NationStates Jolt Archive

i was wondering how many people support the war in Iraq and Afgahnistan and for what resons, and why people dont support the war*



*i support the war and am a republican if anyone wondering

I only support the war in Afghanistan, which has unfortunately been quiet botched up by this administration.

interesting, why not Iraq? it was a simmilar situation there, just more organized

interesting, why not Iraq? it was a simmilar situation there, just more organized

They aren't really the same at all.

War = killing innocent people. Killing innocent people is always wrong. War = forcing people to pay for the killing of innocent people. War = spending money on things that don't benefit our people to whom we have obligations.

interesting, why not Iraq? it was a simmilar situation there, just more organized

Not really. The Taliban sheltered Al Qaeda and when we demanded that they hand them over, they refused, despite the fact that we threatened invasion if they didn't. Clear case for war.

Iraq didn't really do anything to us, and as it's been basically concluded now, didn't have the WMD's that Bush said they did. And no, they weren't sheltering Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were enemies, the latter even calling the former an "enemy of God."

So no, the situations weren't similar at all.

what about world war 2? without it we would all be speaking german (or dead as the casemay be)

Knowing what we know now, we should NOT have gone into Iraq. I was against going in there in 2003, but now that we're there, we should make sure we finish the job right and don't leave a power vacuum for Iran to exploit.

I fully support Afghanistan. After 9/11, we had more than a legitimate cassus belli.

but it was Al Quada, not the Taliban, who planed 9/11

I supported Afghanistan; we had the justification of responding to 9/11 and had broad international support.

I strongly opposed Iraq. I thought that the evidence for WMD was weak, that it would damage our soft power, that it would place too much strain on our military, that it would create problems with Iran, and that we should stabilize Afghanistan before even considering another military engagement.

War = killing innocent people. Killing innocent people is always wrong. War = forcing people to pay for the killing of innocent people. War = spending money on things that don't benefit our people to whom we have obligations.

I understand that peace is always what we want to shoot for, but there are legitimate reasons to go to war. Stopping Nazi Germany for one example. Peace at all cost is a foolish philosophy as it ignores that there are legitimate cases for war. Right now we should be fucking up the Sudanese government and military. We would save more people in the long run.

I supported Afghanistan. After that, it was just Bush trying to show off America's power by deposing teh ebil dictatorz with freedom for allz!!!11!

I think we should stay in Iraq until things have cleared up, although we never should've went in.

but it was Al Quada, not the Taliban, who planed 9/11

The Taliban was very closely tied to Al Qaeda and worked directly with them. The Taliban was just as culpable for the 9/11 attacks as Al Qaeda. At any moment before October 7, 2001, they could have handed over Bin Laden as we had demanded of them.

Afghanistan was a no-brainer at the time. Al-Quada had just destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon. The Taliban controlling Afghanistan were harboring. We said, "Give em to us." They said, "Hell no." We said, "Give em up or we'll come get em." They said "Get Bent." We sent in special forces and helped Afghan rebels overthrow the Taliban(who had no more claim to power than anyone else since the Soviet Union abandoned their own war). Al-Quaeda is still a threat to us, and the Taliban is still a threat to our ally Afghanistan, so that's that.

Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. Even assuming that only military force could cause a regime change, there is no reason why it couldn't have waited a year. Or two. Or five. Diplomacy was still possible. Self-imposed exile was an option being discussed between Saddam Hussein and other middle-east powers. Iraq was at best premature and at worst(as it turned out) a distraction from the real threat.

As of right now, the only reason why the insurgency still exists in Iraq is because of American occupation. Without someone for them to fight, there would be no reason for them to fight. At least not in Iraq. The USA and other western nations are their enemy, not Iraq.

and on WMDs they are not only Nuclear weapons, but Biological, and chemical weapons, which Hussain used in the first Gulf, and Iraq-Iran wars

but it was Al Quada, not the Taliban, who planed 9/11

And?
Al Qaeda was sheltered by the Taliban, as well as sharing many, many ties

what about world war 2? without it we would all be speaking german (or dead as the casemay be)

..Assuming everyone just let the Germans into their country without fighting them..

what about world war 2? without it we would all be speaking german (or dead as the casemay be)

Are you seriously comparing the Iraq War to WWII? You are more foolish than I thought.

and on WMDs they are not only Nuclear weapons, but Biological, and chemical weapons, which Hussain used in the first Gulf, and Iraq-Iran wars
But did not have when we invaded in 2003.


Also, please learn how to use the quote function.

and on WMDs they are not only Nuclear weapons, but Biological, and chemical weapons, which Hussain used in the first Gulf, and Iraq-Iran wars

And which he no longer had. Many of those that he used in the Iraq-Iran war, we gave to him.

HaMedinat Yisrael, we are in agreement as far as Afghanistan is concerned. I understand the threat the Iran poses. However I think we need to have a clear timetable in place to draw down forces and to goad the Iraqi government into taking concrete action to solve its own problems. I do not think we can get out within a year, not four, maybe not even eight, but if Iraq does not make sufficient progress towards the agreed upon goals, then we must pull out. As for Iran, if Israel has reason to believe that it is a strong enough threat to Israeli sovereignty to justify warfare, I do not believe that the US should stop them. However, that being said, we will stay neutral and refuse to intervene concerning either side.

..Assuming everyone just let the Germans into their country without fighting them..

And then chose to give up their native languages in favor of German (something surprisingly rare within an empire)

Afghanistan was a no-brainer at the time. Al-Quada had just destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon. The Taliban controlling Afghanistan were harboring. We said, "Give em to us." They said, "Hell no." We said, "Give em up or we'll come get em." They said "Get Bent." We sent in special forces and helped Afghan rebels overthrow the Taliban(who had no more claim to power than anyone else since the Soviet Union abandoned their own war). Al-Quaeda is still a threat to us, and the Taliban is still a threat to our ally Afghanistan, so that's that.

