Uh-Oh, are the politicans fibbing again(RE:Iraq)?

[1123581321]

Would a terrorist say "you know, I'm in a democracy. Screw the bomb, I'm throwing it away. I'm going to college!"

Right!

The government type could change but the PEOPLE there in the region won't...

you are looking at only one part of iraq. sure, there are people who still hate us, but iraq as a nation is no longer a threat. saddam will never again gas his own people, launch bombs at israel, or start wars. if we leave now, we leave a weak government in our wake, a government that will fall to a hostile one. that is what would happen. there are people who hate us, but there are people who like what we are doing.

fibonacci

 

[1123581321]

A few points in response to this ill-informed rubbish;

First and foremost get it through your head, Iraq did NOT attack America. Even the Bush gov't have given up trying to connect Iraq to 9/11.
People fighting against troops who invade THEIR country are NOT terrorists.
They are trying to kill you because you are killing them!
The US military PR inform the world daily of their kill tally. (Unfortunately to be classified as a terrorist in Iraq all you have to do is get killed by US forces as the military never admit to killing civilians.)
If so many people on this forum such as you Fibonacci believe so passionately in the righteousness of the war in Iraq why aren't YOU over there? Doesn't this smack of cowardice?
Seems to me it's very easy for some of these war zealots to be very cavalier with other people's lives such as Fibonacci's justification why in his mind 1700 dead US troops isn't so bad (in fact as he said, less than you'd expect in a decent accident). Not forgetting of course the 12,000 US forces wounded.

iraq did not declare war on us, but can you find any solid evidence that they didn't help supply bin laden? if saddam never helped, why did he not show us evidence that he never helped, and never did any wrong? did he have something to hide? we just don't know, i don't know, but you don't. what if there is some information that we don't know about? did you ever hear of classified intel? most of the people fighting us are not from Iraq, they are from other arab nations, they are invading iraq. what reason do they have for keeping iraq a theocracy? do they just want to be a pain in the , or are they afraid that they may loose power over the middle east if iraq remains democratic? does the liberal news media inform us ok our kill tally, no. no one does, not even the conservative fox. why not? i don't know. have you any proof that they were innocents? sure some were, but **** happens, people screw up sometimes. i am not over there because i am not old enough. as i said earlier i plan to apply to west point, or atleast ROTC. How many people died in the first two years of any war, it is more than this one. like i said, one is too many, but war will always happen, and to not fight back is a good way to fall.

fibonacci

 

[1123581321]

A harsh but accurate description of the US guards at Al Ghraib I guess.

QUOTE]
that's bull, we are talking about torturing, raping, and killing! not every soldier is good, but many are damn fine people, and would never do that. however, i hardly call that rape. we made them stand naked infront of their peers, so what. that sounds like the amount of embarrasement as makeing PE students shower, are we arresting PE teachers who made their students take a shower? no. we could, do worse, but we don't. if many terrorists got what they deserve, they'd be beat and buried alive, but they get better than they deserve, because the americans are more forgiving than terrorists. what do terrorists do when they capture a western? they usually saw his/her head off, should we do that to arabs?
my point is, i am sick of that abu ghraib crap.

fibonacci

 

[Art]

iraq did not declare war on us, but can you find any solid evidence that they didn't help supply bin laden? if saddam never helped, why did he not show us evidence that he never helped, and never did any wrong? did he have something to hide? we just don't know, i don't know, but you don't. what if there is some information that we don't know about? did you ever hear of classified intel?

Your arguments are totally absurd. Mexico hasn't provided proof they didn't help Bin Laden either so maybe you'd better invade them too In fact the only country we know for definite assisted Bin Laden is Saudi Arabia and yet they're still Bush's buddies.

most of the people fighting us are not from Iraq, they are from other arab nations, they are invading iraq.

Read the data I supplied above!

what reason do they have for keeping iraq a theocracy? do they just want to be a pain in the , or are they afraid that they may loose power over the middle east if iraq remains democratic?

Maybe they just don't like being occupied by foreign military forces no more than you would.

does the liberal news media inform us ok our kill tally, no. no one does, not even the conservative fox. why not? i don't know. have you any proof that they were innocents? sure some were, but **** happens, people screw up sometimes.

