Iraq War

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
This is all Im gonna say to you. Because you have it so deeply embedded in you that The United States the guilty/evil one there is just no reaching you.
Todays Hitlers? Your so far left your 3/16 to the right.
I didnt say we did not attack their land. I said we did not attack FOR their land.
If we wanted to we could have leveled bagdad, Our military is so cautious about "colateral damage " we actually put our soldiers at much greater risk to avoid that.
For example if a nut is on top of an islamic church shooting and rpg at our soldiers , we cant even shoot back. And thats why they use civilians as human shields so we cant shoot back.
You say we are killing thousands of civilians on the street? Wrong.
And You say we attacked their freedom? Freedom. Do you realize if we were in Iraq while saddam was in power, and you spoke against him as you do against Bush in this forum, they would find you, torture you to death and probably kill your family as well. That was freedom? We took it?

Have you seen the footage of those stiff babies dead on the streets of Iraq because saddam Gassed them?
Hussien killed 80+ officials the day he took control.
Hussien invaded Kuwait , killed thousands, And that WAS for oil.
Man, you seem to care about peolpe. Thats why I cant understand you feeling this way.
Maybe we should hook your testicles to a car battery. Gang rape your wife in front of you and then slit her throat, and bash your childrens brains in on a desktop, then throw you off a 3 story roof with your hands tied behind your back.
Because after all, thats your Idea of freedom.
 
People are being kidnapped, tortured and killed daily right now, as a direct result of the US invasion and removal of Saddam who was the glue that held a high-strung region together. Yes, he was a ruthless bastard, and I'm sure his removal had all the good intentions in the world, but that doesn't make it right. In the end, good intentions is just a poor excuse for when things go straight to hell. I'm willing to bet that when this is over, more people will have died than under Saddam. The question is whether anything will be different, or if Saddam II will be in power. Even that is up in the air at the moment.

The entire invasion has been a veritable orgy of poor planning and ignorance. Many seem to have expected Iraq to welcome the US as their liberators, accepted everything the US proposed, and have the troops home in time for dinner, which anyone with half-a-brain and a decent history book could tell you would not be the case, certainly not in a region like Iraq which have plenty of internal issues (that Bush didn't even know that there are Shia and Sunni Muslims was a bit scary). Inter-cultural conquests have rarely succeeded, certainly not without plenty of blood being shed at least. The Romans developed subduing conquered people into an art, but I guess it would be a bit difficult to play the role of the good guy if the US enslaved, dispersed or nailed half the Iraqi population to telephone poles. Forcing a population to adapt another culture is certainly not going to be done in a few years.

The US is hardly the source of all evil, but it is hardly innocent either. Mistakes were made, lets try to accept responsibility and learn from them instead of blaming everything on others and do the same thing again later, shall we?
 
yes but we didnt "attack" to take their land or there freedom. It was to give it back to them if anything, plus remove a threat to us(the U.S.).


Again: What Threat?

And what would you think if foreign Soldiers walked your Streets?
 
Again: What Threat?
And what would you think if foreign Soldiers walked your Streets?

If we lived under the tyranny of someone like Saddam who used our military against us? I'd welcome foreign troops... and I'd help them any way I could.

But that highly unlikely to happen because our constitution enabled the people to dissolve the government if it's not working and start a new one. Which is one reason we have the second amendment and why so ,many people want to take it away from us.


As for the reasons... do you really need to hear them again? Bad intel or not we're there. WMD's or not, we're there. Could anyone have predicted that once Saddam was taken out of power that Syria, Jordan, Saudi Rabia, and Iran would all move into Iraq and use it as a religious sect battleground? Look at this map. Iraq is in the middle of and divided by the Sunni and Shia. Each side wants to dominate Iraq. Why now? Because there's not some crazy asshole with his finger on a red button anymore. On top of that you have terrorist insurgency rolling through the borders doing their thing. Can we fix it all? We can do what we can But Iraq has to step up and IMHO the UN needs to yank the leash on their middle eastern members. They won;t because they like seeing the US as the world's asshole and because they don't want to appear to be taking sides as it would probably affect their oil relations.
 
Still, Iraq didn't threaten the U.S.A. Do you really think U.S. Intelligence didn`t know that there were no WMD's ? They lied to you and to the whole World .And even if there had been: WMD's are no reason to invade another country. If so , a lot of countries should be invaded (i.e. U.S.A., Russia, China, India etc.)

The People there think that your Troops have come as invaders, not to give them Freedom. They have been there now for nearly four years. In those 4 Years the U.S. have not even been able to install a working Infrastructure and a bit of safety for the people. They have tortured Civilians. So some Iraqis probably think that they're not that much better than Saddam.
(Except for the Kurdes in the north that is).
 
The point of going in there for WMD's wasn't due to the possibility of Iraq using them. They were known to have connections with terrorist groups and the heightened post-9/11 threat level resulted in the intel community having to consider possibilities that had not been as thoroughly considered prior to passenger airlines being used as weapons. The possibilities of Iraq, more specifically Saddam, giving a terrorist organization access to Iraq's WMD's was enough of a threat to go there and take control of the potential threat.

The fact that we didn't find them doesn't mean they weren't there prior to the invasion. There are hard facts that the production facilities existed.

That being said, I'm kind of indifferent with countries having WMD's. As sovereign nations they have as much right to them as we do. But a region known to be rife with terrorists that are essentially state sponsored, it's in the interest of not only the US but the entire world to regulate or stop these countries from having these.


The people there that think the troops are invaders are the ones blowing up them and other Iraqis. If you allow the media to spoon feed you only the bad news it's easy to believe nobody wants us there. If it was that unanimous we'd be gone. The majority of people want us there to help them.

