The Iraq thread 3

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Remember thats their culture and custom over there, very effective in keeping crime down too.

So what was wrong with Saddams "customs and culture" then?

Quote[/b] ]Face it, ALLOT of countries arent perfect, and there are a whole lot worse than that, we have to pick our battles. Why go after soudi arabia when there are bigger threats out there?

Why go after Iraq when there is bigger threats?

Quote[/b] ]LOL, so you are sugesting we have another world war with china or russia, probably with nukes? Brilliant. Dont worry we will probably fight china too, and so will NATO and probably the UN so be careful what you wish for, your country will be affected as well.

Do you think that China and Russia are gonna just watch when you annex sovereign countries? You get what you order, its up to you what you order.

Quote[/b] ]We cant and wont stand by anyomore and let threats grow into attacks. We already did that and look what happened. Dont you get it?

Again you are confusing Iraq and Al-queida, they had nothing in common. Even the report released by a panel set up by white house aknowledges this. So tell me, how did Iraq attack/threatened America?

Quote[/b] ]The days of status quo and indecision are over, if we even think you are a threat you probably wont be for long.

Just like N-Korea?

Quote[/b] ]Why the hell not liberate hundreds of thousands of people too, and bring them freedoms, and a life they were deinied for so long?

Why the hell wouldnt rest of the world liberate millions of americans from the evil Bush regime, and give them the "true freedom and democracy"? Your freedom is not my freedom

Quote[/b] ]You say we should mind our own business, you wouldnt if you were the ones being opressed.

The times of colonizations are over, now is the time to make world a smaller, better place. Present foreign policy of US isolates US from the rest of the world. As for me being opressed, you are most welcome to try and liberate me, ill be waiting.

[hellfish6 7]

So with your stupid logic your sugesting that just cause hitler wasnt a imenent threat in 1939 we were right to not do shit, even though by doing so we would have saved the lives of millions? Is that right??

They obviosly didnt hate eachother enough to not work together to fight the kurds. Saddam is a paranoid control freak. He crushed everyone who could even pose a threat, including political parties that have no army. But we know ansar al islam operated out of the north. If he distrusted them so much why they hell would he allow and suport another military force in his own country? If they hated eachother like you claim, he would have crushed ansar al islam or denied them refuge in the first place.

LOL, he had no military?? Then what were we shooting at during the invasion? Paper targets? Last time I checked the average iraqi didnt drive a tank, or own AA guns. All that stuff was military hardware fielded by an army. Maybe not much of one, but 9/11 has proven that groups weaker than an army have done something that no army has ever done in quite a while, hit us at home. So there dosent have to be a huge army for a country to threaten us.

First of all, you're treading dangerously close to flame baiting. I'm not calling you a fucking moron, so don't call me stupid.

Comparing Saddam in 2003 to Hitler in 1939 is asinine and only shows that your knowledge of history is sorely lacking.

Ansar al Islam was not welcome by Saddam - IIRC they operated in a lawless area of Iraq bordering on Iran and Kurdistan. And either way, I never said that Ansar al Islam was hated by Saddam. The Kurds were (and the Shiites). Thus, when people say that Saddam gassed his own people, it's a false statement. Saddam never considered the Kurds to be Iraqis, rather an unwanted ethnic group that occupied land he controlled. Turkey and Iran have the exact same stance, only they've never used gas on the Kurds (though I may be wrong about Iran).

Saddam didn't have a military. When your defenses evaporate in a matter of seconds, you don't have a military. They may have had tanks and the occasional artillery piece, but a military is by definition a disciplined, trained force. Saddam had, at best, a bunch of idiots running around with rusty vehicles and no means of communicating with each other. So while they did inflict casualties, it wasn't a result of any competence on their part as much as it was dumb luck and the odd overachieving Iraqi with a rifle or RPG.

And no, there doesn't need to be a large army to threaten us - all it takes is a handful of brainwashed zealots with an unflapping belief in one leader or cause (don't read into that too hard) to fly an airplane into a building. That said, I still don't get how you think invading Iraq has made us any safer. Because now Saddam can't launch his non-existant-anyway SCUDs at us? Or because his crop dusters-cum-Chemical weapons sprayers can't reach our shores? Or rather because those mobile weapons labs that Powell showed us are no longer ambling around Iraq producing "huge quanities" of WMDs?

[homerj 0]

Soudi culture is tribal based and may be a bit harsh.

Torture and murder are not a custom or culture.

Iraq is a good place to start cause it is in a region that has terrorists, our greatest threat. Like I said democratising iraq will help spread democracy. Plus where would you rather fight the terrorists? In the streets of your town? Or far away from you where you have an army there to anhilate them?

Plus iraq is a better place to fight them compared to afghanistan, Cant use tanks or other heavy units over there effectively. But in iraq we can use all our might to kill terrorists.

They dont give a fuck about liberating countries. LOL, were not annexing anyone, at the most they will be a protectorate for a while, its not like were trying to make new states here.

