WTF are we still in Iraq.

Pages

AuthorTopic: WTF are we still in Iraq.
Cartographer
Member # 1851
Profile Homepage #25
It's not pleasent for those who have friends over there, either.

--------------------
Ah! My Homepage - In Finnish and English
Geneforge - The Maps
My Elfwood Gallery - Stories I've written in english
The WALL - Forums in Finnish
Waitingformedication. I could really use some.
Posts: 1308 | Registered: Sunday, September 8 2002 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #26
Or for anyone for that matter. That's what war is about, usually.

--------------------
"And all should cry, Beware, Beware!
His Flashing eyes, his Floating hair!" S. T. Coleridge
---
"It is as if everyone had lost their sense
Consigned themselves to downfall and decadence
And a wisp it is they have chosen as their beacon." Reinhard Mey.
---
Quote of the Week: "I have a high opinion of myself, which makes up for my total lack of intelligence." Anon.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Warrior
Member # 2275
Profile #27
I know it's hard to believe, but war also has it's positive aspects you know...
It's too bad that they are giving the people of Iraq democracy, when what they really want is freedome. They think that democracy IS freedome but it's not.

The people of America are beginning to realise this also I think. Bush wants to outlaw gay couples and peoples right to protest.

What I don't get is how come we don't have any rubber bullets are high power water hoses maybe we would see greater change in America if for once they listened to the masses of insignificants instead of silencing them.

Mark my words, there will be a civil dispute in america soon... the powerful vs the not powerful. Guns vs Fists.

--------------------
Signatures can appear at the bottom of your posts. This option may be disabled by the message board administrators at any time, however. You may use UBB Code? in your signature, but not HTML. UBB Code? Images not permitted.
Posts: 79 | Registered: Friday, November 22 2002 08:00
Agent
Member # 798
Profile Homepage #28
I will admit if we leave Iraq it will be the Afganie War of 1980 all over again. So we should install a democracy then leave. But do we really still need all the soldiers.

--------------------
Look Ma, I'm banned!
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Friday, March 22 2002 08:00
Agent
Member # 618
Profile Homepage #29
In the run-up to the war 'dubya', his administration and Blair kept on saying that WMDs existed and that Saddam was the biggest threat to world peace at that moment. Now we learn that they cannot find any WMDs and that the biggest threat Saddam posed was a rather rounded beard. It makes me wonder, not why we went to war, but HOW ON EARTH an extreme biggot of a man, a man who is 1 IQ point off of having a subnormal IQ (There ARE chimps smarter), who has an administration full of trigger-happy gun-toting lecherous bee-hutches, WHO in all likelyhood IS the biggest threat to world peace AND has the leader of another country SO far up his rear that you can't tell where one stops and the other begins, HOW HE GOT ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE!?!

--------------------
I like to say quack because I can, I like to say moooo because i can, but i don't like saying ergle flmp because I can never pronounce phenomenon first try.

In conclusion, quack, moooo and phenonemenonmenonnon... Oh Poo.
Posts: 1487 | Registered: Sunday, February 10 2002 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
Profile #30
quote:
Since President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1...

the first battalion of the new Iraqi Army has graduated and is on active duty

over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens.

nearly all of Iraq's 400 courts are functioning.

the Iraqi judiciary is fully independent.

on Monday, October 6 power generation hit 4,518 megawatts-exceeding the prewar average.

all 22 universities and 43 technical institutes and colleges are open, as are nearly all primary and secondary schools.

by October 1, Coalition forces had rehab-ed over 1,500 schools - 500 more than scheduled.

teachers earn from 12 to 25 times their former salaries.

all 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are open.

doctors salaries are at least eight times what they were under Saddam.

pharmaceutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing to 700 tons in May to a current total of 12,000 tons.

the Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccinations to
Iraq's children.

a Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This project has created jobs for more than 100,000 Iraqi men and women.

we have restored over three-quarters of prewar telephone services and over two-thirds of the potable water production.

there are 4,900 full-service telephone connections. We expect 50,000 by
year-end.

the wheels of commerce are turning. From bicycles to satellite dishes to cars and trucks, businesses are coming to life in all major cities and towns.

