It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This may change your mind about the Iraq war

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Army
HIFIGUY, great post!

It is funny, that when the right thinking people post something that may or may not be 100% accurate, the lefties are ALLLLLLLL over it, with venom.



I know! Geez! WMD's, ties to al queda, I mean, it may not be 100% accurate, but those lefties are so picky!




posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I love how the right/Bush side of the world now thinks that it is un-American to disagree with the war in Iraq.

At least the recent polls are showing a change in the overall attitude of America. I believe we support the troops at all cost (well except for the idiots that torture prisoners, but they are criminals) and if you feel it wrong you should shout out against the war at every chance.

Oh and today we get our new phrase. Gone is the WAR ON TERROR now we call it "the global struggle against violent extremism"

Yes a new name always seems to make it a bit more sexy...
New name for war on terror



posted on Jul, 27 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.


so you are saying that he shouldn't of gone to war because the serbs were massacaring the albanians but it is ok to go to war with Iraq even though he was doing the exact same thing with the kurds?? make your mind up either it is ok or not, the only difference I can see is that the president was a democrat for the kosovo war and republican for Iraq ??


He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.


most of those attacks were while bush was president not clinton!


g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush
has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who
slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.


barely...he's killed 20000 innocent people with indiscrimate bombing of civilian areas not to mention the 500,000 children who died as a direct result of flawed sanctions. The taliban still rome relatively freely in afganistan and there are signs of impending civil war there. Err dont remember any nuclear inspector in Iran and North Korea ?? please enlighten me.

who's the biggest terrorist saddam or the american governemt?




""most of those attacks were while bush was president not clinton!""


""

1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly two years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men connected with al-Qaeda two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

""
www.infoplease.com...

President Clinton in office from Jan. 20 1993 until Jan. 20 2001.

"""500,000 children who died as a direct result of flawed sanctions."""

I bet they were shiate and kurdish children rather than Sunni children. Saddam used the sanctions for his benefit to control the population, he controlled the food and medical supplies that did come into the country from the U.N. Oil for food program. I believe Clinton was in office for 10 out of the 12 or so odd years of the Iraq sanctions, so don't try and put the blame on Bush.


""so you are saying that he shouldn't of gone to war because the serbs were massacaring the albanians but it is ok to go to war with Iraq even though he was doing the exact same thing with the kurds?? make your mind up either it is ok or not, the only difference I can see is that the president was a democrat for the kosovo war and republican for Iraq ??""

You should reread his post, he was making a comparision to American foreign policy in the last century, how nations that did not attack the United States directly got involved in a war with the U.S. He was not directing an opinion was stating some known facts. Also the U.S. went to war to stop ethnic cleansing, that seems like a good morally thing to do, I think every ethnically moral person would agree with the war that brought an end to mass murder in both these cases, Serbs killing muslims, Saddam killing basically anyone who is not a Sunni Muslim and getting in his way.

"" the taliban still rome relatively freely in afganistan and there are signs of impending civil war there. ""

The Neo Nazi's still roam freely in Germany.
Please state the 'signs of impending civil war' in Afghanistan.

""Err dont remember any nuclear inspector in Iran and North Korea ??""

Nuclear inspectors visit North Korea - Tuesday, 15 January, 2002, 05:42 GMT
news.bbc.co.uk...

Nuclear inspectors return to Iran
news.bbc.co.uk...

""please enlighten me.""

Please enlighten yourself first before posting.

Zife



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
If you wanna change my mind you can start by...

1- Proving that the Goverment wasn't responsible for 9/11

2- Prove that the Government doesn't hold friendly ties to Bin Laden.

3- If Sadam and the Talibans are/were so "evil" why were they american creations.

4- Why should I trust a member of a secret society called Skull and Bones



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:01 AM
link   
For every job that can be done, there are 10 people telling you it cant.
I know, I can be one of them.

Ask yourself some of the following questions:

Do you think Americans soldiers get up everyday and think about how to kill Iraqis women and children or anyone else for that matter? They are doing what is planned for a means to an end. That end is democracy and peace.

