denoir 0 Posted July 9, 2004 We rebuilt cities, construct hospitals, and re-established educational benifits. No yo did not. Out of 2,400 planned rebuilding projects, the work has only begun on 140 of them. Quote[/b] ]Iraq is now their own state, we have not failed. Yeah, whose leaders have to be protected by US air power and armor to prevent them from getting assassinated by their own people. They are not in control of the country and are still under occupation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Really? And what has europe done to help iraq? We refrained for ex. of bombarding their city's and economical infrastructure. We didn't engage in a war that most likely will descent Iraq in a very booldy civil war where Saddams reign was a joke compared to. We didn't issue 10 years of Economical sanctions VS Iraq that tottaly impovered their poppulation. We didn't destabilize a whole Region where Turkey is scared of the newfound Kurdish power in North Iraq (toghether with Iran and Syria) ,where Iran is concerned about the Shia poppulation of Iraq ,Where terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia and Iraq are growing ,... Foremost ,Europe has send an amount of $$$ for the rebuilding of Iraq far greater than the US is paying ,and this while many of  those Paying European country's were even against the war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted July 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]The rebels can not defeat us Tell that to Fallujah. A clear military victory indeed can not be achieved by the Iraqi fighters but they don`t need to.It`s matter of who can last longer and the support the American population will have torwards this grueling war. I have tried to address this falw in logic here before, what does one consider a failure of the Coalition in Iraq? Go back a few pages and you can answer the quiz. (not you quicksanD) Falure? Our coalition has not failed. We rebuilt cities, construct hospitals, and re-established educational benifits. Iraq is now their own state, we have not failed. #1: Answer the question. RE-built is not even success, had that been achieved. RE-establishing order is not even success, had that been acheived. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HOBOMAN 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Really? And what has europe done to help iraq? Were you expecting Europe to counter attack the US to protect Iraq? Â Or am I misreading your question. No I expect europe to help fund the operations and not insult the USA. It's funny how one's motives of not going into iraq might not be ... different http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HOBOMAN 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]Really? And what has europe done to help iraq? Foremost ,Europe has send an amount of $$$ for the rebuilding of Iraq far greater than the US is paying ,and this while many of  those Paying European country's were even against the war. But the US has their military there Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted July 9, 2004 No I expect europe to help fund the operations and not insult the USA. Why on earth when you invaded after we strongly advised you not to do it? It's your mess. You broke it, you pay. Quote[/b] ]It's funny how one's motives of not going into iraq might not be ... differenthttp://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm Hmm.. Let's see.. you're saying that killing a bunch of people out of self-interest is on the same moral level as not killing a bunch of people out of self interest? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]It's funny how one's motives of not going into iraq might not be ... different Dumb argument ,almost every country in the world has trade relations with the rest of the world ,it would surprize me if all those country's hadn't had trade relations with Iraq. And the argument is not who's "to chicken" to go to war ,the argument was that the action of war was a dumb thing that only could reach an even worse situation in Iraq. (as proven now) Europe didn't want to keep Saddam into power ,however they didn't want to go in a war neither that would replace Saddam with an equal bad or worse situation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted July 9, 2004 Really? And what has europe done to help iraq? Were you expecting Europe to counter attack the US to protect Iraq? Or am I misreading your question. No I expect europe to help fund the operations and not insult the USA. It's funny how one's motives of not going into iraq might not be ... different http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm Help fund the operations? I don't see that as helping Iraq, I see that as helping a US puppet state at best. And it sets an example for attacking and overthrowing foreign governments to install your "liked" version of them. After all, first you destroy, then EU pays to rebuild your "friendly state". Come on, are you really that full of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HOBOMAN 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]The rebels can not defeat us Tell that to Fallujah. A clear military victory indeed can not be achieved by the Iraqi fighters but they don`t need to.It`s matter of who can last longer and the support the American population will have torwards this grueling war. I have tried to address this falw in logic here before, what does one consider a failure of the Coalition in Iraq? Â Go back a few pages and you can answer the quiz. Â (not you quicksanD) Falure? Our coalition has not failed. We rebuilt cities, construct hospitals, and re-established educational benifits. Iraq is now their own state, we have not failed. #1: Answer the question. RE-built is not even success, had that been achieved. Â RE-establishing order is not even success, had that been acheived. It depends how you define sucess, since the US acomplished every task they set out to tackle. Saddam - captured Government- rebuilt People - Free The only thing left is the problem with insurgents. BTW I cant find your "Quiz" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted July 9, 2004 DEFINE FAILURE That is my question, what is failure, not what is success. Specifically, what would you consider a failure of the operations in Iraq. It depends how you define sucess, since the US acomplished every task they set out to tackle.Saddam - captured Government- rebuilt People - Free The only thing left is the problem with insurgents. BTW I cant find your "Quiz" Not that we can't debate your list up there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]No they where a complete mess along with somilia The only mess that happened in Somalia were US forces running wild. That made other soldiers life in Somalia a lot harder and I thank you very much for that. Do you actually know what you are talking about or are you still at the age someone who can stick his toe into his ear ? You don´t tell me shit about Africa, Congo , Ruanda or Somalia. I´ve been there with the blue helmets. My work makes sense and I goddamn risk a lot for some people who would die otherwise, so you certainly don´t tell me that the UN made a complete mess there. I´ve been to Moog and all that. So you better come up with something relevant before you get clown of the town  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HOBOMAN 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Really? And what has europe done to help iraq? Were you expecting Europe to counter attack the US to protect Iraq? Â Or am I misreading your question. No I expect europe to help fund the operations and not insult the USA. It's funny how one's motives of not going into iraq might not be ... different http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm Help fund the operations? Â I don't see that as helping Iraq, I see that as helping a US puppet state at best. Â And it sets an example for attacking and overthrowing foreign governments to install your "liked" version of them. Â After all, first you destroy, then EU pays to rebuild your "friendly state". Come on, are you really that full of it. Â So what, is france going to keep on selling weapons to iraq to? If europe wants to help, they should have sent troops of their own, and not sent money to iraq. Now they weapons they gave to iraq, are now being used agiast us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ran 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Really? And what has europe done to help iraq? Were you expecting Europe to counter attack the US to protect Iraq? Or am I misreading your question. No I expect europe to help fund the operations and not insult the USA. It's funny how one's motives of not going into iraq might not be ... different http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm Help fund the operations? I don't see that as helping Iraq, I see that as helping a US puppet state at best. And it sets an example for attacking and overthrowing foreign governments to install your "liked" version of them. After all, first you destroy, then EU pays to rebuild your "friendly state". Come on, are you really that full of it. So what, is france going to keep on selling weapons to iraq to? If europe wants to help, they should have sent troops of their own, and not sent money to iraq. Now they weapons they gave to iraq, are now being used agiast us. ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HOBOMAN 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]No they where a complete mess along with somilia The only mess that happened in Somalia were US forces running wild. That made other soldiers life in Soamlia a lot harder and I thank you very much for it. Do you actually know what you are talking about or are you still at the age someone who can stick his toe into his ear ? I´ve been to Moog and all that. So you better come up with something relevenat before you get clown of the town  Well when the UN dropped food in, ok that was fine it worked. But then, when they tried to restructure the government every thing went haywire. That's why the US troops where sent in. Edit: Yes I do know what I am talking about Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted July 9, 2004 People have explained to you already what _helping_ Iraq or Iraqi people would constitute, and beleive it or not Iraq being able to defend itself in that region is helping Iraqi people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]But the US has their military there Funds will rebuild those Iraqi infrastructure ,US millitary demolishes it. And btw. From the 20Billion $ in funds prommised to Iraq from US only .billion got trough and has been spread for 100% among American contracters in Iraq. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HOBOMAN 0 Posted July 9, 2004 People have explained to you already what _helping_ Iraq or Iraqi people would constitute, and beleive it or not Iraq being able to defend itself in that region is helping Iraqi people. How can a country that was oppressed by a tyrant for 30 years help themseves? They are weak, the coalition needs to assist them or someone like saddam will take power. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted July 9, 2004 ? I think we are missing a lot of history that went into Iraqs last two decades. The great friendship of the US with Saddam is exactly what lead Iraq to a fragile state, upon which Iraq was now attacked and put into disorder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]That's why the US troops where sent in. Yes and what happened during the US troops where there. The things went boom and I do partly blame the US military in Somalia for that. They didn´t synchronize their actions with UN HQ. They went Rambo and that´s what made Moog explode. By this violent uproar the warlords , especially Aidid got more and more recruits. That´s what has happened. And still, you know shit ! Edit: Maybe you change your name to "Loboman, the kid who accidentially got lobotomized " Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apollo 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]How can a country that was oppressed by a tyrant for 30 years help themseves? They are weak, the coalition needs to assist them or someone like saddam will take power. To be fair ,the Iraqi civilians were only weakened by the first Gulf war and the Trade embargo. Prior to 1991 Iraq was the most modern country in the Middle east ,it's people enjoyed economical prosperity and (for the middle east) a fair amount of liberty's. it's only later when the country was put to the ground by US sanctions that Saddam behan a really opressive reign. AND THE WORLD IS FULL OF DICTATORS ,what will you do to stop them?? Absolutly nothing! Million's of people have died the last years by Ethnic cleansing ,oppresive reign's etc in the Congo ,multiple country's are involved in a conflict that is as messy and bloody that it possibly could have gotton. Not a reason for the U.S (the "willing" fighter of freedom and demcracy) to intervene?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quicksand 0 Posted July 9, 2004 Quote[/b] ]No they where a complete mess along with somilia Quote[/b] ]And what has europe done to help iraq? Quote[/b] ]No I expect europe to help fund the operations and not insult the USA. HOBOMAN you are an insult to this forum standards and I hope in the future you will refrain yourself from spamming this thread with utterly garbage. @Balschoiw Quote[/b] ] you actually know what you are talking about or are you still at the age someone who can stick his toe into his ear ? His profile says his 14,I am willing to disregard that because when I was that age I liked to read alot,had an unprecedented thirst for knowledge and I was always willing to listen to every sides opinion and then after form my own. But this guy just likes to make moronic comments for the sake of being a forum troll. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted July 9, 2004 It depends how you define sucess, since the US acomplished every task they set out to tackle.Saddam - captured Government- rebuilt People - Free The primary goal according to Bush was to "disarm Iraq" from its huge piles of WMD. As for your list: "Government - rebuilt" - false. A very weak undemocratic puppet government has been installed that does not control the country. It holds its meetings in a US military base ("green zone" in Baghdad) and doesn't move without US military protection. "People - Free" - false. Military law is not in place in Iraq. There are more prisoners in jail than under Saddam's rule. The security situation has gone completely out of hand. Normal Iraqis risk every day being blown up by terrorists or being gunned down by trigger-happy US troops. According to surveys, more than half of the population think that their lives are the same or worse than under Saddam. As a token of how much they love you, you can check the surveys. Something like 70% of the population supports the attacks on US troops. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted July 9, 2004 so it´s "toe and ear" I got it. Still annoying, it´s like talking to ELSA or what was the name of the automated psychatrist ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted July 9, 2004 People, people, let the kid post - play nice. He might learn something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Balschoiw 0 Posted July 9, 2004 I just don´t have any patience with someone who tells me how I have done my job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