Read the ref I supplied above.

i am not over there because i am not old enough. as i said earlier i plan to apply to west point, or atleast ROTC. How many people died in the first two years of any war, it is more than this one. like i said, one is too many, but war will always happen, and to not fight back is a good way to fall.

Hopefully by the time you are old enough you'll see the world in a more mature way.

 

[1123581321]

Are you honestly naive enough to suppose for one second that Bush's invasion of Iraq was motivated by a desire to free the Iraqi people??

Here you go Hurkyl https://secure.military.com/leads/R...mc.kw&partner=1
Put your b*lls where your mouth is.

what was the war for then, and don't give me that oil bull****, as far as i know oil prices are going up, i am sick of liberals saying "stop war for oil" because that's not what we started the goddamn thing for. it was because we were attacked, and freeing the iraqis happened to be one good outcome.

fibonacci

 

[faust9]

iraq did not declare war on us, but can you find any solid evidence that they didn't help supply bin laden? if saddam never helped, why did he not show us evidence that he never helped, and never did any wrong? did he have something to hide? we just don't know, i don't know, but you don't. what if there is some information that we don't know about? did you ever hear of classified intel?

I want YOU to prove that you are not aiding terrorists. You can't prove that you are not doing something like this because UBL doesn't issue no-help receipts. Please feel free to PROVE you are not helping terrorism.

most of the people fighting us are not from Iraq, they are from other arab nations, they are invading iraq. what reason do they have for keeping iraq a theocracy? do they just want to be a pain in the , or are they afraid that they may loose power over the middle east if iraq remains democratic?

Read the thread instead of blindly posting. The stat you are looking for has already been given and shows that the 'insurgency' is manned by Iraqi's not foreign fighters.

does the liberal news media inform us ok our kill tally, no. no one does, not even the conservative fox. why not? i don't know.

If you take the time to read the news---any reputible news source---then you'd know the pentagon does not release this information. I like how you attacked the "liberal news media" BTW and follow up with "not even conservative FOX."

have you any proof that they were innocents? sure some were, but **** happens, people screw up sometimes. i am not over there because i am not old enough.

Ah a child less than 17y/o---the legal age to join the military. So young and impressionable.

as i said earlier i plan to apply to west point, or atleast ROTC. How many people died in the first two years of any war, it is more than this one. like i said, one is too many, but war will always happen, and to not fight back is a good way to fall.

fibonacci

The highlighed part is what the Iraqi people are doing now. Who are we fighting back against? Time and again Saddam->UBL links have been shown to be false, so the Iraq conflict is not a war against UBL, and it did not start out as a war against Terrorists. I was a war to dethrone SH. Don't place higher ideals or grandeous motives on this war because theses motives are not as 911 related as you may like to believe.

Gotta go. Will address more later.

 

[Art]

that's bull, we are talking about torturing, raping, and killing! not every soldier is good, but many are damn fine people, and would never do that. however, i hardly call that rape. we made them stand naked infront of their peers, so what. that sounds like the amount of embarrasement as makeing PE students shower, are we arresting PE teachers who made their students take a shower? no. we could, do worse, but we don't. if many terrorists got what they deserve, they'd be beat and buried alive, but they get better than they deserve, because the americans are more forgiving than terrorists. what do terrorists do when they capture a western? they usually saw his/her head off, should we do that to arabs?
my point is, i am sick of that abu ghraib crap.

fibonacci

Looks you'll have no problem getting a job guarding prisoners you seem to have all the morals required. and by the way there was a little more than making people strip naked. Here's a pic of a naked prisoner who also happens to be dead!http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2004/051904morephotos.htm

 

[1123581321]

Your arguments are totally absurd. Mexico hasn't provided proof they didn't help Bin Laden either so maybe you'd better invade them too In fact the only country we know for definite assisted Bin Laden is Saudi Arabia and yet they're still Bush's buddies.
Read the data I supplied above! Maybe they just don't like being occupied by foreign military forces no more than you would. Read the ref I supplied above. Hopefully by the time you are old enough you'll see the world in a more mature way.

read the data below that:

US millitary believes foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq. Indipendent researchers estimate that 44-70% of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi citizens.

ok, i don't trust your numbers totally, but look at who's doing most of the killing.
winston churchill once said somethin like "if you're not a liberal at age 20, you have no heart. if you're not a conservative by age 40, you have no brain." i guess am heartless, then.

fibonacci

 

[Art]

US millitary believes foreign fighters are responsible for the majority of suicide bombings in Iraq. Indipendent researchers estimate that 44-70% of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudi citizens.