Our soldiers in Iraq get up every day, with an uncertainty that they may not come back alive, despite wanting to fight for a cause. Same with the Iraqi people who are being bullied by insurgents.

And about the Military and he moral. Now, more then ever, it has been redefined. Joining the Army, or any branch of the service, by some isnt the same now as it was 30 years ago. You join now, and combat could be and is a reality. Kind of puts a different spin on things. Im not saying that there are those that wouldnt serve, but the face of fighting for cause has been shown and recruiting is way down. And there are Americans who step up to the plate everyday by the thousands. Pat Tillman was one of those.
May God rest his soul. For that man, fought for a cause, and not for money.
He is an American. Recruiting is down because of fear. Men who still join because of the casue of freedom, and have; I salute you....

Ask yourself, what Iraq would be like if Sadaam was still there. I was anti Iraq invasion early off. It is better without him. Not even up for question. Yes. Iraq is having internal strife, for she has not seen freedom under democracy in these generations. Give her a chance. Rome was not built in a day.

Iraq was not a country that was able to liberate herself of a dictator on her own. We did what we could to assist the situation and it didint happen.
Of course there is going to be internal damage to the country in way. The electricity and water, sewers, schools, hospitals, and roads. It can all be built.

I weary of the " were messing things up over there " mentality. I started positive threads in an effort to change peoples hearts. So we, and those that are in positions of power and influence may be able to contribute in some way constructive if merely not in atmosphere alone. Rather then telling our Government they are a piece of refuse for making a questionable decision why not let them know that we as Americans want them to make sure Iraq gets what they want with as little strife as possible. We tore up the country getting Sadaam out, we have to put it back together. Not bad. America rebuilds, what we tear down. That is our spirit coming through.

We cannot turn back the clock. So why rehash spilled milk? Iraq is what Iraq is. We have men and women over their who are in harms way of a difficult path as are the civiliand of Iraq. And we, as Americans can contribute with our manpower, money, and might is we put our hearts to it.

So lets not spiral into a negative thinking whirlpool. Ever been there?

Havent you ever been in an environment, like work, where one of the staff tell you things are bad and they really arent? But the fact they keep telling everyone that causes a deterioration of an otherwise good environment? Happens all the time.

So you say Iraq has a problem with water? Who here in this forum is a hydro engineer? Who here is an electrical engineer? Who here has the capability to make a change financially and or directly through business or otherwise? Who here is a retired teacher? Doctor. I know there are lots of those. How about young software people.

Our blubbering about all thats bad isnt helping anyone. Its about what can be done. Didnt Kennedy say something that effect? How can I help my country in its cause for freedom?

On a final couple of notes, even though we never found chemical weapons stockpiles, it doenst mean they werent used. We know they were. Even if we gave them to them during the Iran Iraq war. You can be sure that all the underground bunkers and such wasnt because they just wanted to have big parties underground.

Al Qaeda. There wasnt a link. But if you dont think for one instant that Al Qaeda didnt have operations in there, Im pretty sure wed be sorely mistaken. Doesnt mean that Sadaam had anything to do with them, it merely means one less place to hide.

And for the Nuclear and what have you. It doesnt, and it didnt hurt to check. Do you think for one second that people who fly jets full of people into high rises would blink at getting their hands on a nuclear weapon?
That would be like Christmas with frosting for terrorists. And if there was one country where it could have been a possible, Id say Iraq would have been one of them.

So when you think about the war, and how overwhelming it may be, think again. Not many of us here are military strategists or cultural advisors to the region. Rebuilding Iraq is not an easy thing to do. And one merely needs to look at what it takes to organize a wedding or a picnic for a couple hundred people to know that it takes allot of work to accomodate everyone. Could you imagine a diverse ethnic wedding?

Now plan for 25 million.

Lets talk about how we can overcome the obstables to help Iraq, and not ways to obstruct those that are trying to help. Iraq is getting better, one step at a time, and it isnt because of all the bad talk thats going on.
Its because of people with vision, ethics, and tenacity, that this is even getting done.



