Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on January 15, 2005, 03:19:18 PM
-
List your best argument against the US going to war in Iraq.
Mine: We should have done it a lot sooner.
-
.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
List your best argument against the US going to war in Iraq.
Mine: We should have done it a lot sooner.
Hindsight.
eskimo
-
No child left behind.
-
Showing the world "I surrender" actually means something when said to an American general officer.
Or how about because we were spending a billion bucks a year for 10 years watching Iraq bust their surrender terms one after another, so we couldn't just walk away, and the situation was getting worse as time dragged on.
Because Saddam put up a huge bluff about how dangerous he was, and he convinced a lot of very smart people that he was telling the truth and had to be dealt with.
-
what GScholz said:
-This war is illegal, immoral and wrong.
wrong because it have nothing to do with the real OBL cancer,
he is still active but saddam is gone.
-
Sorry, Ghost, kicking your countries Ass, twice, wasn't about catching the Kaiser or Hitler, to use a metaphor.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
what GScholz said:
-This war is illegal, immoral and wrong.
wrong because it have nothing to do with the real OBL cancer,
he is still active but saddam is gone.
Gh0stFT, lol
What other war are you upset about? Why only comment on the Iraq war? What war is moral and right? What other war are you upset with that has nothing to do with OBL?
List the other wars you have been against and posted about here on this BB.
Iraq war was the worst you can imagine?
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Sorry, Ghost, kicking your countries Ass, twice, wasn't about catching the Kaiser or Hitler, to use a metaphor.
please what?
we talking about the Iraq war not ww2 or ww1.
-
Yes, a war about a threat, not a person.
-
Gh0stFT, Germany in WWI and WWII were mosters.
The US was sent by god to restore world order.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Gh0stFT, lol
Why only comment on the Iraq war? What war is moral and right? ?
Iraq war was the worst you can imagine?
i thought this thread was about Iraq war
you started this thread with: List your best argument against the US going to war in Iraq.
i still say u cant compare this war with any former war.
the gulf war 1990 was on the other side right and you know it,
that time a nation attacked another nation, no discussion needed here.
-
Now you are just stirring chit, Nuke.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
i thought this thread was about Iraq war
you started this thread with: List your best argument against the US going to war in Iraq.
i still say u cant compare this war with any former war.
the gulf war 1990 was on the other side right and you know it,
that time a nation attacked another nation, no discussion needed here.
But we can compair this to any other war. The US went to war against Iraq, without UN approval. How many other wars fit this description?
Be honest and ask yourself why the US war against Iraq was so outrageous.
-
1. It was not, and continues to not be, the best use of American lives, power, prestige and money for all the stated reasons given for going to war.
A. 1,300+ American lives lost and 10,000+ American lives shattered by lost limbs and horrific injuries.
B. Stretched the capabilities of the U.S. armed forces and shown other adversaries the limits of our power. Reserves and National Guard are just that - for reserve in cases of national emergencies or for the defense of America.
C. Americans did not, and do not, care about the lives, freedom or well being of the Iraqi people. Using a sham as a reason for war has reduced the prestige of America. I believe the great majority of those in America and the those in the rest of the world who disagree with America's decision to go to war are not America haters - they are simply disappointed in the America that usually does the right thing for a right principle.
D. $100 billion (so far) is alot of money that could be used at home for some direct benefit of Americans. Let's put that money spent so far into perspective. If you stack $100 bills on the floor, $1 million is almost 4' tall. If you don't believe me, try it in your living room. $1 billion is a stack 4,000' high. $100 billion is a stack of $100 bills 400,000' into space.
-
Rolex, real nice..but why does any of that matter to you? American lives?
Why no mention of any other war here? Wht does Iraq upset people, but other conflicts never get mentioned?
-
Does the weather outside dictate the need for a virutal fishing trip NUKE ? ;)
I was gonna set a net about 500 meters from my pier this morning but by the time we got out of bed it was to late. Mia decided to wake up late this morning so mom and dad got some extra ZzZZZzz's
-
Nilsen, I'm very serious. I wonder why the Iraq war is placed above all other wars and conflicts in the world by some people on this BB
It's not logical. America hatred has to be the reason.
-
I dont think any people here hate america, I sure don't.
I don't hate my girlfrien either for not letting me do everything I want. Neither do I hate my parents for restraining my activities as a child.
Disagreeing and hating are two different things and a man with as much life experience as yourself know that.
-
Nilsen, I think you are a great person.
Thanks.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Nilsen, I think you are a great person.
Thanks.
Ditto.. :)
-
You 2 get a room.