Thank you for proving my point re Saudi Arabia.
You might also note the vast majority of insurgents are NOT suicide bombers as it tends to be a somewhat limited military career.

 

[1123581321]

Looks you'll have no problem getting a job guarding prisoners you seem to have all the morals required. and by the way there was a little more than making people strip naked. Here's a pic of a naked prisoner who also happens to be dead!http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2004/051904morephotos.htm

and you fall for that crap. if it came from a reputible news orginization, i would believe it, but that guys a nut. look at his freaking website. look at the movie the guy made, it had a movie of the president giving the finger! that never happened. i trust news from www.theonion.com more than that crap.

fibonacci

 

[1123581321]

Thank you for proving my point

that most of the insurgents are iraquis, or that we need a war with saudi arabia? you are mister anti-war, what do you want to do with the saudis?

fibonacci

 

[faust9]

what was the war for then, and don't give me that oil bull****, as far as i know oil prices are going up, i am sick of liberals saying "stop war for oil" because that's not what we started the goddamn thing for. it was because we were attacked, and freeing the iraqis happened to be one good outcome.

fibonacci

Why don't you research this then? Here, I can get you started. Bush 1 developed a ME policy following the first Gulf war. One of his aids drafted a policy of toppeling SH in the expectation that doing so would cause a domino effect of all the dictators and result in a beautiful ME society. Who was this man, and what was the policy? What post did this man hold in Bush 2's admin? How did the ideals espoused in 1990 by this man---later criticised by Bush 1---change when enacted by Bush 2?

A clue on where to begin:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Investigate the nemes at the bottom---or as Woodward and Bernstein where told follow the money.

If you want to be na Officer then you will need to learn how to do research.

Good luck. Have fun. Hopefully you learn a thing or two about the history of our current policy (it dates back almost 20 years now).

 

[1123581321]

iraq was a terrorist state, why would they not help terrorists? one thing that i forgot when posting earlier is that saddam and bin laden are different. saddam really wasn't a radical muslim, just a powerhungry dictator, like hitler, except not as bad. bin laden is an extremest muslim, and dosn't care about power, he just wants to kill americans. saddam might not have supported saddam, but there was still reason to make him go. he killed his own people with WMDs, what proff is there that he got rid of them? he started wars, infact he invaded kuait for oil, to get rich. that's what you liberals are complaining this war was about, how come you didn't complain when saddam did it?

fibonacci

 

[faust9]

and you fall for that crap. if it came from a reputible news orginization, i would believe it, but that guys a nut. look at his freaking website. look at the movie the guy made, it had a movie of the president giving the finger! that never happened. i trust news from www.theonion.com more than that crap.

fibonacci

That photo has found its way into many reputible news sources. It came from the collection released when Hersch first did the Adu story. Please take the time to do some research.

I'll dig the news article up later but in short last month 391 non-iraqi militants were rounded up along with 3500+ iraqi militants. Do the math: ~10% of the fighters rounded up were non-iraqi. Also, the insurgents are targeting US forces while the foreign fighters are killing coffee shop patrons. Do you see the distinction?

 

[Art]

and you fall for that crap. if it came from a reputible news orginization, i would believe it, but that guys a nut. look at his freaking website. look at the movie the guy made, it had a movie of the president giving the finger! that never happened. i trust news from www.theonion.com more than that crap.

fibonacci

Will you try reading material referenced before sending off spurious posts! If you had gotten past the first line you'd have seen the news report was from ABC news. Here's the same story and extra pics of the same incident from the Washington Post.
http://www.4law.co.il/stalag22.htm

 

[rrgoldstein]

what was the war for then, and don't give me that oil bull****, as far as i know oil prices are going up, i am sick of liberals saying "stop war for oil" because that's not what we started the goddamn thing for. it was because we were attacked, and freeing the iraqis happened to be one good outcome.

fibonacci

F, that's a good question. I invite YOU to stand in the question for a while, as objectively as you can. Can you generate any other reasonable motives for the admin. having invaded, other than their stated purpose?

