right? So, if we liberate and democratize the mid east, the frustration that leads to terrorism will be eradicated, get it? Note:emphasis on middle east, not far east asia, not africa, etc.
3) Captain Underpants

Don't worry, my friend, I picked up the phone. It was one of them 1930s phones, though, so maybe the government's records were eaten by worms or something?

Of course there have been. There are even child soldiers in Africa today. If I am for the Iraq War, how do I want the troops to fail? That makes no sense.

You could go on a rant insulting, labeling, and patronizing me because I don't agree with you, or we could have a constructive debate. Your call.

I have to agree with him on that one, even though I've taken the other side in the debate it would seem. That post was out of line, Bul Katho. And inaccurate as written (did you mean in WWII? Although I believe there were incidents of children in WWII as well, so...).

Its hard to have a constructive debate woth someone who thinks that nuking hiroshima and nagasaki was a good idea.Its okay to nuke them, even tho they were about to surrender,so in otherwords the word 'divind' was the reason america nuked japan-because they wanted to see japan completly humilated.There were no child soldiers in nagasaki or hiroshima.I just think america wanted to showe the world how powereful it was by nuking civilians and test out their nukey playings.
I was talking to another guy, not you. You're civil so far.
Japan had to be completely humiliated so that the nationalism and militarism would have no credibility any more. Otherwise, they would just say "Well, you Americans won the war, but we still kept our emperor! Now, how many aircraft carriers are we building this year?"

1) As crazy as that sounds, yes.
2) I'll try to explain this as simple as I can: On 9/11, we were attacked by radical islamic terrorists, see? Now, these terrorists came from the mid east, right? So, if we liberate and democratize the mid east, the frustration that leads to terrorism will be eradicated, get it? Note:emphasis on middle east, not far east asia, not africa, etc.
3) Captain Underpants

Don't worry, my friend, I picked up the phone. It was one of them 1930s phones, though, so maybe the government's records were eaten by worms or something?

1)not everyone in the middle east is a terrorist
2)islamic terrorists did destroy the world trade centre-this was wrong-innocents died
3)it was american meddling in the middle east that got there people riled up in the first place-giving people democracy will not change the fact that many in the middle east dont want ameica meddling in their affairs.
4)who gave these terrorists weapons in teh first place-huh?america gave saddam hussain many of his wmd's in the first place to fight iran

tell that to american muslims held without charge or trial in guantanimo.Tell me, if they are terrorists, and the bush administration claims they are -hence placing them in guantanimo-then why not charge them, or put them on trial.
If you were held agains your will by your own government-with out charge or speedy trial you would commit suicide too-It just shows how sick the bushh regieme is thatt ehy could think it was some kind of pr stunt.

sorry for attacking you, I thought it was directed at me.
but I would still like you to answer the above question.

if japan had to be humiliated why not capure the emperor and his associates,and destroy the army? it would have made people less angry and nationalistic than 2 nukes.

1)not everyone in the middle east is a terrorist
2)islamic terrorists did destroy the world trade centre-this was wrong-innocents died
3)it was american meddling in the middle east that got there people riled up in the first place-giving people democracy will not change the fact that many in the middle east dont want ameica meddling in their affairs.
4)who gave these terrorists weapons in teh first place-huh?america gave saddam hussain many of his wmd's in the first place to fight iran
True, but it's the whole system that we're trying to reform, not the people, or their religion, etc.
As for American meddling, let's be brutally honest for a second here. This is embarrassing to say, but WE NEED OIL. Our economies would come to a halt if we didn't have it, and we need a steady supply of it. So, meddling in their countries is unavoidable. And it doesn't even have to be the government. Private oil companies just as easily could interfere, but they have less legitimacy than the government. America was wrong to give Saddam weapons. It was a misguided attempt to combat Soviet encroachments on the middle east, but are we just supposed to say, "well, we were naughty, so we should let it all just go to shit."? NO!

1) As crazy as that sounds, yes.
2) I'll try to explain this as simple as I can: On 9/11, we were attacked by radical islamic terrorists, see? Now, these terrorists came from the mid east, right? So, if we liberate and democratize the mid east, the frustration that leads to terrorism will be eradicated, get it? Note:emphasis on middle east, not far east asia, not africa, etc.
3) Captain Underpants

Don't worry, my friend, I picked up the phone. It was one of them 1930s phones, though, so maybe the government's records were eaten by worms or something?

1) That's crazy.

