Iraq Topic

[Tural]

What.

[Guest]

Iraq never had Weapons of Mass Destruction they had Windows Mobile Devices. Saddam had an iPaq. It all makes perfect sense.

thats what my friend found it funny

[shadowkhas]

Ok...this isn't a topic about what your friend thinks. If you want to discuss the topic at hand, please do so by all means.

This is probably the best serious discussion ever on this forum that I've seen, and I'd like it to stay that way.

[noxiousraccoon]

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.

Although I agree with what you stated, our politicians can only do so much. Im not trying to show support for them or anything, Im just merely saying they can pass legislation, but in the end its those who are setting the bricks that matter.

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

If the right of every American is question our government, obviously you would need some basis of a starting point to question, or else, what would you need to question? If we didnt question our government, does that mean everything they are doing we agree with? I didnt confuse accusations with question, if we are going to make accusations based off information that we dont have, obviously questioning is going to be limited and its not a very strong argument when trying aquire answers.

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

By your statement, that would mean every president who has committed to war in a foreign country, is subject to some means of tyranny amongst the people of that country, is that right?

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)

WMD's - That one was obvious, but this war had nothing to do with WMDs. If I have to re-explain myself then I will.
Genocide - Was an effort for Humanitarian Aid after the violation of the Oil for Food Program, and slaughters of his own people.
Evil Dictator - How was this war not to stop Saddam? Iraq has a very weak military and a weak leader who has violated the UN on many occasions. Just because we havent taken out every leader we dont agree with doesnt mean this isnt a reason for war.

but that we critically depend on for natural resources (OIL)

Since when was Iraq a country that we depended on for oil? The only country from the middle east that we actually import enough oil to make a difference from is Saudia Arabia. If you still wish to use oil as a reason for war, then please provide some proof.

(we aggressively criticize leaders we don't like, but we don't invade their countries)

That sounds like the foreign policy of the UN. The idea behind the United States foreign policy has been to spread democracy, (I wont put whether I agree with this or not, I actually havent posted my own personal opinion of this matter, I am merely just a brick wall.) even the most wonderful Bill Clinton said one of his goals was to spread democracy. Did he do it with force? No, he was really good at retreating. Dont forget his actions in Mogadishu, his goal was stop tyranny and set up a government. Ronald Reagan's foreign policy in Lebanon was an attempt to spread democracy. Vietnam was an attempt to spread democracy. Our control over the Shah regime was an attempt to spread democracy. The billions of dollars we have spent in Israel is our only "good" outcome so far of our idea to spread democracy. (By good, I mean thats the only country that we helped out that hasnt attacked us yet). Just because the president actually went in with force, does that mean his foreign policy is any different from past presidents? If were are going to hold this president responsible for war, then do you hold every president/cabinet member responsible for the last 60 years of the exact same policy?

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

Since our government knows there is no WMDs in Iraq, doesnt this prove that we have some other reason to stay there?

[shadowkhas]

[...]

First off, why am I always shadowkast in your posts? Please actually use the quote button or spell my name properly.

Although I agree with what you stated, our politicians can only do so much. Im not trying to show support for them or anything, Im just merely saying they can pass legislation, but in the end its those who are setting the bricks that matter.

Are you putting forward the notion that our government doesn't control our military? That's pretty fucking scary.

Since when was Iraq a country that we depended on for oil? The only country from the middle east that we actually import enough oil to make a difference from is Saudia Arabia. If you still wish to use oil as a reason for war, then please provide some proof.

The government would like a word with you: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petr ... mport.html

WMD's - That one was obvious, but this war had nothing to do with WMDs. If I have to re-explain myself then I will.
Genocide - Was an effort for Humanitarian Aid after the violation of the Oil for Food Program, and slaughters of his own people.
Evil Dictator - How was this war not to stop Saddam? Iraq has a very weak military and a weak leader who has violated the UN on many occasions. Just because we havent taken out every leader we dont agree with doesnt mean this isnt a reason for war.

You missed al Qaeda.
I still don't understand your argument with WMDs. You agree with the fact that we have not found any, but you still speak as though you support this war? If we have not found any WMDs, and you acknowledge this fact, you are overlooking the fact that this war was based on lies. The reason we went in was to disarm Saddam. If the government lied to us about that, that is reason enough that we should be gone. Gone, gone, gone. Bill Clinton lied about sex, and they went with impeaching him! So why does this lie come off as a good one, where people's families are ruined for the sake of lies? There are innocent people dying because of this lie, so why is this one passed off as NOTHING?