Plus russia is an ally now. China dosent care about any of that, all they want is taiwan. They wont do anything to stop us cause theyll get their ass kicked.

I already said that panel is a joke, its lost all credibility with me.

Nothing in common? What about hating us and terrorising and attacking people?

The terrorists are pretty much gone from afghanistan, and they were already digging into iraq, why wait till they are nice and cozy and ready to attack us again? We acted before they could regroup and rebuild themselves.

The potential and real threats were there in iraq, that was why we acted.

For the moment quarentineing the DPRK is our best option, they had nukes iraq didnt. So who would you go after first? The guy with the nukes? Or stop a guy who already used wmd from ever getting nukes or threatening us in any other way?

These things have to be adressed through a case by case basis, we could deal with korea through containment and by getting china, japan, and other countries to pressure them. Military action isnt the best option here, especially since the S could handle them. The N has its own iron curtain, that is enough for now. Iraq was actively hostile to us, they tried to assasinate our pres, the N koreans did none of that. And they arent as hostile or agressive as iraq was, not when we have thousands of US troops across the border. Because of those things they are pretty much contained, and as all commie govs collapse, so will the dprk, so we can just wait them out. For iraq we had to look foward to iraq lead by uday or qusai, which couldnt be good.

LOl, you dont know what the hell your talking about. We are freeer than anyone else. Just look at all the American bashing Bush here, if we werent free those guy would probably be shot like they did in iraq. Wanna tell me why Bush is so bad? Or why we are opressed by him?

You are obviosly mislead if you think we are colonizing or anexing these countries. If we were where are the boatloads of American colonizers heading to iraq? We are here to rebuild them, just like we did europe. Did we colonize europe? No, and we arent going to do it to iraq either.

Its not really that big of a deal if the greatest country in the world wants to isolate itself from you freedom hating europeans. We offered you a part in helping us change the world, and still are, but you guys dont give a fuck about anyone but yourselves. Thats the difference between us. In WWII you guys fought to save your own ass, we were sitting safe and sound far away from germany, did they pose an immenent threat? No, but we stand for freedom and democracy and came to your rescue, and we are doing the same still today. You guys are afraid of getting dirty, but you cant make a cake without cracking a few eggs. Time and time again we have fought for the preservation and the spread of freedom,and we do it today still. You dont like it, fine, you probably couldnt do anything if you wanted. We have great power and great responsibility, like it or not were the worlds policeman. Who else is going to put an end to genocide, terrorism, and agression? The UN? I think not.

I never said you were opressed, if you were you probably wouldnt even have the freedoms you take for granted today, like using the internet. So think of that, while your on your ass, typing away saying others dont deserve the freedoms you enjoy today, think of what it would be like to live in the fear of having you and your family kidnapped in the mid of the night, tortured, and murdered without ever getting justice everyone deserves. Or think of how nice it is not to be worrying about being arrested witout trial by secret police.

We all take these things for granted, but many dont enjoy these things, and it is the responsibility of freepersons everywhere to free the opressed. Those who do nothing to promote freedom, dont deserve it themselves.

[billybob2002 0]

Do any of you mods support the war.....

[homerj 0]

I didnt call you stupid, just the logic you used, chill out.

Really? They are very similar, with the genocide and the invading of their neighbors and all.

Ill say it again, if they werent so welcome he would have never let them come to iraq in the first place. But did we ever hear of a campaign to get rid of them? No.

It dosent matter if he didnt think they wer citezens or not, they wer citezen enough to fight for him either way. And it dosent make them any less dead.

If he didnt have a military what supressed the revolts against him? What kept the kurds at bay? What did we shoot at in the opening moments of the war? Answer:=his military. He did have a trained and disceplined force, the sadam fedayeen, rep guard, and other units. Not to mention the conscripts. All those things were part of his army, he had a defense ministry, shitty ariforce, and navy too. SO he did have one. The average iraqi dosent wear uniforms and live in barracks and stuff for the hell of it.

We are safer, a brutal dictator will never be in power again. And the potential to attack us that he had is gone too. WMD;s or not the world is safer, a tyrant is gone.

[EiZei 0]

Soudi culture is tribal based and may be a bit harsh.

Torture and murder are not a custom or culture.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/sau-summary-eng

They truly is not.

[homerj 0]

Ok, noone is perfect, and they are far better than allot of countries, especially iraq.

[EiZei 0]

Ok, noone is perfect, and they are far better than allot of countries, especially iraq.

Funny how quickly you switch from "freedom to everybody even if it means a really fucking expensive quagmire"-mode to "none is perfect."

[homerj 0]

Harsh punishment is far from being opressed alla saddam. Especially when most soudis support it.

Not saying its right, but they arent making any moves to cahnge it are they?

[hellfish6 7]

Quote[/b] ]Soudi culture is tribal based and may be a bit harsh.

Torture and murder are not a custom or culture.

Uh... cutting off a theive's hand isn't torture? Religious police stoning women to death in the streets isn't murder (or torture).