-
Sorry, im a voyeur by nature
-
Then get a room next to his and open the conjoining doors!!
:lol
-
I hope I don't accidently fall on the FW model and crush it. :)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I hope I don't accidently fall on the FW model and crush it. :)
Is it big?
-
yeah, it's big.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
Is it big?
:lol :lol :rofl :rofl :rofl :lol :lol
I said get a room!!!!!!!
Nuke, there is no way in hell after that rebuild you did that you would just destroy it. I know you. It means too much to you. Am I right?
;)
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
:lol :lol :rofl :rofl :rofl :lol :lol
I said get a room!!!!!!!
Nuke, there is no way in hell after that rebuild you did that you would just destroy it. I know you. It means too much to you. Am I right?
;)
hey.. if it you are not curious why do you keep hitting the refresh button ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why no mention of any other war here? Wht does Iraq upset people, but other conflicts never get mentioned?
Huh? Are there other wars going on right now? (OK, Afghanistan).
Iraq was a mistake. No WMD, no imminent threat, no good reason to fight.
Add to that... no exit strategy, no adequate manning and no support from our allies.
oops.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
hey.. if it you are not curious why do you keep hitting the refresh button ;)
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Huh? Are there other wars going on right now? (OK, Afghanistan).
Iraq was a mistake. No WMD, no imminent threat, no good reason to fight.
Add to that... no exit strategy, no adequate manning and no support from our allies.
oops.
LOL, no other conficts?
No exit strategy? What do you mean by an exit strategy?
-
exit... as in 'to leave'.
You near Tempe Nuke?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
exit... as in 'to leave'.
You near Tempe Nuke?
yeah, exit is to leave.....but what's an exit strategy for a war? What does that mean?
I live about 15 miles from Tempe, office about 5 miles from Tempe.
-
We should have had a plan regarding what to do after we squashed the Iraqi Army. The Bush admin even admitted to falling down in that area.
I'll be in Tempe on business the 2-4 of Feb. Anything fun to do?
(wife is coming with)
-
I am in full support of us being there. I feel there are reasons why an exit strategy hasn't been released in detail as to not aid the enemy. This is how I feel and feel free to disagree all you want.
TOUCHDOWN JETS!!!!!!!
-
I belive that there was an exit strategy. The parts of Iraq that did not comply/agree with the theoretical plans made by white house just had to do a few things to make sure that the theory didn't match reality.
The problem was the lack of enough backup plans incase the peices on the chess board did not move in the orderly fashion dictated by the planners of the invasion.
its like the white house planned the entire "chess game" before hand and hoped the other player would use a particular move in respose to it.
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
I belive that there was an exit strategy. The parts of Iraq that did not comply/agree with the theoretical plans made by white house just had to do a few things to make sure that the theory didn't match reality.
The problem was the lack of enough backup plans incase the peices on the chess board did not move in the orderly fashion dictated by the planners of the invasion.
its like the white house planned the entire "chess game" before hand and hoped the other player would use a particular move in respose to it.
And I think you're giving them too much credit.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
We should have had a plan regarding what to do after we squashed the Iraqi Army. The Bush admin even admitted to falling down in that area.
I'll be in Tempe on business the 2-4 of Feb. Anything fun to do?
(wife is coming with)
If you are only staying 2 days, maybe just walk down Mill Ave in Tempe at night... pretty neat...can't go wrong.
Tempe is a small "college" town, but right next to Scottsdale, Phoenix and Mesa.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And I think you're giving them too much credit.
maybe...
The US leadership went out to do one of the most dangerous and difficult tasks one can imagine.
Installing a goverment and a way of life upon someone that you first have to "beat up" and then make them think that you and your ways are the way to go.
Imagine me going into a family home and beating up some of the family members and then wanting to be a friend with the rest of the family and make them do things my way to boot. That is very difficult indeed, if not impossible.
You cant force anyone to like and trust you.
-
I think Nuke is delusional and believes you can eat what you catch on a virtual-fishing trip.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
List your best argument against the US going to war in Iraq.
Osama Bin Laden, architect of 9/11 - still free, laughing at us, and making videos.
-
NUKE is drunk.
-
best argument for going into Iraq:
more jobs available for illegal immigrants!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
List your best argument against the US going to war in Iraq.
Mine: We should have done it a lot sooner.
The cost of young American lives Is to high!
In other words the Iraqi's are not worth ONE American life.
There country there problems let them deal with it!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Gh0stFT, Germany in WWI and WWII were mosters.
The US was sent by god to restore world order.
C'est une blaque vivante ce type ou il est simplement comme ça ?