95 percent of all prewar bank customers have service and first-time customers are opening accounts daily.
This is dated Dec. 2.

Although I'm against the "Americanizing" attitude we've taken on as a national policy, these points, among many others, tend to justify what we're doing right now in Iraq.

Democracy is stated briefly: "Majority rule, minority rights," and that's why America is against gay couples getting wed, which has no relevance to this topic whatsoever.

Alec, you're right about:
quote:
Explain exactly why, half a year later, we're still planning to install puppets and scoot before democracy can take root? Explan why we haven't taken out the imperial atavisms ruling Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the like, who are treated as US allies?
We should've stayed as long as we planned, and we're being hypocrites by not taking the same stance against other monarchies (dictatorships) in the world. (i.e. N. Korea and Cuba)

--------------------
"Oh, North Wind, why frighten others?
In Nature's family all are brothers.
Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss;
You can't frighten Shingebiss.
Bring your frost and ice and snow;
I'm still free to come and go.
You can never frighten me,
One who never fears is FREE!"
-Shingebiss, the mighty duck
Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #31
I personally think that taking out powerful monarchs should be our #1 priority. Dictators rule by a corruption of the will of the people; if they piss too many people off, they're bound not to be dictators for much longer. Monarchs just rule by whim and tradition.

I feel that America ought to stay in Iraq until we're done rebuilding it, and creating a modern, humanitarian state out of it. I also think that Bush's motivation was neo-colonialism, not any kind of altruism. (Remember the speech he gave to the people of Iraq? 'Don't burn your oil wells', saying nothing of the priceless archaeological treasures that were lost after the fighting?)

I don't think we should have started it, but now we have, I think we ought to finish it. And many of the proponents of the war are now demanding that we withdraw from Iraq -- shoot-and-scoot corporate imperialism, not establishment of democracy.

They oughtn't trust the right wing with starting wars; if you look at their track record, it's mostly been pretty stupid ones (Korea, the Gulf Wars, and so on).

--------------------
In a word, gay.
--Bob the Impaler

Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #32
quote:
Originally written by General Secretary Custer:

saying nothing of the priceless archaeological treasures that were lost after the fighting?)

Dubya: "How old was the stuff? Five thousand years? Ha, that old crap can't have been worth much then."

IMAGE(WTF are we still in Iraq (2)_files/rolleyes.gif)

[ Wednesday, January 21, 2004 15:02: Message edited by: Arancaytar ]

--------------------
"And all should cry, Beware, Beware!
His Flashing eyes, his Floating hair!" S. T. Coleridge
---
"It is as if everyone had lost their sense
Consigned themselves to downfall and decadence
And a wisp it is they have chosen as their beacon." Reinhard Mey.
---
Quote of the Week: "I have a high opinion of myself, which makes up for my total lack of intelligence." Anon.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Agent
Member # 798
Profile Homepage #33
I would not say all of The Bush Administration is trigger happy. I would by no means call Colin Powel Trigger happer. His entire Platoon was destroyed in Vietnam. So I think there must be a good reason for him to want war on Iraq. I actually think Powel is a very smart guy, I actually think he should be President of the U.S. But sadly Bush is too much of a idiot to listen to Powel or any other of his advisors. If Bush had it his way he would rule as a Absolute Monarch. Somehow he actually is getting away with doing it. He isn't even abiding by the Supreme Court or The Senate. But by law he can not be impeached. Actually there was a time when I thought what Bush was doing was right, right after 9/11. But now I have discovered that Bush is a idiot.But what he is doing is using Americana to Do whatever the Hell he wants. See back in the 1950's there was this image of the U.S being this marcho kick a$$ nation who picked on other nations. If you want to find out more about this nation watch The original GIJOE(which surprisingly came out in the 80's). Anyway somewhere in lets say 1965 that imaged started to die. by 1971 it was dead and burried. Somehow Bush has manged a way to reincarnate that image. But the only people who believe in that image are people with a similar IQ with Bush. But he has brought it to life, and that is the entire problem. He has turned this nation which ten years ago was very intelligent and basically left smaller nations alone and mainly worried about it's own problems. Hence the success with wealth. And he has turned our once good nation into this uninteligent thug who bullies smaller nations. Four years ago I said, Bush is going to foul up(I can not inset the word I wanted to say) this nation. And everyone said, how much can one man do in 4 years. Well they where right. He did more. He has descraced our nation, and has turned this nation into less than primative.