Quote[/b] ]Iraq is a good place to start cause it is in a region that has terrorists, our greatest threat. Like I said democratising iraq will help spread democracy. Plus where would you rather fight the terrorists? In the streets of your town? Or far away from you where you have an army there to anhilate them?

Last I checked, there were terrorists on every continent of the planet (save for, maybe, Antarctica). And when has forcing democracy on a peoples ever helped spread it?

As for fighting the terrorists in the streets, I'd rather not fight them at all. I'd much rather give them jobs and a stable income so that they don't feel the need to shoot at me and my countrymen in the first place. Every person we gun down in Iraq only makes the Arab world hate us more. In both the long and short terms, that doesn't make us safer.

Quote[/b] ]Plus iraq is a better place to fight them compared to afghanistan, Cant use tanks or other heavy units over there effectively. But in iraq we can use all our might to kill terrorists.

Again, would there be that many terrorists to kill if we weren't in Iraq right now? Do you really think that the next Mohammed Atta decided to quit flight school and pick up and AK47 to go take potshots at an Abrams tank in Baghdad? Of course not - but now the average pissed off Arab has a way to vent his anger at what he sees as an economically dominant and morally corrupt enemy. The Attas are still out there planning their next attacks.

Quote[/b] ]They dont give a fuck about liberating countries. LOL, were not annexing anyone, at the most they will be a protectorate for a while, its not like were trying to make new states here.

Politically speaking, we are creating a new state. And that's whats pissing everyone off. We're building Iraq as we see fit - not necessarily how they see fit. If they want a permanant theocracy, they should be able to vote for one. Isn't it fundamentally undemocratic to tell them they can't?

Quote[/b] ]Plus russia is an ally now. China dosent care about any of that, all they want is taiwan. They wont do anything to stop us cause theyll get their ass kicked.

If China invades anyone right now, I don't think that their ass is going to get kicked. The US can't provide any ground troops if we decide to help whomever is attacked. But clearly, you're the military expert, so I'll defer to your professional opinion.

Quote[/b] ]

I already said that panel is a joke, its lost all credibility with me.

Why? You keep saying that, but you never explain yourself. Why are they discredited?

Quote[/b] ]The terrorists are pretty much gone from afghanistan, and they were already digging into iraq, why wait till they are nice and cozy and ready to attack us again? We acted before they could regroup and rebuild themselves.

Actually, Al Jazeera has footage of new training camps in what it claims is Afghanistan. And the terrorists have been pretty much gone from the 'Stan for almost three years now - yet they're still not gone.

Quote[/b] ]The potential and real threats were there in iraq, that was why we acted.

What potential threats? What real threats? I have yet to see any evidence that hasn't already been disproved PRIOR to the war that Saddam was a threat.

Quote[/b] ]For the moment quarentineing the DPRK is our best option, they had nukes iraq didnt. So who would you go after first? The guy with the nukes? Or stop a guy who already used wmd from ever getting nukes or threatening us in any other way?

Saddam only used WMDs with the tacit or implicit support of the US. Remember, in the '80s he was our best friend over there. He wouldn't have done anything without our approval or what he thought was our approval. Besides, we didn't bat an eye when he used them anyways.

Quote[/b] ]

These things have to be adressed through a case by case basis, we could deal with korea through containment and by getting china, japan, and other countries to pressure them. Military action isnt the best option here, especially since the S could handle them. The N has its own iron curtain, that is enough for now. Iraq was actively hostile to us, they tried to assasinate our pres, the N koreans did none of that. And they arent as hostile or agressive as iraq was, not when we have thousands of US troops across the border. Because of those things they are pretty much contained, and as all commie govs collapse, so will the dprk, so we can just wait them out. For iraq we had to look foward to iraq lead by uday or qusai, which couldnt be good.

So we couldn't contain Saddam? I thought we'd done a pretty damn good job of containing him for 12 years.

What do you propose we do about Iran? They've practically said that they're building nukes.

Quote[/b] ]You are obviosly mislead if you think we are colonizing or anexing these countries. If we were where are the boatloads of American colonizers heading to iraq? We are here to rebuild them, just like we did europe. Did we colonize europe? No, and we arent going to do it to iraq either.

We're economically colonizing and/or annexing those countries. Even you can't deny that - we're making billions over there.

Quote[/b] ]

Its not really that big of a deal if the greatest country in the world wants to isolate itself from you freedom hating europeans. We offered you a part in helping us change the world, and still are, but you guys dont give a fuck about anyone but yourselves. Thats the difference between us. In WWII you guys fought to save your own ass, we were sitting safe and sound far away from germany, did they pose an immenent threat? No, but we stand for freedom and democracy and came to your rescue, and we are doing the same still today. You guys are afraid of getting dirty, but you cant make a cake without cracking a few eggs. Time and time again we have fought for the preservation and the spread of freedom,and we do it today still. You dont like it, fine, you probably couldnt do anything if you wanted. We have great power and great responsibility, like it or not were the worlds policeman. Who else is going to put an end to genocide, terrorism, and agression? The UN? I think not.

That is probably the most ignorant statement I've heard in a very long time.