-
I don't really have an argument for why the US should not have gone to war with Iraq... I think the US should lead coalitions to take out madmen throughout the world...
Not to say that once they're gone, we can do much better, but at least we won't be commiting crimes against humanity, genocide, etc. etc. (and, if we do, we'll get a number of years in prison for it :) )
I'm personally disappointed in certain countries throughout the world. One that comes to mind is Germany. I think it's reasonable that they do their part to remove a dictator for a change. Even if that just means putting *serious* pressure on one to resign.
I'm sorry, but, for example, with all the Native American Casino's being built lately, it's seems that generations down the road ARE responsible for trying to make up for the wrongdoings of past ones.
As curious as this may sound to people, the War in Iraq is the redeeming quality for Bush IMO. I don't approve of much of his domestic policy, but his foreign policy, though a bit arrogant, is at least one where serious steps are taken. It's been awhile since we've had a president who would dare do unpopular things. I have to give him that.
-
C'est une blaque vivante ce type ou il est simplement comme ça ?
Translation: The French disagree w/ the war in Iraq because we as the French were not involved. How can we surrender?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
List your best argument against the US going to war in Iraq.
Mine: We should have done it a lot sooner.
The best? Cripes there's too many. You still don't get it? Try and think past the propergander and BS you've been inindated with since 9/11 and start to think for yourself. Maybe then you'll understand why the majority of the world and I assume even the US is against the war.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Steve
Translation: The French disagree w/ the war in Iraq because we as the French were not involved. How can we surrender?
Nope translation is : what kind of guy can post seriously this kind of sentence
The US was sent by god to restore world order.
without immediatly having the feeling of being ridiculous.
-
aww Straffo, I'm just pokin a lil fun.
I'm one of those Americans who remebers France's hand in our independence, even though I poke fun at ya now and then.
Thanks.
-
Ok :)
I'm also one of those french that don't forgot the GI's and their contribution.
I was at Colleville yesterday , I need seriously to buy a numeric camera to post pictures here.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Rolex, real nice..but why does any of that matter to you? American lives?
I'll borrow Colin Powell's question to Cheney as Cheney tried to rationalize using 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq: "What are you, nuts?"
-
Originally posted by Gixer
The best? Cripes there's too many. You still don't get it? Try and think past the propergander and BS you've been inindated with since 9/11 and start to think for yourself. Maybe then you'll understand why the majority of the world and I assume even the US is against the war.
...-Gixer
Since I don't agree with you, I must not be thinking for myself.....right? What a concept.
Here is what I ( as in myself) think about the reasons for going into Iraq.
1. We had to put a large force on the ground just to get Saddam to allow inspectors back. It's expensive to keep that force there. The only reason Saddam allowed inpections was that we put those forces over there and threatened him. He did not seem to mind any UN threats up to that point
2. Saddam still was being evasive and was not providing records for the WMD. He still had weapons he was not suppsed to have.
3. What garantee did anyone have that, as soon as the US forces left , he would not immediatley rebuild whatever systems he felt like building.
Saddam had 13 years to comply. It is my belief that he never intended to comply. Even under UN oil for food, he scammed them.
We could not afford to send a large force back and forth half-way around the world every time Saddam played his games with the UN.
We had given him every chance, even drafted the UN's "LAST CHANCE" which he did not comply with.
I'm sorry you don't like the action we took, but I saw it as the only way we where going to be sure Saddam was gone and Iraq complied with the cease fire agreements of the first war.
Gixer, I suspect the only reason you hate the US and our action in Iraq is that we didn't get UN approval. If we did the same thing, only we had a nice blue stamp of approval from the UN, you would have been fine. Why are you not not following any other wars or conflicts on the planet and complaining about them and the reasons given for those wars?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Why are you not not following any other wars or conflicts on the planet and complaining about them and the reasons given for those wars?
Originally posted by NUKE
List your best argument against the US going to war in Iraq
If you don't won't to hear don't ask for it...
If I think I was paying taxes when you were in school... What a waste of money!
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
If you don't won't to hear don't ask for it...
If I think I was paying taxes when you were in school... What a waste of money!
I guess you are like Gixer. You both offered no argument, yet made insulting remarks, just for asking a question.
Skuzzy likes to call that a "personal attack"
Grow up.
-
By the way, I feel the Iraq war was more a UN failure than anything else. History will show this to be an prime example of the UN's inability to enforce their own resolutions.
The UN passed the "last chance" resolution, which really was not a last chance at all, as it turned out.
