Iraq Topic

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:07 am

[quote="JK-47"][quote="

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:47 am

Dont let the peoples conspiracy theories guide your opinion of this topic. Do research and find out for yourself.

Kirk wrote:Well, that wasn't the reason Clinton was denied a second term.

When was Clinton denied a second term?

Kirk · Post by **Kirk** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:06 am

noxiousraccoon wrote:Dont let the peoples conspiracy theories guide your opinion of this topic. Do research and find out for yourself.

Kirk wrote:Well, that wasn't the reason Clinton was denied a second term.
When was Clinton denied a second term?

Oops sorry. Yeah that's wrong.

Regardless, that wasn't the reason.

Dalek · Post by **Dalek** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:52 am

[quote="JK-47"][quote="

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:21 am

noxiousraccoon wrote:Dont let the peoples conspiracy theories guide your opinion of this topic. Do research and find out for yourself.

Two things...
First of all, what conspiracy theories? Enlighten me on what has been posted here that's a "conspiracy theory."
Second, why not let him be influenced even if there are some? Just because it's a view radically different than yours, it means it's totally bogus? I'm sure there were those who said that Communists DIDN'T burn down the Reichstag in Nazi Germany, and they were called out as total crackpots...but we now know that that's the truth.

Why is America so opposed to theories that seem a little wacko (I personally don't agree with the whole "AMERICA DID 9/11" theory, but there ARE some things we're not being told that are important.)? I don't like some theories, but I don't say they're total lunatics and say they shouldn't be listened to.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:21 pm

1. Oil
There is no proof that our country is going to war for oil.
There is no proof that our country under the power of the president, is deliberatly stealing this oil.
2. "i think bush just wants to have more country's under his power"
There is no proof that suggests that this country is taking over another country. If you want to say our presence in Iraq is fairly imperalistic, into which we are putting our values and way of life upon them, then that is different.
3. "Bush is now the dictator of Iraq"
There is no proof that suggests the president is in total control of the country.
4. We are just building an army against Iran.
There is no proof that suggests our purpose in Iraq was to raise an Iraqi Army to help fight Iran in the future.
5. Iraq is the start of a holy war. (no-one posted this in the forums, but felt it was necessary to throw in there)
There is no proof that the president is pulling a pope move.
6. Finishing what daddy couldnt.
There is no proof that the president felt it was necessary to continue on what his father finished.

The whole point of this discussion was Iraq. We should be making our discussion based off facts and discuss them. Take the information that we know and debate, not take our own personal opinions of the situation without real facts and debate our opinions. I never said these theories are stupid, but do nothing except divert the purpose of this thread. The word facts can be debated, but there is a difference between theory and fact. This is no different then when Tural points out crap people post about Halo 3 without any information behind it. The same idea should be applied to this topic.

SHOUTrvb · Post by **SHOUTrvb** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:06 pm

There's really no such thing as fact when you mix politics with war. Really, war is politics.

newbymodder · Post by **newbymodder** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:12 pm

SHOUTrvb wrote:There's really no such thing as fact when you mix politics with war. Really, war is politics.

basically lol i agree though its hard to support facts but facts need to be debated not what people think, iv already done this me shadow and danke have argued over our thoughts with some fact in there on situations about oil, our occupancy of Iraq, and other stuff. Problem is there's alot of people who come in here with no factual knowledge of whats going on and just start blabber mouthing and mess everything up.

Danke · Post by **Danke** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:20 pm

1. Oil
There is no proof that our country is going to war for oil.
There is no proof that our country under the power of the president, is deliberatly stealing this oil.
2. "i think bush just wants to have more country's under his power"
There is no proof that suggests that this country is taking over another country. If you want to say our presence in Iraq is fairly imperalistic, into which we are putting our values and way of life upon them, then that is different.
3. "Bush is now the dictator of Iraq"
There is no proof that suggests the president is in total control of the country.
4. We are just building an army against Iran.
There is no proof that suggests our purpose in Iraq was to raise an Iraqi Army to help fight Iran in the future.
5. Iraq is the start of a holy war. (no-one posted this in the forums, but felt it was necessary to throw in there)
There is no proof that the president is pulling a pope move.
6. Finishing what daddy couldnt.
There is no proof that the president felt it was necessary to continue on what his father finished.

