Iraq Topic

[noxiousraccoon]

How does it not help? It supports my argument that this war was never meant to start and end quickly with a fast solution and that the purpose of this war was not for WMDs. It was to rebuild a nation and give the people of Iraq the chance to rebuild their lives. This war will end when the job is finished, well after the president has left office. Despite whether you like the president or not, my quote is completely relevent to my point.

[Danke]

Huh. I could have sworn they did, especially when members of our government like Condoleeza Rice were using scare tactics to influence the public, by using phrases like "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," and by pushing for an invasion of Iraq because they allegedly acquired WMDs.

If our government knew the weapons inspectors didnt find anything and we knew Saddam got rid of his chemical weapons, then why would they use WMD's as an excuse for war? Because as Danke so put it, the American people care, but dont care enough to make a difference. Also shadow, please dont get me started on Clinton. Ill prolly go insane. haha.

WMDs were the justification. You can't push propaganda out of the way because it's propaganda. Without the public's reaction to it, there would be no war. The administration would not have enough power (money, etc) to start a war of this scale without the public approval he got from the WMD case.

Exactly, the WMD's were to gain public approval. Thats all WMD's were used for. How come after we invaded and congress began its investigations, head of intelligence at the CIA stepped down? The head of British intelligence stepped down along with French intelligence. The so called "intelligence" that proved that Saddam possessed WMDs never existed.

Of course. Doesn't change my point, if they hadn't made up the WMDs, we wouldn't be there, and so we shouldn't be there.

if Iraq had invaded Israel and the US did go to war, it would be an entirely different situation than it is now.

Why wait for Iraq to attack? Why not stop any potential outbreak of war knowing that a leader would use deadly tactics and possibly kill hundreds or thousands of innocent people? Do you know what Saddam did in the Iraq and Iran War? Is that not enough reason to convince the American public to go to war?

No! If it was, it would be reason enough for us to go to war with Iran right now. Hell, Saddam may have been planning to invade Israel, but Israel had plans to take out Saddam. If anything we should have allowed Israel to invade Iraq and just let it be their problem, because we shouldn't have our fist up the asshole of the world, especially for no justifiable reason.

How does it not help? It supports my argument that this war was never meant to start and end quickly with a fast solution and that the purpose of this war was not for WMDs. It was to rebuild a nation and give the people of Iraq the chance to rebuild their lives.

The administration could care less. How about closer protection of Israel, an entry point to Iran, and cheap oil?

[Guest]

i support the Iraq invasion if we dont stop them here they will know were weak and just go on and attack are country dead on its the publics fault were in this, i'm part of the public and i say we finish this fight! think about it if we back off the terrorists willl think were weak and attack us head on and by then it might be to late they know what 9/11 did they'll just go bigger and i mean way bigger. 9/11 was bad enough i say we finish it and finish it fast.

the mistake right now is there are still civilians in Iraq they need to get the civilians out of there and instead of the civilians in the way if the civilians aren't there if a cars driving the army can immediately open fire without worrying about civilians getting hurt

[Ragdoll]

[quote="

[Danke]

Al Qaeda hates Americans because we're Americans (or "people from the states", whatever), the people of Iraq hate us because we're occupying their country. Staying until it's over isn't going to work, the longer we stay, the more people will hate us there.

Take it this way, if Iraq had invaded us (I know, lol, but just hypothetically) And they were successful and there were Iraqi troops driving up and down our streets. We wouldn't blow them up because of their cultural beliefs or their religion (which is generally why Al Qaeda would blow us up), we'd blow them up because they're occupying our homeland (as angry Iraqis would). Now if I was angry at them already and Pat Robertson (very far christian right, the Christian American version Al Qaeda for purpose of example) gave me a bomb and told me to go blow them up, why not? Except Iraq also has warring religious groups fighting for power and territory. But still. It's not like the Iraqis could stay for any amount of time and put an end to violent americans who want them to leave.