The UN passed all those resolutions for 13 years, but Saddam only allowed inpsectors back AFTER the US put forces down and threatened him. Can anyone else deny this fact? The UN resolutions had nothing to do with Saddam allowing inspections.
The UN should never have let Saddam get away with the violations. The UN should have autherized use of force. That's the biggest failure in dealing with Iraq, the UN's failure to do anything about it.
-
If the UN wasnt so spineless and had authorized use of force to ensure compliance with its own resolutions we wouldnt be having this discussion now. The biggest problem with the UN is it lacks any real authority to take real action. It can pass resolutions but has no way to enforce them. Which makes the UN useless imo.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I'll borrow Colin Powell's question to Cheney as Cheney tried to rationalize using 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq: "What are you, nuts?"
There was no need for the 'excuse'.
The warring nations of the USA and Iraq did not conclude the peace treaty after the 1st Gulf war. And what is the ceasefire? A temporary break in hostilities. It can be followed by the capitulation and the peace treaty, but may result in the renewal of the hostilities in the form of a war.
Saddam capitulated before the UN - this was the result of the 1st Gulf war. But he did not surrender to the USA. He was too proud to do
that (and maybe the USA also did not need that at the time). But why should this be considered as the American problem? Saddam failed in his diplomacy and this is his fault. He's just not Josef Stalin material, though he tried.
The real troublemaker here was the Great Britain, the country that mapped a single state out of its former colonial possession that forcibly united several different nationalities that had and still have their own interests. The Britain's aim was to secure the British interests in this oil region. Nobody was and not many nations are now intrested in helping the different peoples of Iraq. :(
-
Originally posted by straffo
Ok :)
I'm also one of those french that don't forgot the GI's and their contribution.
I was at Colleville yesterday , I need seriously to buy a numeric camera to post pictures here.
Thanks Straffo :)
-
Nuke,
Ever asked yourself why Bush is so obsessed with Iraq and it's intent to build WMD"s in 13 or 20 years when Iran is already putting warheads in 4,000km range missiles. Why wasn't Iran invaded first or N Korea for that matter? I would of thought N Korea is much more of a threat. But then again hardly an easy target like Iraq.
Iraq wasn't invaded on Intent. It was invaded on being a danager to the world with thousands of tons of WMD's to be used within minutes. Which evidance for before the war was flimsy at best, so it's hardly suprising that it's all turned into BS.
The arguments of, the WMD"s are there we just haven't found them yet. Is very poor. Even Bush has given up on that one yet some of you still bleat it out.
....-Gixer
-
I never once said the war was about WMD, even before the war.
The threat that they may have had WMD is one reason. The main reason was that we had to put a huge force over there just to get Saddam to allow inpsections. And the UN could not be trusted to enforce their own resolutions.
I'd rather make sure, get rid of Saddam and get the job over with now than wait or hope that the UN would make Saddam compliant.
We did the logical thing to do given all of the cirmumstances. We had to make sure Saddam was gone, since he obviously could never be trusted.
The UN failed here. The UN failed to enforce anything. I'm sorry about that.
-
Gixer, Iran was not ever a problem. That's why. The UN did not make resolutions against Iran or NK and demand inpections.
Are you saying that the US should act against Iran or NK even though they have attacked no one?
Your logic makes no sense to me.
On one hand, you are pissed that the US acted against Iraq, after Iraq agreed to a cease-fire and failed to keep the terms, spent 13 years ignoring the UN resolutions, then on the other hand you are asking why we are obsessed with Iraq?????
Iraq was a 13 year ordeal, not an obession. The UN was "obsessed " with Iraq .
Iran and NK are not the same, in any way.
You weakened your own point comparing them.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Gixer, Iran was not ever a problem. That's why. The UN did not make resolutions against Iran or NK and demand inpections.
Are you saying that the US should act against Iran or NK even though they have attacked no one?
Your logic makes no sense to me.
On one hand, you are pissed that the US acted against Iraq, after Iraq agreed to a cease-fire and failed to keep the terms, spent 13 years ignoring the UN resolutions, then on the other hand you are asking why we are obsessed with Iraq?????
Iraq was a 13 year ordeal, not an obession. The UN was "obsessed " with Iraq .
Iran and NK are not the same, in any way.
You weakened your own point comparing them.
Other then Kuwait who did Iraq attack? US on 9/11 LMAO
Iraq was dead and burried as a regional threat let alone a global one even Powell and Rice are quoted as saying that before 9/11 so why the sudden change in poilicy? Simply Bush always had it in for Iraq and saw it as an excuse to tie Iraq into his war on terror.
