Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: midnight Target on January 20, 2005, 11:40:21 AM
-
"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
"Peter Bergen is a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington D.C; an Adjunct Professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University"
Best intentions aside, this analysis is dead on. Unfortunately. We now have to create a democracy out of nothing and make it work. I have no doubt that Iraq will be number one on the hit parade for the next Presidential election and maybe the one after that. Sad really.
-
Iraq posed an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States!
-
Saddam never complied with the cease-fire and refused to reveal the records of his wmd. He continued to hold onto banned weapons.
Saddam kicked out UN inspectors. They were only allowed back AFTER the US put a force on the ground over there. The UN passed a "final, last chance" resolution which Saddam failed to comply with.
Iraq and Saddam played games for 13 years. Saddam could not be trusted.
The US took a logical look at the history of Saddam, the history of us having to go to a military option just to get compliance. The US took out Saddam because he was dangerous.
Pretty good reasons to me. I for one am glad we did it. we had to know for sure Iraq would be in compliance.
Now that we got rid of Saddam, it is our responsibility to leave Iraq secure.....and WE WILL DO THAT.
People are so short sighted.
The reasons for going to war to take out Saddam and remove Iraq as a threat are pretty good, rational reasons considereing the ammount of money and military we have spent on them in that last 13 years. We had to finish the job this time.
I see no flaw in the logic of taking acton when we had the force there and Saddam still was playing games.
-
Nuke commenting about short sighted... funny.
Did you at least read what MT posted? Or are you just here to parot-talk?
-
Nuke how is your post related to MT's post ?.
You justify the US intervention in Iraq, you don't contradict Bergen.
-
it is true that the jihad is in full swing.
the UK has approx 20% (my own figure) muslim population.
this doesnt look good for us.
-
My guess is his "broad vision" only allowed him to see the word "Iraq", then the mouth started opening itself (in this case, the fingers tapping furiously) :D
-
yep cause they didn't hate us before that.
-
bergen is a tool of the neo-left
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Nuke commenting about short sighted... funny.
Did you at least read what MT posted? Or are you just here to parot-talk?
I read the article and I'm stating my own views, thanks.
The reasons for taking out Saddam and Iraq are sound. We went to war to get rid of Saddam and make Iraq comply with the cease-fire, not to appease terrorists.
e 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.
I guess I forgot, we should never dare invade a muslim country in the "heart of the middle east" What's he saying? It makes no sense.
The terrorists hated us before the Iraq war, and they hate us now. No difference....other than now we wont have to wonder if Iraq will be a threat.
When we go to war, are we supposed to worry about what terrorists think about it? That's amusing to me.
-
agreed
Originally posted by john9001
bergen is a tool
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Nuke, why don't you just put all that in your sig? It would make all your posting that much easier.
I would like to have a serious discussion about it. Are you saying that there were not any good reason to go to war with Iraq?
The US is the main nation that had to spend billions and send our military over just to get Iraq out of Kuwait.
We had to spend billions to place forces back over again after Saddam kicked the inspectors out.
We were not going to keep playing that game, so we ended the game after Saddam had EVERY chance and even the UN"S LAST CHANCE to comply.
From the US's standpoint, the reasons are very logical to take the action we did at the time we did.
Maybe you have other ideas, but the US was not gong to play the "send our forces back and forth around the world every few years" game.
-
the very type of imperial adventure bin Laden has long predicted was the U.S.'s long-term goal in the region.
There is no 'imperial adventure'. We are not there to create a territory of the US.
We deposed the secular socialist Saddam, whom bin Laden has long despised
It has been proven that bin Laden's organization sought out and received help from Saddam. Does bin Laden hate Saddam? Who the hell knows but bin Laden.
Secular Socialist? Try tyrannical dictator.
ignited Sunni and Shi'a fundamentalist fervor in Iraq
I think that decades of tyrannical rule by a representative of a minority, that made a policy of murdering hundreds of thousands of members of the majority did more to ignite 'fundamentalist fervor'. We are attempting to unite these two groups. I think if one cares to do a little research, one will find that 95%+ of Iraq is peaceful and stable.
and have now provoked a defensive jihad that has galvanized jihad- minded Muslims around the world.
Defensive. That is how we want them to be. Galvanized?? I'm not sure that is correct, but assume it is. This allows us to find them easier and kill them.
It's hard to imagine a set of policies better designed to sabotage the war on terror.
I have to whole heartedly disagree.
-
Sound reasons for war or not. The analysis is still valid.
If your baby is dirty you have all kinds of sound reasons to clean it... This doesn't mean you put it in the washing machine. If you don't think ahead to what your actions may cause then you aren't acting responsibly.
I truely believe that our administration thought they were doing the right thing... I also firmly believe that they were mistaken.
-
well said.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
There is no 'imperial adventure'. We are not there to create a territory of the US.
It has been proven that bin Laden's organization sought out and received help from Saddam. Does bin Laden hate Saddam? Who the hell knows but bin Laden.
Secular Socialist? Try tyrannical dictator.