[ Wednesday, January 21, 2004 15:24: Message edited by: The Lord of Evil ]

--------------------
Look Ma, I'm banned!
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Friday, March 22 2002 08:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #34
I agree with you, Alec and Plah, about our "shoot-and-scoot" attitude to the war in Iraq. If we're going to start it, we'd better be planning to finish it.

I differ, though, on the justification of the war. I think that we were right to go to war with an evil dictator. Maybe we picked the wrong dictator (N. Korea would have been my first choice), but we have to take things one-at-a-time as much as possible. I also agree that an American-Saudi alliance is kind of ludicrous. But that is a separate matter, and should be treated as such; if we're going to invade another country, we need to finish in Iraq first, and I'd rather not incense the Saudi terrorists any more than we already have, at the moment.

Saddam Hussein's crimes were well-documented enough before the war to justify his removal, in my opinion. And even if they weren't, I think the mass graves found after the invasion give us enough proof that the war was justified. This kind of thing is far from unprecedented; Lincoln wasn't fighting to end slavery, and the Allies weren't fighting to end the Holocaust. Those two results were not the original goals of the associated wars; nor did the uncovering of mass graves inspire this war. But you have to admit, those three results are not to be ignored.

Bush went to war to remove Saddam Hussein, plain and simple. I'm sick to death of this corporate crap, all this liberal drivel about "no blood for oil". I would be sick of Bush's WMD crap, too, but at least he was smart enough to drop that. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, support to do so. He thought that scaring the American people with exaggerated stories of existing or soon to be existing WMDs woudl be the best way to get support; he was wrong. I think that, after WWII, at least, the American people are not cold-hearted enough to ignore the suffering of the Iraqis. Bush obviously did not think so; he thought that we would only respond to a direct threat against ourselves, and not one against people we've never known or seen. Because of this assumption, he took the reports of WMDs in the 90's and the suspicions of an existing program and blew them out of proportion.

Even with this, though, Bush did not lie. To lie, one must know the truth. Bush did not. Plenty of people, world leaders included, Bush included, honestly thought that Saddam had or would soon have WMDs. He exaggerated the information he had, and certainly should have checked to make sure his information was accurate. But one thing that he did not do is lie to us to get us into the war.

Ugh. I have to go, I'll post whatever else tomorrow. Please, people, read everyone else's response to this before typing your own, I really don't want to have to read through the same stuff over and over.

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL

Les forum de la chance.

Incaseofemergency,breakglass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #35
No, plenty of people didn't think he had WMDs, David, except those fooled by Bush. He released such lies and propaganda to support Hussein having WMDs that it couldn't have been otherwise. And if he DID, what would have starting a war with him accomplished? Given nukes to the terrorists? That's a wonderful thing to start a war for.

You want mass graves? Go to Columbia, where the mass graves were caused by US troops attacking innocent civilians (you will be surprised to learn that the majority of minor Columbian villagers are not, in fact, related to drug lords). You won't find them in Chile -- the people the US-backed dictator killed there disappeared into the night without a trace.
How about staunch US ally Turkey? You're sure to find mass Kurdish graves there, and they're a democracy.

How about the US? Wait, I forgot. The 30-60 million natives killed by European diseases and weapons upon which the United States of America is built don't rate a 'mass grave'.