2) You are contradicting your own glorious leader. Bush said it was on all terror everywhere...But nevermind that, you know the *real* reasons for stuff. The 9/11 guys came from Saudi Arabia, so you guys first invade the leaders birthplace and then a random non-theocracy that doesn't have any terror connections on account that "they've got WMD's" but really the reason was to create a paradise of schools and hospitals blown up the day before? Iraq was hardly a country full of radical islamic terrorists, nor did they have WMD's. They did, however, have hospitals and schools.

3) Mr.T

Maybe the 1930's department was out to lunch or is out playing bingo.

sorry for attacking you, I thought it was directed at me.
but I would still like you to answer the above question.
I thought we were debating the Iraq War. I don't really know a whole lot about the Guantanomo Bay situation, so I'm not going to talk out of my ass about it. Although, I can understand why you would be against it.

if japan had to be humiliated why not capure the emperor and his associates,and destroy the army? it would have made people less angry and nationalistic than 2 nukes.
The military was already destroyed, but don't think the civilians wouldn't have picked up shovels and guarded the beaches. In order to "capture" the emperor, there would have to be a land invasion.

1) As crazy as that sounds, yes.
2) I'll try to explain this as simple as I can: On 9/11, we were attacked by radical islamic terrorists, see? Now, these terrorists came from the mid east, right? So, if we liberate and democratize the mid east, the frustration that leads to terrorism will be eradicated, get it? Note:emphasis on middle east, not far east asia, not africa, etc.
3) Captain Underpants

Don't worry, my friend, I picked up the phone. It was one of them 1930s phones, though, so maybe the government's records were eaten by worms or something?

Going to focus on 2.
Problem is, we don't have a comprehensive way to do that. If you read our "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" (you can find in on a link from the terrorism page on the CIA site - thank you psych project!), we do state the 4 things we need to do, with dealing with the underlying conditions as one of them. However, unlike the other three, it doesn't have a plan to deal with them. It actually is the most vital part to the long-term maintenance - without it, the first three become useless and pointless. So, we need a plan, which we don't have. This is the problem.
Second, in the "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" it's not just the Middle East. It's everywhere. Which makes the point of "why aren't we doing this anywhere else?" valid. Especially when you consider the link between drug trafficking and terrorism... why hasn't that been stepped up?

True, but it's the whole system that we're trying to reform, not the people, or their religion, etc.
As for American meddling, let's be brutally honest for a second here. This is embarrassing to say, but WE NEED OIL. Our economies would come to a halt if we didn't have it, and we need a steady supply of it. So, meddling in their countries is unavoidable. And it doesn't even have to be the government. Private oil companies just as easily could interfere, but they have less legitimacy than the government. America was wrong to give Saddam weapons. It was a misguided attempt to combat Soviet encroachments on the middle east, but are we just supposed to say, "well, we were naughty, so we should let it all just go to shit."? NO!

so oil is a legit reason for invading a country.At last some honesty!!
I respect you very much for admiting that this was the main reason the usa has messed up the middle east.
Where next captain america-scotland-they have north sea oil!what about russia-lots of oil there.well you just wouldnt, bruitain yuo wouldnt dare tougch(you do need some klind of ally) and russia is too powerful(unless you want nuclkear war)so instead lets steal the natural resources of the middle east-they arent strong enough to fight back.Theyve certainly fought back now!

The first thing america should have done once they realised theyd messed up is not go invading a country where they hate america,but instead america had to go pouring lighter fluid on the fire.

1) That's crazy.
2) You are contradicting your own glorious leader. Bush said it was on all terror everywhere...But nevermind that, you know the *real* reasons for stuff. The 9/11 guys came from Saudi Arabia, so you guys first invade the leaders birthplace and then a random non-theocracy that doesn't have any terror connections on account that "they've got WMD's" but really the reason was to create a paradise of schools and hospitals blown up the day before? Iraq was hardly a country full of radical islamic terrorists, nor did they have WMD's. They did, however, have hospitals and schools.
3) Mr.T

Maybe the 1930's department was out to lunch or is out playing bingo.
1) Not that crazy, if you sit for a while and think about it.
2) Saudi Arabia is supposed to be our ally. I don't for a second think they wouldn't turn on us if they had the chance, but at least they do cooperate. Iraq's infrastructure is in a pretty crappy state right now. That needs to be fixed, and fixed quickly.

Or maybe they were out of jobs due to the depression?