Peace



[edit on 28-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Did Seantor Glenn mention Iraq not attacking the USA in 1990? But that was a Republican administration wasn't it?

Ever heard of the USS Reuben James? Other powers obstructing the free and unhindered navigation of the world's oceans has been a cassus belli for the United States since its inception. The Senator would have been more accurate had he slated the late FDR for not going to war with Germany after being attacked rather than for going to war despite not being attacked. . The Senator might also have liked to know that Nazi Germany declared war on the United States, not the other way around.

Sounds like a load of partisan poppycock to me.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
As was pointed out before, Senator Glenn didnt say these things. It was added no doubt on the internet by some partisan hack thinking he was pretty smart:


There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January.That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.


There are 0 combat related killings in Detroit. The last time I remember there arent any suicide bombers killing multiple citizens daily in the US?? to compare these two things is ludicrous and disrespectful.


a.FDR led us into World War II.


and america was victorious and became the worlds pre-eminent power.


b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.


Germany declared war on the United States of America after Japan attacked the United States. Nazi Germany was an ally of Japan. Enough said.


c.Trumanfinished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.


The protection of South Korea was a mission undercarried by the United Nations, not the United States.


d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 5,800 per year.


just because a democrat screwed up in naml on fighting communism automatically excuses what Bush had done??

I thought the conflict in Vietnam was one that was wrong but lets get some facts straight:

JFK didnt start the Vietnam war. It has been raging for decades, first against Japan, then the french, then the country was divided and elections were suppose to happen. The US didnt want the elections to happen so they were postponed indefinitely. The United States didnt pre-emptively invade a sovereign nation, South Vietnam wanted it there.




f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.


something needed to be done about the awful crimes going on there.


He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions.


he dropped the ball when he had the chance to take out bin laden. But so did Bush, we all have heard about how the Administration got the warning about the attacks but did nothing about it. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, not clinton's and he had the intel to do something about it. Instead they ignored it.


The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.


the democrats are complaining if the congress of the united states was given information about iraq that was fixed around the case for war and if the Bush Administration wanted to go to war regardless of the presence of WMDs.


We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.


Inspectors had been looking for years on end and months before the war began. Still today we have not found these killer stockpiles of WMDs or the capabilities required for Saddam to build a nuclear weapon.


It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!!


no one in their right mind would tell you that Iraq is taken


The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts


you mean the same biased media who made the war look like a video game and who showed the images of US 'victory' around the world?


But Wait there's more!


more idiocy??

I think its pretty disgusting that a Repuke tries to use John Glenn in this way by tacking on this crap at the start of it.

Anyways, ignorance denied. Good day.

thanks,
drfunk






[edit on 28-7-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January.
In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the
month of January.That's just one American city,
about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq.

There are 0 combat related killings in Detroit. The last time I remember there arent any suicide bombers killing multiple citizens daily in the US?? to compare these two things is ludicrous and disrespectful.


Deaths are deaths. Its all relative. One is combat, and one was inner city, Not too hard to figure out.


a.FDR led us into World War II.

and america was victorious and became the worlds pre-eminent power.



b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did.
>From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 112,500 per year.
Germany declared war on the United States of America after Japan attacked the United States. Nazi Germany was an ally of Japan. Enough said.


Not enough said. It was a mutual declaration of war with Germany and Italy declaring war and the US declaring in return after having stated being neutral...Under FDR.


c.Trumanfinished that war and started one in Korea.
North Korea never attacked us.
>From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 18,334 per year.
The protection of South Korea was a mission undercarried by the United Nations, not the United States.


Its the concept of scope of liberation and the relative number of lives lost in Iraq versus Viet Nam.
I think we can all agree Iraq is considerably less, yet much larger geographically.


d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962.
Vietnam never attacked us.

e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
>From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ...
an average of 5,800 per year

just because a democrat screwed up in naml on fighting communism automatically excuses what Bush had done??


I thought the conflict in Vietnam was one that was wrong but lets get some facts straight:

JFK didnt start the Vietnam war. It has been raging for decades, first against Japan, then the french, then the country was divided and elections were suppose to happen. The US didnt want the elections to happen so they were postponed indefinitely. The United States didnt pre-emptively invade a sovereign nation, South Vietnam wanted it there..