I certainly believe in every fiber of my body that the we entered the war with manufactured evidence, or, at the very least, negligently relied on what we did have.
I believe the administration continues to misrepresnt the facts of the war.

You seem to be quite entrenched in your position. I don't know the truth, but I know that I don't know it. I'm open to learning something new that will impact my beliefs. Are you?
By the way, this sounds personal, it's not. Or, at least no more so than saying a rainstorm is personal to the a person getting wet. It is, but the storm isn't personally aimed at the individual. The anology? As humans, we often failed to question that which we believe to be the truth. Even, at times, those who are as learned and emersed in the structures of logical and scientific paradigms, such as you and I and others in this forum.

My 'answers' are of no value to you. I invite you to tackle, like a project, finding support for positions contrary to your current belief system regarding this war. I trust that if you passionately take on this challenge, you will gain immeasurably. (Whether you change your position or not, I care not, I just want you to engage in a self generative inquiry.)

 

[faust9]

iraq was a terrorist state, why would they not help terrorists? one thing that i forgot when posting earlier is that saddam and bin laden are different. saddam really wasn't a radical muslim, just a powerhungry dictator, like hitler, except not as bad. bin laden is an extremest muslim, and dosn't care about power, he just wants to kill americans. saddam might not have supported saddam, but there was still reason to make him go. he killed his own people with WMDs, what proff is there that he got rid of them? he started wars, infact he invaded kuait for oil, to get rich. that's what you liberals are complaining this war was about, how come you didn't complain when saddam did it?

fibonacci

WMD's we supplied---again do some research. We block the security council from taking action against SH when he gased Iran; did you know that? SH was a dictator---nothing more or less. Dictators abound---Mugabe for instance. Also he invaded Kuwait to pay bills he owed to Saudi Arabi who bankrolled the Iran-Iraq war. After the war SH needed some $$$ to pay for the war we meddeled in. We gave SH weapons during the day and Iran weapons during the night because the policy at the time was to have no decided victor in the conflict. Iraq won in the end but did not win decisevely enough to allow it to march on. Our meddeling prolonged the war. Do some research.

 

[1123581321]

Why don't you research this then? Here, I can get you started. Bush 1 developed a ME policy following the first Gulf war. One of his aids drafted a policy of toppeling SH in the expectation that doing so would cause a domino effect of all the dictators and result in a beautiful ME society. Who was this man, and what was the policy? What post did this man hold in Bush 2's admin? How did the ideals espoused in 1990 by this man---later criticised by Bush 1---change when enacted by Bush 2?

A clue on where to begin:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

Investigate the nemes at the bottom---or as Woodward and Bernstein where told follow the money.

If you want to be na Officer then you will need to learn how to do research.

Good luck. Have fun. Hopefully you learn a thing or two about the history of our current policy (it dates back almost 20 years now).

that letter in your source is a lot of the stuff that i have been saing, except that was before 9-11. the point is, iraq was a threat to us. we started in afghanistan, where UBL was at the time, along with his terror training camps and such. once they were gone, iraq was next, because they were a threat. what's next, i don't know. it seems to be working, we have yet to have a major attack.

 

[Art]

that letter in your source is a lot of the stuff that i have been saing, except that was before 9-11. the point is, iraq was a threat to us. we started in afghanistan, where UBL was at the time, along with his terror training camps and such. once they were gone, iraq was next, because they were a threat. what's next, i don't know. it seems to be working, we have yet to have a major attack.

As you evidently know less than nothing about this subject I for one shall be ignoring all of your future posts on this topic.

 

[1123581321]

WMD's we supplied---again do some research. We block the security council from taking action against SH when he gased Iran; did you know that? SH was a dictator---nothing more or less. Dictators abound---Mugabe for instance. Also he invaded Kuwait to pay bills he owed to Saudi Arabi who bankrolled the Iran-Iraq war. After the war SH needed some $$$ to pay for the war we meddeled in. We gave SH weapons during the day and Iran weapons during the night because the policy at the time was to have no decided victor in the conflict. Iraq won in the end but did not win decisevely enough to allow it to march on. Our meddeling prolonged the war. Do some research.

back the we were in the cold war era. saddam was the lesser of the two evil, so we backed saddam. oh yeah, dosn't oil help pay bills? would things happen differently if carter would have backed up the shah before it fell to a more radical government? can i have a source that you used? i know that we supplied them, but WMDs? saddam was perfectly capible of making his own WMDs, and he did.