Iraq wasn't an imminent threat. Even assuming that only military force could cause a regime change, there is no reason why it couldn't have waited a year. Or two. Or five. Diplomacy was still possible. Self-imposed exile was an option being discussed between Saddam Hussein and other middle-east powers. Iraq was at best premature and at worst(as it turned out) a distraction from the real threat.

As of right now, the only reason why the insurgency still exists in Iraq is because of American occupation. Without someone for them to fight, there would be no reason for them to fight. At least not in Iraq. The USA and other western nations are their enemy, not Iraq.

Once again, let the forum behold the wisdom of LG

i am not comparing the wars, i am mearly stating that if we whad that policy (that we wouldent fight wars) europe would be under Nazi controle, and america would be under attack, but in the case of the 2nd Gulf war, concider the oppresed peoples, who where saved from their oppressers

..Assuming everyone just let the Germans into their country without fighting them..

And if they then decided to switch to speaking German, which would be unusual and didn't happen in Vichy France or the other places Germany conquered.

ah, but the UN has footage of the Chemical weapons entering syria in open-top trucks

And if they then decided to switch to speaking German, which would be unusual and didn't happen in Vichy France or the other places Germany conquered.
you take things too literaly

i am not comparing the wars, i am mearly stating that if we whad that policy (that we wouldent fight wars) europe would be under Nazi controle, and america would be under attack, but in the case of the 2nd Gulf war, concider the oppresed peoples, who where saved from their oppressers
Only to be opressed by new opressors.

We did not go in to "liberate" Iraq (a dubious statement to begin with), nor have we succeeded in doing so.

Once again, let the forum behold the wisdom of LG

War is not my preferred brand of chaos. I find that people have a hard time laughing when their loved ones are exploding.

i am not comparing the wars, i am mearly stating that if we whad that policy (that we wouldent fight wars) europe would be under Nazi controle, and america would be under attack, but in the case of the 2nd Gulf war, concider the oppresed peoples, who where saved from their oppressers

First of all, learn to type. This isn't fucking /b/.

And second of all, no, Europe would not. You see, because Nazi Germany attacked other members of Europe and were in an alliance with Japan, who attacked the US.

Iraq hadn't attacked anybody since they got their ass kicked in 1991.

I agree that Afghanistan was more credible, but then did you support lobbing to invade Sudan (darfur)

you take things too literaly

That's the only possible way to take things when you make terrible analogies--like comparing WWII, where the U.S. declared war after being attacked by an aggressive imperial power, and OIF, where the U.S. attacked a nation that didn't even pose a threat.

ah, but the UN has footage of the Chemical weapons entering syria in open-top trucks

Do you have evidence for this claim? Evidence more credible than, say, the conclusions of the Iraq Study Group?

War is not my preferred brand of chaos. I find that people have a hard time laughing when their loved ones are exploding.

Yes. War tends not to be very funny at all.

I wasn't being sarcastic at all, btw. Your posts are usually very well reasoned (when they don't have to do with mud and pies, though such posts are awesome, too).

Only to be opressed by new opressors.

We did not go in to "liberate" Iraq (a dubious statement to begin with), nor have we succeeded in doing so.

Then you have absolutly no idea what the situation was before. I don't know why it seems to be that every military family that I have talked to wants to stay in the war, but everyone else who hasn't done a damn for our country's defense opposes it and thinks that they know strategy and war.

Saddam Hussien killed 300,000 people directly. Another 400,000 children were starved because he withheld the food from the Oil-for-food program to give to his supporters. Not to mention the millions of others who died because they He wouldn't allow them certain medicines and food which would have allowed them to live.

I agree that Afghanistan was more credible, but then did you support lobbing to invade Sudan (darfur)

Um... genocide.

the quote was:
War = killing innocent people. Killing innocent people is always wrong. War = forcing people to pay for the killing of innocent people. War = spending money on things that don't benefit our people to whom we have obligations.

so if we didnt "punish" the Nazis, they would have taken control, without opposition

Um... genocide. Hussain allso commited genocide against the religous majority i know, i cant, spell

ah, but the UN has footage of the Chemical weapons entering syria in open-top trucks
Lets see this footage.

I agree that Afghanistan was more credible, but then did you support lobbing to invade Sudan (darfur)

A very impressive array of countries not involved in a war against Al-Quada also ignored Sudan. I think there's enough blame to go around.

That's the only possible way to take things when you make terrible analogies--like comparing WWII, where the U.S. declared war after being attacked by an aggressive imperial power, and OIF, where the U.S. attacked a nation that didn't even pose a threat. again i wasnt comparing the two

Then you have absolutly no idea what the situation was before. I don't know why it seems to be that every military family that I have talked to wants to stay in the war, but everyone else who hasn't done a damn for our country's defense opposes it and thinks that they know strategy and war.

Saddam Hussien killed 300,000 people directly. Another 400,000 children were starved because he withheld the food from the Oil-for-food program to give to his supporters. Not to mention the millions of others who died because they He wouldn't allow them certain medicines and food which would have allowed them to live.
i love how everyone ignored this statement :D

War is not my preferred brand of chaos. I find that people have a hard time laughing when their loved ones are exploding.

Too many people laugh when it's someone else's loved one's doing the exploding though.

Yes. War tends not to be very funny at all.

I wasn't being sarcastic at all, btw. Your posts are usually very well reasoned (when they don't have to do with mud and pies, though such posts are awesome, too).

Thank you. :)

If Hussein was such a evil dictator who deserved to be toppled (Which he was, but hear me out) then why haven't we adopted a policy of doing the same thing to other dictators? We don't mind other oppressive regimes as long as they play nicely with us. There was a group of neoconservatives lobbying to invade Iraq back when Bill Clinton was President, and absolutely no threat, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield (Who was one of those neocons) was talking about striking Iraq five hours after 9/11, even though Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with it, and there wasn't the slightest shred of evidence either way then. Let's be honest: Iraq was premature, has cost 4000 American lives in pursuit of mythical WMDs, has allowed Al Qaeda not only to regroup, but grow, and never should have happened. I think we need a time table, otherwise the Iraqi government has no motivation to start taking up responsibility.

i love how everyone ignored this statement :D

Because it wasn't worth responding to.