I think that decades of tyrannical rule by a representative of a minority, that made a policy of murdering hundreds of thousands of members of the majority did more to ignite 'fundamentalist fervor'. We are attempting to unite these two groups. I think if one cares to do a little research, one will find that 95%+ of Iraq is peaceful and stable.
Defensive. That is how we want them to be. Galvanized?? I'm not sure that is correct, but assume it is. This allows us to find them easier and kill them.
I have to whole heartedly disagree.
Well'er said.
-
Sad.. very sad... :rolleyes:
Throughout history, any country, is there a case where an insurgent war has been won by the aggressors?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sound reasons for war or not. The analysis is still valid.
If your baby is dirty you have all kinds of sound reasons to clean it... This doesn't mean you put it in the washing machine. If you don't think ahead to what your actions may cause then you aren't acting responsibly.
I truely believe that our administration thought they were doing the right thing... I also firmly believe that they were mistaken.
War is dirty. That's why we waited so long and went to war as a last practical option. Our baby is not diry compaired to any other war, or the war we could have brought to Iraq.
We could have obliterated Iraq and all of it's infrastucturtre, then left by now. We are not like that, we are trying to minimise civilian death and misery. We are going to leave Iraq stable.
As for the consequeces in the terrorist world? It makes no difference to me what they think about it, They hate us just the same. heck, they kill their own people just as soon as anyone.
I actually believe the opposite of the author of that quote. I believe that the muslim terrorists, shown killing their own people, are actually creating a backlash against them in the muslim world.
I believe that when Iraq is secure and they have elections, the backlash against the terrorists trying to screw it up will be even worse. The people of Iraq are being made the victims of outside terror groups.....and they do not want them there.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I guess I forgot, we should never dare invade a muslim country in the "heart of the middle east" What's he saying? It makes no sense.
The terrorists hated us before the Iraq war, and they hate us now. No difference....other than now we wont have to wonder if Iraq will be a threat.
When we go to war, are we supposed to worry about what terrorists think about it? That's amusing to me.
He's saying that OBL's credibility has increased because America is behaving as he said it would so others are more inclined to listen to what he has to say.
As someone once said, if you want to stop terrorism, stop participating in it.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
He's saying that OBL's credibility has increased because America is behaving as he said it would so others are more inclined to listen to what he has to say.
As someone once said, if you want to stop terrorism, stop participating in it.
Best saying yet
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Sad.. very sad... :rolleyes:
Throughout history, any country, is there a case where an insurgent war has been won by the aggressors?
are you fishing for USA?
-
Originally posted by Chortle
He's saying that OBL's credibility has increased because America is behaving as he said it would so others are more inclined to listen to what he has to say.
As someone once said, if you want to stop terrorism, stop participating in it.
OBL has very little to say about anything now days.
I'm saying that we went to war against Iraq and that I don't care what OBLS followers thnk about it. Actually, I find it Ironic that OSL's main goal was to get the US out of muslim lands.....and his actions created the opposite effect. He must have also lost credibility with his followers, don't you think?
OBL though that he could make the US leave muslim lands by attacking us and look what that got him. I'd say he failed.
And the saying "if you want to stop terrorism, stop participating in it. " sounds good, but we all know that's not a realistic view of the situation in the world.
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Sad.. very sad... :rolleyes:
Throughout history, any country, is there a case where an insurgent war has been won by the aggressors?
American Civil War. :D
Organized insurgents, but insurgents none the less.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
It is pretty scary to see that some people really are trying to justify this war by whatever means necessary, including lying. It doesn't really matter how many people have to suffer or die just as long as you people can uphold the illusion of righteousness. Well ... perhaps not scary, but rather pathetic.
I told you my reasons I think we went to war. What lie did I tell?
-
Originally posted by vorticon
are you fishing for USA?
I don't believe I am.. I was actually curious about it.. What would I be fishing for?
-
The terrorists hated us before the Iraq war, and they hate us now. No difference....other than now we wont have to wonder if Iraq will be a threat.
Indeed no wonder it is just fact Iraq is the new homeland for terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
He's saying that OBL's credibility has increased because America is behaving as he said it would
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.
:D
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Indeed no wonder it is just fact Iraq is the new homeland for terrorists.
Right where 160,000 american troops are.
Sounds like it worked to me.
Or would you rather we have Al-Qaeda-Con in Chicago?
-
Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
I don't believe I am.. I was actually curious about it.. What would I be fishing for?
not sure, just felt like a fishy comment...
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
Or would you rather we have Al-Qaeda-Con in Chicago?
Hey, that even is not scheduled until next year :lol
-
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.
:D
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.
-
ignorant aswell as imbecilic? thats an achievement.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
American Civil War. :D
Organized insurgents, but insurgents none the less.
AKA The War of Northern Agression
Les
-
I predict that this thread won't last much longer.
-
This was a direct result of the failure to complete the Gulf War. What would have happened if we stopped at Okinawa in 1945?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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?
-
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 :))
-
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.
-
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.
:rofl
-
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.
:rofl
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.
-
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
"Peter Bergen is a fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington D.C; an Adjunct Professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University"
Best intentions aside, this analysis is dead on. Unfortunately. We now have to create a democracy out of nothing and make it work. I have no doubt that Iraq will be number one on the hit parade for the next Presidential election and maybe the one after that. Sad really.