The whole point of this discussion was Iraq. We should be making our discussion based off facts and discuss them. Take the information that we know and debate, not take our own personal opinions of the situation without real facts and debate our opinions. I never said these theories are stupid, but do nothing except divert the purpose of this thread. The word facts can be debated, but there is a difference between theory and fact. This is no different then when Tural points out crap people post about Halo 3 without any information behind it. The same idea should be applied to this topic.

Just because there is no proof does not mean anyone should assume that anyone's intentions are benign. And there's plenty enough to warrant suspicion. And considering the administration has such a monopoly on information of Iraq and itself, the "facts" are considerably tainted.

As far as "Bush is a dictator" goes, if any world leader had his troops driving up and down my streets, setting up my government, setting my curfew, searching my house without a warrant, yeah, he'd be a dictator to me. Perhaps "tyrant" might be a better word. It was beside the point anyway, Iraqis don't like Bush, and as far as I'm concerned, it's entirely justifiable.

There is no proof that suggests our purpose in Iraq was to raise an Iraqi Army to help fight Iran in the future.

One could easily argue that we're at least building Iraq's forces up enough to protect Iraq against Iran, considering the administration views them as practically the #2 threat to Iraq's stability.

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:23 pm

I'll answer the ones I feel that I know enough about.

noxiousraccoon wrote:3. "Bush is now the dictator of Iraq"
There is no proof that suggests the president is in total control of the country.

Except for our military patrolling the streets.

noxiousraccoon wrote: 5. Iraq is the start of a holy war. (no-one posted this in the forums, but felt it was necessary to throw in there)
There is no proof that the president is pulling a pope move.

Holy war from the OTHER side. al-Qaeda started being a force in Iraq AFTER our invasion.

noxiousraccoon wrote: 1. Oil
There is no proof that our country is going to war for oil.
There is no proof that our country under the power of the president, is deliberatly stealing this oil.
[...]
4. We are just building an army against Iran.
There is no proof that suggests our purpose in Iraq was to raise an Iraqi Army to help fight Iran in the future.
[...]
6. Finishing what daddy couldnt.
There is no proof that the president felt it was necessary to continue on what his father finished.

There's no proof against those, either. I'd rather question my government and hold it accountable to all sorts of doubt, rather than accepting things at face value at the time, no matter if it's a left or right-wing politician. Questioning your government is the most patriotic thing you can do, in my opinion.

EDIT: Hivemind, again. >:[

Dalek · Post by **Dalek** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:11 pm

noxiousraccoon wrote: 2. "i think bush just wants to have more country's under his power"
There is no proof that suggests that this country is taking over another country. If you want to say our presence in Iraq is fairly imperalistic, into which we are putting our values and way of life upon them, then that is different.

.

how is setting up their government setting curfews raiding houses without warrant or need and parrading streets with tanks and arms differnt to taking over?

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:30 pm

I understand that it is our right to question our government. I have never stated my own personal opinion on this matter, but I will not make accusations without solid proof and use it as an argument. How can you question without proof? What would be the purpose of making accusations without the information to back it up? Political War perhaps, but politics shouldnt be the reason to make such accusations, that sounds like desperation.

Except for our military patrolling the streets.

Danke, Shadow, Dalek had similar posts, but I will reply the same thing. This is war, those are elements of war, not tyranny. Despite what people think, this war is not over, we are in the rebuilding process along with enemies still fighting. These elements are no different from the first stages of the war till now. We will eventually leave Iraq, we are not taking control of this country for our own benefit, unless you can disprove that.

Holy war from the OTHER side. al-Qaeda started being a force in Iraq AFTER our invasion.

Shadow, I was saying the idea the president started his own holy war had no proof. Sorry, I wasnt really specific.

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 2:43 pm

noxiousraccoon wrote:How can you question without proof? What would be the purpose of making accusations without the information to back it up?

Because we don't have concrete information on the subject. How can you defend these same issues without any proof to the contrary?

noxiousraccoon wrote:Danke, Shadow, Dalek had similar posts, but I will reply the same thing. This is war, those are elements of war, not tyranny. Despite what people think, this war is not over, we are in the rebuilding process along with enemies still fighting.