Then you have absolutly no idea what the situation was before. I don't know why it seems to be that every military family that I have talked to wants to stay in the war, but everyone else who hasn't done a damn for our country's defense opposes it and thinks that they know strategy and war.
Don't assume anything about me. Ever.
You don't know me, or my family, or my friends.
Saddam Hussien killed 300,000 people directly. Another 400,000 children were starved because he withheld the food from the Oil-for-food program to give to his supporters. Not to mention the millions of others who died because they He wouldn't allow them certain medicines and food which would have allowed them to live.
Uh huh. And I never claimed he was a nice guy. We haven't fixed the problems...instead, we have destabilized the country to the brink of civil war, and destabilized the region even more than it already had been.
Not to mention how tenuous your claim of "millions" is, given the population of less than 30,000,000.

They are far from liberated. Less oppressed is still oppressed.

because we have a policy that we wont invade unless a contry, attacks us, breaks international laws/ sanctions, which Iraq did, but unfortunately many did
not

because we have a policy that we wont invade unless a contry, attacks us, breaks international laws/ sanctions, which Iraq did, but unfortunately many did
not

Whose sanctions did Iraq violate?

Don't assume anything about me. Ever.
You don't know me, or my family, or my friends.

Uh huh. And I never claimed he was a nice guy. We haven't fixed the problems...instead, we have destabilized the country to the brink of civil war, and destabilized the region even more than it already had been.


They are far from liberated. Less oppressed is still oppressed.
however, they are not ruled by an insane murdering phycopath, who broke every international humanitarian law possible

Then you have absolutly no idea what the situation was before. I don't know why it seems to be that every military family that I have talked to wants to stay in the war, but everyone else who hasn't done a damn for our country's defense opposes it and thinks that they know strategy and war.

Saddam Hussien killed 300,000 people directly. Another 400,000 children were starved because he withheld the food from the Oil-for-food program to give to his supporters. Not to mention the millions of others who died because they He wouldn't allow them certain medicines and food which would have allowed them to live.

1) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Your anecdotes about "every military family" supporting the war aren't valid arguments. Apparently you haven't heard of groups like this (http://ivaw.org/), or Wesley Clark and any of the other high ranking military officers who did not support the war.

2) No one is trying to argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a bad person. But what's your point? That doesn't mean U.S. policy has ever been or should be to "liberate" countries whose governments we dislike.

Too many people laugh when it's someone else's loved one's doing the exploding though.

I suspect it is either because it's happening at a comfortable distance from them, or because they really have no access to more constructive chaos. Perhaps both.

the UNs, by buying Uranium (from Russia) and selling their oil (to France)

because we have a policy that we wont invade unless a contry, attacks us, breaks international laws/ sanctions, which Iraq did, but unfortunately many did
not
When did Iraq attack us?

Remember how we started the war with "Shock and Awe", our preemptive strike?

Guess what "preemptive" means.

the UNs, by buying Uranium (from Russia) and selling their oil (to France)

.....wow. I actually had a point to this line of questioning but I see now that it wouldn't even be worth it.

Iraq...bought Uranium....from Russia......this was AFTER the first gulf war?

1) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Your anecdotes about "every military family" supporting the war aren't valid arguments. Apparently you haven't heard of groups like this (http://ivaw.org/), or Wesley Clark and any of the other high ranking military officers who did not support the war.

2) No one is trying to argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a bad person. But what's your point? That doesn't mean U.S. policy has ever been or should be to "liberate" countries whose governments we dislike.

Thank you for that post, I've read Wes Clark's book on the Iraq War, which was written not more than a couple of years after we invaded, and he picked the strategy apart, totally, pointing out what a blunder it was, and the other motivations behind it.

1) Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Your anecdotes about "every military family" supporting the war aren't valid arguments. Apparently you haven't heard of groups like this (http://ivaw.org/), or Wesley Clark and any of the other high ranking military officers who did not support the war.

2) No one is trying to argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a bad person. But what's your point? That doesn't mean U.S. policy has ever been or should be to "liberate" countries whose governments we dislike.
Unfortunatly for us, much of the world does think that it is the U.S'. job to overthrow horrible dictators

however, they are not ruled by an insane murdering phycopath, who broke every international humanitarian law possible
Did I say he was a good guy?

Firstly, being less opressed STILL isn't being free. There is actually a huge difference.
Second, it is not our policy, nor our job, to liberate the world. Particularly without a damn good reason.

.....wow. I actually had a point to this line of questioning but I see now that it wouldn't even be worth it.

Iraq...bought Uranium....from Russia...
yessss..... Iraq....bought....uranium....from....Russia....

Unfortunatly for us, much of the world does think that it is the U.S'. job to overthrow horrible dictators

that's why the iraq war was met with international broad support.

Oh...wait.

Unfortunatly for us, much of the world does think that it is the U.S'. job to overthrow horrible dictators

No.

Unfortunatly for us, much of the world does think that it is the U.S'. job to overthrow horrible dictators (if i must repeat myself)

yessss..... Iraq....bought....uranium....from....Russia....

when? You mean the uranium that was removed from Iraq after the first gulf war?

Unfortunatly for us, much of the world does think that it is the U.S'. job to overthrow horrible dictators (if i must repeat myself)

And you're still wrong. So why keep saying it?

Not to mention, it doesn't matter what the rest of the world says our policy should or should not be.

Unfortunatly for us, much of the world does think that it is the U.S'. job to overthrow horrible dictators (if i must repeat myself)

it was bullshit the first time you said it, it's bullshit now.

Do you...actually know what you're talking about? I get the feeling you've assembled a hodgepodge of random information and factoids relating to pre gulf war, post gulf war pre operation iraqi freedom, and factoids about other nations, that you've gotten all conflated and confused in your head.