Midnight,
Given the analysis above, give us your scenario of world events for 01/01/02 - 01/01/12 that might have unfolded if Bush had done everything Peter Bergan and Co. in their combined wisdom would have had him do. But please factor in continued attacks on western targets and citizens, and how the west would address the murders of western citizens to it's populations.
-
You 1st.
-
Originally posted by Muckmaw1
You're laughing all alone here cause I don't know WTF your talking about.
Kiss Muckmaw, you are a true Gem....
-
During major combat operations? Major combat operations were over quite early in this war as spoken by our president aboard the AC.. I believe at that time the death rate was very low..
You cannot compare the occupation of Iraqi with the 1990 gulf war..
How about we compare the amount of destroyed armor between the 1990 gulf war and this war.. Perhaps better?
-
It's probably a gross oversimplification to compare casualties... but here goes.
U.S. Military deaths to hostile action during Operation Iraqi Freedom (thru April 30, 2003) = 109
U.S. Military deaths to hostile action during Desert Storm (January 16, 1990 to Sept 14, 1991) = 147 (total coalition deaths = 378).
I'll come clean and state right out that I'm not real certain of the coalition figure. I searched for numbers and landed on Wikipedia. The U.S. figures are good, however.
-
I'm sure it is oversimplified.
However, from those numbers, it would indicate that Iraq's Military was somewhat weaker in 2003 than in 1991.
Factor in the lack of any air to air engagements in the second gulf war. Though they were limited at best in the first.
Factor in the fact that the second involved the capturing of Baghdad where the first did not.
Had we gone to Baghdad in GW1, where would those numbers be? Significantly higher, I would presume.
-
Iraq was a very logical point for our conquest of Asia Minor. A very sound move really. Doesn't Iran have WMDs? I'm sure that all of Iraq's WMDs are now in Jordan and Syria as well. Is Lebanon threatening us again?????!!!!!??????!!!!!!
-
OK Midnight here's a fist installment.
2002-2004
2002 - Bush accepts the UN's and EU's advice and does not invade iraq. Sanctions are expanded as a show of strength to Hussen. Hussen takes them to the bank. OBL's network gets additional funding and plans ongoing diversionary attacks against western interests. Afganistan being in the boonies is put on a back burner by OBL.
2003 - Bush is loosing credibility amongst the moderate US population and the Liberal Media and the DNC take advantage of this to undercut his image as the protector of America in a time of War. His popularity drops to 32%, even though he has agreed with the UN and the EU on how to deal with Iraq. The Liberal Media covers up the economic recovery and nails Bush on his domestic policies. Again his approval rating drops to 28%. OBL's networks set off a number of bombings world wide against western interests and citizens to take advantage of Bush's low popularity. The Liberal media has a feild day with the attacks and makes it all Bush's fault. The UN and the EU reccomend political solutions. As we know the attacks are just terrorist business as usuall.
2004 - Terrorist attacks world wide are on the increase because world opinion has been focused on the idea that it's all Bush's fault. By this time Bush has been made a house hold name for everything wrong in the west and Hussen and OBL are the darlings of the Liberal media. To help insure Bush's defeat at the polls in November, a number of suicide bombings finally occur on US soil starting in August. Bush looses the election in a landslide to his DNC rival. 11/3/04 both Hussen and OBL release statments of vindication and glee over Bush's defeat. The DNC never questioned the sources of some party donations.
2005 - The newley elected Democrat president promises solidarity with the UN and to pursue political solutions to the war on terror. He also addresses the UN assembly to personally offer his apologies for what Bush put the world through for 4 years. Plans are now in motion on a time table based on a Democrat president being in the white house. As 2005 unfolds bombings and civil unrest start picking up around the world against western interests and citizens. The large muslim imigrant populations in the EU begin to place political and terrorist preassure on the local governments. Late 2005 the question of what happened to Iraq's chemical wheapons during the inspections in the 90's are answered. Serin gas and mustard gas attacks are mixed in with suicide bombings.
2006 - The US is looked at as weak by the rest of the world. Political solutions with the middle east have the usual results. The EU economy is hurting from terrorist activities and OBL wants to escalate against the US. Food for Oil is still funding Hussen and everyone involved. But the US is not interfering in person anywhere but Afganistan, and the US president has started talking troop withdrawal. World events have embolden the taliban to step up insugency again in Afganistan. The media is silent.
2007 - The ball drops in Times Square. 12 gentelmen of middle eastern descent unscrew the tops to their thermos bottels and toss them out into the crowds at the last stroke of the clock. 1212 people die from the serin in the bottles. OBL releases a video proclaiming this just the begining. The president makes a statement that all law enforcement resources will be brought to play in seeking out the perpertrators of this atrocity. The media has littel to say other than 12 gentelmen of middle eastern descent commited suicide by serin and incured 1200 collateral deaths. But the president is not blamed that buck is passed to the military and homeland defence for dropping the ball. Through out the year more attacks occur on US soil starting the economy into a down turn. No one in congress is listening to citizen groups in Arizona about the ongoing ilegal immigrant conga line through their southern border. Seems gentelmen of middle eastern descent have been caught there and released since 2003. The media is silent about this and about the cargo being run into the country by boat from columbia that isn't drugs.