The fact that the infrastructure (I assume you're talking about the rebuilding effort in relation to water, electricity, ect) is not completely the fault of the US. We have given them piles of money. We're there to provide security. While there are US contractors there doing some of the work it's also the responsibility of the Iraqis to use the money we're giving them to use it for reconstruction. The fact that the Iraqi Security forces can't keep people from blowing up the infrastructures that have been rebuilt just shows they need to get their acts together.

But whatever... you believe what you want... I believe what I want.
 
If we lived under the tyranny of someone like Saddam who used our military against us? I'd welcome foreign troops... and I'd help them any way I could.

Are you speaking from experience? Were you there when foreigners invaded present-day US?

But that highly unlikely to happen because our constitution enabled the people to dissolve the government if it's not working and start a new one. Which is one reason we have the second amendment and why so ,many people want to take it away from us.

US is taking so much from others and drowning in debts that no one seems to have time to take anything from US, other than taking away the US economy.

dd
 
Are you speaking from experience? Were you there when foreigners invaded present-day US?

Do want a serious answer to than non-nonsensical question?

US is taking so much from others and drowning in debts that no one seems to have time to take anything from US, other than taking away the US economy.
dd

Well, I'm sure Ed's Homepage is the same source that the Democratic party itself uses. I mean hey, anyone who makes recreations of Van Gogh paintings using Legos and is an avid fan of the show Sliders couldn't possibly give inaccurate information. ;)

And let's not forget that as we fall further into debt our Congress has nothing better to do than waste time debating over a nonbinding resolution regarding the troop surge. In other words, the majority party who was voted into power on the assurance that they would bring troops home, is working on a resolution that has absolutely no backbone, so that regardless of the outcome they can dodge the blame.
 
They were known to have connections with terrorist groups...

What links? I've heard of connections with 9/11 and Al Qaeda, which later turned out to be false. Saddam wouldn't have allowed anyone to share power, such as prominent terrorist or religious leaders, leading to Iraq probably being the most secular country in the middle-east.

The fact that we didn't find them doesn't mean they weren't there prior to the invasion. There are hard facts that the production facilities existed.

Oh, they existed. It's just a matter of how long ago. So far, the only operational chemical production facility I've heard of was one that produced rat poison. Oh, and there were a few unusable shells in various ammo dumps. Prior to the invasion, we were told that they knew they were there and where. Yet nothing has been found. If Iraq had significant stockpiles of WMDs and production capability available, I'm impressed with how quickly and efficiently they hid them all, under surveillance at that, without a single trace. No papers, not a single person who has given up the location of anything, despite the US probably being willing to pay a ridiculous sum to be able to say that there were WMDs.
 
Well, I'm sure Ed's Homepage is the same source that the Democratic party itself uses. I mean hey, anyone who makes recreations of Van Gogh paintings using Legos and is an avid fan of the show Sliders couldn't possibly give inaccurate information. ;)
Innacurate? Hardly! His figures are taken directly from the Department of Treasury. Here's the link for outstanding Debt 1950 - 2005.

More on public debt here.

In other words, the debt has become so incomprehensible that even the government doesn't bother lying about it.

Actually, the REAL debt is several times higher - nobody is factoring in interest payments. When you borrow 10 grand from a bank, just paying off 10 grand isn't enough. You have to pay 10 grand and the interest on the loan.


That is why there is a term called "cost of borrowing".


I do agree with you about the non-binding resolution bull shit though.


cheers,
 
Innacurate? Hardly! His figures are taken directly from the Department of Treasury. Here's the link for outstanding Debt 1950 - 2005.

More on public debt here.

Yeah... the winking smiley was the best I could do to indicate sarcasm on that one. I just thought the site he chose to use as a source was funny. I don't doubt our debt is crazy huge. Wouldn't be the first time we were in the hole. Fortunately the debt our .gov incurs doesn't require that they use its citizens assets as collateral.
 
It's longer then Word War II. Vietnam was about 12 years or longer. But like Vietnam we can not tell the difference between the people and the enemy. And like Vietnam we have a president who’s out of touch with reality. And like Vietnam, the Iraq invasion was a catastrophic error.

100% agree with you.
 

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
The future is now

33mn4eg.jpg


[Please Note: the attachment in this post has been deleted by moderator AFA]
[Read more about the board rules: here]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

meesterperfect

Hiliary 2020
Dont ya'all worry.
Soon The U.S. will be forced out of Iraq and the war on terror.
Due to the combined effort of the insurgents/terrorists and the Democratic party.
They both have the same agenda, to see the United States under president Bush fail.
Now thats one hell of a coalition.
But you all think the Democratic party's motivation in all this is to save our troops.protect the citizens?
I ask you, has your party proposed anything to protect our country?
Or have they just gone against everything the president has done or proposed?Have they not done everything in their power to see to it that the whole mission Iraq be a complete failure?

Man have they got you fooled.

Dont take it from me, youll see for yourself.
Soon we will be out of Iraq.
Then the real fun(aka bloodbath)will begin.
 
Oh I don't want the US to withdraw. Thinking that the problem will go away if you just ignore it is about as idiotic as starting a war with a sorry excuse for a plan that I half-hope was a drug-induced fantasy, as the alternative - that they actually thought it was sound - is a far more scary thought. The war is going to cost money and it's going to cost lives, no doubt there. But maybe that should've been considered, you know, before something was started that people are not willing to finish. Ignorance is not an excuse.
 
It's not in the constitution anywhere that congress (Republicans or Democrats) form any "plans" for war. That's the commander-in-chief and the generals' job. It never ceases to annoy me when congressman and senators get the idea that they should have any say in any kind of tactical or strategic decision making. Their only job is to provide the money to keep the military going and leave the war making decisions to the war fighters.
 
Top