Elements of war include concrete objectives that should be met, not played around with like toys. We haven't met much of the objectives that we were supposed to get. We keep getting the date of 12-18 months on estimated completion for projects. When will 12-18 months become 1-2 weeks?
Also, in regards to this war is not over, our president had a rosy opinion of that back in 2003.

noxiousraccoon · Post by **noxiousraccoon** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:39 pm

Shadow, its no problem defending an accusation without proof. Have you ever participated in a debate/are you in a debate class yourself?
Lets say you stole something from me, but I didnt see you do it. If I asked you about it and you said no, how would I look if I accused you of stealing it even though I cannot prove that you did? Its easy for the one you are questioning, its hard for the one asking the question. Now, I understand this is quite lame and this game should not be played in politics, specially war, but the idea is still the same. The opinions of this war are in much relation to the same concept.
In addition, I hope you can understand what our politicians promise cannot always happen. In relation to this topic, what is being done on the ground takes longer and is much harder than talking like our politicians do. You say we havent met some of our objectives, I would like to know which objectives exactly, and who is responsible for making sure these objectives are met?

shadowkast wrote:Also, in regards to this war is not over, our president had a rosy opinion of that back in 2003.

Was that statement true?

Danke · Post by **Danke** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:59 pm

noxiousraccoon wrote: How can you question without proof?

Why would you question with proof? Don't confuse accusations with questioning.

Danke, Shadow, Dalek had similar posts, but I will reply the same thing. This is war, those are elements of war, not tyranny. Despite what people think, this war is not over, we are in the rebuilding process along with enemies still fighting. These elements are no different from the first stages of the war till now. We will eventually leave Iraq, we are not taking control of this country for our own benefit, unless you can disprove that.

Beside my point at least, it's certainly tyrannical to the people subject to it.

And from this standpoint:
WMD's - there are none, there were none, they knew this. Intelligence showed that there were none, and it was simply ignored
Ties to Al Qaeda - none. It was claimed and it was a major falsehood.
Genocide - Not US policy to stop it (Darfur)
Evil Dictator - Not US policy to stop it (every country with an evil leader today is evidence of that)

So why are we in Iraq if it isn't for the seemingly coincidental benefit of having a military presence in an area where we previously had little say, but that we critically depend on for natural resources (OIL)

The only reasons I see that stand are ones that are nowhere near our foreign policy (we aggressively criticize leaders we don't like, but we don't invade their countries), and ones that are down right sinister and selfish. While I don't jump to the conclusion that Bush went to Iraq for oil, religion, to fight the bad guys, or to get revenge for daddy; There aren't many options left to choose from.

And if he (they, whatever) did go to war simply to take out Saddam (as your posts seem to say, forgive me if I'm interpreting wrong), I see no reason why that isn't as utterly offensive, having an elected (lol) public official use the country for his own means without truly legitimate consent of the country's people. Which wouldn't be as appalling as it is (and it would be fairly common) if it were not that he used his power for war. If that many casualties justifies removing Saddam to him, then to me, it's criminal.

shadowkast wrote:Also, in regards to this war is not over, our president had a rosy opinion of that back in 2003.
Was that statement true?

We still have not found Andross.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:06 pm

i was just thinking about some news i heard about bush and this one news station he was getting in realy good shape like he was preparing for something, explain your opinions on this and do you think it would have any influence from or on the Iraq war?

Danke · Post by **Danke** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:07 pm

[quote="

shadowkhas · Post by **shadowkhas** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:08 pm

noxiousraccoon wrote:You say we havent met some of our objectives, I would like to know which objectives exactly, and who is responsible for making sure these objectives are met?

Objectives.
Congress is supposed to benchmark the military's performance in regards to the troop surge using this as a base. We haven't completed many goals, as you can see, but the sad part is that our representatives will sit there and await the next update, and the next one, and the next one, and nobody (especially those who are running for President) will do a damned thing about it.

noxiousraccoon wrote:
shadowkhas wrote:Also, in regards to this war is not over, our president had a rosy opinion of that back in 2003.
Was that statement true?

No. Unless we really did remove the WMDs that never existed in Iraq.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:20 pm

[quote="Danke"][quote="

SHOUTrvb · Post by **SHOUTrvb** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:21 pm