Was I making this partisan?


f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.
Bosnia never attacked us.


something needed to be done about the awful crimes going on there.


Bosnia was a mess either way. Our reluctance to interfere ended up in people losing their lives.



He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on
multiple occasions

he dropped the ball when he had the chance to take out bin laden. But so did Bush, we all have heard about how the Administration got the warning about the attacks but did nothing about it. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, not clinton's and he had the intel to do something about it. Instead they ignored it..


I was a democrat, and Bush wasnt in office for very long to be honest. We had 8 years of the Clinton admin that I liked. If you read Richard Clarks book you might learn something.


The Democrats are complaining
about how long the war is taking.

the democrats are complaining if the congress of the united states was given information about iraq that was fixed around the case for war and if the Bush Administration wanted to go to war regardless of the presence of WMDs.


For crying out loud. Let it go. Bunch of damm whiners anyway. Were there. Wars on. People need help.
Next question!!


We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records.

Inspectors had been looking for years on end and months before the war began. Still today we have not found these killer stockpiles of WMDs or the capabilities required for Saddam to build a nuclear weapon.


I liked Clinton, but even I had to scratch my head about some of the odd deaths that happened around him. The weapons arent, and neither is Sadaam. No typing in the world is going to bring either of them in a wanted form back.


It took less time to take Iraq than it took
to count the votes in Florida!!!!

no one in their right mind would tell you that Iraq is taken


Im in my right mind and we took it from Sadaam and gave it to the people. Word it however you want, it happened.


The biased media hopes we are too ignorant
to realize the facts

you mean the same biased media who made the war look like a video game and who showed the images of US 'victory' around the world?


No, it was the same biased media that wouldnt show me, an American, the bloody gruesome things that were going on in Bosnia.


But Wait there's more
more idiocy??

I think its pretty disgusting that a Repuke tries to use John Glenn in this way by tacking on this crap at the start of it.!



And I think its pretty ignorant and unfeeling on your part to not keep with my interest of the thread looking at positive aspects. And yes, your ignorance is excused as you failed to read my prior post above this asking for restraint.

Its moments like this, that a moderate like me could become an ultra conservative. God help me....

Peace

HIFIGUY

[edit on 28-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 28-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]

[edit on 28-7-2005 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Iraq is another in a long line of failed American Foreign policy strategies. The Foreign policy of hedging in the Russians during the Cold war period led to the creation of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
This in turn lead to the Islamic Fundermentilst uprisings in Egypt and Tangiers and the establishment of the Al-Qaeda power bases.

The support of Saddam Hussein by the US and other Western countries during the Iraq - Iran conflict lead to the growth and empowerment of the regime in Iraq, and in part armed the country with biological and chemical capability.

American foreign policy is more of a threat to the peace and stability of the west than any insurgent will ever be.

The current war on terror/struggle with supreme evil will not be one by fire power superiority, or tanks or attack helicopters. Nationality does not define the enemy in this war.

It is defined in the ideology and manipluation of people, the difference between friend and foe is in the thoughs and feelings. Alienation feeds this problem, western troops in the market places and streets of countries feeds the fire of hate.

This is not a time for flag waving, gung-ho, gun totting propaganda.
So Take down the Flag and look at what we are really up against.

This will be difficult for Americans, as the culture leans towards a relience on technology and superior firepower, but the realisation must come sooner or later.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   


Deaths are deaths. Its all relative. One is combat, and one was inner city, Not too hard to figure out.


Don't trivialize the death of US soldiers to be exactly the same as a murder .tens of thousands of people die in car crashes every year but where is the huge war on car crashes? Combat is a far different environment to a murder, the men are willingly putting their life on the line for their country knowing that they might die. Any death in combat is a great loss and the greatest service to a country anyone has ever done.

Just because less than 50 US soldiers died in a month its not that bad??


is this acceptable to you if the intelligence was fixed around the war?? if war was what the government wanted, as the means to an end but not the last resort??


a.FDR led us into World War II.

and america was victorious and became the worlds pre-eminent power.




