If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Politics & ReligionWell Since every damn forum has one. Might as well leave it out there. This place is loosely moderated and should not be entered if you're weak of heart.
AARA, very nice articulation. Couldn't have said it better.
There really is no point in using "thought and logic" in responding to you, sorry.
You believe what you believe because you choose to. Period. You dont care about evidence or logic, do you? All Im saying is that nobody can change your mind no matter what. You are an idealog. Thats fine, you have the right to be.
AARA757 seems to be spot on, neither here nor there. See the difference?
=========================================
There are a few pedagogues of poltical science on here no doubt, they are right and you are wrong...
Also, voting for Ron Paul, is kind of like fucking not to get off.......pointless, just wasted time LOL
The same. I respect what this guy had to say, and I agree, but it would be just as meaningful to me personally if it was just a regular joe.
Exactly. I have several good friends in the military who are serving. I thank them for their contribution, but my contribution is just as important, IMHO.
AARA, very nice articulation. Couldn't have said it better.
There really is no point in using "thought and logic" in responding to you, sorry.
You believe what you believe because you choose to. Period. You dont care about evidence or logic, do you? All Im saying is that nobody can change your mind no matter what. You are an idealog. Thats fine, you have the right to be.
AARA757 seems to be spot on, neither here nor there. See the difference?
This is not an argument about which of the candidates one should support. I don't support either one mentioned in that video clip.
My comments are geared more toward the main point behind the clip.
There is no connection between 9-11 and Iraq. PERIOD. Al Qaeda was never in Iraq before we invaded them. This is a fact.
o that make one wonder why we are there. There was no threat to our security from Iraq. We were never attacked by Iraqis nor the Sadan government.
Sadam can be many things but a dummy he's not. He managed to stay in power for this long for a reason. He know how to keep the Iraqi population under control and he know not to fuck with countries that would endanger his presidency. He tried with Iran but he was never at risk of loosing his power regardless of the outcome. The last thing Sadam would do is to have anything to do with attacking us. He knew we were just looking for a reason and he would not give us that satisfaction. This is the reason that Bush administration had to fabricate lies to convince the US population that he is an eminent threat to us.
So I ask you, why should one soldier die to protect us from Iraq. It's a cesspool now because we created that. What you don't see in the mainstream media is how many civilians are killed each day. These are innocent people just like you and me. They, regardless of ethnicity, religion, do not deserve to be killed senselessly.
Today, we are far more at a risk of being attacked than before we invaded Iraq and it will only get worst. If you believe we are safer today than before we invaded Iraq, then you're a fool because you're ignoring all the facts.
Now lets look at the fact that why we are still there. Let me ask you, would you let your son, daughter, brother, sister, or father mother die TODAY in Iraq fighting this war just because you want to save face? This is exactly what we are now doing. We are trying to save face. We will NEVER win this war, period. You can't win a war when you're fighting the actual populous of a country. Those who could flee already did. 2 MILLION and counting. Those who decide to stay has to choose a side and it's not just two sides, it's more like 4 to 5. Only one of them is us. This make you the enemy of 4 other groups regardless of which side you choose.
We often like to say that these are terrorists with IEDs and suicide bombs and they are hoodlums and law less people. All of this while we are attacking them with so called smart bombs and tanks and everything else that the modern technology affords us. If you don't have these technology, how are you supposed to fight us. Simple, they use tactics [IED], and smart bombs [suicide].
Let me over simplify this war.
Imagine for a minute that we are attacked by Iraq today. We were invaded and Iraqi soldiers are in our streets telling us what to do. I will promise you that I will be one of those so called insurgents. I will take up what ever arms that I have and will fight them to the death. Then they get to call me a terrorist or an insurgent.
When you hear and see the war from one point of view you miss the full picture.
Lastly, who should be held responsible for all the civilian deaths in Iraq after we invaded them? Who? The answer is ridiculously simple...
Figure it out.
For oil!!! No, wait, for world dominance!! Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are the great devil!! Shit, now I see. Is that better guys?
You notice how fast the brats start crying when someone doesn't see it the way they do? Start pissing and moaning, so affraid of someone not seeing the obvious truth of their omnipotence.
You really shouldn't be so easily shook up. Just be sure to vote for Ron Paul, he's the only one who thinks leaving Iraq tomorrow is a good idea (besides Dems).
Mani, I do believe your heart is in the right place. You sound very genuine. Your points have merrit. I just dont see it quite as black and white as you do.
Eyespeed is a joke though. What are you, 6 years old?
__________________
"What? Thats no country I've ever heard of, do they speak English in What?"
