I have had a really good online friend for many years. Too many times while swapping news stories or sharing other current events, we will end up in a pretty awful argument over Bush, or invading Iraq.

We usually can agree that these wars are costing a lot of money, and can potentially have NO end in sight!
Though I will usually ask,
Me: Why do you think we needed to invade Iraq, you realize they didn't cause 9-11, right?
Him: Well yeah, I know that, but you got to admit Saddam was doing some pretty bad things.
Me: But he was never a threat to US, he never intended on harming US.
Him: But do you have any idea the tortures he was inflicting on people and their families?
Me: Since when was it assigned to the US to police the world and everything that happens?

This kind of conversation has happened between us many times, and we usually just end it, to respect one another's views.

I just want some help from someone who sincerely believes in this War on Terror and Bush, to understand really. I am openminded, but have a hard time with this one.
My questions for you:

Do you believe that we NEEDED to invade and occupy Iraq for all these years to protect us?
Where does it tie in that 9-11 happened, and we needed to go into an innocent country that could not harm us?

Do you honestly beleive that if we don't go invading Muslim countries, that you and your family are in the sincere danger Bush refered to when wanting to invade Iraq?(ie the giant poster of a mushroom cloud behind him when giving the reasons we needed to take out Saddam)

As another theory to why you support this endless, perpetual war, do you believe that Government Defense Contracts are the only thing that can keep our economy alive?


Another... Do you support one current candidate over another because they can promise you more war?

Is it possible you believe that we NEED oil to keep our country alive, and that we need to secure oil as a best interest, maybe THAT is why you believe we need to invade countries?

I guess this is all I can remember for now, that I have been wanting to know. I'm wondering if someone like RRConservative, or anyone else really, will give me some insight so I understand this one?

MODS: I hope that this is in the right place. I truly believe this to be a conspiracy, because a lot of people in the country agree with all of Bush's actions. And some of us really just don't know why.
So instead of flaming, I wanted the chance to just ask, without disrespecting anyone.

Its because America believe what their president or presidential candidates tell you that you are in so much trouble to begin with. There has been no consequences for all the lies they have told you and there never will be.

This is true for Europe as well by the way. We are not any better. Everybody in any position of real power have sold their soul to get there.

The elites run the world. Sometimes they make mistakes in their planning, but you should never believe that wars are random. They are created on purpose in order to change the board.

Dont even listen to the crap the news are telling you. Fake photos, planted stories, pre-planned interviews... the wars are not only for money and power, its for your mind as well.

I honestly think everybody needs to separate themselfs from the stream of bullcrap coming from the tube, and realize its not real news. Like the food we are eating, its pre-processed, designed and delivered by someone in order to make money on you.


[edit on 7-9-2008 by Copernicus]

I live in England so im no expert on america but i personally think that it was for oil and i dont really think that saddam hussein and osama bin laden posed such a huge threat i just think america needed someone to put all the blame on.

I often get misconstrued as a supporter of the war, and, while I'm really not, I'll give you my judgement of the situation. Maybe what I have to say is a tiny part of what the real supporter believe.

First off, I'd like to clarify my position. Was our invasion illegal? No, but you have to take into account that it was based on intelligence. Was that intelligence fabricated, or just poor? I don't have enough information to say. What was Bush's part? Again, I can't say.

We shouldn't have gone to war to begin with, but so many people see everything that came from it as bad. We did remove Saddam from power, which can be seen as a plus from any point of view. We installed a government that, if it doesn't collapse, has a better chance of providing the people there with a better future than the old regime did.

So should we be over there? No, but we are, and we are now obligated to at least give the Iraqis a 'fighting' chance at not collapsing into civil war. If we pull out right now, there chances aren't too great.

Basically, I think we should stick around for a while, not forever though, because we started it, so we're obligated to look after Iraq's future.

Most the time online I can get into talks with people oppsite of my feelings.
However in real life, and at work I pretty much dont like to talk about this kind of stuff.
Many people at my job are BIG into the war. They support it fully and say.
WE should nuke them! Turn it into a parking lot!
Kill um all! And thats the crap I deal with hearing.