Not enough said. It was a mutual declaration of war with Germany and Italy declaring war and the US declaring in return after having stated being neutral...Under FDR.
Germany and Italy declared first. The US reciprocated. Why would you not fight those who declare war on you, attack your merchant shipping and are allies of those who just bombed one of your main harbours?? Are you blaming the entire 2nd world war on FDR? The US was attacked and declared war on first. FDR helped make America what it is today.



Its the concept of scope of liberation and the relative number of lives lost in Iraq versus Viet Nam.
I think we can all agree Iraq is considerably less, yet much larger geographically.


two totally different situations and conflicts. If the US was up against a real army
that doesnt collapse like a pack of cards it wouldnt of been so easy. The Iraqi's had no chance at offering any real resistance. Vietnam was a much larger war with men who were willing to put their lives on the line. The technology was comparable on both sides as well. Iraq has now turned into an insurgency who are fighting the coalition forces in urban style combat. Geographically speaking, Iraq is smaller because the fighting is concentrated in urban environments and the terrain is desert and extremely flat. Vietnam is lush jungle environments, wet and mountainous. Iraq is the perfect country for set piece tank battles, while in vietnam an m1 abrams would sink into the mud. Vietnam was by far and large the much harder battle to fight than Iraq.

You dont know much about warfare do you?



Was I making this partisan?


yes. This was a clear critique on democratic foreign policy (a lot of which was wrong, but some was just) while at the same time making Bush's foreign policy mistakes look better than they really are. We are all fighting a global war here, mistakes are costly and we gotta find out what happened.




Bosnia was a mess either way. Our reluctance to interfere ended up in people losing their lives.


agreed.




I was a democrat, and Bush wasnt in office for very long to be honest. We had 8 years of the Clinton admin that I liked. If you read Richard Clarks book you might learn something.


Bush had 7 months in office and the intelligence reports on his desk to do something about it. They chose to ignore it. It's in the 9/11 report, it was a serious bungle on their part. I said Clinton dropped the ball too many times as well and that is inexcusable. But there is no way why Bush should be let off the leash just because he spent a lot of months on vacation at the ranch.


For crying out loud. Let it go. Bunch of damm whiners anyway. Were there. Wars on. People need help.


Putting soldiers life at risk for something that is not entirely genuine is worth letting go? i dont think so. Democrats are whiners for wanting answers??? people will stop asking for them once they are given.



I liked Clinton, but even I had to scratch my head about some of the odd deaths that happened around him. The weapons arent, and neither is Sadaam. No typing in the world is going to bring either of them in a wanted form back.


why would i want saddam back for?? the weapons arent there and this is the issue. Clinton was alright but he cared not enough for the common welfare of the people.



Im in my right mind and we took it from Sadaam and gave it to the people. Word it however you want, it happened.


Why are American forces and Iraqi civilians dying from an insurgency that is run by the likes of Zarqawi and baathist loyalists who think they are fighting a brutal occupation on their soil?? the battle is still raging for Iraq, Saddam is gone but the fighting still continues. Do you think this war was about giving the people of Iraq their country back?? The war was about WMDs and the overall battle in the war of terrorism, as stated in public law 107-243.



No, it was the same biased media that wouldnt show me, an American, the bloody gruesome things that were going on in Bosnia.


are you saying there is a 'liberal' media?? I think the media kisses the govts ass regardless of who's in power. They love a war, good ratings.



And I think its pretty ignorant and unfeeling on your part to not keep with my interest of the thread looking at positive aspects. And yes, your ignorance is excused as you failed to read my prior post above this asking for restraint.

Its moments like this, that a moderate like me could become an ultra conservative. God help me....