Because nothing you've said actually...you know, makes sense or is true. It sounds like someone who THINKS he knows what he's talking about, but doesn't actually have a clue.

when? You mean the uranium that was removed from Russia after the first gulf war?
no the uranium that was to be shipped to Iraq from Russia, (at least according to the UN)

Unfortunatly for us, much of the world does think that it is the U.S'. job to overthrow horrible dictators (if i must repeat myself)

Find us one international editorial saying the U.S. should invade North Korea, which has a psychotic dictator and actually has WMD.

no the uranium that was to be shipped to Iraq from Russia, (at least according to the UN)

While you're showing us the footage of WMDs being shipped in to Syria, could you provide us with these documents?

no the uranium that was to be shipped to Iraq from Russia, (at least according to the UN)

typo on my part, meant "iraq" not russia. And if the UN stated that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from Russia post Gulf war, surely you can provide some sort of proof for that statement?

Because, you know, I've researched the current conflict thoroughly, have a degree in international political relations and international relations theory, and a law degree, and, frankly, you're full of shit.

no the uranium that was to be shipped to Iraq from Russia, (at least according to the UN)

Source?

it was bullshit the first time you said it, it's bullshit now.

Do you...actually know what you're talking about? I get the feeling you've assembled a hodgepodge of random information and factoids relating to pre gulf war, post gulf war pre operation iraqi freedom, and factoids about other nations, that you've gotten all conflated and confused in your head.

Because nothing you've said actually...you know, makes sense or is true. It sounds like someone who THINKS he knows what he's talking about, but doesn't actually have a clue. yes you do sound like someone who dosnt know what he's talking about, allot of people think that the U.S. should solve their problems, mostly african and south-east asian people. but of corse someone whos never been out of their bedroom would not know that:(

Find us one international editorial saying the U.S. should invade North Korea, which has a psychotic dictator and actually was WMD.

The sad part is, there's a very large demographic in the United States that not only believed Saddam had WMDs, but that we ACTUALLY FOUND THEM.

War = killing innocent people. Killing innocent people is always wrong. War = forcing people to pay for the killing of innocent people. War = spending money on things that don't benefit our people to whom we have obligations.

get back to your bong, hippie. :p

Source? most news stations aroud the following months of 9/11

yes you do sound like someone who dosnt know what he's talking about, allot of people think that the U.S. should solve their problems, mostly african and south-east asian people. but of corse someone whos never been out of their bedroom would not know that:(

this is amusing from someone who, by all reasonable measure, hasn't finished high school yet.

I think it's past your bedtime.

most news stations aroud the following months of 9/11

really?

Find one source, just one that states Iraq successfully negotiated to acquire uranium from Russia post gulf war.

I'll wait here.

Knowing what we know now, we should NOT have gone into Iraq. I was against going in there in 2003, but now that we're there, we should make sure we finish the job right and don't leave a power vacuum for Iran to exploit.

I fully support Afghanistan. After 9/11, we had more than a legitimate cassus belli.

I'm leaning towards this view.

most news stations aroud the following months of 9/11
Links. Put up or shut up.

most news stations aroud the following months of 9/11

No, give me a link, don't just make a statement and expect me to automatically believe it's true. Furthermore, Fox News for one was spewing pro-Iraq War propaganda, much of which turned out to be false, so media around the time of Iraq may not be the best source.

this is amusing from someone who, by all reasonable measure, hasn't finished high school yet.

I think it's past your bedtime.
despite being in school (collage actualy) ive still done more with my life than you have

(collage actualy)

wow...

The sad part is, there's a very large demographic in the United States that not only believed Saddam had WMDs, but that we ACTUALLY FOUND THEM.

Yep, I had a debate about it on another forum. No matter how many links I posted, they still weren't convinced. I said, "See? Colin Powell says there weren't any WMDs." The response was, "Someone should tell him we found them."

...We said, "Give em to us." They said, "Hell no." We said, "Give em up or we'll come get em." They said "Get Bent." ...

The taliban was willing to negotiate. The team from Pak that went to negotiate, headed by Lt. Gen Mahmood Ahmad, allegedly advised taliban not to negotiate and to melt away and mount insurgency later and eventually US will withdraw...which is kinda coming true.

Above is mostly sourced from Indian intelligence...I believe it.

oh, my mistake Iraq DID have WMDs at the time of invasion
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

despite being in school (collage actualy) ive still done more with my life than you have

Says the man who can't spell to the successful lawyer.

(collage actualy)

The response was, "Someone should tell him we found them."

Is this thread making anyone else want to drink heavily?

what the hell am i suposed to do? email you my travel records? im not that stupid

I suspect it is either because it's happening at a comfortable distance from them, or because they really have no access to more constructive chaos. Perhaps both.

I believe people would be less hard for war if it was their bodily fluids being sprayed liberally across the room.

what the hell am i suposed to do? email you my travel records? im not that stupid

Avoid getting into ego contests with people who are smarter than you. And post links that aren't from right-wing disinformation sites.

HAHA more evidence
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/

Didn't we already know about the yellowcake? I don't think that's new, and I'm still wondering exactly what threat Iraq posed to the US.

Unfortunatly for us, much of my delusional idea of the world does think that it is the U.S'. job to overthrow horrible dictators (if i must repeat myself)

Fixed

...

Saddam Hussien killed 300,000 people directly. Another 400,000 children were starved because he withheld the food from the Oil-for-food program to give to his supporters. Not to mention the millions of others who died because they He wouldn't allow them certain medicines and food which would have allowed them to live.

Oh, cut the crap, please.

US armed and aided a dictator who killed 3 million people. 3 MILLION people.

US people on the ground opposed it from the beginning (the 'Blood telegrams'), but that did not stop Nixon from writing 'to all hands, don't squeeze Yahya'.

You see, Yahya was a pro-US dictator. So it is ok for him to kill 3 million people.

HAHA more evidence
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/
and this time its left-wing too

what the hell am i suposed to do? email you my travel records? im not that stupid

He sure showed us gang, he's obviously VERY experienced, I bet he has even been to Canada.

