Iraq Topic

[Dan!!]

In this topic we discuss Iraq.

I think it would be a bad place to be a real estate agent.

But seriously, I think the US government messed up pretty badly. Discuss.

[Dr.Cox]

In this topic we discuss Iraq.

I think it would be a bad place to be a real estate agent.

But seriously, I think the US government messed up pretty badly. Discuss.

No.


What would of happened if we would of never of gone in and kicked some ass? ha ha ;p

I support the whole Iraq is bad policy and we need to take action before shit gets out of hand. However I do not support the way we went about it.

[Sgt.Peppers]

They would have continued to attack us without a doubt if we hadn't of retaliated.

We're not just going to let them kill over 3,000 innocent Americans and not do anything about it.

[GametagAeonFlux]

I think that when we originally went in, it was more of Bush being under pressure from the public than anything else. When our home country is attacked, and we know who's responsible, not doing anything about it would piss off tons of people. I'm not really knowledgeable on this subject, so I'll just say I think it was a good decision (even if we've been there for "too long") and leave it at that.

[Dan!!]

I support the whole Iraq is bad policy and we need to take action before **** gets out of hand. However I do not support the way we went about it.

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't you basically saying "Iraq is a bad policy, however it's a bad policy." Redundant much?

[GametagAeonFlux]

I support the whole Iraq is bad policy and we need to take action before **** gets out of hand. However I do not support the way we went about it.

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't you basically saying "Iraq is a bad policy, however it's a bad policy." Redundant much?

No, you're missing something. He supports that we should have invaded Iraq, but not how we did it.

[HPDarkness]

What would of happened if we would of never of gone in and kicked some ass? ha ha ;p

I support the whole Iraq is bad policy and we need to take action before **** gets out of hand. However I do not support the way we went about it.

Exactly what I say to all my friends. I completely agree. If we didn't go in, lets just face it. We would have had a lot of trouble with terrorism. I like George Bush. I just don't like how the government handled it. People just don't understand v_v they think everyone who supports the war, and George Bush is an Oil Hungry Warlord.

Families of soldiers should have known what to expect. You can't blame the death of a soldier on someone else. They signed up. They knew that if they had to go to war, they had to risk their lives. I have lots of family over there right now. All you can do is pray for your loved one and hope it will be over soon.

[Dr.Cox]

I support the whole Iraq is bad policy and we need to take action before **** gets out of hand. However I do not support the way we went about it.

Maybe I'm missing something, but aren't you basically saying "Iraq is a bad policy, however it's a bad policy." Redundant much?

No, you're missing something. He supports that we should have invaded Iraq, but not how we did it.

Take out the Bolded A Dan!!

[Dan!!]

Ah Iraq-is-bad policy. I get it now.

I think that when we originally went in, it was more of Bush being under pressure from the public than anything else. When our home country is attacked, and we know who's responsible, not doing anything about it would piss off tons of people.

Seriously? Do I need to pull out a map and show people where Iraq is and where Afghanistan is? We invaded Afghanistan because of 9/11, to shoot us some Bin Laden (nice job there, right?), which had nothing to do with Hussein. We invaded Iraq because Bush got impatient with the UN inspectors and just decided to bomb the shit out of Iraq. There were no WMD's, and intelligence supporting that assumption was weak. If anything the public was under pressure from Bush.

[shadowkhas]

When our home country is attacked, and we know who's responsible, not doing anything about it would piss off tons of people.

If we didn't go in, lets just face it. We would have had a lot of trouble with terrorism.

Are these two posts implying that Iraq is at fault for attacking us on September 11th?
Terrorism only really flourished in Iraq once we removed Saddam.
We DID do something about the people who attacked our home country. Is everyone just forgetting Afghanistan, and that we STILL haven't found Osama bin Laden?

EDIT: Hivemind

[GametagAeonFlux]

Like I said, I have no idea about any of this, I'm pretty much useless on this subject.