Sadam can be many things but a dummy he's not. He managed to stay in power for this long for a reason. He know how to keep the Iraqi population under control and he know not to fuck with countries that would endanger his presidency. He tried with Iran but he was never at risk of loosing his power regardless of the outcome.
Saddam managed to stay in power through fear. Perhaps you do not remember the countless acts of genocide he committed? Massive chemical attacks? As for not fucking with other countries, do you not remember Kuwait and Operation Desert Storm? Maybe you will remember it better as the time the almighty Saddam defeated the United States...or at least that's what he boasted all over the Middle East since the US was gone and he was still in power. (and if you want to talk about how a real great leader operates, look at Hitler)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mani-1
The last thing Sadam would do is to have anything to do with attacking us. He knew we were just looking for a reason and he would not give us that satisfaction.
First off, tensions have been high with Iraq even after the Gulf War. For ONE example, look up Operation Desert Fox. There were many military operations carried out against Iraq throughout the years (yes, that includes the Clinton administration, too). Secondly, do you not remember Iraq helping with the assassination plot against the former President Bush? This was among other terrorist acts, of course. Yes, I said terrorist. Clinton called them terrorists too. So don't say that Iraq never had anything to do with terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mani-1
This is the reason that Bush administration had to fabricate lies to convince the US population that he is an eminent threat to us.
Last I checked, the government doesn't come ask me if I think we should go to war with another country. The government does not have to convince anyone other than the decision-makers to support a war. Secondly, Iraq was never labeled an "eminent threat" - the whole philosophy behind the War on Terror (Iraq's included in the eyes of the administration right now) is preemptive war.
I can't decide if you're misinformed or if you're making up the facts to fit your point-of-view.
Saddam managed to stay in power through fear. Perhaps you do not remember the countless acts of genocide he committed? Massive chemical attacks? As for not fucking with other countries, do you not remember Kuwait and Operation Desert Storm? Maybe you will remember it better as the time the almighty Saddam defeated the United States...or at least that's what he boasted all over the Middle East since the US was gone and he was still in power. (and if you want to talk about how a real great leader operates, look at Hitler)
I agree with what you said there. When we fought Iraq the first time, I was all for it. That mission had a higher purpose and as a super power we carry that burden. I think the fact that we didn't go to Baghdad during the first was criticized by many people but Sr. Bush had a good explanation for it and I agreed with him.
Saddam is a tyrant and he did commit genocide, no question about it. For that we need to deal with it in a different manner. i.e. sanctions etc as we do for other countries.
There is a far greater genocide in Sudan yet we for some reason don't have the same 'humanitarian' concern as we have for Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troth281
First off, tensions have been high with Iraq even after the Gulf War. For ONE example, look up Operation Desert Fox. There were many military operations carried out against Iraq throughout the years (yes, that includes the Clinton administration, too). Secondly, do you not remember Iraq helping with the assassination plot against the former President Bush? This was among other terrorist acts, of course. Yes, I said terrorist. Clinton called them terrorists too. So don't say that Iraq never had anything to do with terrorism.
Just because someone calls the assassination plot terrorism doesn't mean it is. Let me qualify that a little more. JFK assassination was never called a terrorist act. Reagan attempt the same. So why should this incident be considered a terrorist act? The word Terrorism do not fit this action. It has been a word of convenience. It's an over exaggeration IMO.
I do remember Saddam testing us but that does not warrant a complete innovation of the country. If we apply this logic, today, we should be invading at least 3 other countries. Why do you think we are not taking similar action on these other countries? I'm sure you know who they are and the asnwer to this question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by troth281
Last I checked, the government doesn't come ask me if I think we should go to war with another country. The government does not have to convince anyone other than the decision-makers to support a war. Secondly, Iraq was never labeled an "eminent threat" - the whole philosophy behind the War on Terror (Iraq's included in the eyes of the administration right now) is preemptive war.
I can't decide if you're misinformed or if you're making up the facts to fit your point-of-view.
But the government do need to be truthful in what they say to those individuals who will actually authorize the preemptive attack. You have to agree that they fabricated the stories to suit the actions they were about to take. Remember those mobile labs and the picture of a fighter spraying so called chemical agents? All of that was proven wrong and fabricated stories.
Ask your self one question, honestly. Who stand to benefit from this war? You and I have next to nothing to gain from this war. We are not safer nor are our children. Someone else has to benefit from this war. It certainly is not the Iraqi people. So if you and I or the Iraqis don't benefit, who's benefiting from it? I think you know the answer to this as well.