[Danke]

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

If the right of every American is question our government, obviously you would need some basis of a starting point to question, or else, what would you need to question? If we didnt question our government, does that mean everything they are doing we agree with? I didnt confuse accusations with question, if we are going to make accusations based off information that we dont have, obviously questioning is going to be limited and its not a very strong argument when trying aquire answers.

I think suspicion at this point is enough to at least question the government.

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

By your statement, that would mean every president who has committed to war in a foreign country, is subject to some means of tyranny amongst the people of that country, is that right?

Essentially. My point was to present why Iraqis don't like Bush. I'm not saying it's a universal truth that he is tyrannical. In the eyes of someone in a country being invaded, I'd imagine that at least the large majority of those people would view their invaders as tyrannical.

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)

WMD's - That one was obvious, but this war had nothing to do with WMDs. If I have to re-explain myself then I will.

No, I understand what you're saying, but I just need to get it out of the way that this was not a valid justification for going to war, in order to show that the left overs are far from what America would go to war for.

Genocide - Was an effort for Humanitarian Aid after the violation of the Oil for Food Program, and slaughters of his own people.

Could you rephrase this. I think I'm either reading it wrong or there's something missing in the sentence. I can't understand what you're saying.

Evil Dictator - How was this war not to stop Saddam? Iraq has a very weak military and a weak leader who has violated the UN on many occasions. Just because we havent taken out every leader we dont agree with doesnt mean this isnt a reason for war.

It's not a good one. It's not one that I or the majority of the population would agree with I think.

but that we critically depend on for natural resources (OIL)

Since when was Iraq a country that we depended on for oil? The only country from the middle east that we actually import enough oil to make a difference from is Saudia Arabia. If you still wish to use oil as a reason for war, then please provide some proof.

The point wasn't Iraq's oil, it's a closer eye on the middle east. Yeah I have no idea why I put that line there, disregard it.

(we aggressively criticize leaders we don't like, but we don't invade their countries)

That sounds like the foreign policy of the UN. The idea behind the United States foreign policy has been to spread democracy, (I wont put whether I agree with this or not, I actually havent posted my own personal opinion of this matter, I am merely just a brick wall.)

I think I have an idea of what your stance is on the older Iraq topics. I realize you're just being contrary (or presenting an opposing informed point, more like)

even the most wonderful Bill Clinton said one of his goals was to spread democracy. Did he do it with force? No, he was really good at retreating. Dont forget his actions in Mogadishu, his goal was stop tyranny and set up a government. Ronald Reagan's foreign policy in Lebanon was an attempt to spread democracy. Vietnam was an attempt to spread democracy. Our control over the Shah regime was an attempt to spread democracy. The billions of dollars we have spent in Israel is our only "good" outcome so far of our idea to spread democracy. (By good, I mean thats the only country that we helped out that hasnt attacked us yet). Just because the president actually went in with force, does that mean his foreign policy is any different from past presidents?

Uh. Yeah? The others knew when to quit (Vietnam aside)-(not to say I support any of the above conflicts, they're all incredibly against what I believe.)
Trust me, I don't align myself with any person or party. I don't think Clinton is one of the best presidents, or even a particularly good one, but he doesn't have a body count in the THOUSANDS. The loss of life here is what gets me the most. Thousands just to take out one guy? To "spread" democracy?

If were are going to hold this president responsible for war, then do you hold every president/cabinet member responsible for the last 60 years of the exact same policy?

I hold them accountable for their actions. The only problem is that we don't know who did what until decades later, if at all.

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

Since our government knows there is no WMDs in Iraq, doesnt this prove that we have some other reason to stay there?

Is it necessarily a good one? Justifiable to the everyday American?

[noxiousraccoon]

You missed al Qaeda.
I still don't understand your argument with WMDs. You agree with the fact that we have not found any, but you still speak as though you support this war? If we have not found any WMDs, and you acknowledge this fact, you are overlooking the fact that this war was based on lies. The reason we went in was to disarm Saddam. If the government lied to us about that, that is reason enough that we should be gone. Gone, gone, gone. Bill Clinton lied about ***, and they went with impeaching him! So why does this lie come off as a good one, where people's families are ruined for the sake of lies? There are innocent people dying because of this lie, so why is this one passed off as NOTHING?