 

[faust9]

that letter in your source is a lot of the stuff that i have been saing, except that was before 9-11. the point is, iraq was a threat to us. we started in afghanistan, where UBL was at the time, along with his terror training camps and such. once they were gone, iraq was next, because they were a threat. what's next, i don't know. it seems to be working, we have yet to have a major attack.

First, the time span between the post and your response was not long enough for you to have done even an ounce of research on any of those people. The fact that the letter was from 1998 is in itself significant.

Where is UBL (Dead or alive)?

Oh, and how long did SH go between the first attempt on the WTC and his next attack? Was it 5 years? Was it 6? I'm curious and would like to know.

[edit] I should clerify that I used SH in the above paragraph on purpose. Also, how long did UBL go?

 

[faust9]

back the we were in the cold war era. saddam was the lesser of the two evil, so we backed saddam. oh yeah, dosn't oil help pay bills? would things happen differently if carter would have backed up the shah before it fell to a more radical government? can i have a source that you used? i know that we supplied them, but WMDs? saddam was perfectly capible of making his own WMDs, and he did.

Source for what? The fact that we prevent the UN from acting? Public record---find it yourself. That we supplied WMD's to SH? Again public record(been there done that have the pictures to show for it ie Rummy and the now infamous hand shake).

[edit] I'd also like to know how the Shah of Iran came to power and why this displeased so many in Iran and why a religious revolution spring up in a part of the world that was Democratic at one point in time---hint it has to do with Oil.

 

[1123581321]

F, that's a good question. I invite YOU to stand in the question for a while, as objectively as you can. Can you generate any other reasonable motives for the admin. having invaded, other than their stated purpose?

I certainly believe in every fiber of my body that the we entered the war with manufactured evidence, or, at the very least, negligently relied on what we did have.
I believe the administration continues to misrepresnt the facts of the war.

You seem to be quite entrenched in your position. I don't know the truth, but I know that I don't know it. I'm open to learning something new that will impact my beliefs. Are you?
By the way, this sounds personal, it's not. Or, at least no more so than saying a rainstorm is personal to the a person getting wet. It is, but the storm isn't personally aimed at the individual. The anology? As humans, we often failed to question that which we believe to be the truth. Even, at times, those who are as learned and emersed in the structures of logical and scientific paradigms, such as you and I and others in this forum.

My 'answers' are of no value to you. I invite you to tackle, like a project, finding support for positions contrary to your current belief system regarding this war. I trust that if you passionately take on this challenge, you will gain immeasurably. (Whether you change your position or not, I care not, I just want you to engage in a self generative inquiry.)

the stated reasons for the war were:
WMDs
Saddam supported terrorism
but mainly WMDs
we have found no WMDs in iraq, but that dosn't indicate that they were not there up to the start of the war.
we know that saddam was trying to get WMD, he already had Bio/chem, but wanted nuke. i remember watching the History channel, where there was an episode about WMD inspections. weapons inspectors found a "calutron" or something of similar name that is used to refine weapons grade uranium. the UN inspectors, so it was not manufactured by the us. the history channel is not a political station, so i trust the information was un-biased.
we have not found WMDs in iraq yet. it is not likely that we ever will. i don't know what happened to them, so i am not going to speculate.
i can't say why we went to war with iraq, except for (at the time) it would help our global war on terror. just as times have changed, so has our understanding of what lead up to the war. even if our initial reasons for the war were not justified, look at the potential for iraq. even if there were no WMDs, and saddam never supported terrorsim, he was a despot, and it is a tendency for americans to give help to others. what would have happened to germany if we hadn't helped rebuild after ww2? they would have a harder time, and would not be contributing to society as they do today. we ravaged germany, but we also helped rebuild what we had bombed. the same is happening in iraq. even if our stated reasons for invasion were not justified, that dosn't make it fruitless.

 

[1123581321]

First, the time span between the post and your response was not long enough for you to have done even an ounce of research on any of those people. The fact that the letter was from 1998 is in itself significant.

Where is UBL (Dead or alive)?