The military was already destroyed, but don't think the civilians wouldn't have picked up shovels and guarded the beaches. In order to "capture" the emperor, there would have to be a land invasion.
I dont see how a nuke is going to make someone any less angry than a land invasion?

Going to focus on 2.
Problem is, we don't have a comprehensive way to do that. If you read our "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" (you can find in on a link from the terrorism page on the CIA site - thank you psych project!), we do state the 4 things we need to do, with dealing with the underlying conditions as one of them. However, unlike the other three, it doesn't have a plan to deal with them. It actually is the most vital part to the long-term maintenance - without it, the first three become useless and pointless. So, we need a plan, which we don't have. This is the problem.
Second, in the "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" it's not just the Middle East. It's everywhere. Which makes the point of "why aren't we doing this anywhere else?" valid. Especially when you consider the link between drug trafficking and terrorism... why hasn't that been stepped up?
Well, drug traffickers, as bad as they are, don't fly airplanes into buildings. I think it's the shock effect of seeing two magnificent building like the Twin Towers collapsing that really started the "war on terror." People are genuinly afraid. I agree with the rest of what you said. We need a better way to make the strategy work.

Going to focus on 2.
Problem is, we don't have a comprehensive way to do that. If you read our "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" (you can find in on a link from the terrorism page on the CIA site - thank you psych project!), we do state the 4 things we need to do, with dealing with the underlying conditions as one of them. However, unlike the other three, it doesn't have a plan to deal with them. It actually is the most vital part to the long-term maintenance - without it, the first three become useless and pointless. So, we need a plan, which we don't have. This is the problem.
Second, in the "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" it's not just the Middle East. It's everywhere. Which makes the point of "why aren't we doing this anywhere else?" valid. Especially when you consider the link between drug trafficking and terrorism... why hasn't that been stepped up?
I whole heartedly agree,why just afghanistan and iraq?why not iran-many more extreme islamists there than in iraq?but as our friend said-it was for oil!!

so oil is a legit reason for invading a country.At last some honesty!!
I respect you very much for admiting that this was the main reason the usa has messed up the middle east.
Where next captain america-scotland-they have north sea oil!what about russia-lots of oil there.well you just wouldnt, bruitain yuo wouldnt dare tougch(you do need some klind of ally) and russia is too powerful(unless you want nuclkear war)so instead lets steal the natural resources of the middle east-they arent strong enough to fight back.Theyve certainly fought back now!

The first thing america should have done once they realised theyd messed up is not go invading a country where they hate america,but instead america had to go pouring lighter fluid on the fire.
Don't get me wrong, oil has something to do with it, but I don't think it was the main reason for the Iraq War.
Oh, they're fighting back. With suicide bombings that kill their own people, and barbaric beheadings that would fill any person with a conscious full of disgust.

I dont see how a nuke is going to make someone any less angry than a land invasion?
A land invasion would have killed more people. It's not how angry they are, it's how many people die that matters more.

People i have good news

Bush cant be reelected woohoo!

Well, drug traffickers, as bad as they are, don't fly airplanes into buildings. I think it's the shock effect of seeing two magnificent building like the Twin Towers collapsing that really started the "war on terror." People are genuinly afraid. I agree with the rest of what you said. We need a better way to make the strategy work.

no one is disputing 9/11 was terrible, but are 3000 american civilian lives worth more than 10 or 20000 iraqi lives-i think not.
considering how agfraid people are of terrorism, there have been only three major attacks on the west-9/11, the madrid bombings(caused by spanish involvement in iraq) and 7/7 (caused by british involvement in iraq-commited by homegrown british citizens nonetheless)no one is doubting that there is a problem with muslim extremists, but there are extemists in every religion, eg the catholics with the IRA-in britain we are probably more at threat from the IRA than al qaeda

People i have good news

Bush cant be reelected woohoo!
But Hilary Clinton can! woohoo!

wait a minute, that's not good...

A land invasion would have killed more people. It's not how angry they are, it's how many people die that matters more.

that is seriously diputable(whether 2 nukes would kill less people than a land invasion) a land ivasion would not still be killing people now through radiation poisoning.

if japan had to be humiliated why not capure the emperor and his associates,and destroy the army? it would have made people less angry and nationalistic than 2 nukes.

that would not have been a feasible act without an invasion which the predicted scenarios were ghastly, so they said, Option A this many people die, Option B, even more people die, lets go with option A

Well, drug traffickers, as bad as they are, don't fly airplanes into buildings. I think it's the shock effect of seeing two magnificent building like the Twin Towers collapsing that really started the "war on terror." People are genuinly afraid. I agree with the rest of what you said. We need a better way to make the strategy work.