Quote[/b] ]

I never said you were opressed, if you were you probably wouldnt even have the freedoms you take for granted today, like using the internet. So think of that, while your on your ass, typing away saying others dont deserve the freedoms you enjoy today, think of what it would be like to live in the fear of having you and your family kidnapped in the mid of the night, tortured, and murdered without ever getting justice everyone deserves. Or think of how nice it is not to be worrying about being arrested witout trial by secret police.

Yeah, that's right. We've got the Patriot Act to protect us from all that. And we know we can trust the Bush Administration to not torture us - they'd never torture anybody.

Quote[/b] ]We all take these things for granted, but many dont enjoy these things, and it is the responsibility of freepersons everywhere to free the opressed. Those who do nothing to promote freedom, dont deserve it themselves.

So why are we giving it to the Iraqis then? By that logic, they don't deserve it either.

[hellfish6 7]

Ok, I'm already up way past my bedtime so this is the last fun I'll have with you. And for future reference, how about quoting what you're responding to. It's a total pain in the ass to go back and look up what was said hours ago.

Quote[/b] ]I didnt call you stupid, just the logic you used, chill out.

Might want to check your wording in the future, then.

Quote[/b] ]Really? They are very similar, with the genocide and the invading of their neighbors and all.

I never said genocide. But then Iraq never committed genocide either. They never attempted to wipe out an entire minority. But yes, last I check North Korea did in fact invade South Korea once upon a time, as well as kidnap and brainwash Japanese civillians. And hacking US military personnel to death.

Quote[/b] ]Ill say it again, if they werent so welcome he would have never let them come to iraq in the first place. But did we ever hear of a campaign to get rid of them? No.

And I'll say it again - Ansar al Islam did not operate in an area of the country controlled by Saddam. And I'll say another thing again - Saddam didn't have a military capable of kicking them out.

Quote[/b] ]It dosent matter if he didnt think they wer citezens or not, they wer citezen enough to fight for him either way. And it dosent make them any less dead.

Hm... I'm not really sure I know what you're saying here. Kurds were fighting for Saddam? And yes, dead is dead. My pet rat taught me that, no matter how often I tried to get her to eat.

Quote[/b] ]

If he didnt have a military what supressed the revolts against him? What kept the kurds at bay? What did we shoot at in the opening moments of the war? Answer:=his military. He did have a trained and disceplined force, the sadam fedayeen, rep guard, and other units. Not to mention the conscripts. All those things were part of his army, he had a defense ministry, shitty ariforce, and navy too. SO he did have one. The average iraqi dosent wear uniforms and live in barracks and stuff for the hell of it.

Gangs of thugs to not represent a military. And Saddam didn't keep the Kurds at bay - they controlled the northern 20% of the country! What kind of tin-pot dictator with an Army would let a bunch of shepherd boys with AK-47s take over 20% of his country? A dictator without a functioning military, that's who.

And you're saying that the Iraqi conscripts were a disciplined fighting force? Did my brother sell you some pot or something? And almost his entire airforce was buried under mounds of sand - definately an attempt at stealth technology. Good thing we invaded when we did otherwise those MiG-25 Stealth Sandpiles may have knocked out the whole USAF!

Quote[/b] ]

We are safer, a brutal dictator will never be in power again. And the potential to attack us that he had is gone too. WMD;s or not the world is safer, a tyrant is gone.

So you actually care about the rest of the world? Good for you - there is a little bit of the UN in all of us afterall.

[reconmercs 0]

-CAUTION RANT!-

President Bush is full of @@@@(feel in the letters yourself) I regret the fact that I helped this guy get in office everyday...We invaded a country we  didn't need to...Iraq was about as much threat to this country as Mexico is PERIOD. I'm getting sick of of this die hard republicans saying we're better off with saddam gone..try telling that to the 900+ and counting AMERICAN men and women who have died in a war that started because some prick wanted to get revenge on for his daddy.  I just wish people in uniform could share their true opinions about their commander in chief and I pray to God that he's out of office before I sign on the dotted line...Bush is the perfect example of why someone who ain't never  been in combat should NEVER be commander in chief.  One of my friends deployed in the sandbox called two weeks ago and was pissed with the "stop loss" (another ingenius army idea..go army!!..NOT) and how they were lied to..his entire company is voting against that prick in office now.  And don't get me even started on the economy..yeah we're recovering right...lol.  We are MORE in danger of attack than we were before we went in..Afghanistan, The Phillipines and whatever other places we are in covertly the back burner. We don't have enough man power..Rumsfield can't seem to understand 2+2=4 not 5.  If North Korea just decided tommorow to cross the border we'd be fucked for lack of a better word they'd push us into the sea before forces from(what a minute..where would they come from? ) could turn the tide if possible and the same thing with China and Iran.  The war on terror has turned into Bush's pissing contest and I hope Kerry pisses all over his face in November..A-FREAKIN-MEN!!

and by the way I ain't a democrat..just someone who votes for what I think is right not just because of the party he belongs to..I wish more of my country men would vote with that common sense...