Oh, and how long did SH go between the first attempt on the WTC and his next attack? Was it 5 years? Was it 6? I'm curious and would like to know.

[edit] I should clerify that I used SH in the above paragraph on purpose. Also, how long did UBL go?

i know who many of those people are, some of them are in the news right now (bolton). where is UBL, we just don't know. are you saying that it is bush's fault that we don't know where he is? didn't clintion have a good chance to kill binladen, why didn't he? it is not all bush's fault.
could the war on terror have been avoided had clinton killed UBL?
is that how you tell me that our war had no affect on terrorist attacks "how long has it been" so you say that we won't be attacked again until 2009? ok, let's throw caution to the wind until '09, and then we'll crack down on terrorism! we'll be ok.

 

[rrgoldstein]

I doubt many people would support an immediate departure, thus leaving the country unstable and likely a great threat in the region than it was before our invasion. So, yes, I agree with your implied assertion that we must at least stablize, before we get out. We must address the situation as it is now, now matter how ill-advised (in 20/20 hindsight), that it may have been to enter.

But, to say cleaing up and leaving with some stability justifies the invasion because it now bears some 'fruit' fails to recognize that we must pick our battles carefully. Unfortnaltey, we do not have unlimited resources, and this war has, inargueably, thinned our ability to address other, more immediate needs (N. Korea, Iran, genocides in Africa, Afghanastan, and domestic issues of education, poverty, drugs, health care, disease, etc.)

So, again, while I agree that when we do finally get out, Iraq will be in a better place (assuming we leave with a democratic system in place), THIS acomplishment in no way justifies our invasion in the first place.

There were many other options for addressing SH. (Bettering intel. (which we've needed to do anyway now), covert ops., etc.)

It is truly staggering to think what we could have accomplished with the almost $200 BILLION that this war has cost thus far.

 

[faust9]

i know who many of those people are, some of them are in the news right now (bolton). where is UBL, we just don't know. are you saying that it is bush's fault that we don't know where he is? didn't clintion have a good chance to kill binladen, why didn't he? it is not all bush's fault.
could the war on terror have been avoided had clinton killed UBL?
is that how you tell me that our war had no affect on terrorist attacks "how long has it been" so you say that we won't be attacked again until 2009? ok, let's throw caution to the wind until '09, and then we'll crack down on terrorism! we'll be ok.

You're building a strawman with Clinton now. Bush invaded Afghanistan to catch UBL. Where is UBL now.

Knowing who someone is and reading their published thoughts for the last 20 years then juxtaposing those thoughts with the current situation is are completely different. I can know who Cardinal Richelieu is by name but do I know who he was? Not without reading his writings I don't.

How was starting a war in Iraq on trumped up charges which has been breeding terrorist since the invasion prevent a terrorist attack? Have you missed the news reports where experts and Bush admin alike say we will probably be attacke din the fututre again anyway? The war in Iraq was not for the reasons you think it was for. It is a continuation of policies the hawks wanted to put into place in 1990 but Bush 1 saw the folly of such a plan of action.

You cannot bring democracy at the tip of a bayonet. To do so requires two A-bombs and or 7 to 15 years of occupation (no A-bomb was needed in the PI but the 15 years was). Pax American for the new century is a joke based on the random thoughts of career politicians who dabble in business or think tanks between republican administrations.

My opinion is pull out now or pull out later the same thing will occure.

 

[Daminc]

I've got a lot to say about this subject but I think it might be best if I introduce my friend and colleague Simon instead as he has done a lot more study than I so without further ado heeeerrrreeeees Simon...

Hi people, very interesting thread and topic...

To start with I would like to express my relief at hearing americans being fully aware of the situation, many Brits and Europeans are getting the impression of America being the greatest threat to the world since nazi Germany. And you have to ask yourselves why this is an increasing view of the U.S and it's people.

I have had plenty of experience of the UK military, I know things are done, and more importantly, how things should be done. We have an extremely professional armed forces who are a fierce foe when it comes down to it. On the other hand, we also know how civilians should be dealt with. Humanely.

Unfortunately, the US policy of just "shoot everything that moves" makes them very unpopular with the locals. Look at the difference between the north and the south of Iraq, the north is American controlled, the south primarily British. We get considerably less trouble in the south because we treat the population with respect.