Didn't we already know about the yellowcake? I don't think that's new, and I'm still wondering exactly what threat Iraq posed to the US. yes we did know about the yellowcake, that can be prossesd into WEAPON GRADE URANIUM

and this time its left-wing too

I asked you to supply a post that stated that Iraq had violated post gulf war sanctions by importing uranium.

not only have you failed to demonstrate that such importation would be a violation of any UN sanction, you have also failed to demonstrate the necessary temporal element.

You do know how to read a calendar, yes?

I don't agree with either war. The Taliban were not a duly elected government of Afghanistan no matter how spineless the UN was in recognizing them. The people had no choice in how the Taliban chose to behave and therefore should not have been punished for what the Taliban did in protecting bin Laden.

We have Special Forces troops in the U.S. military for a reason and, frankly, with Afghanistan being in a mountainous war-torn region beset by warring tribes, it would have been more effective to send in small assassin groups to go after key members of al Qaeda rather than sending entire divisions in with weapons that hurt far more innocent noncombatants than guilty terrorists.

As for Iraq, they just want us out, and we should oblige them. They're giving our troops a run for their money and we have the best military in the world; do you really think they won't be able to handle Iran, should it come to that? Haven't we interfered in that region enough?

He sure showed us gang, he's obviously VERY experienced, I bet he has even been to Canada.
Canada, England, France, Russia, Costa Rica, Italy, Equador

I don't agree with either war. The Taliban were not a duly elected government of Afghanistan no matter how spineless the UN was in recognizing them. The people had no choice in how the Taliban chose to behave and therefore should not have been punished for what the Taliban did in protecting bin Laden.

We have Special Forces troops in the U.S. military for a reason and, frankly, with Afghanistan being in a mountainous war-torn region beset by warring tribes, it would have been more effective to send in small assassin groups to go after key members of al Qaeda rather than sending entire divisions in with weapons that hurt far more innocent noncombatants than guilty terrorists.

As for Iraq, they just want us out, and we should oblige them. They're giving our troops a run for their money and we have the best military in the world; do you really think they won't be able to handle Iran, should it come to that? Haven't we interfered in that region enough? wow a credible opinion, this is what i was looking for

yes we did know about the yellowcake, that can be prossesd into WEAPON GRADE URANIUM

With what processing plant? Perhaps the one existing in your delusional la la land? Or did you mean the one Israel bombed to bits over 20 years ago?

Or maybe you'll say Saddam would use his awesome psychic powers to transmute yellowcake into plutonium.

Of course, none of that actually proves a violation of the sanctions post first Gulf War.

oh, my mistake Iraq DID have WMDs at the time of invasion
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

Uh huh...Newsmax...not quite reliable.
Even Bush said they didn't have WMD's. Hell, even your article doesn't say that they had it. It says that they had a large ammount of uranium which COULD have been enriched, some which had been enriched earlier, and had the technology to enrich more (though, he stops short of saying they actually had a centerfuge...just the plans for one).

Care to try again?

Moreover, I'm still waiting on that UN footage. And evidence that Iraq bought uranium from Russia.
what the hell am i suposed to do? email you my travel records? im not that stupid
What are you on about? Quote people when you respond.

yes we did know about the yellowcake, that can be prossesd into WEAPON GRADE URANIUM

from your own source:

. It is not enriched and cannot be used without first going through a complicated enrichment process

Taking low yield, unenriched uranium and processing it into weapons grade material, is an extremely complicated process and there hasn't been a scintilla of evidence to suggest that Iraq had those capabilities.

Even your own prior link has to dress it up, when, discussing the 1.8 TONS of low grade material it found, it postulated that IF that material had, ALL OF IT, all 1.8 tons of it, been of the highest grade for fuel grade uranium, it might, MIGHT have been enough for one nuclear bomb.

With what processing plant? Perhaps the one existing in your delusional la la land? Or did you mean the one Israel bombed to bits over 20 years ago?

Or maybe you'll say Saddam would use his awesome psychic powers to transmute yellowcake into plutonium. i mean the one to the south of Bagdad, Hussains weapon prossesing plant OOOOOOOOHHHHHH AAAAAAHHHHHH

Canada, England, France, Russia, Costa Rica, Italy, Equador

....that's it?

HAHA more evidence
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/

yes we did know about the yellowcake, that can be prossesd into WEAPON GRADE URANIUM

CAN be is not the same as WAS.

A propane tank CAN be turned into a bomb.
A propane tank WAS turned into a bomb.

See the difference?

Posession of low grade uranium is NOT posession of WMD's.

from your own source:



Taking low yield, unenriched uranium and processing it into weapons grade material, is an extremely complicated process and there hasn't been a scintilla of evidence to suggest that Iraq had those capabilities.

Even your own prior link has to dress it up, when, discussing the 1.8 TONS of low grade material it found, it postulated that IF that material had, ALL OF IT, all 1.8 tons of it, been of the highest grade for fuel grade uranium, it might, MIGHT have been enough for one nuclear bomb.
every nuke made today, has the same blast radius, but more devistating widespread effects, than the A-bombs of WWII, he could destroy millions in one attack

and on WMDs they are not only Nuclear weapons, but Biological, and chemical weapons, which Hussain used in the first Gulf, and Iraq-Iran wars

Too bad they werent there.


Where have you been the past 5 years?

every nuke made today, has the same blast radius, but more devistating widespread effects, than the A-bombs of WWII, he could destroy millions in one attack

When will you stop pulling imaginary "facts" out of your nether regions?

CAN be is not the same as WAS.

A propane tank CAN be turned into a bomb.
A propane tank WAS turned into a bomb.

See the difference?