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Torture and murder are not a custom or culture.

Thats not what you said one post ago:

Quote[/b] ]Remember thats their culture and custom over there, very effective in keeping crime down too.

Quote[/b] ]Iraq is a good place to start cause it is in a region that has terrorists

The region has terrorists, as do every region, so you decide to attack the 1 country in that region that doesnt have terrorists? wheres the logig in that?

Quote[/b] ]Like I said democratising iraq will help spread democracy.

Do you have any hard fact that supports your statement here?

Quote[/b] ]Plus where would you rather fight the terrorists? In the streets of your town? Or far away from you where you have an army there to anhilate them?

Show me the link to establish there were terrorists in Iraq before war, controlled by Saddam Hussein and acting against US?

Quote[/b] ]They wont do anything to stop us cause theyll get their ass kicked.

If China attacks, nothing can stop it, thats a fact.

Quote[/b] ]I already said that panel is a joke, its lost all credibility with me.

What things they said you to come to that conclusion? How it did lost its credibility? Do you have some new evidence to show the panels rewiev to be wrong?

Quote[/b] ]Nothing in common? What about hating us and terrorising and attacking people?

Once again: show me how Iraq was related in the 9/11?

Quote[/b] ]The terrorists are pretty much gone from afghanistan, and they were already digging into iraq, why wait till they are nice and cozy and ready to attack us again? We acted before they could regroup and rebuild themselves.

Again you must posses some information about whereabouts and supporters of terrorists, that nobody else here have seen.

Quote[/b] ]The potential and real threats were there in iraq, that was why we acted.

The threats dont appear there, no matter how many times you repeat your mantra. What was the threat to US?

Quote[/b] ]So who would you go after first? The guy with the nukes?

I would go after the guy with the nukes, becouse having nukes prooves that you have an ongoing WMD program,unlike Iraq, thus Nkorea could make more and more nukes while US is in the Iraq, or sell the technology to a hostile goverment.

Quote[/b] ] Or stop a guy who already used wmd from ever getting nukes or threatening us in any other way?

Are you implying here that Saddam tried to get nuclear technology in his hands after the Kuwait war? c'mon, bring in the Nigerian uranium

Quote[/b] ]LOl, you dont know what the hell your talking about. We are freeer than anyone else. Just look at all the American bashing Bush here, if we werent free those guy would probably be shot like they did in iraq. Wanna tell me why Bush is so bad? Or why we are opressed by him?

1. He is the biggest danger to stability of the world at the moment

2. He wasnt elected democratily

3. He is corrupt, and uses the war to gain money for himself and his collaberators (haliburton +)

Quote[/b] ]You are obviosly mislead if you think we are colonizing or anexing these countries.

Oh yes the Russians didnt annex poland and Chechoslovakia, they just liberated them!

Quote[/b] ]Its not really that big of a deal if the greatest country in the world wants to isolate itself from you freedom hating europeans.

Europe is only a small part of the world that the USA is alienating itself from.

Quote[/b] ]We offered you a part in helping us change the world, and still are, but you guys dont give a fuck about anyone but yourselves.

Any civilized country would refuse to fight a illegal war.

Quote[/b] ]Thats the difference between us. In WWII you guys fought to save your own ass, we were sitting safe and sound far away from germany, did they pose an immenent threat? No, but we stand for freedom and democracy and came to your rescue, and we are doing the same still today.

What are you rescuing me from? Maybe the biggest difference when dealing with Iraq war is that US has not been occupied by someone else, unlike countrys here in Europe. The building in my next door has grenade shrapnell marks on its wall, we know what war is, we want to avoid it, and your war is that you sit in a sofa and watch live feed from CNN.

As for the reasons why USA came in ww2, Id suggest that on monday morning you catch your historyteachers sleeve and pull her aside and ask her to explain the history to you.

Quote[/b] ] Who else is going to put an end to genocide, terrorism, and agression? The UN? I think not.

UN is what the memberstates make of it. If one certain memberstate decides to fuck the UN in the ass, and then shudder at "why the UN is forceless" , then its the certain members problem to think why is the Un so week nowadays.

Quote[/b] ]I never said you were opressed, if you were you probably wouldnt even have the freedoms you take for granted today, like using the internet. So think of that, while your on your ass, typing away saying others dont deserve the freedoms you enjoy today, think of what it would be like to live in the fear of having you and your family kidnapped in the mid of the night, tortured, and murdered without ever getting justice everyone deserves. Or think of how nice it is not to be worrying about being arrested witout trial by secret police.

USA has nothing to do with the fact that i live in a free, democratic country.

Quote[/b] ]We all take these things for granted, but many dont enjoy these things, and it is the responsibility of freepersons everywhere to free the opressed. Those who do nothing to promote freedom, dont deserve it themselves.

This is my way of fighting for freedom, fighting against fascisim and double standards whenever possible, what is your way? Advertise a illegal war?

[homerj 0]

I would say its more like punishment prescribed under their religious laws. Good luck trying to change those.