2008 - The economy is sliding mainly due to the fear of the next suicide attack. Consumors don't want to go anywhere. Go figure? Around the world attacks are now a part of doing business. Hussen's bank accounts are looking good. OBL has stopped hiding in the boonies. The US and a few allies launch antiterroist raids around the world to shore up civilian confidence. OBL lets it ride. The US has no plans to invade anyone. Whats a few dead operatives in the scheam of things. It might even help keep a democrat in the white house and the US at home......................... ..............continued.
-
We now have to create a democracy out of nothing and make it work.
Sort of like Germany and Japan in 1945... ya, it will never work.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Saddam never complied with the cease-fire and refused to reveal the records of his wmd. He continued to hold onto banned weapons.
Why do you keep telling this lie after it has been proven incorrect time and time again on this BBS?
-
"Sort of like Germany and Japan in 1945... ya, it will never work."
Ya, because a muslim, middle-eastern Iraq in 20002 is exactly like Germany and Japan in 1945.
-
If only SUVs ran on denial and cognitive dissonance rather than oil :)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Why do you keep telling this lie after it has been proven incorrect time and time again on this BBS?
Sorry Thrawn, what part do you consider a lie?
-
Originally posted by Sandman:
Iraq posed an imminent threat to the safety and security of the United States!
Since you believe that, I have a deal on some land in a river delta I promise will never flood.
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Momus--
If only SUVs ran on denial and cognitive dissonance rather than oil :)
yeah, then the UN and lots of Europe would have free fuel for a lifetime.
-
Thanks for proving my point Nuke, now please unplug your keyboard, thnx.
-
Originally posted by Momus--
Thanks for proving my point Nuke, now please unplug your keyboard, thnx.
lol, yeah....don't like the medicine you dish out I see.
Why don't you say what you mean?
-
MT, calling Saddam H. a "secular socialist" is like calling Joseph Stalin a slightly left-leaning, benevolent-minded President. Just because someone with "credentials" says a thing, doesn't mean it's dead-on accurate. And I say the only reason some say the invasion was (yes, I agree it was indeed an invasion) illegal or immoral is because it occurred about 10 years later than it should have because neither G.H.W.Bush nor Clinton had the balls to enforce the restrictions that resulted from the first Iraq/UN conflict.
-
Has anyone considered that Hussen or OBL or anyone of the terroist gentelmen of middle eastern descent are/were tacticly smart enough to realise that suicide bombings and beheadings will be accepted by the west for a very long time. But the first time chemical/biological/atomic devices are used, all bets are off. And then the west will responde in a very business like manner to eradicate any chance of that happening for at least the next 50 years.
So if Hussen had them, it would have been while he was a strength in the middel east. After that, destroying them or passing them around to his neighbors fo safe keeping would be tacticly sound. After all we went after him for WMD. The media had to be dragged kicking and screaming about the mass murders and use of serin on the Kurds.
-
Being a secular socialist and a murderous Sunni-arab tribal hardman aren't necessarily mutually exclusive are they? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Why do you keep telling this lie after it has been proven incorrect time and time again on this BBS?
Because that is the Party line.
-
Originally posted by 2stony
Originally posted by Sandman:
Since you believe that, I have a deal on some land in a river delta I promise will never flood.
:rolleyes:
Dood... check your sarcasm filter. ;)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Because that is the Party line.
lol.
I state my own opinions......make up my own mind and assume others do as well.
When someone dismisses my opinion as "party line" just because they dissagree, that makes me chuckle. The ignorance.
-
Originally posted by bustr
OK Midnight here's a fist installment.
............................. .....continued.
You are obviously a "Glass half empty" kinda guy.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
When someone dismisses my opinion as "party line" just because they dissagree, that makes me chuckle.
Mission accomplished! :)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Mission accomplished! :)
wtg rpm!
-
quote: midnight Target
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bustr
OK Midnight here's a fist installment.
............................. .....continued.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are obviously a "Glass half empty" kinda guy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midnight that's cool, you impress me as a "If you will just give us more money and more time we really really can make this work, kinda guy":)
By the way I trained Rinzai zen while studing Tenshin ryu Kenjutsu. You sound like a Soto or possible Sekishu ryu tradition. ;)
-
Ya, because a muslim, middle-eastern Iraq in 20002 is exactly like Germany and Japan in 1945
I didn't say they were, but there governments are currently "nothing", EXACTLY like Germany and Japan.
Take it!
-
Originally posted by rpm
Mission accomplished! :)
wow, great comback.
Now, tell me what I have said that you regard as false?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Sort of like Germany and Japan in 1945... ya, it will never work."
Ya, because a muslim, middle-eastern Iraq in 20002 is exactly like Germany and Japan in 1945.
who said Iraq was exactly like Germany or Japan?
If anything, Japan was more radical than Iraq....by FAR.
Saddam was not religeous, yet ruled Iraq....a supposedly "fanatic" muslim country, right?
Well Japan was ruled by an Emperor that the people considered a God. Who was more fanatic?
