Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/sessions.php on line 254
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/sessions.php on line 255
Anime-Source.Com: Forums
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/page_header.php on line 499
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/page_header.php on line 501
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/anime/public_html/banzai/header.php:34) in /home/anime/public_html/banzai/includes/page_header.php on line 502 Anime-Source.com :: View topic - Although most will disagree...
yea he sucks.
but he was better than the alternative...
sort of like Stalin rather than Hitler in WW2.
(not a completely acurate analagy but you get the idea)
John Kerry was such a fascist
Once again, someone talking out of the wrong end of the digestive tube.
People tend to overlook Stalin's cruelty because the soviets won WWII. No other reason, really. The communists also had labor camps with inhuman living conditions, racial/cultural/religious/political persecution was rampant in the old Soviet Union, and he also sent tons of peoples to their deaths because either he disliked them or he thought it was for th better good of the USSR. I bet you'd probably dislike him just because he was a communist, but the simple fact is that he also committed plenty of crimes against humanity, and no matter who makes them those are still crimes. Bush just takes advantage of loopholes, but that's about the difference in the case of Iraq. He doesn't kill his own people, he sends them to get killed in the middle east. Big deal.
Doomsought wrote:
He sucked strategicaly, mostly to being weak against politics, the war should have been take no prisoners.
Are you suggesting it would hsve been a "kill them all" policy". I wonder if your real name isn't "Donald Rumsfeld". What's next? torture? Forced sterilization? The sky's the limit? On retrospective, that may have been better, actually. It would have been somewhat of a genocidal war; the world press would have been all over it. Everyone loves genocide. Same result, none of the lies. At least you're straightforward abut it.
doomsouht wrote:
and we haven't changed the culture at all.
I wasn't aware that was the US set out to do. I recall something about weapons of mass destruction and suspected terrorist links, but not cultural brainwashing. Either way, you're wasting your time. Not gonna happen. Cultural change doesn't happen at gunpoint.
doomsouht wrote:
Then there are his Mexican ties, as in family ties to the corupt Mexican regiem.
Not questioning that; I'm not well informed on that subject. _________________
Joined: Nov 15, 2005 Posts: 100 Location: Cyberspace
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:17 pm Post subject:
I know I've said that I'm ending the argument, and after this I'm going to let it drop, but there are a few points I wanted to make before doing so:
forgetwillnot wrote:
I kinda understood it like this, maybe your cranium is much bigger than mine, i dunno, im no rocket scientist..
If you area a dictator, expect a big line of people wanting to bash your head, and knowing that..I can easily get my hands clean..i didn't kill you but your dead, so its all the same to me..
Hmmm, i can agree that much but i don't like Mobocracy,
Angry mobs and all, you can have that!
What part of "world politics" did you not understand? It wasn't up to us. The rest of the world decided on Hussein's fate.
Quote:
I don't know about the thers but i have my own Hypothesis
USA is a superpower, and a superpower need more resources, and it has a high possibility that USA has dibs on those Strategic..
As you say that these WMD's are existing then i can also say that the intent of having a piece of those juicy oil resources is also existent..
Those oilfields wont be disappearing anytime so expect a Secret War
oh...wait...There are already Skirmishes, threats and skirmishes in Iran..
I'm sorry, but I really don't see any connection here between your argument and the facts.
And while you're at it, explain again how this would help Bush? At this point, oil is irrelevant to his cause. Whatever possibility that the U.S. may have to those oil fields are minimal at best and is certainly not the only or the main reason why we're there. It has already been established that Iraq will inherit control of those oil fields as a base for their economy . . . that is, if it can ever get their economy off the ground.
What you're talking about is the remnants of a conspiracy theory.
As for troops torturing prisoners --- that was only a group of soldiers, not all of them. They, in no way, represent the whole military, and they have been punished severely for their actions. Every military will have its bad apples, and every military has been guilty of having members torturing prisoners. This is a fact of life involving basic human nature and its ability to go in many different directions.
Quote:
They conceal informations because for counter intelligence..
Hah! I'd Give terrorists more credit than that..
i dont think watching TV is their only means of collecting strategic info..
Ok, lets just say media concealment is helping that much...
Then why oh why did they allow the airing of hussein's execution..?
Now that i really can't explain...for the glory of Bush senior or whatever..
I cannot accept that..
You loathe Hussein so much..can the execution make you any better?
how did it help? Hussein is in captivity, better to question him! but i dont think hanging him will reveal your precious WMD's..or maybe Saddam's head is a pez dispenser..
Is there still a search for those WMD's? there are none..
What proof do i have? because troops are too busy fighting for their lives and trying to survive..
Heh..I'll look for them!! i have a magical pale and shovel..
compared to NORAD or whatever stealth thingamajigs US has they are no match for my magical pale and shovel..
Oh did i tell you about my Bomb Dousing Rods?? I bought them from home TV shopping..... -__-;
. . . have you even spoken to any member of the troops? Have you ever spoken to or interviewed a terrorist? Hence, you really don't know what you're talking about.
Study the psychology of a terrorist before you make any more claims. The vast majority of them are uneducated and ignorant people who are only doing what their leaders are telling them. Most of them are brain-washed. 95% are what is labeled as Wannabes while only 5% are True Believers. Completely different mentalities there.