I never noticed that I spelled your name wrong, if you want an apology that bad I will say sorry.
Yes, I know I missed al Qaida. They obviously have no point of being in this topic other than the fact they are a problem now. I dont have a post on the matter because Dankes post wasnt an argument.
Anyways, like I said before, I actually havent posted my own opinion of this war. If you really seriously want me too, I will. I know the fact that one of the reasons for war was a lie. I understand the reasons for this war and the reasons against it. Though, my objective here so far has been to be merely an argument to yalls opinions. Here is one thing we can agree on. Obviously the WMD reason did not hold up and was, depending on your interpretation of it, a lie. Was this lie worth the cost of lives, whether it be our own troops or Iraqis? That is up to you and your own personal opinion. Obviously you and Danke had shared your opinion that it wasnt worth the cost. You say we should be "gone, gone, gone". If that represents the fact that we should not have been there in the first place, that is valid point. If that represents the situation we are in now, much debate you will receive. One solution is to cut our losses and return home, will we be victorious? I leave that to you, if you say our only purpose, which is the only purpose that has held true, was to rid Saddam of Iraq, then yes, we are victorious. If our purpose in Iraq, which seems to be the argument these days, is to set up a stable and secure Iraq, then no, we will not be victorious. If you believe war should be about who is the winner, you have a tough decision to make. If you believe war should be about making a difference, obviously the decision is simple. If you debate with someone who believes the costs of this war are worth it, how can you tell that person they are wrong? Ask that person this question: How can this lie be passed off as nothing? The question you so boldy (literally) asked me.
You bring up the fact that Clinton was impeached for lieing, yes, this is true. Though, was Clinton removed from office? No. Did it effect his presidency, diverting him away from important issues? Yes. Impeachment is merely for political gain and was in the end, useless because 99.9% of the people in this country dont even know he was impeached. The democrats wont have to impeach the president, he has already done that himself, plus, they wont get the votes they need anyways.
Our government does have control over our troops. My point was, rebuilding Iraq sounds easy to the ones who are sitting in a nice, air-conditioned room while our troops are making the ultimate sacrifice. Its harder to talk the talk and walk walk. I would hope you of all people would understand that.
In addition, Iraq may place 6th in that list, but compared to the countrys that import nearly 3x-4x oil, Iraq is very small and not something that we depend on.

Could you rephrase this. I think I'm either reading it wrong or there's something missing in the sentence. I can't understand what you're saying.

Ah, yea, it kinda looked weird. You said not US policy, and I was merely saying: Was a US policy effort for Humanitarian Aid after the violation of the Oil for Food Program and the slaughters of his own people.

My point was to present why Iraqis don't like Bush.

Can you elaborate on this? I mean, statistics are not that dependable and what we see on the news is no better. Obviously we cannot ask every Iraqi and toll up the numbers, but if you have a link or any information that can prove your point, please share it.

It's not a good one. It's not one that I or the majority of the population would agree with I think.

I dont want to sound like an ass, but the words "i think" are usually signs of insecurity of ones opinion. Do I know what you really meant? No, I am just saying, specially in debates, personal opinions do not hold up very well. Specially if what you are saying you dont agree with or you dont know enough about.

Is it necessarily a good one? Justifiable to the everyday American?

Again, not trying to sound like an ass, but what is an everyday American? How can we apply our own personal opinions to an entire country or our own individual societies? Are the decisions to go to Iraq a good one? I will not answer, but obviously our government officials felt it was necessary and so did the approval of the public at one time.

[Ragdoll]

My point was to present why Iraqis don't like Bush.

Can you elaborate on this? I mean, statistics are not that dependable and what we see on the news is no better. Obviously we cannot ask every Iraqi and toll up the numbers, but if you have a link or any information that can prove your point, please share it.

are you kidding me?... lets say a country invaded our country and bombed it killing millions. wouldn't you hate the man that was behind it?

[noxiousraccoon]

are you kidding me?... lets say a country invaded our country and bombed it killing millions. wouldn't you hate the man that was behind it?

Yes, but thats my personal opinion. How can you make the assumption that the majority of Iraq hates the president based off of what you or I believe?

[shadowkhas]

Our government does have control over our troops. My point was, rebuilding Iraq sounds easy to the ones who are sitting in a nice, air-conditioned room while our troops are making the ultimate sacrifice. Its harder to talk the talk and walk walk. I would hope you of all people would understand that.

I probably just thought you were saying completely different, and I agree. But I'm still on the side who thinks that there should be some accountability for those who put our troops into this position of dying for an unclear cause.

I will not answer, but obviously our government officials felt it was necessary and so did the approval of the public at one time.

Yeah, they had the approval of the public, because they lied and used, nearly literally, a terrorist campaign against us, by scaring us into thinking that Iraq had what they didn't.

[Guest]

My point was to present why Iraqis don't like Bush.