Wow i'm a moderate to
can you believe it?? I side with conservatives on some issues and liberals on others. I lean centre-left though.

there's nothing radical or extreme about what i've said, i dont understand why you would want to become 'ultra conservative', if you wrote the stuff above what glenn said a lot of it was just ill informed and deceptive in its wording to try and paint a happy face on a very serious situation. I want answers to what the Bush administrations intentions were that's all, the country can move on once the truth is found out. Look at the positive aspects??? you have to look at both sides of the coin and way them up, you cant just block one part of it out so it makes you feel good. People's lives have been lost, its not something to be trivialized, we owe it to them to find out what has happened and if the people were misled by their elected representatives.

Iraq isnt comparable to any other conflict the US has been in. Its comparable to the situation the Soviets found themselves in Afghanistan, but even then the dynamics of the conflict are different.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 28-7-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
More people have died in wars between 1990-2000 than the WW2 apparently. The world has not improved that much its just the wars are scattered and solitary.
I have recently changed my mind from the Micheal More view of things and you cannot compare Bush to Saddam as he was no better than some of those old communist dictators. He was a terrorist because anybody who oppossed him would go to prison or be executed. Even children would be asked to spy on their parents if they opposed Sadam verbally. The curruption was deep rooted in society in Iraq and 30 years of it had to stop.
No other Islamic country was going to solve Afgahnistan or Iraq's problems without Americas help. They would buy weapons off America to solve their problems although in the end all the wars were about solving their ideology.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Thats exactly right. I too was a Michael Moore watcher. And while some of his material enlightens or makes you ask certain questions, it was, after I think about it, mud slinging.

Sadaam is gone. Through all of the obstacles worldwide that stood in the way of a butcher, we have overcome.

Peace



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
"""
Originally posted by The time lord
More people have died in wars between 1990-2000 than the WW2 apparently. The world has not improved that much its just the wars are scattered and solitary.
"""

BS, you should recheck your information, less people die per year then they did years past.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Expositor
Iraq is another in a long line of failed American Foreign policy strategies.


It has been just over two years, back in 1947, Germany and Japan had it worst of then Iraq has it now. True there was no insurgency, but you had the threat of growing sentiment of communism in west Germany and Japan, starvation, massive unemployment, massive amount of homeless people in both countries created by the extensive bombings and yes you had hundreds, maybe even thousands of people dying from criminals that roamed the streets preying on the weak like you have now.

Know tell me this, are Germany and Japan failures of American Foreign policy. I don't think so. I believe it was Ian Furgenson(might have mispelled his name) in his book Collosus: America's Price for it's Empire (parahrasing here, don't remeber the whole title of top of my head) said that the American civilian population has ADD when it comes to current foreign policies like Iraq. In a society where people live fast and things move faster, they tend to forget that things take a while, like rebuilding a nation from basically scratch. A nation that had lived under the rule of a terrorist/mass murderer for over 30 years and used the economy of Iraq to improve the lifes of Sunni Muslims and worsen the lifes of others (Shiates, Kurds, Christian,etc).

Before any one calls the U.S.'s effort in Iraq a failure, you should first call U.S.'s effort in Germany and Japan after two years of American occupation a failure too. To give you a current culturally trendy example; one track of '50 Cent's' new album being reviewed without it being complete or improved, or an unfinished SCI-Fi movie without the special effects, or music.

Iraq needs long-term goals, the U.S. government is trying to implement them but the American public doesn't want to stay the long course, they justed wanted a quicky, not a relationship.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Has anyone realized that John Glen didn't say this stuff???

I mean, its obviously one of those happy feel good spams sent out.

Heck, snopes to the rescue:
www.snopes.com...
[quot]In 2005, someone prefaced the John Glenn/Howard Metzenbaum article with the following item about Iraq. This addendum has nothing to do with John Glenn — it's an anonymous piece that has been floating around the Internet since 2004, but because it has been tacked onto an article about Glenn, readers have been misled into thinking that it is a transcription of something he said

Its a preface for something that, at least at first, was sent along with a speech from 1974. Apparently the two have detached and now Glen is the 'author' of this preface.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Has anyone realized that John Glen didn't say this stuff???




Very well spotted Nygdan. 'Titularly' I feel differently again now. The war propaganda machine is more outrageously pathetic than I thought.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord
More people have died in wars between 1990-2000 than the WW2 apparently. The world has not improved that much its just the wars are scattered and solitary.