I tend to try to turn a blind eye, and a deaf ear to these folks. As they IMO dont have any sense, nor a mind of their own. They are like zombies that walk threw this life. Purest of all sheeple. And one time I tried to talk some sense into them.. I failed. And ended up almost getting into a fist fight because of how I feel.

Most of them will outright wanna punch you in the face for saying otherwise. And I find it odd how a man that works his daily life, and has nothing to do with all this can be soo up tight, and down right defensive about this war.

When it comes down to it. When I make a point, their counter point is telling me to stfu! Or your a dumb. Yeah thats some counter point.

So I have learned to leave it alone..

Im waiting for someone to come in with a level head who supports the war.
I have a few questions myself.

Originally posted by avingard
So should we be over there? No, but we are, and we are now obligated to at least give the Iraqis a 'fighting' chance at not collapsing into civil war. If we pull out right now, there chances aren't too great.

I will go ahead and take this little part here and ask you a question.
Did you know we never went there to promote freedom right?

We are over there to create a civil war of types. S.H kept them in line, and S.H was our boy. Thats right S.H was one of our dogs.

So many lies you are fed, and you seem to just go with what you are told.
When did people forget to research and find their own answers?

Most supports just go with what they are told, and they sit back and repeat over and over again. The same spoon fed lies you are told, comes right back out your mouth.

Originally posted by zysin5

Originally posted by avingard
So should we be over there? No, but we are, and we are now obligated to at least give the Iraqis a 'fighting' chance at not collapsing into civil war. If we pull out right now, there chances aren't too great.

I will go ahead and take this little part here and ask you a question.
Did you know we never went there to promote freedom right?

We are over there to create a civil war of types. S.H kept them in line, and S.H was our boy. Thats right S.H was one of our dogs.

So many lies you are fed, and you seem to just go with what you are told.
When did people forget to research and find their own answers?

Most supports just go with what they are told, and they sit back and repeat over and over again. The same spoon fed lies you are told, comes right back out your mouth.

Like I said, I am not a supporter of the war, meaning I don't support the reasons we went over there, either the stated reasons or the underlying reasons.

I also know that we did no go there to liberate the people, but we are there, and since we've destroyed their entire political structure, I think it only fair that we stick around long enough to give the new government a decent chance of succeeding.

What would you do, leave them to civil war? If we pull out now, we might as well hand out guns and grenades as we leave, because the shiites and sunnis will be at each others throats as soon as our soldiers are gone.

And I do not accept that we are over there to cause a civil war. What benefit would that be to us? Where's your proof?

I am also highly offended that you assume I accept the official story without questioning and researching on my own. I have stated a perfectly sane, rational, and acceptable opinion. If you don't like it, please debate with facts and evidence instead of accusations and insults.

Peace.

Originally posted by LostNemesis

Do you believe that we NEEDED to invade and occupy Iraq for all these years to protect us?

Iraq under Saddam was a potential threat. Mutiple intelligence agencies from multiple countries came to the same conclusion about his weapons of mass destruction program, it wasn't just the U.S. Given the atmosphere after 9/11 having Iraq possibly being able to aid A.Q. or other terror groups with WMD was a risk were were not willing to tolerate. As an added feature, Iraq is very desirable in the geopolitical game of Monopoly. Any major power would like to have a strong position in that area of the world.

Do you honestly beleive that if we don't go invading Muslim countries, that you and your family are in the sincere danger Bush refered to when wanting to invade Iraq?(ie the giant poster of a mushroom cloud behind him when giving the reasons we needed to take out Saddam)

Am I to assume you were against the invasion of Afghanistan, since it too is a Muslim country? Given the intelligence that we and others had at the time, it was not a threat the U.S. was willing to live with.

As another theory to why you support this endless, perpetual war, do you believe that Government Defense Contracts are the only thing that can keep our economy alive?

Now you are just getting silly here. I don't know many that support perpetual war. The war against Radical Islam is one that even OBL has acknowledged will take 3 or 4 generations to fight. When you have a foe willing to battle that long, you either better be up to the task or get used to being killed.

Another... Do you support one current candidate over another because they can promise you more war?

Utter tripe there. You are framing the whole discussion in a very biased light IMO.