Can you elaborate on this? I mean, statistics are not that dependable and what we see on the news is no better. Obviously we cannot ask every Iraqi and toll up the numbers, but if you have a link or any information that can prove your point, please share it.

are you kidding me?... lets say a country invaded our country and bombed it killing millions. wouldn't you hate the man that was behind it?

hell ya, and do you guys think they can get this so called holy war they want with attacking schools (refer to perfect day topic in cafe)

[Danke]

MIKE, that has nothing to do with the topic or even tomg44's post

One solution is to cut our losses and return home, will we be victorious?

I don't see the importance of being victorious, I don't believe democracy can be spread through force.

If you believe war should be about who is the winner, you have a tough decision to make. If you believe war should be about making a difference, obviously the decision is simple.

Or perhaps I don't "believe in war."

Was a US policy effort for Humanitarian Aid after the violation of the Oil for Food Program and the slaughters of his own people.

Yeah, there is still something missing. Is this a question?

Can you elaborate on this? I mean, statistics are not that dependable and what we see on the news is no better. Obviously we cannot ask every Iraqi and toll up the numbers, but if you have a link or any information that can prove your point, please share it.

If I can't believe the media or statistics, I guess I'll just go to Iraq and ask.
brb

I dont want to sound like an ass, but the words "i think" are usually signs of insecurity of ones opinion. Do I know what you really meant? No, I am just saying, specially in debates, personal opinions do not hold up very well. Specially if what you are saying you dont agree with or you dont know enough about.

We're debating the war, and I am presenting my opinion. The reason there is insecurity is that people are stupid and easily swayed. But again, we're debating Iraq, we're not debating how to debate. If you want to teach a debate class, make your own topic.

Again, not trying to sound like an ass, but what is an everyday American?

The majority

How can we apply our own personal opinions to an entire country or our own individual societies?

Hell, the president doesn't seem to have a problem with doing it.

Are the decisions to go to Iraq a good one? I will not answer, but obviously our government officials felt it was necessary and so did the approval of the public at one time.

I guess that's the difference here, the fact that it happened isn't a good enough reason for me. That's like saying "Oh, you got us, Bush, you clever bastard. You can have your war."

[noxiousraccoon]

Im getting annoyed about how long our posts are getting because of quotes, so I am just going to respond in numbers.
Shadowkas,
1. How exactly do you hold our leaders accountable? We can blame them for the actions and accuse them of making terrible decisions, but in the end will that change anything? Most people have said removing the President from office is the best choice. Though it may seem this choice is easy, but look at who will take his place. Its kindof ironic how we feel the best choice was not our first choice.
2. Like I have said before, obviously one of the reasons for this war did not hold true. There were multiple reasons for this war, our government lied/misled, however you want to interpret it, but in the end our government decided to go to war despite that one reason for not holding true. Is that wrong? In your and Danke opinions you have stated yes, but simple disagreement doesnt necessarily mean the idea/objective was a mistake. It is your personal opinion of this war compared to that of another. How we leave Iraq and how this situation will effect us in the long run, will determine whether or not this war was a mistake or not.

Danke,
1. I shouldnt have said victorious, my bad. Replace victorious with completing the mission. My point overall was our analysis of this war. Despite our reasons for being their, we are there and how we should leave is a major issue. One argument of the Israel campaign not that long ago was the fact that Israel did not meet its goal. Its goal was to rid Hezbollah from Lebanon, into which they haulted their advance and retreated. One asked, why did we start this campaign of destruction and not even meet our goals? If the purpose of this war to rid of Saddam, then backing out now would the logical solution. If the purpose of this war was to set up a stable and democratic Iraq (whether you agree with it or not), then it is obvious our objective is not done. In addition, democracy through force has actually been proven to work. Perfect examples of this are Japan and Germany. I took your words literally, but did you mean that as a country, it should not be our obligation to spread democracy by force?
2. Then, are you against the War in Afghanistan? Is war, in your opinion, only just if their is a reason behind it? What makes a war just and unjust?
3. No, now looking back at it I really see no reason for putting it there. Lets not worry about that.
4. Try not to be sarcastic. Making accusations such as Iraqis hate the president without some sort of proof is merely just another opinion. I dont like statistics, thats my opinion, but they will hold up as in supporting your argument.
5. Well, when you present your argument as "i think", that doesnt provide much of an argument, and personal opinions are irrelevent in terms of facts.
6. Define majority?
7. I didnt ask whether it is right or wrong, but how can you apply your personal opinions to an entire populus?
8. Im fairly confused on your last post.

[Dalek]

noxiousraccoon :
The U.S congress was told by the united nations not to go forth with the invasion of iraq and told them the results of such a action congress did not listen and now the prothesised results are now a reality.

[Danke]

1. I read this paragraph and saw "The reason isn't the most important, it's what to do now. (stuff about Israel) Now let's debate the reasons."