I'm tired of black-and-white conservative drivel about saving the world from mass murderers where it's convenient. Yeah, Saddam Hussein killed millions. So do countless tinpot African leaders who the US would never dream of attacking; so do civil wars that the US could stop in weeks by minor intervention. Zaire, for example; or perhaps Ethiopia.
While we're in Africa, do people killed by starvation in the 21st century -- a century where half of the people whine about being on dialup and the other half will never see a telephone -- for no better reason but Western/corporate apathy rate 'mass graves'? I suppose most of them are too young to, to be fair, and with a lot of them famine and easily-curable disease are inextricable in cause of death, so I can see where they wouldn't be.

I'm sorry about my anti-corporate drivel, Sir David. As evinced by even the slightest US presence in oil-barren Africa, the motivations of the Bush administration must have been an altrustic effort to free people from tyrrany and genocide.

I guess I'll just have to have a closer look at the facts next time, won't I?

[ Thursday, January 22, 2004 08:24: Message edited by: General Secretary Custer ]

--------------------
In a word, gay.
--Bob the Impaler

Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 1877
Profile #36
I agree, Saddam was one of many, they are making helluva deal of it. Finish the job in Somalia for example, they are not finished there!

Custer, I think I am schizofren, you are my alter ego! (At least at the Bush/USA part)

--------------------
MDNZZZ
ZMMMBIS
WBLOONZ

33111-CRUSADER-4849
Posts: 662 | Registered: Friday, September 13 2002 07:00
Master Jeweller
Member # 409
Profile Homepage #37
Well, installing democracy there would be nice.
However the current idea is, that only village elders may vote (the excuse for this is that census data is insufficient to have everyone vote). Needless to say this is a very aristocratic point of view, and it's very convenient that said village elders have very different political points-of-view than the average iraqi.

That being said I find it hard to understand that a majority of americans still supports GWB. You'd suppose that internal economical problems would make some people think. And he lied to everybody about the nuclear weapons, where lying was the one sin few people were willing to forgive Clinton for.

--------------------
Freude, schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heilighthum!
Deine Zauber binden wieder, was die Mode streng getheilt,
Alle Menschen werden Brüder, wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

Pieter Simoons aka Radiant

Official Crystal Shard and SubTerra webpage
Posts: 798 | Registered: Monday, December 17 2001 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
Profile #38
I'd rather have us intervening in every civil war possible, Alec, than have us go isolationist like the 20's again.

But think of how many people would protest the mere idea of it. People marching down streets yelling that they don't want to be international policemen, (which is the UN's job).

Speaking of which, the UN ought to be playing a bigger part in intervening, shouldn't they? (And I haven't checked my facts on the UN, so I can't be sure how much they're actually doing.)

And besides, Alec, a dictator that pisses his own people off enough will get a civil war on his hands, causing even more bloodshed as Kurds, Sunnis, Baath members, and others fight for power.

[ Thursday, January 22, 2004 04:45: Message edited by: Desert Plah ]

--------------------
"Oh, North Wind, why frighten others?
In Nature's family all are brothers.
Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss;
You can't frighten Shingebiss.
Bring your frost and ice and snow;
I'm still free to come and go.
You can never frighten me,
One who never fears is FREE!"
-Shingebiss, the mighty duck
Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00
Babelicious
Member # 3149
Profile Homepage #39
Of course, the US created the Zaire civil war. We funded the heck out of the Rwandan revolutionaries, and that war bled over into Zaire.

The only solution is to stop selling arms overseas, stop supporting foreign militaries and paramilitaries, and stop intervening in foreign wars, except through the United Nations in response to humanitarian crises.

--------------------
You are my precious thing
Thing of speed and beauty,
You are my precious thing
As long as you remain beneath me
-- Big Black
Posts: 999 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #40
quote:
Originally written by Desert Plah:

I'd rather have us intervening in every civil war possible, Alec, than have us go isolationist like the 20's again.

But think of how many people would protest the mere idea of it. People marching down streets yelling that they don't want to be international policemen, (which is the UN's job).

Speaking of which, the UN ought to be playing a bigger part in intervening, shouldn't they? (And I haven't checked my facts on the UN, so I can't be sure how much they're actually doing.)