[Dr.Cox]

I found this interesting


Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.
Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.
Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.
Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.
Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons, so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.
Q: That doesn't make sense. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons with which they could have fought back?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.
Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.
Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.
Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well, for one thing, he tortured his own people.
Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.
Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.
Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.
Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.
Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.
Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.
Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.
Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.
Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.
Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalists?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.
Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.
Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.
Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.
Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.
Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate.
Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.
Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.
Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men - fifteen of them Saudi Arabians - hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings in New York and Washington, killing 3,000 innocent people.
Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.
Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.
Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.
Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.
Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.
Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.
Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.
Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.
Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.
Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.
Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.
Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.
Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.
Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.
Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.
Q: So the Soviets - I mean, the Russians - are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.
Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.
Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.
Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.
Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.
Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.
Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.
Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.
Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.
Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless unAmerican Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?
Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.
Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.
Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A: Yes! You finally understand how the world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.
Q: Good night, Daddy.

[Sgt.Peppers]

...which had nothing to do with Hussein.

Hussein was connected with Al Queada, he helped fund the terrorist with weapons, etc..

[galvination]

More american soldiers have died in Iraq than people in the world trade center attacks. I find the whole war fruitless. We know pakistan is supporting terrorists, so we go into iraq and dismember the middleeast. I find that this will only increase terrorism, as more middleeastern organizations become angry at our attempt to force democracy on other countries. I think we should've focused more on afganistan and osama bin laden. Blatantly put George W. Bush wants to finish what his father started with desert storm. Only in this case, instead of initiating the war for a countries defense, he initiated it under false pretences that there were WMDs. too bad there were none, and now we're in a war that has lasted longer than WWII.

[Dr.Cox]

Time to Clear up things about saddam.

the idea that we should go after Saddam Hussein was nothing new. But after 9/11, removing Saddam Hussein suddenly became an essential part of the global strategy in the war on terrorism. Why so?

Well, after September 11th, it became apparent that simply going after Al-Qaeda was not going to be enough to prevent future attacks. First off, if you simply target Al-Qaeda, what happens if the core of group simply changes its name or groups with other anti-American terrorists? Furthermore, how can you effectively target terrorists protected by the power of a rogue state? The answer is, "you can't". In addition, the training, resources, & protection provided by those rogue states is the very thing that enables a group like Al-Qaeda to become capable of pulling off the sort of attack we saw on 9/11. So in order to prevent future 9/11s, you have to go after not just Al-Qaeda, but all terrorist groups with global reach and the rogue states that support them.

[Danke]

...which had nothing to do with Hussein.

Hussein was connected with Alqueada, he helped fund the terrorist with weapons, etc..

Hussein had no connections with Al Qaeda. If anything Al Qaeda didn't like him.

Goes for you too, AC.

[shadowkhas]

...which had nothing to do with Hussein.

Hussein was connected with Alqueada, he helped fund the terrorist with weapons, etc..

Reliable source please.

More american soldiers have died in Iraq than people in the world trade center attacks.

Not to mention the varying reports that say that anywhere from ~60,000 to ~500,000 Iraqi civilians have died.

I also think that to prevent another September 11th, the Department of Defense should focus on that more, and stop trying to project power into the world a la the Project for a New American Century.

[xlRainlx]

I believe that we should kill thes Al-Qaeda bastards. We can't just increase our security measures and hope that they wont try to attack us again. Besides if America just retreats, what's to stop other terrorists from starting another war. We need to show all threats that we are as deadly as ever.

[Danke]

I believe that we should kill thes Al-Qaeda bastards. We can't just increase our security measures and hope that they wont try to attack us again. Besides if America just retreats, what's to stop other terrorists from starting another war.

I believe we started the war, not them. The only reason Al Qaeda is in Iraq is because we are. And terrorism isn't something that can be "beaten". We can't kill all of them, and trying to is only going to make more terrorists.

[shadowkhas]

I believe that we should kill thes Al-Qaeda bastards. We can't just increase our security measures and hope that they wont try to attack us again. Besides if America just retreats, what's to stop other terrorists from starting another war.

How is defending your country retreating? I'd rather be safe and secure, with 3732 of my country's army not dead. Danke is right...terrorism is an idea, just like communism. Have we beat that yet?