And so we've got this in Iraq:
Sunnis, Shiites, etc fighting each other. This is generally every Mosque bombing you hear about
Angry Iraqis - the "insurgency," they hate america for being in their country
A small Al Qaeda force, which is more supplying the insurgency and giving kids grenades to "give" to US troops

We can't stop the Iraqi people from hating us, all we can do is take them out when they try to kill us, and try to pacify the infighting between groups. All of this will take an infinite amount of time, at least if you try to do it with a military. What the US has is a country in close proximity with its middle eastern allies and an eye on Iran and Syria. And some oil.

the purpose of this war was not for WMDs. It was to rebuild a nation and give the people of Iraq the chance to rebuild their lives.

I have to go back to this quote. come on. PSHAW. It may have sucked for minority groups in Iraq before the war, but now it sucks for everyone in Iraq. Iraq now is the second most unstable country in the world. We haven't "rebuilt" shit. We've completely trashed Iraq. I think we've taken away WAY more lives than we've rebuilt. I'm sure you were just pointing out the administration's intentions though. Which is a load of shit too. We wouldn't go this far for the people of another country. Darfur should be proof enough.

[Trulife8342]

Danke. You are my new best friend on this site. (sorry Hawaiian Modder =P), I pretty much support everything you just said.

[Ragdoll]

i too am for everything danke just said.

i would like to elaborate on the fact that if another country invaded the us, dont you think you would fight back. those iraqies are fighting for there country to keep the u.s. occupation out. as would we if they had invaded us.

[shadowkhas]

It was to rebuild a nation and give the people of Iraq the chance to rebuild their lives.

The nation honestly didn't need much of a rebuilding before we went in there and blew stuff up.
Yes, Saddam was a dictator. Yes, the country was behind technologically. But who are we to say that "DEY R DOIN IT RONG," and that our way of life is best?
Islamic culture is very different than ours...obviously. Freedom isn't a viable option in that culture at this point in time. Given a hundred years, heck, even maybe until Saddam would've died, Iraq could have turned out much different. Freedom cannot be forced onto a populace, they themselves must plant the seeds of an internal rebellion when THEY are tired of it.
It sounds like I'm not caring, but that's how I think it would work out the best. Let the people living there decide what they want best. Which, surprisingly, is suddenly our administration's policy on the government of Iraq and how it should work. "Let the Iraqis decide for themselves..." yeah, sure. We gave them a huge choice when we went in and bombed Baghdad.

[newbymodder]

[quote="tomg44"][quote="

[WaywornMmmmm]

That is a fucking long sentence. Please make your posts readable. There is no "if we didn't stop them" point. They were doing nothing to us. Never get 9/11 and Iraq confused.

[shadowkhas]

ya they were better off being killed by a tenacious dictator the norther Iraqi's are like the jews in the holocaust they were the butt of all saddam's experiments, and its not like people didn't rebel but you can't rebel against someone like saddam its practically impossible for the fact that he ruled by fear and the normal Iraqi's were too afraid you can't beat a military with sticks and stones it takes actual weapons something they didn't have id have to say that yes weve been there too long and now all the military leaders are arguing about how to go about Iraq now so who tha f knows when were going to leave we needed to help them and we did now we need to leave i agree on that to an extent, but i still support staying there to try and help Israel to keep a nuclear war from happening, and if you don't think we should support the holy land of bias of religion your an idiot all religion started there and spread why wouldn't we defend where our beliefs came from and all that separation of church and state bs is a load of it big time the founding fathers didn't mean it they way its portrayed today they didn't want a King aka the Church like it was in england at the time to rule everyone and make you go to church you should be able to attend your own religion they said separation of church and state to keep the government from running the church and making the people of the state go.

If you rewrite that post in sentence form, so that I can understand it, I'll refute whatever points you made.
Honest to Quetzalcoatl, I have no idea where to start.