And besides, Alec, a dictator that pisses his own people off enough will get a civil war on his hands, causing even more bloodshed as Kurds, Sunnis, Baath members, and others fight for power.

I'd prefer we intervene, too. If we're going to fight wars of imperialism, we might as well be the world's policemen.

However, we need the UN's backing to do anythng of the sort -- which, thanks mostly to Bush's blustering, we have been firmly unable to get.

If we can save millions of lives by sending in troops to make sure people get fed, or even by passing legislature forbidding the kind of corporate abuses that go on in third-world sweatshops, why don't we do that? Why do we, instead, send in the troops to avenge genocide? Iraq was most definitely not an anti-dictatorial or an anti-genocidal war. We killed thousands of people immediately, and thanks to American intervention, hundreds of thousands are going to die due to the infrastructure of Iraq being disrupted.

(Pop quiz: Half of Iraq is more fertile than it knows what to do with. The other half lives in a desert where getting water is a problem. We bomb the roads. What happens to the other half? That's right: they die screaming.)

I would not have nearly as much a problem with Iraq if it had been one in a chain of wars against dictatorship in the third world, or if it had been accompanied by ending civil wars in Africa or Asia or South America, or by sending in the troops and carpet-bombing the southern African countryside with care packages. It wasn't: it was a unilateral, vengeful war of corporate imperialism. As evinced by Bush's attempts to get the hell out of the country as soon as possible, we aren't even trying to establish a democracy there. So, David, question: If we haven't found WMDs and we haven't installed a democracy, what, exactly, have we done there? What, exactly, have dozens of Americans and thousands of Iraqis died for there?
Ever wondered why so many overpadded development contracts went to Halliburton, to which Dick Cheney has undeniable connections?
Welcome to the American Syndicate Republic. I hope you enjoy your stay.

--------------------
In a word, gay.
--Bob the Impaler

Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 2242
Profile #41
quote:
Originally written by Desert Plah:

quote:
[QUOTE] Explain exactly why, half a year later, we're still planning to install puppets and scoot before democracy can take root? Explan why we haven't taken out the imperial atavisms ruling Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the like, who are treated as US allies?

We should've stayed as long as we planned, and we're being hypocrites by not taking the same stance against other monarchies (dictatorships) in the world. (i.e. N. Korea and Cuba)[/quote]We aren't being hypocrites. It's not possible to take on 3 countries at once. We're still not done in Afganistan. Bush is hoping that a democratic nation in the Middle East will help stabilize the region. As for us dying by the 1000's everyday, what are you talking about? Are you watching the same news as me? We've lost less than 1000 troops for the duration of the whole war. (I'd have to check the numbers on that.) I hate the fact that people think that 100% of the time you can rely on peaceful purposes to resolve things. It's not possible. Look at WW2 and how Britain and France initially let Germany take over countries because they wanted to avoid war. Sometimes, war is justified.

[ Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:09: Message edited by: Firedrake the Silent ]

--------------------
"He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster... when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes back into you."
-Friedrich Nietzsche
Posts: 469 | Registered: Thursday, November 14 2002 08:00
Triad Mage
Member # 7
Profile Homepage #42
The thousands dying are not American troops, they're Iraqi citizens. No wonder it's not on the news IMAGE(WTF are we still in Iraq (2)_files/rolleyes.gif)

--------------------
"At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander
====
Drakefyre's Demesne - Vahnatai Did Do It
desperance.net - We're Everywhere
The Arena - God Will Sort The Dead
====
You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse!
Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00
Cartographer
Member # 1851
Profile Homepage #43
War is never justified.

[ Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:20: Message edited by: Moodily through life ]

--------------------
Ah! My Homepage - In Finnish and English
Geneforge - The Maps
My Elfwood Gallery - Stories I've written in english
The WALL - Forums in Finnish
Waitingformedication. I could really use some.
Posts: 1308 | Registered: Sunday, September 8 2002 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #44
quote:
Originally written by Firedrake the Silent:

quote:Originally written by Desert Plah:
quote:
[QUOTE] Explain exactly why, half a year later, we're still planning to install puppets and scoot before democracy can take root? Explan why we haven't taken out the imperial atavisms ruling Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the like, who are treated as US allies?