The difference is saddam did it for the hell of it or for opposing him. They do it cause of a crime or something. Im not saying its wrong but that kind of thing is normal to them, thats how they deal with crime. Saddam just uses that to terrorise his own people.

Look at germany and other european countries, they take part in peacekeeping and spread democracy through many means, be it financial, militarily, or by other forms of support. Look at japan, its sending troops to iraq.

Terrorists dont want jobs. Look at some of the biggest terrorists, what are they? Doctors, profesionals, and other wealthy and educated people, so no jobs wont help, not when they have good ones. If we dont fight them they will just get stronger, look at clinton, he didnt do shit and look what happened. Its like saying we shouldnt have had sought the colapse of the USSR, or stopeed trying to contain communism. We have to actively counter threats, if we dont the result are the hitlers and saddams of the world.

Yeah terrorists would go to iraq after the fall of the taliban. We saw the beginings of it with ansar al islam, more would soon follow.

The attas out there are probably looking for the easiest way to kill Americans, which is in iraq. Its easier and more convenient for them to cross a border or 2 and fight us than to fly across the world, set up elaborate attacks that require money and other stuff that risk detection and they have to face our homeland security agencies. Just look at how many attacks weve foiled already. These guys will go for the easiest way to kill us, which is in iraq. Its too dangerous for them to try anything now, and the odds are against them. In iraq the odds of killing Americans are higher. So where do you think the fanatics will go? America where they will likely be caught, or iraq, where they stand a better chance?

Look, its not like were adding another star on the flag or anything, were just helping them get back on their feet, and its our troops and money doing it so its going to be our way. If they really want a theocracy they will get it and the civil war with it. But it would be undemocratic of us to let them do something that undemocratic. You say its undemocratic of us to not let them do it, its more so letting them do it and doing a host of other undemocratic things like opressing minorities and not representing everyone.

Maybe not instantly but once all our troops are in place they couldnt survive a toe to toe fight. They could have initial sucess but still our fighters and carriers and tomahawks in the region could contain them till ground troops arrive. Arent we getting off topic? Plus history has proven that no country that has traded with eachother has gone to war with oneanother. Its not like theyre going to attack their biggest customer. If they did they could kiss all that cash good buy, and they wont let that happen, so forget about them.

Have you even seen a hearing? They attack and scrutenize everyone but democrats. Where is bubba? Why isnt he being asked why he dropped the ball in regards to terrorism or why he passed up us getting osama? And these guys ignore all that and believe everything guys with an agenda out to hurt Bush have to say. Whats that guys name? The guy that got fired and who know is after the Bush admin? Anyway, hes clearly pissed and out for them yet they treat his testimony as gospel truth. Plus they walk out when the pres testifies, what does that tell you? They dont care about the truth.

Their probably lying, its probably that lawless region of pakistan. Either way afghanistan is not the haven it once was, and they cant train as freely as they once did even if it was in afghanistan. For that reason most terrorists have moved on.

Potential threats were his rebuilding his wmds and military and starting more shit, or giving them to terrorists, or to allow more terrorists to stay in iraq.

Real threats, constantly firing on coalition fighters, thats pretty real, undisclosed and unacounted for wmds and weapons, supporting terrorism, terrorising his people and neighbors himself, and his defiance of resolution after resolution. We couldnt have let him get away with that, what would everyother dictator have done if they found out that the un gives empty threats(wait, they did). What I mean is that we couldnt not enforce it, if we did, what do you think every dictator would do?

That was for iran. We sure as hell didnt support his gassing of the kurds. Plus those were the days where it was either letting him gass iranians(our enemy) or piss him off and send him into the arms of the soviets. In the cold war we had to do some regretable things to keep soviet nukes out of those countries, but with the USSR gone, we dont have to tolerate that crap.

Obviously not good enough to keep the terrorists from flowing in and out of iraq. So no, not good enough. The containment was suposed to disarm and neutralize him, which we never did.

We can support a democratic revolution, place sanctions on them, or take out there nuclear facilities, take your pick. But do you really expect them to do anything stupid when they are sorounded by US troops? I think that can deter them pretty good.

Its part of capitalism, go wher the money is, and theres money in contracts for rebuilding iraq. And whats wrong with establishing economic ties with them, when this stuff settles we can do business with them and invest in and buy their oil. Nothing wrong with that is there? Both sides benifit.

LOL again make up your damn mind. You cant have it both ways, either you want to be protected from terrorism by any means or you dont. You guys critisize Bush for doing too much or too little, which is it? If you dont want us to do everything we can to prevent future 9/11's fine, but personally I dont care what it takes to keep the bastards out. If we have to torure them so be it, im not going to loose sleep over us doing that to some animal that wants to kill us. You guys are worried that he will abuse this power. Has he? All he has done is use it against terrorists, its not like hes targeting his opnonents or critics or anything. So what are you worried about?

They should at least be given the opportunity to have it. If they dont want it, fine, noone can say we didnt try. Plus its hard to be out there promoting democracy when everyone that does winds up dead.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]If China attacks, nothing can stop it, thats a fact.

ze missiles will!