Drug trafficking often finances terrorism. So, actually....

Yeah. I have to say, now that we're in, we can't really leave. Otherwise we screw everything up. Handing it over to the UN - yeah, that would work, but the UN would have to accept it and not screw it up either. Since we did this, it's sorta our responsibility to make sure it isn't screwed up, and if we hand it over to the UN, they'll demand that we don't take it back. So that does take out the UN possibility. And since we can't leave, we need a plan. Which is what we don't have enough of. And then for terrorism in general - yeah. We need a better way to make the strategy work. Which is actually what I did with my psych project! Maybe I should present it to the government... lol. ;)

no one is disputing 9/11 was terrible, but are 3000 american civilian lives worth more than 10 or 20000 iraqi lives-i think not.
considering how agfraid people are of terrorism, there have been only three major attacks on the west-9/11, the madrid bombings(caused by spanish involvement in iraq) and 7/7 (caused by british involvement in iraq-commited by homegrown british citizens nonetheless)no one is doubting that there is a problem with muslim extremists, but there are extemists in every religion, eg the catholics with the IRA-in britain we are probably more at threat from the IRA than al qaeda
I'm tired, sleepy, and hungry. I would answer this long paragraph in another long paragraph, but I'm exhausted and I have to go to sleep now. Sorry to disappoint you.

Drug trafficking often finances terrorism. So, actually....

Yeah. I have to say, now that we're in, we can't really leave. Otherwise we screw everything up. Handing it over to the UN - yeah, that would work, but the UN would have to accept it and not screw it up either. Since we did this, it's sorta our responsibility to make sure it isn't screwed up, and if we hand it over to the UN, they'll demand that we don't take it back. So that does take out the UN possibility. And since we can't leave, we need a plan. Which is what we don't have enough of. And then for terrorism in general - yeah. We need a better way to make the strategy work. Which is actually what I did with my psych project! Maybe I should present it to the government... lol. ;)

you sound like you aren't crazy, why not itll be better than most of what they come up with

1) Not that crazy, if you sit for a while and think about it.
2) Saudi Arabia is supposed to be our ally. I don't for a second think they wouldn't turn on us if they had the chance, but at least they do cooperate. Iraq's infrastructure is in a pretty crappy state right now. That needs to be fixed, and fixed quickly.

Or maybe they were out of jobs due to the depression?

1) Still crazy to me... The reason might as well have been "I don't like his moustache".

2) Saudi Arabia is a radical islamic state and lots and lots and lots of terrorists come from there.
I must say it's refreshing to meet someone as honest as you about America's motives: You don't seem to really care about the state of things as long as people co-operate. And you brought up the oil thing, which is basically a given despite many Radical American rightwingers denying it. But I guess that's the difference between you and me: You seem to believe it's ok to bomb civilians back to stone-age in order to force their leaders to "think the correct way" while I do not... Who knows, maybe my president will say something stupid or oil will be discovered here and I'll end up being gunned down by one of your buddies in the military.

Anyway, it's late here and I'm off to bed. I'll conclude by saying that we must agree on disagreeing. ;)

Goodnight, or morning, or whatever time it is over there...

Don't get me wrong, oil has something to do with it, but I don't think it was the main reason for the Iraq War.
Oh, they're fighting back. With suicide bombings that kill their own people, and barbaric beheadings that would fill any person with a conscious full of disgust.
not claiming they are right to do these things, but I can see why ordinary iraqis would turn to extremest groups when they feel their country is violated by just as terrible acts as abu graib and haditha.
You can also understand why normally peaceful muslims would turn to extremists whith 'anomalies'such as guantanimo happening.
Neither side is innocent, but america is claiming the moral high ground and should know better.

you sound like you aren't crazy, why not itll be better than most of what they come up with

Hardee har har har. Mostly, I'm just not caught up in politics yet. And ridiculously intelligent. ;) I doubt I'd be listened to, tho...

I'm tired, sleepy, and hungry. I would answer this long paragraph in another long paragraph, but I'm exhausted and I have to go to sleep now. Sorry to disappoint you.

Thank you for having the guts to debate!
night.

not claiming they are right to do these things, but I can see why ordinary iraqis would turn to extremest groups when they feel their country is violated by just as terrible acts as abu graib and haditha.
You can also understand why normally peaceful muslims would turn to extremists whith 'anomalies'such as guantanimo happening.
Neither side is innocent, but america is claiming the moral high ground and should know better.