I would feel uncomfortable to be anywhere near US forces, and I know for a fact that some of my friends that have recently worked closely with US troops in Iraq could not believe how unprofessional they were, with no respect for their enemies, civilians or anyone for that matter, "badly trained robot kids with guns" was an exact quote.

It's a shame, because the armed forces of a country generally reflect the people of their country... I think that this may answer the question of why the world is gradually turning against the US.

----------------------

Well that's my mate, (and that was diplomatic of him, believe me :) )

 

[1123581321]

did anyone see the news confrence about 5 minutes ago. you know, the one with bush and the iraqi primeminister? if you didn't, i trust that you will read a transcript.

i will no longer post in this thread, this discussion is going nowhere except to make people mad.

fibonacci

 

[faust9]

did anyone see the news confrence about 5 minutes ago. you know, the one with bush and the iraqi primeminister? if you didn't, i trust that you will read a transcript.

i will no longer post in this thread, this discussion is going nowhere except to make people mad.

fibonacci

This has no relevance to the conversation. Did you not read the article form the very first post where the General in charge in the ME contradicts the statements of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. Have you ever heard of an Ivory Tower?

[edit] So, we've come full circle---that being the lies eminating from the white house. Why do we allow the WH to tell us terrorism and insurgency are on the decline while the actual data refutes their position. Remember the retracted world terrorism report? Truth is a four letter word to the WH---Rove---beginning with the letter S and ending with the letter T.

 

[SOS2008]

The ridiculousness of the reasons put forth to justify an illegal invasion of a country never ceases to amaze me, and I can only remind myself that the number of people who still have this illogical thinking are decreasing in number--thank goodness.

If you look at history, even recent history, and other dictators that have existed, whether Marcos, Baby Doc, the Shah, these leaders remain in power as long as the U.S. supports them. When the U.S. no longer supports them, it is just a matter of time before they fall from power, and it doesn't even have to involve covert assassination (though those have occurred as well). In the case of Saddam, IMO we should have allowed more time to pass with more violations of UN resolutions until there was majority support from the world to take action (as a true coalition), in the meantime keeping Iraq contained with inspections and sanctions--Saddam wasn't a threat to his neighbors, and certainly not to the U.S.

As much as we may not like what goes on in other countries, international laws need to be maintained, for example sovereignty, to preserve world order (macro level) and no different than, for example, protection of individual rights to preserve democracy in our nation (micro level). We have debated repeatedly the root of terrorism (did you not read the words directly from OBL's mouth?) and that addressing these things is how terrorism would be solved--not by traditional war against nation states, which only fuels the fire of terrorism. It is appalling that there are those who still can't understand this.

As for neocon visions of spreading democracy and nation-building, this would need to be a separate thread, but IMO it is not a realistic vision. This is what is really at the basis of much of the support of the invasion in Iraq. Well, not only won't it work, but the majority of Americans do not support it, nor the majority of the world. So let's stop with this nonsense.

 

[Hurkyl]

You seem to have misinterpreted my point

As have you. (Actually, I suspect you know full well what my point is, but chose to ignore it. Anyways...)

The insurgency is NOT a group of Iraqis shooting at American invaders. It consists of Iraqis and foreigners. Americans are targets of the insurgency, but so are Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi government, Iraq's infrastructure, Iraqi civilians, ...

I did not bring up a Martian invasion because, as far as I know, a Martian invasion is not one of the things the insurgency is doing.


By the way, I notice you've now twice quoted the question "So exactly how were they to be freed?" without answering it.


P.S. your link doesn't work. Was vulgarity really necessary?

 

[Informal Logic]

...Have you missed the news reports where experts and Bush admin alike say we will probably be attacked in the fututre again anyway?

Here is where you hit the nail on the head, faust9. It is obvious that some posts are from young members, some who have little or no college education, and if they bother to watch the news, it is probably Fox News. Even so, there are so many books on the topic, there is no excuse for posting in an academic forum without doing proper research and providing evidence accordingly. Personally, I just skip past those posts, as these are a waste of my time.

...You cannot bring democracy at the tip of a bayonet. To do so requires two A-bombs and or 7 to 15 years of occupation (no A-bomb was needed in the PI but the 15 years was). Pax American for the new century is a joke based on the random thoughts of career politicians who dabble in business or think tanks between republican administrations.