Is it possible you believe that we NEED oil to keep our country alive, and that we need to secure oil as a best interest, maybe THAT is why you believe we need to invade countries?

Well in a word yes, we DO need oil to keep our country alive. Why would we be caring about the sands of the Middle East if it wasn't ultimately about the oil. Resources by their very definition are limited, most aggression is ultimately based on a lack of resources or a need for more. Research your history, if you doubt me.

avingard

Thank you for your honest perspective, that... Pretty much we broke it, now it's our responsibility to the Iraqi people, to fix it. I am thinking that both the American people, and the Iraqi people were victims in the decision to invade. But mostly them.

Obviously, within our Constitution, and our laws in the US, this war was NOT illegal, since congress held a vote on it, so it was not an illegal choice that Bush alone made.. Like many will make it sound.
It's the stuff that is never voted on, that I would really want to look into more. Or the bills that are snuck into bills.

zysin5

You're right about just not being able to bring up certain subjects around most people. At least online, unlike work, you can pick and choose who you want to have around for a conversation.
The guys you talk about at work, remind me of the football players in highschool. I don't know how intelligent they really were, but the fact that all they seemed to do was harass girls and chant things loudly together... Well, you get the idea they followed each other and seemed to all share the same brain cell. Maybe much of the population is just like that.

I don't know if Saddam Hussein was our guy, or not. There's been a lot of people to say the US put him into power. I just don't know. If he WAS put there by us, that's one of the things that makes the whole thing a little suspicious in my opinion. All I can think is maybe he pissed the CIA dudes off somehow. Maybe threatened to expose something he wasn't supposed to, or refused to work with CIA when they thought he owed it to them, who knows.
But I sincerely believe that somehow, Saddam knew how to keep these people in line. If only I could remember the words of the person who explained this one to me... Pretty much, we had people going on about how inhumane S.H. was.
By our standards, yes we the Western world probably wouldn't like to be ruled by him. But at the same time, you have groups of people out there who believe enough to even end their own life, that the other group has to wiped out. These are extremists. They will fight each other to the death, because it's all they know. Saddam simply kept them in line the only way they understood. I think with US intelligence and all, the US HAD to have understood this ? And thought there might be problems when there is no longer Saddam to keep these people from slaughtering each other?
Not to mention, you come rushing into a populated area with bombs and guns, and innocents will get in the cross-fire. For the next few generations, dead innocents' families are now extremists against the nation that killed their loved one. I assume this is what Pavil is refering to when he says
" even OBL has acknowledged will take 3 or 4 generations to fight. "


Pavil

I am glad you found my questions and opinions to be 'biased'. Though I assumed that's why I created a thread, asking for the perspective of someone who feels opposite what I do. Probably makes it more clear what my perspective is. Just trying to understand other sides than my own, since it's not always easy to have this kind of a talk with people of extremely opposite views.

Well, I was not against the Afghanistan invasion. I assumed what we were told was true, that Bin Laden caused 9-11, and we were going after him. I really don't think anyone knew at first that we weren't really invading countries to catch Osama bin Laden.

I can agree it probably is a huge advantage to have a position in that part of the world.
As for the Defense Contracts, my friend I argue this with, HAS said that the money going to contractors for the war keeps the economy strong, so I (maybe falsely) assumed that all war supporters thought this way.
They have said in the past that it was WAR that picked up our dead economy (great depression?)

Now the oil thing, I can understand. And that's another argument that has been made in favour of the wars. That it benefits us all, so those in power made the choice in our best interest.

EDIT: typo

[edit on 7-9-2008 by LostNemesis]

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

I'm not an American, so I can only give an outsiders point of view, but I'd rather take excessive action than stand around when the world has collapsed saying to myself "why didn't we do something about this sooner?"

Originally posted by LostNemesis
...
I don't know if Saddam Hussein was our guy, or not. There's been a lot of people to say the US put him into power. I just don't know. If he WAS put there by us, that's one of the things that makes the whole thing a little suspicious in my opinion. All I can think is maybe he pissed the CIA dudes off somehow. Maybe threatened to expose something he wasn't supposed to, or refused to work with CIA when they thought he owed it to them, who knows.
...
[edit on 7-9-2008 by LostNemesis]

Saddam was not put into power by us, he was an enforcer for the party that we used to overthrow the old government. He rose to power through his own determination and lack of morals. He climbed to the top over a pile of bodies.