Mainly I think we just need to slowly replace ourselves in Iraq with Iraqi troops. An immediate withdraw isn't something I would object to if it were to happen, but I don't think that it is the best solution. However, doing our best to stabilize Iraq needs to be something done quickly. Shooting the bad guys is getting nowhere, there'll just be more bad guys.

Both Germany and Japan had surrendered before Democracy was put in. And I don't think that implementing Democracy in either was our concern during the war. But yes, also, and probably more importantly, democracy should be spread diplomatically and economically.

2. "Is war, in your opinion, only just if their is a reason behind it?"
Ignoring the typo (=P), I can't think of anyone who would believe otherwise. How in the hell can a war without any reason be just? Afghanistan is different because it was in retaliation for 9/11 (<- A REASON). It's comparable to Pearl Harbor in terms of bringing the country into war. I believe that our country should be fairly isolated in terms of military conflict. We shouldn't have our fingers in anyone else's business.

4. Uh, no. I think we've all seen the "no saddam, no bush" marches in baghdad, etc. If his approval rating is this low here, I can't imagine what the general feel is there.

5. I don't care. I'll present my opinion as I please, if you want to refute it, get your facts and do so.

6. I shouldn't have to. "51%" is good enough for my purposes

7. I'm not applying, I'm an individual in this society. I believe that the people in my society wouldn't agree to go to war simply to oust Saddam.

8. Is the war is acceptable because the people supported it, even though they were lied to?

[shadowkhas]

Quotes are fine here as long as you don't multi-quote. Just quote the immediate section of what you're responding to.

1. How exactly do you hold our leaders accountable? We can blame them for the actions and accuse them of making terrible decisions, but in the end will that change anything? Most people have said removing the President from office is the best choice. Though it may seem this choice is easy, but look at who will take his place. Its kindof ironic how we feel the best choice was not our first choice.

Remove those from the government that brough us into this. If that is blocked, overrun the government through force. I know someone here will read that and be shocked, but why not? Is that not what our founding fathers did?

2. Like I have said before, obviously one of the reasons for this war did not hold true. There were multiple reasons for this war, our government lied/misled, however you want to interpret it, but in the end our government decided to go to war despite that one reason for not holding true. Is that wrong? In your and Danke opinions you have stated yes, but simple disagreement doesnt necessarily mean the idea/objective was a mistake. It is your personal opinion of this war compared to that of another.

Last I heard, my opinions and beliefs are supposed to count in this government.

If the purpose of this war to rid of Saddam, then backing out now would the logical solution. If the purpose of this war was to set up a stable and democratic Iraq (whether you agree with it or not), then it is obvious our objective is not done.

Neither of those were our purposes. Our purpose was to remove Weapons of Mass Destruction from the hands of Saddam Hussein. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this. We completed our mission by "removing" "Weapons of Mass Destruction," and by taking Saddam out of power. We should be gone.

In addition, democracy through force has actually been proven to work. Perfect examples of this are Japan and Germany.

This is far from the same case. Germany instigated a conflict with Europe, they got beaten down, and then over a period of time, economic benefits offered through European countries, and multinational assistance from others helped them get back on their feet. They didn't have a civil war like in Iraq. (Yes, East and West Germany, but that was more on spheres of influence by external control rather than internal violence)

6. Define majority?

More than 50%...?

7. I didnt ask whether it is right or wrong, but how can you apply your personal opinions to an entire populus?

I prefer to do it by killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. That's how.

7. I'm not applying, I'm an individual in this society. I believe that the people in my society wouldn't agree to go to war simply to oust Saddam.

I don't think our opinions were ever taken into consideration with Mohammed Mosaddeq, Jacobo Arbenz, Ngo Diem, Salvador Allende, or Manuel Noriega, just to name some.

[galvination]

Now I'm hearing people say we went into the war because Saddam was a dictator, well why Iraq? There are plenty of dictatorships around the world like noth korea, and countries in south america. So why arent we stopping those dictators?

Clearly this war was initiated over false pretences.

[Guest]

hey guys my cousin was in a striker brigade that was sent to Iraq, he got sent back because he lost his left arm in a car bomb but from what i hear from him they have to hunt for food the US doesn't send them enough food so they gotta eat stray dogs and cats and other animals. I'll talk to him later and see what else i can found out about the war that we never knew.

[galvination]

We're pouring billions of dollars into this war, our soldiers are eating MRE's not dogs.

[Guest]

We're pouring billions of dollars into this war, our soldiers are eating MRE's not dogs.

what are MRE's and they do eat dogs because they have reasonable rations but they still are really hungry.