The Iraq thread 3

[Tex -USMC- 0]

They dont have to see eye to eye to cooperate.

Ever heard of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" ??

Sounds like the CIA's rationale for indirectly funding Osama Bin Laden during the Afghan War. Oh, and if that maxim holds true, then Al Qaeda is our friend too- they were engaged in active violence against Saddam Hussein until the early 1990s.

[homerj 0]

He could have destroyed them if he wanted too. He could fight the kurds on the ground all he wanted, and he did.

Remember its called a no-fly zone. It applies to planes so they wont drop wmd on the kurds. So unless his soldiers have wings it dosent apply to them.

[denoir 0]

20 yr old shells can still kill us all the same as new ones.

No, actually they have a limited shelf life.

Quote[/b] ]WTF? Our intel agencies arent perfect they make mistake, especially when they fall into disrepair under clinton. Thanks to that asshat we had no guys on the ground, all our intel was recieved through defectors and the iraqi ntl congress, which hyped intel, not us.

The UN had intel, but you didn't listen.

Quote[/b] ]WTF are you bitching about, regime change was the policy of the US for years, by who? Clinton, so it was going to happen sooner or later, Bush just has the balls to go after them before its too late.

So what? Are you saying that because Clinton had a policy, it had to be the right one?

Quote[/b] ]Until we have proof that they were or werent there theres still the possibility that they are out there. Do you have pysical proof that they never existed?

Of course they existed once upon a time. Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in their war. The point is however that they didn't have active weapons programmes and they did not plan to fire any such weapons. The ultimate proof lies in that not even when Saddam lost everything did he use any of those alledged weapons.

Quote[/b] ]WTF are you smoking, your ignoring all the facts presented. And sorry if its so fucking wrong to free 25 million people. You asshole, wouldnt you like someone to do the same for you?

Liberate? Wake up dude. They don't want you there. You went in, killed thousands of civilians and where are we now? Is the world safer? Are the Iraqis more secure?

Quote[/b] ]WMDs or not there are plenty of other reasons for going in. Sandwich iran, intimidate our enemies(look at lybia). Once we get democracy going its gonna spread like crazy.

Yeah and that little project is going very well.

[homerj 0]

Ever hear of checks and balances? Example, in the iraqi constituition there is a clause sperating mosque and state, even sistani supports it. So it is possible. Just take turkey for an example. So dont tell me it cant be done.

offcourse they wont become western overnight, its a gradual process that requires supervision. They are new at this and it will take time, but it can be done. Once capitalism and democracy are introduced they wont go back. Look at iran, the most islamic country out there, and most people want democracy. So if it can and will happen there it can and will elsewhere.

LOL, your very closminded, it dosent work like that. And I was unaware of al queda violence against iraq.

[denoir 0]

Ever hear of checks and balances? Example, in the iraqi constituition there is a clause sperating mosque and state, even sistani supports it.

Wrong on two accounts. First of all there is no Iraqi constitution. Second, polls have shown that a clear majority favours sharia law and no separation of mosque and state.

The biggest supporters of a secular system are the ones you overthrew. Yepp, the Baathists.

Quote[/b] ]Look at iran, the most islamic country out there, and most people want democracy.

Yeah why don't we take a look at Iran. They had a captialist pro-western regime that was overthrown by a fundamentalist popular movement. Great example.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Ever hear of checks and balances? Example, in the iraqi constituition there is a clause sperating mosque and state, even sistani supports it. So it is possible. Just take turkey for an example. So dont tell me it cant be done.

Are we talking about democracy or seculaltiy, those are 2 concepts that have nothing to do with each other.

Quote[/b] ]Look at iran, the most islamic country out there, and most people want democracy.

Look at Saudi-Arabia, more islamic country than Iran, and I think most people wants democracy there also, so why dont you invade there? Democratics can not be forced upon, its like fucking for getting back your virginity (sorry for my vulgar impression).

[python3 0]

Ever hear of checks and balances? Example, in the iraqi constituition there is a clause sperating mosque and state, even sistani supports it. So it is possible. Just take turkey for an example. So dont tell me it cant be done.

offcourse they wont become western overnight, its a gradual process that requires supervision. They are new at this and it will take time, but it can be done. Once capitalism and democracy are introduced they wont go back. Look at iran, the most islamic country out there, and most people want democracy. So if it can and will happen there it can and will elsewhere.

you are not listening. In both examples it was forced upon the people. Turkey may be a democracy, but many turks are not happy with the whole separation of mosque and state their. People are turning to religion more and more in the region. The only people who will be empowered by democracy are going to be the islamists because they are anti US and anti western and that is what the people in the region are feeling now. They wont want a separation of mosque and state. Even in the iraqi constitution, no law can contradict the religion. So much for checks and balances. Even in the case of iran, they would unite to fight the US if it was trying to liberate them. They want homegrown democracy, which will not be the same as the wests democracy.