We should've stayed as long as we planned, and we're being hypocrites by not taking the same stance against other monarchies (dictatorships) in the world. (i.e. N. Korea and Cuba)[/quote]We aren't being hypocrites. It's not possible to take on 3 countries at once. We're still not done in Afganistan. Bush is hoping that a democratic nation in the Middle East will help stabilize the region. As for us dying by the 1000's everyday, what are you talking about? Are you watching the same news as me? We've lost less than 1000 troops for the duration of the whole war. (I'd have to check the numbers on that.) I hate the fact that people think that 100% of the time you can rely on peaceful purposes to resolve things. It's not possible. Look at WW2 and how Britain and France initially let Germany take over countries because they wanted to avoid war. Sometimes, war is justified.[/quote]World War 2 was caused by World War 1. As a matter of fact, had America not intervened in WW1, both sides would have been thoroughgoingly crippled by general strikes; the Allied invasion of Soviet Russia wouldn't have happened (thus drastically decreasing the devastation of the civil war, and putting Trotsky rather than Stalin in a position to take over after Lenin's death); neither Weimar Germany nor the Nazi Party would have happened; the capital to create the bubble economy of the 20s wouldn't have happened, so the Great Depression wouldn't have happened.
The world would have been taught the lessons of WW1 without having to learn them through the terrors of WW2, the Soviets wouldn't have been anywhere near as brutal and heavy-handed -- nor as diplomatically isolated -- as they became under Stalin, and Germany would still be, as it was before the loss of the first war, one of the best places in the world to be a Jew.

Yeah, there's a case where 'peaceful methods' would have solved nothing.

--------------------
In a word, gay.
--Bob the Impaler

Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
Profile #45
WWI should have never happened. I think most people know that. Same w/the Spanish-American and the war of 1812, and the Mexican War.

We have lots of problems on our hands because of WWI, especially Iraq. If the British (and I'm not bashing Brits in general, just the leaders of the time, oh, and this includes France and other Allied powers) hadn't carved up the middle east, especially Iraq in the same way they carved up Africa, then we wouldn't be involved over there right now.

If America hadn't turned our backs on the world in the 20's, and rejected the League of Nations, we might not have had WWII, however unlikely that may be.

I don't think Hitler could've been stopped by anything other than force, but the WWI-era problems of Europe could have.

--------------------
"Oh, North Wind, why frighten others?
In Nature's family all are brothers.
Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss;
You can't frighten Shingebiss.
Bring your frost and ice and snow;
I'm still free to come and go.
You can never frighten me,
One who never fears is FREE!"
-Shingebiss, the mighty duck
Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00
Bob's Big Date
Member # 3151
Profile Homepage #46
Hitler was caused by an amoral war, as I said. Generally, moral wars only happen as a result of amoral wars.

--------------------
In a word, gay.
--Bob the Impaler

Posts: 2367 | Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Agent
Member # 798
Profile Homepage #47
Pleased don't critize SirDavid, he is pretty accurate. But I do not believe this war was started to take out a dictator. Now, I believe if the U.S wanted to take out a ruthless Dictator because he was murdering thousands. Raped woman, tortured countless to death, and supporting Terrorism. Then even that many would be killed in this war, I would have to say this war would be justified in my opionion. But I do not believe Bush declared war on Iraq to take out a Dictator. I believe this war was started for a selfhish reason, but I don't know what that reason is. And yes there are many tyrants in the world, but I think Saddame was one of the worst. But he's not a ruthless Tyrant anymore, now he's as good as dead. But do not critize SirDavid. He believs that Bush started this war to remove a Tyrant. I wish I could believe that but I can't but Don't critize him for believing what alot of people do believe, and others would love to believe but can't such as me.