Posession of low grade uranium is NOT posession of WMD's.
a propane tank NEXT TO a weapons prossesing plant, most likely WILL be turned into a bomb

every nuke made today, has the same blast radius, but more devistating widespread effects, than the A-bombs of WWII, he could destroy millions in one attack

Could have. You know, if he had a bomb. Which you have yet to demonstrate that he did. Only that he could concieveably have built maybe one bomb

When will you stop pulling imaginary "facts" out of your nether regions?
2-2.5 miles, the blast allso emits shockwave that can destroy most buildings.

a propane tank NEXT TO a weapons prossesing plant, most likely WILL be turned into a bomb
But hasn't. You claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction on March 20th, 2003. Prove it. Not that they could have one. Not that they wanted one. Not that they were developing the technology to maybe one day build one.

That they had it. In their posession. Built and ready to go.

I have a question, how many people here dislike american policy?

I have a question, how many people here dislike american policy?

Oooh! Oooooh! *raises hand*

I have a question, how many people here dislike american policy?

Which American policy?

Oooh! Oooooh! *raises hand*

Do you hate the U.S.?

every nuke made today

None of which were made by Iraq. Why do I get the feeling you think making a nuclear bomb consists of shoveling a bunch of dirt into a sack labeled "radioactive", setting it on fire, and leaving it on someone's porch?

Do you hate the U.S.?

Well, hating our dipshit policies and hating our country do not go hand in hand.


But Im sure you know that.

Which American policy?
forign policy (that is CURRENT american policy not policy to come)

I have a question, how many people here dislike american policy?

American policy pertaining to what? That's far too broad a question to answer. American policy pertaining to the middle east? to africa? towards economic stimulus in southern africa?

None of which were made by Iraq. Why do I get the feeling you think making a nuclear bomb consists of shoveling a bunch of dirt into a sack labeled "radioactive", setting it on fire, and leaving it on someone's porch?

I is makin nukes in ur basement!

Was this thread always so stupid, or is it fairly recent?

None of which were made by Iraq. Why do I get the feeling you think making a nuclear bomb consists of shoveling a bunch of dirt into a sack labeled "radioactive", setting it on fire, and leaving it on someone's porch?

they had the potential to create a bomb

forign (sic) policy

Towards whom? Certain the bush doctrine of "Ready! Fire! Aim!" has done us no favors.

Well, hating our dipshit policies and hating our country do not go hand in hand.


But Im sure you know that.

I wouldn't make any such assumption.

forign policy (that is CURRENT american policy not policy to come)
In regards to what country?
Was this thread always so stupid, or is it fairly recent?

I'm sure you could guess.

Towards whom? Certain the bush doctrine of "Ready! Fire! Aim!" has done us no favors.

Excellent characterisation, who'd you steal it from?

they had the potential to create a bomb

no, they didn't. Any more so than a bag of flour, but no oven, gives you the potential to bake a cake. They had no high grade uranium, no method to enrich the low grade uranium they did have, and no indication that they even had enough low grade uranium to make a single, functioning nuclear chain reaction, even if they could enrich it.

they had the potential to create a bomb

I have the potential to make babies...missing quite a few ingredients but...does that mean I'm actually pregnant?

they had the potential to create a bomb

I have the potential to run in the Boston Marathon. That doesn't mean I will.

You said that they had WMD's. Prove it. Again, not that they could...but that they did.

whatev, I will now quote my freind Dole "I cant argue with Asses, their too stubborn" goodbye

whatev, I will now quote my freind Dole "I cant argue with Asses, their too stubborn" goodbye
You haven't argued shit. You made claims which were disproved by your own source. You asked a question far too broad to answer. And you still fail to show a single source that actually defends your position.

despite being in school (collage actualy) ive still done more with my life than you have

I call bullshit.

If you were in college, you'd know how to spell it.

whatev, I will now quote my freind Dole "I cant argue with Asses, their too stubborn" goodbye

Awww.

This one didn't even really try.

There's been a dearth of credible sources in this thread.

NY Times: (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/washington/05cnd-intel.html)
A long-delayed Senate report endorsed by Democrats and some Republicans has concluded that President Bush and his aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq’s weapons programs and Saddam Hussein’s links to Al Qaeda.

Paul Pillar in Foreign Affairs: (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p0/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html)In the wake of the Iraq war, it has become clear that official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized. As the national intelligence officer responsible for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, I witnessed all of these disturbing developments.
A view broadly held in the United States and even more so overseas was that deterrence of Iraq was working, that Saddam was being kept "in his box," and that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections program to supplement the sanctions already in place. That the administration arrived at so different a policy solution indicates that its decision to topple Saddam was driven by other factors -- namely, the desire to shake up the sclerotic power structures of the Middle East and hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region.

If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath. What is most remarkable about prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq is not that it got things wrong and thereby misled policymakers; it is that it played so small a role in one of the most important U.S. policy decisions in recent decades.
So, even among those at CIA who believed the reports of WMD, the conventional wisdom was that there was no need to invade Iraq. Where does that put those who want to defend the invasion in retrospect, now that we know there was no WMD?

can not define view. Wont say we should have been in Iraq but i think since we messed up their stability. maybe maybe it is getting stable now.

as for Afghanistan we should stay there until Bin Laden shows up in another country, or we have Bin Laden's head on a pike on the white house.

I have the potential to make babies...missing quite a few ingredients but...does that mean I'm actually pregnant?

Lol, owned.

I call bullshit.

If you were in college, you'd know how to spell it.

well it's november, it's entirely possible that he just started and hasn't failed his first round of finals yet.

whatev, I will now quote my freind Dole "I cant argue with Asses, their too stubborn" goodbye

thoroughly unsurprisingly. Typical uneducated troll "fine, I didn't want to talk to you anyway!"

thoroughly unsurprisingly. Typical uneducated troll "fine, I didn't want to talk to you anyway!"
Mind you, because we're stubborn asses. Yes, how dare we demand sources. For shame.

Mind you, because we're stubborn asses. Yes, how dare we demand sources. For shame.