I'd say Japan was far more fanatic than Iraq ever was.....yet look at Japan now.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sound reasons for war or not. The analysis is still valid.
If your baby is dirty you have all kinds of sound reasons to clean it... This doesn't mean you put it in the washing machine. If you don't think ahead to what your actions may cause then you aren't acting responsibly.
I truely believe that our administration thought they were doing the right thing... I also firmly believe that they were mistaken.
You know Midnight , your second part here intrigues me.
If this is what you believe , and I'm sure it is because you said it was , then what is the point for arguing about why it happend. Why not instead people be talking about viable ways to fix it?
Just wondering your thought here.:)
-
Originally posted by JB88
wtg rpm!
lol, cheerleader. How about you refute anything I have said about the logical reasons for going to war with Iraq. So far, no one has refuted my arguments as being anything but logical and rational.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
You 1st.
Ok tag your IT midnight.
Show us your "glass half Full" bed time story..........:) But do account for the terrorist business as usuall trademark of individual and mass killings of enemy combatants sneekily dressed as civilians and children..etc... that the west / non-muslim countries send all over the world to wage war on islam. :)
-
Originally posted by RedTop
You know Midnight , your second part here intrigues me.
If this is what you believe , and I'm sure it is because you said it was , then what is the point for arguing about why it happend. Why not instead people be talking about viable ways to fix it?
Just wondering your thought here.:)
I'm not arguing about why, just the consequences. We shouldn't have gone, the results make that obvious... so what now?
-
Then midnight the results of the colonial insurection which gave birth to the forming of the United States was not worth the death and carnage its participants engaged in. Should we convince the populance of the U.S. to dissolve the constitution and beg the UK to rule us as the rightful sovereigns of this continent?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm not arguing about why, just the consequences. We shouldn't have gone, the results make that obvious... so what now?
how can you have no problem with the reasons for the war, then worry about the consequenves?
The reasons for the war are sound. We have to deal with whatever consequences come up......but the war was based on logic and reason.
The results are not in yet. The final result will be that Iraq is in compliance and ruled by a stable government. That is my true belief.
-
to everyone from outside the US:
somehow, most of the members on this board happen to be republicans conservatives. Their opinions are shared by about half (hopefully by the next election less than half) of the population of the US. Many Americans were agains the war from the beginning. I'm sure nobody who opposed the war in the first place received any reasons to sway their opinion.
The supporters, knowing that their position is so precarious, recycle the same old arguments in favor of intervention in Iraq.
People, let's face it,maybe it didn't seem such a bad idea in the beginning.To the average Joe, it appeared very likely that Saddam was haboring terorists and his gnomes were building WMDs. The fact that most of the rest of the world did not want anything to do with this war was swept under belicose rhetoric. Many Americans are not used to propaganda, and thus are extremely gullible. Now that we are in it, we can't pull out either.Iraq is practically in a state of civil war.
But to keep stating that intervention was justified, instead of admiting that the administration acted on faulty intelligence(to put it mildly and without using the word treason), that's plain silly.
-
to everyone outside of the US:
spitfiremkv is in the minority on this bbs, and also in American politics. His views have been soundly rejected by the majority of American voters.
People like him are in the minority here on the AH BB for a good reason......most US males are not liberals.
-
WOW! Incredible!
-
Originally posted by Swager
WOW! Incredible!
I agree..can you believe these liberals?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
People are so short sighted.
The 20,000+ ded civillians are especially short sighted now.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
to everyone outside of the US:
spitfiremkv is in the minority on this bbs, and also in American politics. His views have been soundly rejected by the majority of American voters.
People like him are in the minority here on the AH BB for a good reason......most US males are not liberals.
you seem to be using the term 'liberal' in a very liberal sense, that is, you take a lot of liberty with it :confused:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'm not arguing about why, just the consequences. We shouldn't have gone, the results make that obvious... so what now?
Hind Sight is always 20/20.
Everyone in power all over the world agreed that he had WMD's. I distinctly remember hearing it over and over and over. NOT just OUR president but EVERYWHERE. Senators , Reps. Foriegn Leaders form all over said it was VERY likely and some said it as fact that he had them. So now that they found no WMD's everyone runs like mice from a ship saying..."Well I...I..Huh..I..." Passing the Buck to G-Dub.
Now we just have to try our best to make the best and most stable place we can.
If you listen to the Doom sayers...as well as the other side..and try to come to your OWN conclusions...Would it bring you to think that what has happened in Iraq would have happened?
Could you see 1000's of insurgents coming in to help?
Say there were WMD's found...and STILL insurgents were coming in by truck loads. Foreseeable?
Beheadings in the streets...Kidnappings..large scale assaults?
Terrorists coming in by droves from other countries?
Bad info may have lead this Country to a war. A war based on what we were told about WMD's and being the truth. I really don't think Bush lied to the U.S. outright as much as the CIA and operatives in country were lied to or told blatent lies back to our leaders. He based is stuff on what he got told. Wrong yes...But here we are.
As I said hind Sight is ALWAYS 20/20. Now that the "experts" have all the fuel they need...why don't they FIX it instead of throw CRAP back and forth and blame everyone but themsleves for the poor judgment and foresight?