We can't force democracy on other who don't want it. Iraq is a country that's been under a dictatorship for a long time. The countries surrounding Iraq do not want that country to be a democracy. It is arrogant of us to think that our way of life is what everyone else is looking for. That's not the case.
The fact to the matter is we can't win Iraq. No one can because it's similar to Vietnam. We can't change people who don't want to be changed.
According to the last survey, 70% of Iraqis think we should leave. Yet, our government still thinks that we should stay and prove those 70% wrong. To do this we are sacrificing our own soldiers. At the end of the day do you think that all these US deaths are worth it? To me it's not. I don't want any of these kids being killed to 'liberate' this country. Right or wrong, the way I look at it is, cut your loses now and get out or we will loose more US lives and will eventually have to get out. Our objective will not be reached since as soon as we leave this country will go to hell, if it hasn't already. It's just a question of where do we draw the line.
Phase it out, give Iraqi a date and get the hell out. Let them get their forces up to speed fast and worry about their security. No matter what we do there, we have created a situation that will come back to hunt us in the near future. There is no question about it.
Mani, I do believe your heart is in the right place. You sound very genuine. Your points have merrit. I just dont see it quite as black and white as you do.
In your opinion, at what point do we say enough and where do we draw the line? In what will we base the argument that we won there, what is our ultimate objective and can it be reasonably achieved?
Lastly, is it worth the price we have to pay for it?
Posts: 8,182
Casino Cash: $19790
Sportbike: a green one
ah fuck ... another thread that proves everyone knows exactly what the hell is right for america ...
i'm going back to the cubby hole.
__________________
"Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!" - Stephen Decatur (1779-1820)
Saddam managed to stay in power through fear. Perhaps you do not remember the countless acts of genocide he committed? Massive chemical attacks? As for not fucking with other countries, do you not remember Kuwait and Operation Desert Storm? Maybe you will remember it better as the time the almighty Saddam defeated the United States...or at least that's what he boasted all over the Middle East since the US was gone and he was still in power. (and if you want to talk about how a real great leader operates, look at Hitler)
First off, tensions have been high with Iraq even after the Gulf War. For ONE example, look up Operation Desert Fox. There were many military operations carried out against Iraq throughout the years (yes, that includes the Clinton administration, too). Secondly, do you not remember Iraq helping with the assassination plot against the former President Bush? This was among other terrorist acts, of course. Yes, I said terrorist. Clinton called them terrorists too. So don't say that Iraq never had anything to do with terrorism.
Last I checked, the government doesn't come ask me if I think we should go to war with another country. The government does not have to convince anyone other than the decision-makers to support a war. Secondly, Iraq was never labeled an "eminent threat" - the whole philosophy behind the War on Terror (Iraq's included in the eyes of the administration right now) is preemptive war.
I can't decide if you're misinformed or if you're making up the facts to fit your point-of-view.
Ahem. Bolded text draws attention to hypocrisy. See your replies in other threads for reference.
US gave Saddam an open-ended answer when he asked if it would be permissible to move into Kuwait. It's not like he just decided to roll into a neighboring country one day.
Iraq was touted as an "eminent threat" by GW Bush. Remember the "mushroom cloud" speech? Intelligence was manipulated to suit an agenda outlined in the PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses and the infamous Downing Street Memo. If you haven't read these publications, I suggest you do so.
And you keep throwing around the word terrorist like it validates the invasion of Iraq based on 9/11. The argument isn't whether or not Saddam was the boogyman, we all know he wasn't a very good guy. It is a fact that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with any attack on the World Trade Center. This is not debatable.
Perhaps you do not remember the support our past administrations gave to Saddam after he committed those chemical attacks. I've pointed this out to you before - but it seems the density of your cranium is hindering the process of objective thought.
And as I've said to you before, our foreign policy for the last 50+ years, one that you so adamantly advocate as necessary to the survival of this nation, is creating the exact threats you seem to testify against. You are a neoconservative, whether or not you realize it.
The amount of twisted, ignornat, and just plain wrong information posted on P&R lately coupled with an inflammatory approach to the rest of the world has really turned this place into a cesspool of stupidity. It's no wonder the US is circling the drain.
In your opinion, at what point do we say enough and where do we draw the line? In what will we base the argument that we won there, what is our ultimate objective and can it be reasonably achieved?
Lastly, is it worth the price we have to pay for it?