Very good. We are creating some of the "underlying conditions" that we need to be destroying in order to stop terrorism. Consequently, terrorism and acceptance thereof is rising, not falling.

i know america's reasons were wrong but i think that we should finish what we started and not screw up too badly, although its pretty screwed up now

Hardee har har har. Mostly, I'm just not caught up in politics yet. And ridiculously intelligent. ;) I doubt I'd be listened to, tho...
I do agree that the iraq situation cannot just be backed out of-something needs to be resolved.
Your plan is probably more coherent than anyone in the us govt has had to say over the past few years,and infinatly more coherent than the plan america went in with.

I do agree that the iraq situation cannot just be backed out of-something needs to be resolved.
Your plan is probably more coherent than anyone in the us govt has had to say over the past few years,and infinatly more coherent than the plan america went in with.
what plan? honestly, we didnt use one, oh there was one but it required a much larger use of force and bush didnt want to commit fully, that paid off didnt it

I do agree that the iraq situation cannot just be backed out of-something needs to be resolved.
Your plan is probably more coherent than anyone in the us govt has had to say over the past few years,and infinatly more coherent than the plan america went in with.

Heh, even my thing has flaws, and can be easily misunderstood (I know my psych teacher didn't understand it). And it's for the overall terrorism thing, not for Iraq, so... yeah. Even I can't solve Iraq. <-_->

im happy bush wont be returning to govt. again, but im pretty nervous about how the new pres, will handle the situation because at this point doing the wrong the could make an even bigger disaster

Very good. We are creating some of the "underlying conditions" that we need to be destroying in order to stop terrorism. Consequently, terrorism and acceptance thereof is rising, not falling.
most of the america govt fail to recoignise that terrorism doesnt rise in isolation, there are reasons for what 'terrorists' do
and by the way, the american right funded the IRA for many many years, and there is no doubt in my mind that teh IRA are terrorists
what is the saying-one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.
denial is a river in egypt, and the american govt must realise that people didnt decide to attack them for no reason, or to destroy 'our way of life'
what got me was when bush said that these people'dont have the same values as us' as if they were aliens from teh planet zog with raging bloodlust!

anyhow, its been good debating with you, but its 3.30 in the morning here in rainy rainy wales.
nos dda(good night)

most of the america govt fail to recoignise that terrorism doesnt rise in isolation, there are reasons for what 'terrorists' do
and by the way, the american right funded the IRA for many many years, and there is no doubt in my mind that teh IRA are terrorists
what is the saying-one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.


not contradicting you but REALLY?!
can u gime a link to any info ya got, im wanna look at this

not contradicting you but REALLY?!
can u gime a link to any info ya got, im wanna look at this

Can't help you with the IRA bit, but you can find the stuff about terrorism not being isolated, having reasons, etc., from the CIA. However, I'm going to hazard a guess that what you wanted is the IRA bit. I've never seen any source, but... I seem to recall that what Checklandia is saying is true... I'd like to see a source too, tho!

not contradicting you but REALLY?!
can u gime a link to any info ya got, im wanna look at this

im back just to answer your question.
for many years-last year being an exeption,because of the mccartney murder by the ira in n.i., sinn fein the political wing of the IRA(linked indeniably with terrorist activities)have been invited to the republican celebrations on st patricks day, party because many republicans helped fun the ira and partly because they sypathised with their aims of throwing off british opression.
The british government had to intervene to ask the us to stop funding the ira, living in britain I know this to be true, its general knowledge, I would find you a link but its 3.45 am, but if you look up some histories of the republican struggle for a united ireland then you should find this.I wouldnt lie to you, I will try and find a source at a more reasonable hour
nos dda!

im back just to answer your question.
for many years-last year being an exeption,because of the mccartney murder by the ira in n.i., sinn fein the political wing of the IRA(linked indeniably with terrorist activities)have been invited to the republican celebrations on st patricks day, party because many republicans helped fun the ira and partly because they sypathised with their aims of throwing off british opression.
The british government had to intervene to ask the us to stop funding the ira, living in britain I know this to be true, its general knowledge, I would find you a link but its 3.45 am, but if you look up some histories of the republican struggle for a united ireland then you should find this.I wouldnt lie to you, I will try and find a source at a more reasonable hour
nos dda!

thanks i look into it and check the thread later