Quote[/b] ]

We invaded a country we  didn't need to...Iraq was about as much threat to this country as Mexico is PERIOD.

What are you talking about? Mexico is secretly taking back their old land....

Shit, it is like a gang rape in here. There should be a limit on the "anti-war" "give peace a chance" "Saddam loving" commies....

[reconmercs 0]

Shit, it is like a gang rape in here. There should be a limit on the "anti-war" "give peace a chance" "Saddam loving" commies....

First off I'm not anti-war...there is a huge difference between fighting for something and fighting for NOTHING which is what happens now...life is way too valuable...you think about that tommorow when the news starts reporting on the death of more brave serviceman and women(I hope and pray there will not be) It's sooo much easier for people who have no clue! don't know anything about nor even know a service member to be like "yeah let's invade" do you know what's it like being glued to the news hoping to find out something about your friends and family who are off fighting a REAL war not OFP or full spectrum warrior or whatever..if you don't I hope you never do cause it SUX ALOT...before you go off calling people "anti-war" commies and what not...volunteer yourself to take one of my comrades place over there in that shit hole then we can talk....

[homerj 0]

Dully noted.

Yes they did, what do you think he was trying to do to the kurds? He was trying to wipe them out.

True they did, but its wouldnt be too wise to go in their and get nukes now would it? We can deal with them through other means.

He did have a military.Check out these articles about iraqi military operations in the area.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/032103_nw_northern_iraq.html

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/991122/1999112232.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.war.main/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/army.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0124_030124_reza.html

All these articles illustrate the prescense of the iraqi miitary in the N.

Ansar al islam:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ansar.htm

http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml

LOL, what im saying is that when he barely got power and needed lots of troops to fight iran he used them. Thus they are citezens if they fought in saddam's army.

No he had to let them cause if he tried to take that land back he would get his ass kicked by f-16s(no-fly zone). Its a rugged area too so he would need helos, but they would be shot down(no-fly zone) even without them he couldnt do anything(again no-fly zone=protect kurds). If he had such a piss poor army why did revolts in the N and S fail so miserably? Clearly his army was capable enough of putting them down.

They may be no marines, but he has used his conscripts effectively in the past.

Someone has too.

[homerj 0]

LOL, read my other replies, too tired to repeat why we went to war.

Seem to be forgetting that S korea has an army, damn good one too. And I wouldnt fear the commies too much, they are starving for Gods sake, what makes you think they can invade? He can even feed his own people so how can they feed an oudated pos army?

I take it you wanna join the military? Lol have you looked at kerry's voting record? Hes bad news for the military, at least with Bush you guys get your toys, if it was up to kerry there would be no interceptor body armour, M1s, f-18s, stealth bombers or any of that. So be carfeull what you wish for.

[reconmercs 0]

Dully noted.

Yes they did, what do you think he was trying to do to the kurds? He was trying to wipe them out.

True they did, but its wouldnt be too wise to go in their and get nukes now would it? We can deal with them through other means.

He did have a military.Check out these articles about iraqi military operations in the area.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/032103_nw_northern_iraq.html

http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/991122/1999112232.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.war.main/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/army.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0124_030124_reza.html

All these articles illustrate the prescense of the iraqi miitary in the N.

Ansar al islam:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ansar.htm

http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml

LOL, what im saying is that when he barely got power and needed lots of troops to fight iran he used them. Thus they are citezens if they fought in saddam's army.

No he had to let them cause if he tried to take that land back he would get his ass kicked by f-16s(no-fly zone). Its a rugged area too so he would need helos, but they would be shot down(no-fly zone) even without them he couldnt do anything(again no-fly zone=protect kurds). If he had such a piss poor army why did revolts in the N and S fail so miserably? Clearly his army was capable enough of putting them down.

They may be no marines, but he has used his conscripts effectively in the past.

Someone has too.

You can post as many pictures and bs figures you want..the FACTS are Iraq was not a threat to our national security nor was it going to be in the future...Iran maybe, Korea yes, China yes, Iraq..umm NO

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]First off I'm not anti-war...there is a huge difference between fighting for something and fighting for NOTHING which is what happens now...life is way too valuable...you think about that tommorow when the news starts reporting on the death of more brave serviceman and women(I hope and pray there will not be) It's sooo much easier for people who have no clue! don't know anything about nor even know a service member to be like "yeah let's invade" do you know what's it like being glued to the news hoping to find out something about your friends and family who are off fighting a REAL war not OFP or full spectrum warrior or whatever..if you don't I hope you never do cause it SUX ALOT...before you go off calling people "anti-war" commies and what not...volunteer yourself to take one of my comrades place over there in that shit hole then we can talk....

Actually, I do worry if one of good high school buddies name is going to pop up on t.v. saying he died (he is in the marines). But, I know he is going to make it.

I will be enlisting after getting my BA from the University of Maryland (which is in two years or so).

Edit: that commie-thing was sarcasm.