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
The 20,000+ ded civillians are especially short sighted now.
300,000 + under Saddam.
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
to everyone from outside the US:
somehow, most of the members on this board happen to be republicans conservatives. Their opinions are shared by about half (hopefully by the next election less than half) of the population of the US. Many Americans were agains the war from the beginning. I'm sure nobody who opposed the war in the first place received any reasons to sway their opinion.
The supporters, knowing that their position is so precarious, recycle the same old arguments in favor of intervention in Iraq.
People, let's face it,maybe it didn't seem such a bad idea in the beginning.To the average Joe, it appeared very lilely that Saddam was haboring terorists and his gnomes were building WMDs. The fact that most of the rest of the world did not want anything to do with this war was swept under belicose rhetoric. Many Americans are not used to propaganda, and thus are extremely gullible. Now that we are in it, we can't pull out either. he country is practically in a state of civil war.
But to keep stating that intervention was justified, instead of admiting that the administration acted on faulty intelligence, that's plain silly.
spitfiremkv, TAG your IT.
Since midnight won't tell us a bedtime story from the progressive<---think this is what liberals call themselves now> side of the issue. Please I took my turn. Tell us what the world would have been like from 2002-2008 if Bush had done what the progressives of the US and the world community at large wanted him to.
By the way cut it to the point---> "Many Americans are not used to propaganda, and thus are extremely gullible. " <---call them what this implys<--usefull ideots with votes.:aok We must be, Bush sneeked back into office today.:eek:
-
well put RedTop!
one question: how come there isn't an inquiry into how that inteligence was acquired?
-
Originally posted by bustr
spitfiremkv, TAG your IT.
Since midnight won't tell us a bedtime story from the progressive<---think this is what liberals call themselves now> side of the issue. Please I took my turn. Tell us what the world would have been like from 2002-2008 if Bush had done what the progressives of the US and the world community at large wanted him to.
I'm sorry, I'm not in the mood to play Harry Turtledove tonight.
Reading your story:
I don't believe that the fact we didn't have any terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11 is in any way related to this country invading Iraq.
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
well put RedTop!
one question: how come there isn't an inquiry into how that inteligence was acquired?
Well...I really have no idea. I'd gues to say is it is pure politics.
I am FOR...I repeat FOR what we have done and are doing in Iraq. I am not happy with HOW we got here. By that I mean...The wrong info given to our Leaders by operatives. How could it get so messed up?
I think Saddam committed atrosities by the 100's. I think he would be better dead. I think his sons dieing is a good thing. I think his party losing power was a good thing. Most everything that the U.S. Military has done I agree with.
Why isn't there heads rolling for WHY we went to war? To many people would be politically BASHED if the truth ever came out. Senators , Congressman , Reps. , U.N. Leaders and Members , CIA , FBI , The whole political process thru out the world would feel the ripples. Leaders from all over the WORLD would be at fault as well.
But NO ONE wants to hear that part. NO ONE wants to think that their precious counrty could have had the slightest bit to do with the War in Iraq. All the world wants to do as well as the political LEFT is sling Mud and crap.
"I'm not going to fix your mess" is all I hear from all over the spectrum.
Well I say...FIX IT AND STHU and lets get our Kids and Men home. Leave Iraq with as stable a form of government possible. If that takes a lil while then fine.
But quit the friggin mud slinging and get people started talkinig in a CIVIL tone about ways to make the leaders hear some constuctive thoughts about fixing the problem. Stop the Bashing and start the restoring of what is still even with its current division the GREATEST FRIGGIN PLACE IN THE WORLD TO HANG YOUR HAT AND CALL HOME. (IMO)
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Why isn't there heads rolling for WHY we went to war? To many people would be politically BASHED if the truth ever came out. Senators , Congressman , Reps. , U.N. Leaders and Members , CIA , FBI , The whole political process thru out the world would feel the ripples. Leaders from all over the WORLD would be at fault as well.
You said you are for what we have done. I don't get it.
The reason no heads are rolling is that we had every logical reason to attack Iraq.
I am FOR...I repeat FOR what we have done and are doing in Iraq. I am not happy with HOW we got here.
-
spitfiremkv,
That's OK your not the only person in the last 4 years who hasent been in the mood to play Harry Turtledove. My parents were both Soviet Military analysts for NSA. They had to play Harry for several White Houses both Neanderthal and Progressive. I guess we knuckle draggers have to scratch pictures on the cave wall to try and see some of the enlightened big picture. :)
-
Originally posted by bustr
OK Midnight here's a fist installment.
2002-2004
2002 - OBL's network gets additional funding and plans ongoing diversionary attacks against western interests. Afganistan being in the boonies is put on a back burner by OBL.
.
Everything after this is just plain silliness. If we didn't go into Iraq, and we had placed our emphasis on our REAL enemy.. OBL and Al Queda... then his network would be in shambles and he would be either dead or so deep underground as to be useless...
Afghanistan holds elections... a democracy is born and the US is the golden child throughout the world. OBL or Al Queda would be committing suicide if they attacked again and would lose more and more support as time wore on..