--------------------
Look Ma, I'm banned!
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Friday, March 22 2002 08:00
Agent
Member # 27
Profile #48
***I had many ideas hit me at once while writing this, so it may seem a bit garbled.

Some of you are acting like Bush has complete control of the country. True he has a very powerful say in the politics, but he can't just go making decisions like, "I think I'm going to blow up Saddam today." and expect to get away with it. We are a Republic not a Monarchy, and although Bush's cabinet was selected to back his opinions, no one would go to such an extreme as declare war to get something like oil. Atleast not now.
Iraq had a crazy and powerful man in complete charge. That combination is not a good one, look through history books for reference. Doesn't anyone feel just a little safer now that he is gone? Now America is trying to establish a Democracy; support in the east. Look where Iraq is on a map; between many countries run by dictators, kings, etc. A republic government in Iraq could start a trend among the other countries. Wouldn't a thriving eastern culture be beneficial to the world, especially if they could bring their land to its full pontential? Wont trade thrive if that land is cultivated? Wouldn't terrorism begin to deminish? Terrorism in Iraq right now stems from religious fervor. With proper education, the children will be able to determine what is real and what is not.

I may not agree with Bush's methods, but good will come of this bad.

--------------------
I be rockin' da paradise baby.
Posts: 1233 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
Profile #49
Alec, I must say that I agree with you on our order of operations; there were, and still are, plenty of other problems we could have solved. Diplomacy does not always work, unfortunately; I know about the African civil wars, and I really wish we would do more about those. As I said, N. Korea should really have been our first target (the African countries I don't count as "targets", since those require peace-keeping troops and care packages rather than invasion forces). But the fact of the matter is that we are now in Iraq, and we cannot simply abandon them to their fate. I believe that the invasion and reconstruction in Iraq were/will be easier than in N. Korea, and we need practice. So I say we make the best of it, try our hardest to establish freedom and democracy (it's a process, don't expect every Iraqi to vote before the year is up), and just do what we can for the Iraqi people. I'm far more optimistic than you are, Alec; I think that the media is casting a shadow on the quiet improvements in Iraq and focusing instead on the violence and bloodshed, simply because that makes better news. I think we will succeed, in the end; we didn't do so bad in Japan or Germany.

Alec, please. No matter how much of a liar Bush is, percieved or genuine, he never said anything as outrageous as your statement that American bombs will cause 50% of the Iraqi people to die of hunger and thirst.

EDIT: I typed this post while Slith was posting... anyway, I agree with him, and I think I've made that point in other dicussions. If Iraq is a success, it will become a city on a hill, a role model for third world countries everywhere. This "get the hell out of here" attitude is nothing but harmful, but I think that those opposed to the war in the first palce are more supportive of that policy than Bush is. I really don't think he wants out of Iraq too quickly; if so, I'll be totally against that. But I think anything he says to suggest that is really just sucking up to his opponents, and to the more radical citizens of Iraq.

Not on what news, Drakey? I've seen very, very few news articles recently that mention Iraq without mentioning civilian casualties. I can't think of any, in fact.

On WWI: those problems were hardly caused by America. Peace without victory, anyone? Wilson honestly wanted to stop the fighting; that was his goal. England, France, and the rest wanted reparations. They didn't just want to end the killing, they wanted to punish Germany to the point where the Germans could never fight again. This obviously didn't work; Wilson was disgusted by the European countries taking advantage of a defeated nation.

No, we did not join the League of Nations, but the League really wouldn't have been very strong anyway. Wilson wanted America to join the League, of course, but political rivalries at home along with a general isolationist feeling in Americans prevented that. And who knows what would have happened if Wilson, not the isolationists, had gotten his way? Or America, not Europe? Probably not the Holocaust, I can tell you that.

[ Thursday, January 22, 2004 17:35: Message edited by: Sir David ]

--------------------
And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it.
-The Last Pendragon

TEH CONSPIRACY IZ ALL

Les forum de la chance.

Incaseofemergency,breakglass.
Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00

Pages