This is Disturbing.. if you're sane.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Lazerus
Do you believe that?

I think we understand what he was trying to convey.

GScholz. There is no reason to lie about anything to justify the liberation of Iraq from the man (loosely used term) that was murdering them. However, I do understand that you feel that there is no justification, I just know that you are wrong.

Well... as a taxpayer, I don't feel that it is the responsibilty of the U.S. to liberate people from their governments, no matter how oppressive they may be.

We can't afford it... bottom line.

[mechanic]

ignorant aswell as imbecilic?   thats an achievement.

[Leslie]

Originally posted by Lazerus
American Civil War.

Organized insurgents, but insurgents none the less.

AKA The War of Northern Agression





Les

[Sandman]

I predict that this thread won't last much longer.

[rpm]

This was a direct result of the failure to complete the Gulf War. What would have happened if we stopped at Okinawa in 1945?

[Sandman]

Imagine if we had continued on to Baghdad during the first Gulf War.

What makes you think the situation would be any different than today?

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by GScholz
Ignorant imbecile.

That was rather rude, as I am niether. But you are free to have an opinion.


Sandman. I think the legalities, reasons, justifications etc. have been hashed and rehashed here. No ones position is going to be changed at this point, so there is no reason to hash it again. The liberation of the Iraqi people was a very good thing, but not the reason or the justification. And I didn't present it as such, or that was not my intention at least.

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Sandman
Well... as a taxpayer, I don't feel that it is the responsibilty of the U.S. to liberate people from their governments, no matter how oppressive they may be.

We can't afford it... bottom line.

I don't feel we went there to liberate the Iraqi people. I believe we went there to remove Saddam and Iraq as a threat.

The second part of that equation is that we have to leave Iraq with as stable government as possible. It's so logical to me, I don't inderstand why people don't see it.

Boiled down to it's core, the war in Iraq has very logical and practicle reasons for it, from a US perspective, since the US was the one who  would have had to deal with Iraq later, more than likely.

We could have done a better job though. We should have had more forces and other things, but overall the reasons for the war are pretty solid in my opinion.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by NUKE
I don't feel we went there to liberate the Iraqi people. I believe we went there to remove Saddam and Iraq as a threat.

The second part of that equation is that we have to leave Iraq with as stable government as possible. It's so logical to me, I don't inderstand why people don't see it.

Boiled down to it's core, the war in Iraq has very logical and practicle reasons for it, from a US perspective, since the US was the one who  would have had to deal with Iraq later, more than likely.

We could have done a better job though. We should have had more forces and other things, but overall the reasons for the war are pretty solid in my opinion.

This is where we disagree. Iraq was getting weaker, not stronger.

Compare and contrast the speed at which the army advanced in each of the two wars.

[Muckmaw1]

Originally posted by Sandman
This is where we disagree. Iraq was getting weaker, not stronger.

Compare and contrast the speed at which the army advanced in each of the two wars.

Good point but can you back it up?

Was Iraq really getting weaker?

Or were the sanctions imposed on it merely disenfranchising it's people?

Was Saddam still arming his forces with the latest weaponry from nations violating the UN ban?

What about casualties in the first Gulf War vs. the Second comparing both in the same light? (From beggining to end of major conflict, not including occupation)

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by midnight Target
"What we have done in Iraq is what bin Laden could not have hoped for in his wildest dreams: We invaded an oil-rich Muslim nation in the heart of the Middle East, the very type of imperial adventure bin Laden has long predicted was the U.S.'s long-term goal in the region. We deposed the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden has long despised, ignited Sunni and Shi'a fundamentalist fervor in Iraq, and have now provoked a defensive jihad that has galvanized jihad- minded Muslims around the world. It's hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terror." - Peter Bergen

Back to the point. Who believes this crap?

[straffo]

Originally posted by Muckmaw1
Was Saddam still arming his forces with the latest weaponry from nations violating the UN ban?

Hu ?

oh ... yes I remember it's those French missiles the French army as not deployed yet .
Look like it didn't help the Iraqi resist the US army.

What about casualties in the first Gulf War vs. the Second comparing both in the same light? (From beggining to end of major conflict, not including occupation) [/B]

Please post the numbers (I've no idea what you are trying to say here )

[Muckmaw1]

Originally posted by straffo
Hu ?

oh ... yes I remember it's those French missiles the French army as not deployed yet .
Look like it didn't help the Iraqi resist the US army.



Please post the numbers (I've no idea what you are trying to say here )

Thats what I'm asking Sandman.

He said that Iraq was getting weaker and said to use the speed of the allied advance in the first gulf war vs the second as a benchmark.

I recommended using casualty numbers during major combat operations between the 2 wars to compare the strength of the enemy.

[patrone]

Originally posted by Muckmaw1

I recommended using casualty numbers during major combat operations between the 2 wars to compare the strength of the enemy.

Slapstick....the funnies form, even if its the simplest form of comedy. Nothing more funny then to see a person trip on himself.

[Muckmaw1]

Originally posted by patrone
Slapstick....the funnies form, even if its the simplest form of comedy. Nothing more funny then to see a person trip on himself.

You're laughing all alone here cause I don't know WTF your talking about.

I'm asking a legitimate, honest question of Sandman to assist in formulating my opinion of his statement.

If you find that funny....chuckle away.