-
Nuke,
Logical reasons for being in IRAQ and what this country , myself were told AS the reasons we were going to war , right now IMO are 2 different things. I think we are there for a good reason.
I don't think Saddam was complying. I think he did everything he could to basically DARE the U.S. to war. I agree with SO MANY things in this war.
BUT , as a citizen I was told , as were many , that the primary reason , was WMD's. I really think there were..right up until the beginning of the war WMD's in IRAQ. Maybe and quite possibly not to the extent we were lead to think , but that there were some. But you know what? WE CANT OR DIDN't FIND EM. And for that reason I feel as a citizen mislead.
Could IRAQ be a beacon in the regieon? YOUR DAMNED RIGHT it can. I want those IRAQI people to have the freedoms that we have. IF THEY CHOOSE that. If not? If all they wanted was saddam out? Then pull thr troops out and tell them have at it. If that was the reason I was given then I could have gotten behind that as I feel Saddam was BAD FRIGGIN NEWS. I feel he WAS a threat to the surrounding countries and quiet possibly the U.S. given time.
I'm on your side as far as your logic as to why we are there in the sense of We're doing good things there.
But being told onething as a way to go to war...Then having it blow up in my face...I have a slight problem with that.
Tell me we are going to go and KICK Irans butt..N. Koreas Butt. Move on over to where ever else may need a butt kicking...fine...But make DANG sure the reason you give exists.
-
midnight,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You miss used the quote from my 2002 muesing.
Originally posted by bustr
OK Midnight here's a fist installment.
2002-2004
2002 - OBL's network gets additional funding and plans ongoing diversionary attacks against western interests. Afganistan being in the boonies is put on a back burner by OBL.
Everything after this is just plain silliness. If we didn't go into Iraq, and we had placed our emphasis on our REAL enemy.. OBL and Al Queda... then his network would be in shambles and he would be either dead or so deep underground as to be useless...
Afghanistan holds elections... a democracy is born and the US is the golden child throughout the world. OBL or Al Queda would be committing suicide if they attacked again and would lose more and more support as time wore on..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midnight don't quote it out of context. Thats called spin. Your audience will be mislead. It's kinda like how the 2nd Amendment is butchered. :)
Here is the full quote:
2002 - Bush accepts the UN's and EU's advice and does not invade iraq. Sanctions are expanded as a show of strength to Hussen. Hussen takes them to the bank. OBL's network gets additional funding and plans ongoing diversionary attacks against western interests. Afganistan being in the boonies is put on a back burner by OBL.
This is kinda like watching O'Reilly or Hannity & Colms.;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
wow, great comback.
Now, tell me what I have said that you regard as false?
Sorry it took me so long to reply. I had to run some errands. C'mon NUKE, don't tell me you're wrapped so tight you can't take a joke.
If you want to get serious, show me all the WMD's we've discovered. Remember, THAT was the reason for invasion. Saddam was going to nuke us, no? Remember those infamous aluminum tubes?
-
By the way, I did perform a Harry Turteldove "what if" for 2002-2008. How come the progresives on this board won't match my step into future scenario projection? Worried about being labled foolish or something? <-----sorry skuzzy will limit it to this point.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Sorry it took me so long to reply. I had to run some errands. C'mon NUKE, don't tell me you're wrapped so tight you can't take a joke.
If you want to get serious, show me all the WMD's we've discovered. Remember, THAT was the reason for invasion. Saddam was going to nuke us, no? Remember those infamous aluminum tubes?
RPM here is the text of the part of the resolution that was voted for that allowed the invasion of Iraq WMD is what you chose to remember:
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait; . . .
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
I guess spitfiremkv's fear of our suseptability to propaganda is factual. Whoda thunk it..:(
-
GScholz,
Care to take a stab at saying what the world wants from Bush that is unsuitable for our younger listeners to hear? It's obvious some numbers of people are angry and want a pound of flesh for their fear and uncertainty about the future. The WMD's were probably loaned out and destroyed long before we got there. So the intel was right but after the cow's got out.
What exactly is it you/ they want? Instead of all this snipeing, which you also seem to enjoy for the sport of it. watermelon happens, has happened, will happen. The only constant is watermelon happening is how life really works. Problem,, the watermelon is in our laps "now". And like in our fore fathers times, a portion of the populance wants somebody to pay for their inconvinience.
That inconvinience is manna from heaven for the terrorist. Means the population is chewing on itself rather than looking for him. Wow this means we have been terrorised and it is working. The population takes the easy way out and focuses its fear on Bush. Sun Tzu would be prowd.:)
-
Originally posted by bustr
GScholz,....
What exactly is it you/ they want? Instead of all this snipeing, which you also seem to enjoy for the sport of it.
Your catching on quick ;)
-
You think the US is trying to hoard gasoline? What about your heating oil and plastics? Those are petroleum products.
Oil belongs to everybody on this planet, just like air. If someone tries to claim oil reserves for themselves, that is against international law and a darn good reason to go to war.
This planet's water supply is very limited, it's being more and more polluted all the time. What war would happen if water was the issue and not oil? Same thing far as I'm concerned, and worth having war over if someone tried to control it at their whim, like Saddam tried to do when he invaded Kuwait.