FYI Iran is not islamic. Its more dictatorial than anything.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Look at Saudi-Arabia, more islamic country than Iran, and I think most people wants democracy there also, so why dont you invade there? Democratics can not be forced upon, its like fucking for getting back your virginity (sorry for my vulgar impression).

What about Japan?

Quote[/b] ]

FYI Iran is not islamic. Its more dictatorial than anything.

But, islamic clerics do have a lot of power (i.e. selecting who can run for office or not).

[Tex -USMC- 0]

I bet you wish I was 12, chester.

Look at the jokers on it. The dem asshats left the meeting with pres Bush cause they had something more important to do, like meet the pres of canada, lol.

So yeah it is a joke, its too politisized, their goal isnt the truth, its to hurt Bush.

Thomas H. Kean- Chairman. Republican.

Lee H. Hamilton- Co-Chair. Democrat.

Richard Ben-Veniste- Democrat.

Fred F. Fielding- Republican

Jamie S. Gorelick- Democrat.

Bob Kerrey- Democrat.

John F. Lehman- Republican.

Timothy J. Roemer- Democrat.

James R. Thompson- Republican.

Scorecard is 5 to 4 for the Dems, with a Republican Chairman. Not exactly the best way to do a hatchet job on the president... especially when the president creates the commission.

[homerj 0]

What are we talking about sarin or mustard gas? But sure sarin does, but the terroists are pretty good at turning old hardware into deadly weapons so I wouldnt underestimate them.

Thats right they had the same intel as us.

No im saying that as a policy of the US it was going to happen, so you cant say its all Bush's fault or anything since it was policy long before he was elected.

Again is there any proof of that? If he didnt have any like you claim and if all he had were pos' why didnt he let us inspect him?

Thats an exageration most are glad saddam is gone, only a handfull are attacking us, despite what the liberal media tells you. Yeah the world is more safer, no more saddam. Think about this, saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, are we? NO, so they are safer.

Yeah it is, lybia gave up its wmds without a fight.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Look at Saudi-Arabia, more islamic country than Iran, and I think most people wants democracy there also, so why dont you invade there? Democratics can not be forced upon, its like fucking for getting back your virginity (sorry for my vulgar impression).

What about Japan?

Japan made its transition to the western system thanks to America - not in 1945 but in 1854 when the US Navy under Commodore Matthew Perry forced the opening of Japan to the West. He parked a couple of ships and threatened with bombardment unless they open up.

After that Japan reformed very quickly internally into a modern western-style nation state.

The transition to democracy after WW2 was no big deal.

In Iraq on the other hand you have a historically nomadic society that has been held together by a bunch of brutal strongmen. It's a completely different ballgame.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Japan made its transition to the western system thanks to America - not in 1945 but in 1854 when the US Navy under Commodore Matthew Perry forced the opening of Japan to the West. He parked a couple of ships and threatened with bombardment unless they open up.

After that Japan reformed very quickly internally into a modern western-style nation state.

The transition to democracy after WW2 was no big deal.

In Iraq on the other hand you have a historically nomadic society that has been held together by a bunch of brutal strongmen. It's a completely different ballgame.  

Back to top

I'm just saying that democracy can be forced if situation is right....

[homerj 0]

It dosent matter if there are reps, the media only listens to the dems anyway.

Im talking about the interim constituition that probably will be made into the real one.

Yeah I bet they do but its not going to happen, cause if they did accept sharia law civil war would break out. Remember there are more groups than just the shia. The only way to prevent this is a democracy where everyone is represented equally.

That was a while back, im talking about now, and how they long for democracy.

Soudi arabia isnt the prob. They are pro western and a monarchy, we got no beef with them, if they really wanted democracy they would get it or we would hear of democratic revolutions, but were not. So no, I dont see the masses of soudi arabia protesting for democracy.

They probaly do want it, but its not going to happen, if it did what do you thinks going to happen to the kurds or shiites?

Iran is a theocratic dictatorship.

[python3 0]

I'm just saying that democracy can be forced....

the people of japan wanted it for their own sake. I dont recall learning that perry bombarded them........., but they wanted to compete and become imperialistic, and so they chose capitalism and some limited democracy.

In iraq, we might see that it cannot be forced and it could crumble very easily. Imagine if the US pulls out, it will fall quickly. Then the US will have to go back with soldiers to prop up a govt that wont be wanted because it is so weak and lacks so much legitimacy. We will have to wait and see.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]No, actually they have a limited shelf life.

What about the sarin shell? Remember it did not mix.....

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Let me guess, homer... NewsMax? Just answer me this...