Once again, I agree...with the exception that IMO larger bombs or longer occupation does not win hearts and minds. If the US pulled out of Iraq today, the process of self government could begin, with high probability of civil war. If the US pulls out in a few years from now, the odds are the situation would still deteriorate into civil war. So what is gained by staying longer? Nothing except more training of more terrorists.

...To start with I would like to express my relief at hearing americans being fully aware of the situation,

Maybe 48% of Americans have been fully aware of the situation, but you may not want to feel too much relief about the rest. It is difficult to tell if the recent polls reflect real understanding or the usual, shallow, short-term perceptions of most uninformed or misinformed Americans. If these people are just tired of news about insurgent attacks, rather than being disgusted with Bush and his administration for their lies and incompetence, nothing has been learned.

In the meantime, your comparison of British versus US troops has been made before (which thread I do not remember), and unfortunately it was not given much validity. If it is any consolation, I agree with you on this.

Members keep asking how the people of Iraq could be freed--too bad they do not ask if US foreign policy is or should be one of freeing oppressed people of the world, and if so, why is there no consistency in this regard? Also, alternatives to war have already been touched upon in this thread (and elsewhere). To advocate war as the answer to everything is disturbing, especially when not in self defense. In the case of Iraq, it is illegal to invade a country for purposes of regime change, which also has been stated above.

Now back to the OP, invading Iraq was a mistake. Bush and supporters need to acknowledge this. Of course if they do not, it will be for the best--as this will only cause the credibility gap to widen further. Perhaps we should hope for this so we can ensure regime change here at home.

 

[Art]

As have you. (Actually, I suspect you know full well what my point is, but chose to ignore it. Anyways...)
The insurgency is NOT a group of Iraqis shooting at American invaders. It consists of Iraqis and foreigners. Americans are targets of the insurgency, but so are Iraqi security forces, the Iraqi government, Iraq's infrastructure, Iraqi civilians, ...

The second half of your statement contradicts the first but I will try to answer it anyway. When they wantonly kill Iraqi civilians then I agree that is a terrorist act just as it is when one of the many separate insurgent groups wantonly kill civilians. nb I've already provided figs. for the ratio of Iraqi to foreign fighters twice. I suggest you look at the numbers.

By the way, I notice you've now twice quoted the question "So exactly how were they to be freed?" without answering it.

You are pre-supposing that the Iraqi people needed to be freed by the US military whilst I do not. The UN were handling it without the use of 500lb bombs. Given the choice of living for another year or two under Saddam or being blown to smithereens I suspect most of the thousands of free (but now dead) Iraqis would have chosen the former.
You are also pre-supposing that the purpose of this military adventure was to free the Iraqi people which makes you one of the very few who still believe that bs (oops another vulgarity)

ps The link was for a US Military Recruitment site.

 

[1123581321]

cut the bashing

i said earlier that i would refrain from posting, but i feel the urge.
there is no convinsing me that i am wrong, and there is no convinsing you that you are wrong. this is no longer a debate, this is a liberal/conservative/america/world/un/iraq/everything bashing mud-slinging contest. some info used is crap, and everyone is getting pissed off. this thread needs to become civil, or it needs to be closed. i said some stuff that made some people mad, and i am sorry to anyone that i offended. there, now let's quit acting like idiots. I ask, that if the crap continues, this thread be closed.

fibonacci

 

[faust9]

i said earlier that i would refrain from posting, but i feel the urge.
there is no convinsing me that i am wrong, and there is no convinsing you that you are wrong. this is no longer a debate, this is a liberal/conservative/america/world/un/iraq/everything bashing mud-slinging contest. some info used is crap, and everyone is getting pissed off. this thread needs to become civil, or it needs to be closed. i said some stuff that made some people mad, and i am sorry to anyone that i offended. there, now let's quit acting like idiots. I ask, that if the crap continues, this thread be closed.

fibonacci

What are you talking about?

Have you read any of the other threads in this forum? This is mild and civil debate. As of yet I havn't seen any refutation to my initial claim that the WH continuously misrepresent the Iraqi situation and is consistently called on those fibs by Generals, professionals, and Congressional Republicans along the the Democratic drone and the grow displeased voice of Americans.

Why is the WH allowd to skirt the truth and present half truths the way it does?