[noxiousraccoon]

Of course. Doesn't change my point, if they hadn't made up the WMDs, we wouldn't be there, and so we shouldn't be there.

You are missing the point. We would still be in Iraq whether they had WMDs or not. Whether the government used WMD's as an excuse or not, we would still be there.

especially for no justifiable reason.

You say you believe in realism, but it obviously doesnt fit your posts.

The administration could care less. How about closer protection of Israel, an entry point to Iran, and cheap oil?

Conspiracy theories obviously has changed your ability to give a damn.

Darfur should be proof enough.

So, step into another country with military force and make things right? Is that any different that what we are doing now?

[Tural]

Darfur should be proof enough.

So, step into another country with military force and make things right? Is that any different that what we are doing now?

Clearly the situation should be assessed differently than Iraq. It would, or rather, should be very different, assuming we'd have competent officials making the calls on that sort of a thing.

[Trulife8342]

We wouldnt be in Iraq if WMDs were never mentioned. The public wouldnt have been scared and they wouldnt have agreed in going in there.

And they arent conspiracy theories, I want you too look at their oil before 2003 and look at it now. Numbers do not lie.

Yeah there is, We have no business there. It was someone else's problem we just moved in to benefit us.

[shadowkhas]

You are missing the point. We would still be in Iraq whether they had WMDs or not. Whether the government used WMD's as an excuse or not, we would still be there.

Do you honestly think that America ever does anything for the good of any country's people, unless they're pressured by the international community?
Panama? Does that ring a bell?

[Danke]

Of course. Doesn't change my point, if they hadn't made up the WMDs, we wouldn't be there, and so we shouldn't be there.

You are missing the point. We would still be in Iraq whether they had WMDs or not. Whether the government used WMD's as an excuse or not, we would still be there.

I disagree. I mean we can quote each other back and forth saying "You're missing the point," I don't think we would have gone to war without the justification they gave us at the time.

especially for no justifiable reason.

You say you believe in realism, but it obviously doesnt fit your posts.[/quote]You aren't taking time into account at all. WMDs were the justification, and people accepted it. Now that's clearly false and I see no clear justification for going into Iraq.

Darfur should be proof enough.

So, step into another country with military force and make things right? Is that any different that what we are doing now?

Now you totally missed the point. The point is: We didn't go into Darfur. So if the administration went to Iraq to "save the people" from Saddam, why wouldn't they do the same for Darfur. Clearly they didn't go into Iraq to help the people.

[Trulife8342]

Not only Darfur, There are numerous countries who have horrible leaders and people get killed because of it, I dont see the U.S in africa, or any other middle eastern countries.

[Danke]

I forgot about this wonderful post:

ya they were better off being killed by a tenacious dictator

The US has never intervened for this reason before. I'm not arguing that it's moral, but it's clearly a prejudiced decision to me to "save" the people of Iraq and to turn a blind eye to other countries in the same situation.

i still support staying there to try and help Israel to keep a nuclear war from happening, and if you don't think we should support the holy land of bias of religion your an idiot all religion started there

You're the idiot. Not all religion started there, and no religion should matter in any US politics.

all that separation of church and state bs is a load of it big time

Hilarious. I think I'll just let Veegie take this part over.

the founding fathers didn't mean it they way its portrayed today

Yeah, yeah. They also didn't mean that "all men are created equal" included women and non-whites. You're supposed to think about their ideas, not the interpretations of a bunch of slave owners.

they didn't want a King aka the Church like it was in england at the time to rule everyone

I wasn't aware that George Washington came over in the Mayflower. Excuse me.

[JunkfoodMan]

*Words of Win*

=O

:win:

[G.I.R.]

I haven't read much of this thread, but recently a friend of mine suggested a comparison to me: the Filipino Insurrection and the Iraq Occupation that's going on today. Really, it made alot of sense. Look up the Filipino Insurrection if you don't know what happened behind that.