I know. I mean, we are obviously stubborn, for refusing to believe the truth that's right in front of our eyes, and refusing to believe that, all said and done, Iraq most likely did not have the capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

We're so stubborn like that. You, me, Colin Powell, and the entire American intelligence community.

of course the most amusing part of all is, despite his "screw you guys, I'm going home" flourish, apparently he doesn't know that we can tell he's still reading the thread.

2-2.5 miles, the blast allso emits shockwave that can destroy most buildings.

Does the term dial a yield mean anything to you? Variable yield warheads maybe? Or the fact that modern day nuclear weapons are produced from tactical sub-kiloton yields to multi-megaton strategic yields, with different blast radii respectively?

You're an ignorant child attempting to cover your utter lack of knowledge with vacuous jabber hoping to look intelligent, but only making yourself out to be a fool.

I fully supported Afghanistan, and I support our continued presence in Iraq.
Notice, I did not say the invasion of Iraq. I opposed it at the beginning, but now that we're there, I think we have an obligation to fix the mess we made.

I know. I mean, we are obviously stubborn, for refusing to believe the truth that's right in front of our eyes, and refusing to believe that, all said and done, Iraq most likely did not have the capacity to make a nuclear bomb.

We're so stubborn like that. You, me, Colin Powell, and the entire American intelligence community.

of course the most amusing part of all is, despite his "screw you guys, I'm going home" flourish, apparently he doesn't know that we can tell he's still reading the thread.

You're just being stubborn. He isn't still here. He said he was leaving. Even though all the evidence says otherwise.

Why must you be such a stubborn ass?

they had the potential to create a bomb

You have the potential to be a mass murderer one day. We should kill you now to prevent it.

I have a question, how many people here dislike american policy?

As regards to what? I dislike the Bush Administration's foreign policy, as well as their environmental and economic policies.

Oh NOW I remember this poster. Apparently not only did Iraq have WMDs but Obama's a registered socialist (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14169464#post14169464) who is also, apparently, a nazi (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14169448#post14169448) (methinks he doesn't know what the "national socialist party" was).

He did, however, promise to move to Iceland (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14169654#post14169654), should McCain lose. Perhaps we should encourage him to go through with his word.

I fully supported Afghanistan, and I support our continued presence in Iraq.
Notice, I did not say the invasion of Iraq. I opposed it at the beginning, but now that we're there, I think we have an obligation to fix the mess we made.

I think most agree that a precipitous withdrawal would be irresponsible, but there's not much we can do about a communal civil war. To some degree, a continuing U.S. occupation is actually destabilizing, even if it were sustainable. Even the Bush administration has realized this. John McCain was pretty much the only person who cared for an indefinite U.S. combat presence in Iraq.

wow a credible opinion, this is what i was looking for

Successful troll is successful.

well it's november, it's entirely possible that he just started and hasn't failed his first round of finals yet.

I suppose. Maybe he got in just because his daddy's rich and went to this theoretical college that he may or may not be in.

Oh NOW I remember this poster. Apparently not only did Iraq have WMDs but Obama's a registered socialist (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14169464#post14169464) who is also, apparently, a nazi (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14169448#post14169448) (methinks he doesn't know what the "national socialist party" was).

He did, however, promise to move to Iceland (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14169654#post14169654), should McCain lose. Perhaps we should encourage him to go through with his word.

I hear it's beautiful this time of year.

I suppose. Maybe he got in just because his daddy's rich and went to this theoretical college that he may or may not be in.

As someone still in college, there are people this stupid in college.

Oh NOW I remember this poster. Apparently not only did Iraq have WMDs but Obama's a registered socialist (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14169464#post14169464) who is also, apparently, a nazi (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14169448#post14169448) (methinks he doesn't know what the "national socialist party" was).

He did, however, promise to move to Iceland (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14169654#post14169654), should McCain lose. Perhaps we should encourage him to go through with his word.

What, are you seriously going to claim that Obama isn't a socialist Nazi just because there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest he is? You stubborn ass.

What, are you seriously going to claim that Obama isn't a socialist Nazi just because there isn't a shred of evidence to suggest he is? You stubborn ass.

do you have any evidence to suggest that he ISN'T a socialist nazi?

Except, you know, his two autobiographies, political allies, and years of public voting records. I mean REAL evidence. You bitch.

I think most agree that a precipitous withdrawal would be irresponsible, but there's not much we can do about a communal civil war. To some degree, a continuing U.S. occupation is actually destabilizing, even if it were sustainable. Even the Bush administration has realized this. John McCain was pretty much the only person who cared for an indefinite U.S. combat presence in Iraq.I'm inf favor of a 2010 withdrawal, but I think it's more likely to happen in 2011. I'm not saying we should stay indefinitely, just pressure the Iraqi "government" into, you know, actually governing.

do you have any evidence to suggest that he ISN'T a socialist nazi?

Except, you know, his two autobiographies, political allies, and years of public voting records. I mean REAL evidence. You bitch.

You make a very valid point, so I'll stop being a bitch (well, at least in some ways) and acknowledge that Obama is clearly a radical-Christian Muslim socialist Nazi who hates religion, was sworn in on the Quran, and is hiding Osama bin Laden and ten tons of weapons-grade uranium under his bed. And I don't want to hear any of you whiny NSGers with your "that doesn't make any sense" or your "no, seriously, there's film of him being sworn in, and that's definitely not a Quran," or your "how would you even fit ten tons of uranium under a bed?" Stubborn asses.

I think they should have an internet competency test, to save the future generations.

do you have any evidence to suggest that he ISN'T a socialist nazi?

Except, you know, his two autobiographies, political allies, and years of public voting records. I mean REAL evidence. You bitch..50 supported Obama!
Though, to be fair, he supported Hilary first. :D
Oh, and don't forget Jay-Z, and Kanye!*

*They never admitted it publicly. (To my knowledge.)

I think they should have an internet competency test, to save the future generations.