I think this war will be over one of these days. Who knows how long it will last? But one thing is fer sure, we're involved and there ain't no looking back. It's serious business.
Les
-
Originally posted by bustr
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
I guess spitfiremkv's fear of our suseptability to propaganda is factual. Whoda thunk it..:(
Yes, let's remember those QUOTES (http://cgi.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/) of impending doom.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Top officials in the Bush administration took to the Sunday television talk shows to argue the president's case that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a global threat and must go.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.
"And what we've seen recently that has raised our level of concern to the current state of unrest ... is that he now is trying, through his illicit procurement network, to acquire the equipment he needs to be able to enrich uranium -- specifically, aluminum tubes," Cheney said, referring to one of the elements for making nuclear weapons.
The tubes, Condoleeza Rice said, "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."
Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Propaganda, It's not just for breakfast anymore.
-
When your opponent does his best, with the help of supposed allies, to obfuscate the issue, what would you expect. The sole blame for Iraq lies upon Saddam, and he will be tried for his crimes.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I would like to have a serious discussion about it. Are you saying that there were not any good reason to go to war with Iraq?
Maybe you should tell us exactly how saddam was a threat to the US? He said he didnt have any WMD's? And apparently he dont.
Saddam knew what it took to keep order in Iraq with all if the crazy religious groups. The US is unable to do it. I bet Saddam wins the election due to a write in vote.
-
He was a threat to Kuwait.
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Oil belongs to everybody on this planet, just like air. If someone tries to claim oil reserves for themselves, that is against international law and a darn good reason to go to war.
Les
ROTFLMAO
LOL a true socialist, "Oil belongs to everybody on this planet, just like air".
I've seen plenty of stupid things in this UBB but that has to be the winner... :rofl
-
Originally posted by bustr
By the way, I did perform a Harry Turteldove "what if" for 2002-2008. How come the progresives on this board won't match my step into future scenario projection? Worried about being labled foolish or something? <-----sorry skuzzy will limit it to this point.
Not liking an answer is not equivalent to not getting one. You must be playing the Hannity character?
-
Originally posted by Leslie
AKA The War of Northern Agression
Les
Southern Terrorists sneak attacked Ft. Sumter, which was the first salvo fired in the American Civil War.
God was clearly on the Union side. He doesn't like evil regimes. :aok
-
Oh and BTW, regardless of the reasons for invasion, we aint leaving Iraq.
....ever....
get used to it
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Maybe you should tell us exactly how saddam was a threat to the US? He said he didnt have any WMD's? And apparently he dont.
Saddam knew what it took to keep order in Iraq with all if the crazy religious groups. The US is unable to do it. I bet Saddam wins the election due to a write in vote.
Now, wouldnt THAT be interesting.....
-
Originally posted by Staga
ROTFLMAO
LOL a true socialist, "Oil belongs to everybody on this planet, just like air".
I've seen plenty of stupid things in this UBB but that has to be the winner... :rofl
LOL Staga be nice, God protects fools and children:lol
-
Maybe you should tell us exactly how saddam was a threat to the US? He said he didnt have any WMD's? And apparently he dont.
This guy is kidding, right?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
It is pretty scary to see that some people really are trying to justify this war by whatever means necessary, including lying. It doesn't really matter how many people have to suffer or die just as long as you people can uphold the illusion of righteousness. Well ... perhaps not scary, but rather pathetic.
9-11 was scary and the years of US Government apathy towards the likes of OB and SH prior to 9-11 was really pathetic....of course, many prefer that path.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
[advertisement]
Anyone interested in a piece of Yellow Cake? African ... only the best. We can have it delivered in 45 minutes flat! Honest! Top quality aluminium tube packaging. Our delivery trucks have all the latest accessories including weather balloons, and our storage facilities are quite secure and keep all our dairy products nice and cool.
Responding to recent demands we now also deliver in Syria and Iran, in association with Ali's Mortician and Carpentry Professionals Inc. (We also have a special on MiG-25s this month).
For US customers please contact Mr. Bush or Mr. Powell at www.wearecompletelyfullofchit.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov)
[/advertisement]
This is too much fun....you ever try being honest?
Why is Europe so upset with the US for invading Iraq? C'mon...tell us.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
[advertisement]
Anyone interested in a piece of Yellow Cake? African ... only the best. We can have it delivered in 45 minutes flat! Honest! Top quality aluminium tube packaging. Our delivery trucks have all the latest accessories including weather balloons, and our storage facilities are quite secure and keep all our dairy products nice and cool.
Responding to recent demands we now also deliver in Syria and Iran, in association with Ali's Mortician and Carpentry Professionals Inc. (We also have a special on MiG-25s this month).
For US customers please contact Mr. Bush or Mr. Powell at www.wearecompletelyfullofchit.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov)
[/advertisement]
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Rude
This is too much fun....you ever try being honest?
Why is Europe so upset with the US for invading Iraq? C'mon...tell us.
oil for food? just a wild guess....LOL
BTW, saddam was trying to buy "yellow cake" from africa, maybe it was for udays birthday cake?