Excellent question. Tough to answer though. IMO, I think that we continue to ride the sucess of the surge to its conclusion. While we keep the pressure up militarily, up the political pressure for Iraq to take over. Iraqi's have been volunteering in masses for the ministry of defense. By last Novemeber, I think the number was around 100,000 and growing. This change in strategy is working, pulling out now would be a bigger mistake than the way this war was managed through '06. Iraq needs the time to grow. Democracy (or a variant of it) is not dead in Iraq. With all the American soldiers lives lost to IED's and all the innocent lives lost because hiding extremists within their ranks, dont we have the responsibility to atleast see this through?
If its true that this conflict will last hundreds of years, then the "Iraq stage" will set the stage for the future. We must see this through.
__________________
"What? Thats no country I've ever heard of, do they speak English in What?"
For that we need to deal with it in a different manner. i.e. sanctions etc as we do for other countries.
Sanctions are a joke. Sanctions have never worked and they will never work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mani-1
Just because someone calls the assassination plot terrorism doesn't mean it is. Let me qualify that a little more. JFK assassination was never called a terrorist act. Reagan attempt the same. So why should this incident be considered a terrorist act? The word Terrorism do not fit this action. It has been a word of convenience. It's an over exaggeration IMO.
I do remember Saddam testing us but that does not warrant a complete innovation of the country. If we apply this logic, today, we should be invading at least 3 other countries. Why do you think we are not taking similar action on these other countries? I'm sure you know who they are and the asnwer to this question.
I'm using the same words that the government used then. People didn't bother arguing symantecs then if I recall. Just keep in mind Iraq only aided with the plot - there were others not at all associated with the Iraq government that were involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mani-1
We can't force democracy on other who don't want it. Iraq is a country that's been under a dictatorship for a long time. The countries surrounding Iraq do not want that country to be a democracy. It is arrogant of us to think that our way of life is what everyone else is looking for. That's not the case.
I couldn't care less about what form of government Iraq chooses. But the US needs to stay to stabilize the country, or we WILL have another nutjob in control of the country. That is a guarantee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mani-1
The fact to the matter is we can't win Iraq. No one can because it's similar to Vietnam. We can't change people who don't want to be changed.
That sounds like something straight from the mainstream media. Iraq and Vietnam are so different I don't even know where to begin dissecting that argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mani-1
Our objective will not be reached since as soon as we leave this country will go to hell, if it hasn't already. It's just a question of where do we draw the line.
That's why we need to stay for now until the country can be stabilized. If we leave now, it is guaranteed to go to shit.
-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
US gave Saddam an open-ended answer when he asked if it would be permissible to move into Kuwait. It's not like he just decided to roll into a neighboring country one day.
Wow, it must be easy to blame everyone except the one responsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
Iraq was touted as an "eminent threat" by GW Bush. Remember the "mushroom cloud" speech? Intelligence was manipulated to suit an agenda outlined in the PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses and the infamous Downing Street Memo. If you haven't read these publications, I suggest you do so.
Maybe he did say that. In which case, I am wrong, and I apologize. But the philosophy still remains preemptive strikes (that has not changed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
And you keep throwing around the word terrorist like it validates the invasion of Iraq based on 9/11. The argument isn't whether or not Saddam was the boogyman, we all know he wasn't a very good guy. It is a fact that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with any attack on the World Trade Center. This is not debatable.
You are the only one debating that point. I have never, ever mentioned 9/11. Ever. I use the word terrorist because a) that was the word used at the time, and b) because the plot for the assassination was masterminded and help planned by people outside of any nation's government (as far as our current intelligence goes). The people behind 9/11 are not the only ones in the business of terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
Perhaps you do not remember the support our past administrations gave to Saddam after he committed those chemical attacks. I've pointed this out to you before - but it seems the density of your cranium is hindering the process of objective thought.
Necessary evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
And as I've said to you before, our foreign policy for the last 50+ years, one that you so adamantly advocate as necessary to the survival of this nation, is creating the exact threats you seem to testify against. You are a neoconservative, whether or not you realize it.
I've never said that the foreign policy for the last 50+ years was necessary to the survival of this nation. Again, you mince my words. What I have said is that the policy of Containment (the policy the encompasses the foreign policy you speak of) worked exactly as it was proposed. Hindsight may be 20/20, but it is downright arrogant to say that Ron Paul could've done a better job dealing with the Soviet Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bush
The amount of twisted, ignornat, and just plain wrong information posted on P&R lately coupled with an inflammatory approach to the rest of the world has really turned this place into a cesspool of stupidity. It's no wonder the US is circling the drain.
I have only made a single statement that could even be considered an attack. That statement was directed at Mani-1. With that said, I apologize (you didn't seemed phased by it anyway). You have a much harsher tone in your posts than any of mine.
One day, the world is going to see all of this differently. And you can quote me on that.
Linear Mode