You make a very valid point, so I'll stop being a bitch (well, at least in some ways) and acknowledge that Obama is clearly a radical-Christian Muslim socialist Nazi who hates religion, was sworn in on the Quran, and is hiding Osama bin Laden and ten tons of weapons-grade uranium under his bed. And I don't want to hear any of you whiny NSGers with your "that doesn't make any sense" or your "no, seriously, there's film of him being sworn in, and that's definitely not a Quran," or your "how would you even fit ten tons of uranium under a bed?" Stubborn asses.Both of these post deserve a :hail:.
Yup.

Sorry for the double.

I support both at the moment. Afghanistan was a clear go. Iraq probably shouldn't have been fought. However now, that's spilled milk. The question is do we finish or leave. I say stay and try to fix the wrong. Just my opinion and I can totally understand people saying we need to leave.

As someone still in college, there are people this stupid in college.

I've not quite encountered anyone that stupid here. Pretty stupid, but not as completely moronic as The Jaran Peoples.

Cool it, Callisdrun. Argue the post, not the poster.

I'll leave the thread open for a bit just in case anyone comes up with something to discuss, but on present trends, I'm not hopeful.

I've not quite encountered anyone that stupid here. Pretty stupid, but not as completely moronic as The Jaran Peoples.

I have Sean Hanity in one of my POLS classes. I just declared POLS as my major, so I am still taking a few lower level (well, one) so some idiots are to be expected.

But seriously, this kid has Sean Hanity's brain. You know in Futerama when Nixon's head in a jar goes on a robot body? Yeah Im pretty sure that this kid is the Hanity version of that.

I only support Afghanistan

We have a better right to be there then in Iraq at all.

I used to support the Afghanistan conflict, but it is becoming ever clearer that the mishandling of that conflict has put to the sword any possibility of a meaningful and moral victory.

I have never supported the war in Iraq, and I continue to oppose it very actively.

i don't support anyone killing anyone for any reason (whatever idiological, national, or anything else, 'side' they may happen to be on), other then to halt an ongoing genocide or protect themselves and others around them from it. or for meat for the table.

you kill it you eat it. and i think anyone caught killing anything should be forced to eat some of whatever it was that they killed. even a member of their own species.

i also think percussive/balistic projectile weaponry ought simply to not be manufactured at all. relatively or primarily nonlethal devices, those not intended to be lethal, even if they occasionally unintionally are (e.g. tazers) are an entirely seperate matter that i'm (mostly) ok with.

i was wondering how many people support the war in Iraq and Afgahnistan and for what resons, and why people dont support the war

(note: it's Afghanistan, reasons, don't)

I don't support the invasion of Afghanistan because it was:
1.Too late. The talibans were to be stopped when they came to power (and began committing all sort of human rights violations, expecially against hazara, non-muslims, and women), not just after 9/11. But, again, till June 2001 the US administration thought that the talibans were sort of allies (see taliban mission in the US in early months of 2001).
2.done the wrong way. You cannot send in a ww2-style military invasion to fight in Afghanistan: you know that, after CCCP failed to subdue the insurgence back in the '80s. Also you cannot carpet-bomb villages and hope that the populace will support you. A mission of UN Blue Helmets would have been better, if coupled with support from other muslim countries (both Iraq and Iran would have helped at least at a diplomatic level, they've always hated the talibans: Saddam because they're religious zealots, Iran because they're sunnis).
3.done with the wrong ally. You cannot fight a "war for democracy" while relying on the support of a military dictator and his nukes (Musharraf of Pakistan), or of the country of Public Enemy #1 (Osama Bin Laden, member of the second most important family of Saudi Arabia).

As for Iraq, it is nothing more than "let's blast a country and steal its oilfields". Simply disgusting.

you kill it you eat it. and i think anyone caught killing anything should be forced to eat some of whatever it was that they killed. even a member of their own species.

this was pure genius. serial killers getting too obese to commit other murders, lol!

Cool it, Callisdrun. Argue the post, not the poster.

I'll leave the thread open for a bit just in case anyone comes up with something to discuss, but on present trends, I'm not hopeful.

Understood.

I have Sean Hanity in one of my POLS classes. I just declared POLS as my major, so I am still taking a few lower level (well, one) so some idiots are to be expected.

But seriously, this kid has Sean Hanity's brain. You know in Futerama when Nixon's head in a jar goes on a robot body? Yeah Im pretty sure that this kid is the Hanity version of that.

Wow. This is in a university? He must be a very hard worker with good study habits.

I used to support the Afghanistan conflict, but it is becoming ever clearer that the mishandling of that conflict has put to the sword any possibility of a meaningful and moral victory.

I have never supported the war in Iraq, and I continue to oppose it very actively.

Afghanistan is an astoundingly botched war. They tried to do it on the cheap. Air power isn't always the solution. And wars are expensive, even against much smaller, technologically less advanced foes. Basically, victory has been turned into defeat by the government completely botching the job. Partly due to ignoring it in favor of going after oil-rich Iraq.

Generally speaking, I'm not an advocate of war. Iraq was a joke from the beginning and everyone knows it. Hans Blix confirmed what we all knew anyway: no WMD. Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein hated each other, so Bush & Cheney's assertions that Hussein was somehow complicit in Al-Qaida's 9/11 attack was completely groundless. No surprises there. Now that the U.S.A has totally destroyed Iraq (infrastructure anihilated, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians dead, countless more injured, mutilated etc.), they should, at the very least, stay until the country has been stabalized.

Theoretically I support the war in Afghanistan, but only because, as I understand it, a huge quantity of drugs come from Afghanistan. Is seems, however, that they're doing a very half-arsed job in there though, which isn't helping anyone.

And now they're provoking Iran? "No Mahmoud, you don't understand. You are simply not allowed to enrich uranium. Why? Well, because I said so. I don't want you having what I have."
Never mind that the U.S has the largest store of nuclear weapons in the world and is the only country to have used them against people in a war. No. We should DEFINITELY watch Iran. And any other Muslim countries for that matter.

This sort of hypocrisy is grist to the mill for terrorists and perpetuates conflict.

Afghanistan is justified, not very nice at all, but justified. Iraq ftl, epically.