According to this:
World War II Deaths

The number killed in WW2 was approx. 61 million people.

Recheck your numbers, because there is absolutely no way 61 million people died in wars between 1990 and 2000.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Just because this information was falsely attributed to John Glenn doesn't make the information false. I didn't read the whole thing, but the first part was pretty much on the money.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Yes, I prefaced the post that this was sent to me. That it made me think about the Iraq war, John Glenn of John Hinkley. Im kidding of course.
John Glenn or not, we are having a dialogue.

But what I have noted it the severe bias about Americans standing up for justice. We would rather, that we take a posittion of neutrality rather then do the right thing.

If one remebers but one of those points, thats exaclty what we did while Europe was getting beat down by the Nazis. We stayed back and waited.

The decision by Bush in this matter was set early by his father GW senior.
America sat back and waited 11 years for someothing to happen and it never did. Although Iraq was not involved in Sept 11, I still feel that our advance was justified. Anyone can do nothing, and if this had been allowed to develop into an invasion by Iraq into any of her neighbors, it may have turned out a bit different.

It now, defines the lines between friend or foe. And the foes are foes at that. Terrorist bombings against innocent people in London or anywhere for that matter are uncalled for. You want to hurt people at random worldwide, you are now on the terror radar. Something that didnt exist collectively before our inititation and action.

In thinking about things long term, there is one thing for sure, threat level in the Middle East in terms of a runaway war has been quashed. Unless Iran decided to pick up arms, the tensions have been reduced.
We are the big boys on the block, and yes, we are doing what we can to tame and structure a free and democratic Iraq.

Peace



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by HIFIGUY
If one remebers but one of those points, thats exaclty what we did while Europe was getting beat down by the Nazis. We stayed back and waited.

The situation is not a valid comparison, Nazi Germany was invading other countries and following an aggresive foreign policy capturing resources by invasion and use of force. Whilst also victimising vunerable minorities in its population - mainly immigrants and foreign nationals - and blaming them for the dangerous situation it percieved its self to be in.

All of this being carried out by a man who was not elected by the population but who came to power by use of the legal system; and a population motivated to follow by the use of fear and intimidation.

At present the US appears to be more analogous to Nazi Germany than Iraq. Whilst Saddam Hussein was a threat to the Iraq people and peace in the middle east, George Bush is a threat to the whole world.



Originally posted by HIFIGUY
Anyone can do nothing, and if this had been allowed to develop into an invasion by Iraq into any of her neighbors, it may have turned out a bit different.

The US and UK had been supporting Iraq in its multiple invasions of Iran for almost a decade, war in the middle east has been activley encourage in order to keep the threat of Islamic fundermentalism down


Originally posted by HIFIGUY
You want to hurt people at random worldwide, you are now on the terror radar. Something that didnt exist collectively before our inititation and action.

UK security services along with American security services, Mossad and Interpol have been fighting terrorism on a world wide basis since the late Seventies.


Originally posted by HIFIGUY
We are the big boys on the block, and yes, we are doing what we can to tame and structure a free and democratic Iraq.


When coallition foces invaded Iraq they had underestimated the level of violence that would be displayed during the attempt to rebuild Iraq as a western style democracy. Insurgency has never been defeated by the use of conventional forces. From Vietnam, thorugh the Russian and now US invasion of Afganistan, to Indonesia.


But with all of this put to one side, whether the invasion was justified in the first place or not the continued presence of western troops in Iraq is seen by some as an occupation. This has lead to an insurgency problem that has spread from Iraq to Spain and the UK.

This is not a war in the conventional sense, every man woman and child in the world is now on the front line. It will not be won by the barrel of a gun or with attack helicopters. This war will be won when the free thinking and unbiased people of this world - muslims and christian, black and white - stand together against the racists and the tyrants.

Trying to justify the war in Iraq plays into the hands of those that will manipulate it for there own needs.



This means one thing - If you are for the war in Iraq then you are playing into the hands of those we should be seeking to destroy




=====




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join