[homerj 0]

Theres a difference, soudis use it for punishment, saddam uses it to terrorize. Both suck but arent the same.

Face it, the mid east is where all these bastards are comming from, they may spread themselves out but the hornets nest is in the mid east, so thats where we need to be.

Sure, look at what it did to khadafii, he gave up his wmds, see its working already and we havent even handed over power to the iraqis.

Look at my post with all the links. Those guys were al queda sponsored, they trained and fought with them.

No its not, they got allot of stuff, but our stuff is better, look at korea. Smaller better equiped and trained US forces held off and defeated larger chinese ones. And with our technology they couldnt win. If they put all their stuff on the field, and we did the same, there is no way they could win. Toe to toe they dont stand a chance in hell. But whatever its not going to happen soon, they arent going to attack their biggest customer.

See my other post on this.

They dont have to be inorder to be a threat to us.

See thread with links.

The threat was that they had wmds and were actively trying to acquire more of them(why else would they kick inspectors out), in a post 9/11 world we couldnt let that stuff get to terrorists hands. Iraq supported terrorists, iraq hates the US, sounds like an equation for a wmd attack on the US to me.

Ok but if we go to the guy with the nukes hes gonna use them, we can deal with the dprk, they have a self imposed iron curtain plus we have an embargo placed and troops on the peninsula, they no better than to mess with us.

But iraq didnt, saddam used them before, so what makes you think he wouldnt use them again? You feel safer letting a guy you have outgunned who is a little more reasonable gett a gun? Or letting a psycho who has killed before get the gun?

Remember the IAF strike on the iraqi nuclear fascility? That was after 1991.

Got proof?

LOL, get over it already if you dont like him dont vote for him.

Got proof of the "corruption"? Halliburton is the best company for the job. You know of any other that is willing or capable of doing the job they do? Plus they have been working with the gov for years. Why give contracts to less qualified companies that we havent worked with?

Are you serious? You really believe we are going to anex them? If so why the hell would we set a date for the transfer of power and why is more than half of the iraqi gov contoled by iraqis already? Dont seem to me like were going to stick around does it?

We gave them a chance to help out, and still are, so they choose to alienate themselves by choosing to not do their jobs.

Sure freeing millions and taking out a dictator is illegal and unjust. Then so was fighting hitler, but why arent you bitching about that?

You all know what opression is too. Why dont you try to put an end to that? Of all people you guys should be the ones trying to liberate the opressed, you know what its like, yet you choose to do nothing?

We could have stayed out of europe and just go after japan, hell we could have even sided with germany. Truth is neither were an immenent threat to us and if they were we could have easily let you guys fight them and just fight them here instead of sending millions of soldiers over there.

Lat I recalled it was the uns job to enforce resoulutions and defeat despots and tyrants. What happened?

What country you live in?

You call it fighting fascism, I call it fascilitating genocide and dictatorships.

[billybob2002 0]

Homerj,

save your energy for the long road ahead...

[homerj 0]

What it only has to be a threat to us? What about our allies and interests?

We cant sit back and let that crap happen, we have a responsibility to do something, and we did. So sue us.

Thanks for the tip bob. WTF did everyone else go? Could have sworn there were some other reps over here.

[reconmercs 0]

Remember the IAF strike on the iraqi nuclear fascility? That was after 1991.

amatuers know jack sh#t pick up a book before you put out something for the world to read..that attack was in 1981

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Osirak.html

and that even affirms more that they aren't a threat..Israel would've whooped their ass again if Iraq had become even remotely a credible threat

[Frisbee 0]

Theres a difference, soudis use it for punishment, saddam uses it to terrorize. Both suck but arent the same.

If you hadn't noticed (sure you did, since you know all the big media slogans by heart) Iraq is a complex region, filled with different ethnical groups.

They are not able to make peace with eachother, not now, and not under Saddam.

What did Saddam do? He kept the country together by brutal force. To keep it together, not because he got a kick out of it, at least not mainly (his offspring or his croonies are a different matter).

You cannot justify the saudi's while condemning Saddam.

Hypocrisy.

Example :

Quote[/b] ]Face it, the mid east is where all these bastards are comming from, they may spread themselves out but the hornets nest is in the mid east, so thats where we need to be.

You make the Middle East out to be a breeding ground for vermin.

Arrogance like that has caused you one tragedy, but seemingly some people refuse to learn.

Oh and please for the love of everything that is pure and good in the world stop using the WW2 argument.

Quote[/b] ] Truth is neither were an immenent threat to us and if they were we could have easily let you guys fight them and just fight them here instead of sending millions of soldiers over there.

Yes and have your trade partners dead, your country in ruins (instead of just ours) and be all alone in your fight.

Europe has no so called 'debt' to repay, if you go by that logic the US repayed it's debt to France by going to help in WW2.

I'll be off now, I have a sociology exam coming up, I'll come watch your prejudiced, semi-xenophobic ass being handed back to you, kicked by people much more eloquent, informed and patient than myself, but first I have to go take that exam.

*departs*