Originally posted by avingard


Saddam was not put into power by us, he was an enforcer for the party that we used to overthrow the old government. He rose to power through his own determination and lack of morals. He climbed to the top over a pile of bodies.

Avingard.. Honestly I mean not offence, so please dont take my words as saying you dont research things, and think for yourself. Im mostly talking about the people I work with.
However what you said before, was a repeat of what we where all told about intelligence and why we went into a war.

Im glad you could write back to me with a level head.
And you are right, Saddam was not put into power by the USA.
However he was empowered with many weapons, and bio-weaponry from the good ole USA. We empowered him, and then we took it away from him like a child. Taking candy from a baby.

There is so much to this honestly none of us know whats really going on.
We can put forth much research into this. But at the end of the day, only key players know why we are there, and what is "really" going on.

Originally posted by LostNemesis
Where does it tie in that 9-11 happened, and we needed to go into an innocent country that could not harm us?

I believe that they needed to go into Iraq to fight the War of Terror to stop terrorists from attacking us.

Seriously though, can't help you.

Originally posted by zysin5
Many people at my job are BIG into the war. They support it fully and say.
WE should nuke them! Turn it into a parking lot!
Kill um all! And thats the crap I deal with hearing.

I tend to try to turn a blind eye, and a deaf ear to these folks. As they IMO dont have any sense, nor a mind of their own. They are like zombies that walk threw this life. Purest of all sheeple. And one time I tried to talk some sense into them.. I failed. And ended up almost getting into a fist fight because of how I feel.

Most of them will outright wanna punch you in the face for saying otherwise. And I find it odd how a man that works his daily life, and has nothing to do with all this can be soo up tight, and down right defensive about this war.

That, IMHO, is proof that mind control is not only a reality, but is extremely powerful.

You can debate this issue all you want but the answer is we screwed up. It was either flawed intelligence or fabricated intelligence, we'll probably never know the truth. The real question in all of this is, "Where do we go from here?" Do we leave the Iraqis on their own and at the mercy of radicals and, yes, Iran? Or, since we started this mess, stay until the Iraqis are able to defend their country? I opt for staying. I believe we are ethically and morally obligated to stay, but that's me.

Of the two candidates, Sen McCain believes we should stay until the Iraqis are able to defend themselves. Sen Obama believes we should pull our troops in an "orderly" withdrawal and send them to Afghanistan, leaving a small reaction force in Iraq to take care of "terrorists." Personally, I think Sen Obama's plan will put the troops left behind into greater peril, but I do think we should have a larger force in Afghanistan.

Now, to the main issue...finally. Your post reads, "A Plea to Anyone Who Supports War on Terror/Bush." As stated above, Sen Obama wants to send the troops in Iraq to Afghanistan to track down Bin Laden. Do you support the Senator's opinion? If you do, then you support the War on Terror, plain and simple.

The Soviet Union, way back when, realized the threat of Muslim Fundamentalism when they invaded Afghanistan. Yes, they were also in there to prop up a puppet dicatorship, but they also understood this new threat. We came to this realization too late. This was due mostly to our narrow view of the world at that time, Better Red than Dead. By the time we figured this out, it was too late.

So, to make a long post short (too late), what are you going to do when Pres Obama Sends our troops into harms way in Afghanistan? Will you lead demonstrations? Will you become depressed? Or, will you see the threat for what it is?

Originally posted by Feltrick

The Soviet Union, way back when, realized the threat of Muslim Fundamentalism when they invaded Afghanistan. Yes, they were also in there to prop up a puppet dicatorship, but they also understood this new threat. We came to this realization too late. This was due mostly to our narrow view of the world at that time, Better Red than Dead. By the time we figured this out, it was too late.

I would disagree with this part, the Soviets didn't realize the threat of Muslim Fundamentalism till AFTER they invaded Afghanistan. The Soviets went into Afghanistan to get closer to their goal of a warm water port and to get closer to the OIL.