Sadam had to go, but invading the country to do it is extreme and comletely the wrong war.
Meanwhile 1500 plus troops are dead, 10,000 or more wounded. God knows how many 10,000's of Iraqi's. The whole middle east in the region is a mess with no end in site and muslims around the world hate the US and West even more as OBL makes more videos and plans his next attack enjoying all his new populatirty and resources.
Now add to those figures and all the other problems US military moral, cost etc. Just how long is the US willing to hack it out in Iraq? 3,4,10 years? And for what? Democracy in Iraq? Please that kind of country has too many tribes and factions it's impossible for it to br ruled by democracy no matter how many lifes the US takes and billions it spends. At best the US will finally decide to cut it's losses and run like in Vietnam and it will have a quick civil war and a leader will rise like in Iran.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Meanwhile 1500 plus troops are dead...
Just some historical perspective, Gen. Pickett lost that many in the first few hundred yards.
-
Gixer, the point was to get rid of Saddam and erase any threat he posed to the Middle East and to us.
You say Iraq "only" attacked Kuwait???? Do you even realise the threat Iraq posed in doing that? By the way, they attacked Iran and Israel too.
The UN told Iraq to get out of Kuwait and guess what? They didn'y listen to the UN. They listened only after the US put forces there.....after GB 1 said "this agression will not stand"
Saddam kicked inspectors out and ignored the cease fire agreements. We had every right and every concern to take action against a known threat.
What plan would you have followed? Keep in mind that Saddam never, ever cooperated with the UN except when he was confonted with force. Are you saying that you would rather the US didn't put a force there and instead just relied on the UN to try to get inspectors back into Iraq?
And, once we got rid of Saddam and his threat, the secondary goal was to establish a democracy and a stable government. What's wrong with that?
Democracy was not the goal, getting rid of Saddam was the goal.
-
hey Gixer, you say democracy will never work in Iraq? Then what would you have done if the UN had decided to allow use of force in Iraq?
Would you just take out Saddam, then leave? Maybe you would install a dictator or king? Maybe you would devide up Iraq into several countries? What would you suggest should have been done should force been authorized by the UN?
What better job could have been done? The US is at least giving the Iraqis a chance to be a democracy.....and that's a lot more than you seem to be willing to allow.
Give me some alternatives.
Maybe you are the one believing the propoganda you have been fed. You don't seem to have a realistic view of the subject. Give us your ideas as to what should have been done.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just some historical perspective, Gen. Pickett lost that many in the first few hundred yards.
I wonder if Bush uses a stupid statement like that when he's talking to some kids parents.
...-Gixer
-
Nuke,
Sadam wasn't a threat that's the whole point though Bush's BS seems to of convinced you that he was. Powell and co are quoted as saying that he was contained and not a threat before 9/11.
Don't forget Sadam was being supported by the US during half his reign and during his war with Iran and time that he gassed those Kurds. You seem to have a very selective memory of the guy, his actions and what the US was doing at that time as well.
...-Gixer
-
Gixer, I wanted Saddam delt with way before Bush took office. You seem to be on this kick that Bush "fooled" everyone into thinking Iraq was a threat.
You dont get it.
The US spent a lot of money and manpower to get Iraq out of Kuwait. Saddam never complied with the cease fire agreements and presented a known threat. He had banned weapons, he did not disclose the accounting of his WMD.
I'm glad you could trust Saddam, but only a fool would have trusted him.
We took out Saddam and made sure he could not be a threat. What exactly is the problem?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I wonder if Bush uses a stupid statement like that when he's talking to some kids parents.
[sarcasm]No, I'm sure he's as myopic as you are.[/sarcasm]
I was just showing that by historical standards, casualties are extremely light. There were times in Viet Nam where 1,500 was only a few weeks tally. If you wish to believe that the casualties are heavy, then don't learn from history.
-
I was at Colleville yesterday , I need seriously to buy a numeric camera to post pictures here.
I'd sure like to see those.
-
If youn are going to spend all that money on millitary hardware yiou got to do something with it.
Thats why The US govt keeps looking for a new war. Keep the industrial millitary complex happy.
Of course all those troops that are in Iraq could be very usefull in the Indian ocean right now!!!! I think that would be a much better use of their time!
-
There was no need for us to go to war with Iraq.
1. Hussein was not causing any problems to the rest of the world.
2. If we wanted to go to the war so much, we should of waited for UN help instead of practically going in by ourselves with a few other allies.
3. If we had UN help the war would of been over a lot sooner and less lives would have been lost.
4. Now Bush has a big head and wants to go after all these other countries.
Canaris