Quote[/b] ]NewsMax Top 10

Hottest Sellers

June 8, 2004

1 USS Reagan Hat

2 Reagan's Greatest Laughs

3 Deck of Reagan

4 Presidential Coffee Mugs

5 Hillary's Secret War

6 Deliver Us From Evil  

7 I Like Bush T-Shirt

8 Rewriting History

9 Camouflage Hat

10 Deck of Hillary  

You bought the camouflage hat, right?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]the people of japan wanted it for their own sake. I dont recall learning that perry bombarded them........., but they wanted to compete and become imperialistic, and so they chose capitalism and some limited democracy.

Not all japanese wanted their country to become a "democracy".

[homerj 0]

WTF is news max?

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, I think I will buy that camo hat. LOL

Yeah the only way we got the japanese to become democratic was if wed let them keep their emperor. If we didnt we would have to fight them some more.

[denoir 0]

What are we talking about sarin or mustard gas? But sure sarin does, but the terroists are pretty good at turning old hardware into deadly weapons so I wouldnt underestimate them.

The resistance fighters that rigged the IED were apparently not aware of what kind of shell they had there. It was unmarked and they rigged it like a regular HE artillery shell, rendering it practically useless.

Quote[/b] ]No im saying that as a policy of the US it was going to happen, so you cant say its all Bush's fault or anything since it was policy long before he was elected.

It was policy to talk about a regime change. Bush was just dumb enough to do it.

Quote[/b] ]Again is there any proof of that? If he didnt have any like you claim and if all he had were pos' why didnt he let us inspect him?

He did. The majority of the Security Council was satisfied with how the inspections were going and so was Blix on the ground with his team.

Quote[/b] ]Thats an exageration most are glad saddam is gone, only a handfull are attacking us, despite what the liberal media tells you. Yeah the world is more safer, no more saddam. Think about this, saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, are we? NO, so they are safer.

Most are glad that Saddam is gone. Over 50% think you should get the hell out of their country. Over 50% think killing US soldiers is quite acceptable. About 50% think that things have gotten worse since Saddam was overthrown (quite a feat, eh?) etc etc You can find the survey results posted earlier in this thread.

And yeah, the Baathists killed hundreds of thosuands of Iraqis. Over a period of 30 years. Which means that you keep just about the same track record for the time you've been in Iraq.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. G'dnight folks.

[farmcoot 0]

What are you? Twelve? Because thats what I gather from your responses.

Actually I'm 11.

[homerj 0]

How do we know if they knew what it was? Remember they aren exactly weapons experts and probably didnt know shit about how to use it effectively.

No, the policy was for regime change, not for just talking about it.

Im sure they were very satisfied with the results and their nice oil for food contracts. But still he turned away and banished inspectors too many times for him to be innocent.

True but most think we should still stay, cause they know whats going to happen if we leave. These things take time, its not an overnight thing. Hell even you europeans were all saying yankee go home just a few years after we started rebuilding europe, so its nothing new. Once we transfer power things willl settle.

We wont be in iraq for 30 yrs, and ask yourself whos doing the killing? Plus we kill insurgents, not innocent civilians, sure some may be killed, but there will always be colateral damage in any urban fight, and we do our best to avoid that. Most innocent iraqis are killed by the terrorists or insurgents, not us, so you cant compare us to saddam.

[turms 0]

Quote[/b] ]Soudi arabia isnt the prob. They are pro western and a monarchy, we got no beef with them, if they really wanted democracy they would get it or we would hear of democratic revolutions, but were not. So no, I dont see the masses of soudi arabia protesting for democracy.

Saudi-Arabia is not problem of USA, but the fact that it is one of the most undemocratic countries in the region should awaken some will to spread the democracy, right? How does Saddams Iraq differ from the present Saudi-Arabia? What is the biggest difference between dictatorship and a monarchy in particilar countries?

[homerj 0]

Soudi Arabia isnt attacking its neighbors or killing hundreds of thousands of its citezens is it?

They may not be the most democratic nation out there, but they arent a threat to anybody or half as bad as saddam.

We have to pick our battles too, we need their support, and they need ours.

[turms 0]

Soudi Arabia isnt attacking its neighbors or killing hundreds of thousands of its citezens is it?

They may not be the most democratic nation out there, but they arent a threat to anybody or half as bad as saddam.

We have to pick our battles too, we need their support, and they need ours.

The law of sharia is in use at Saudi-Arabia, it includes executions, chopping of arms and some more nasty stuff. You are not able to critizize the royal family, if you do that, youll get punished. As for the post war in Kuwait Iraq, where was the danger, the threat, and against whom?

Go pick your battles somebody your own size, China, Russia or something, do not bring the new world order by arms to a allready poor country with a poor army unless you have the valid reasons for it, which you dont have when talking about Iraq.

[homerj 0]

Remember thats their culture and custom over there, very effective in keeping crime down too.

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?

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.

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? The days of status quo and indecision are over, if we even think you are a threat you probably wont be for long. Why the hell not liberate hundreds of thousands of people too, and bring them freedoms, and a life they were deinied for so long?

You say we should mind our own business, you wouldnt if you were the ones being opressed.