For the ones that are in control . . . I mean, come on. Do you really think that it wouldn't make a difference for them if we did air our plans on TV? Whatever they've got going on in however ways that they do, we don't need to make it any easier for them. This much is just common sense, and if you can't even comprehend that in this little argument of yours, I don't even understand why I'm wasting my time with you. It's obvious to me that you aren't looking for the truth. You're just trying to complain about things you've only heard about.
And that . . . proof . . . that you have. Again, I say go to your nearest fort and actually speak to some of the soldiers that have been to Iraq already and who will soon go back, most of them without complaints. You really, REALLY, don't know what you're talking about. Popular opinion really would be very different if the media would air a few unbiased interviews with the soldiers in Iraq. Believe me, they're anxious to speak out --- but the media is keeping a lid on it because it goes against the image they're trying to convey to the public.
Btw, airing Hussein's execution was the media's fault. Someone illegally filmed the whole thing on a camera phone and then put it on the internet. The media took it from there.
And, yeah, it did make me feel better that Hussein was executed. Why? Because if he'd lived it would've only made things worse for the people of Iraq. Keep terrorist leaders alive, you keep terrorist cells alive. When he died, you can be that a lot of terrorist cells went right with him.
What did I say before anyway? America didn't execute him, and it wasn't our say so if he lived or died. We'd already gotten all of the information that we could out of him, and there was almost nothing he knew that we didn't already know. The world had decided his fate and left him to his people. And Hussein had decided his fate before that.
Quote:
So your government will wait until NK&China desolates their neighbors?
Yeah I know their leader is smarter..everybody knows that..
what i want to know is that your GOVERNMENT chose to investigate a non-proven or receipt proven WMD rather than a country which is waving their nuclear capabilities at the world, did we confirm if they did build a bomb of some sort..a very clear...Y-E-S
i dont even have to prove that NK has nuke, its all over the Archives for crying out loud!!!
*sigh*
lol
That's what negotiations are for. China is a powerful country. If they're backing North Korea up, then we'll try to negotiate. It's not a good idea to get into a war with China if it's avoidable which, at this point, it is.
North Korea is far less likely to use the weapons because its leader can THINK. He knows that everyone in the world are aware of his status. He knows that everyone in the world is watching him, including China. He knows, and he's being smart about it. He hasn't directed any nuclear threat against the U.S. because if he had, believe me, the U.S. would already have crossed North Korea's borders and China would've paved the way for us.
Quote:
Just to be clear, im not on Hussein and definitely not on Bush's
but rather it could've been better..
I'll at least concede that maybe a few strategic manuevers could've been handled better, but there are far more people to blame for that than just Bush. Even now, the positioning of the troops could be handled better.
But then I don't know what else is going on behind the scenes, as far as that's concerned. All I know for sure is that plans have been laid out to take place over the course of the next 10-50 years, but they could easily be changed/ruined depending on the outcome of the next presidential election.
There will always be some hindsight criticism. Anything can and could've been handled better. Mistakes had been made, especially since communications had been for crap. Believe me, no one's beating themselves up more for that than the ones that made those mistakes.
Last edited by tenunda on Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:48 am; edited 1 time in total
If you area a dictator, expect a big line of people wanting to bash your head
True.
Quote:
It wasn't up to us. The rest of the world decided on Hussein's fate.
As far as I know that's partially incorrect; though it is ultimately a technicality. It wasn't up to the rest of the world. it was up to the recently "liberated" Iraqis, and since the ones in power turned out to be the ones who didn't like Saddam (like the US would have allowed anyone who liked him there anyway), He was executed under orders of Iraqis. The US didn't get him killed directly, but they did play a part, even if only in making his government collapse.
Quote:
And while you're at it, explain again how this would help Bush? At this point, oil is irrelevant to his cause. Whatever possibility that the U.S. may have to those oil fields are minimal at best and is certainly not the only or the main reason why we're there. It has already been established that Iraq will inherit control of those oil fields as a base for their economy . . . that is, if it can ever get their economy off the ground.
How naive.
First off, The US has an obscene rate of resource consumption, it is also long-term planning that leads it to have huge reserves. Now, that oil is indeed a valuable resources, because by controlling those the US will not have to rely on its reserves, which means that whenever resource depletion hits us, the US will be the less hardly hit because of them. Even if we were to move to alternate sources of energy an power tomorrow that Oil is a valuable resource, as t is used not only for fuels, but also to make plastics and other industrial materials. Control of the Iraqi oil is, if anything, a master stroke.
Now the second part of your point, that " It has already been established that Iraq will inherit control of those oil fields as a base for their economy . . . that is, if it can ever get their economy off the ground.", is something that can't be argued with... but it is beside the point.
Whose technology is going to extract those resources? Whose corporations? whose expertise? the US, of course. And that means sweet deals when it comes to getting oil, even if it is at only reduced prices, I bet that such a reduction will be drastic. And let's not mention the big bucks that will come from the Iraqi reconstruction. How can Iraq pay for those? well: money, cheap oil.... there's always room for negotiation here, but it certain that war is good business.
Quote:
95% are what is labeled as Wannabes while only 5% are True Believers.
Does that change the fact that they hate the US? that's what matters, right?
Anyway, it is true that the US can't go 'round airing every little progress it makes. Sometimes because it would blow the cover for double-agents, sometimes for strategic reasons, and because it is stupid to let your enemy know what you're doing to him on a TV broadcast. sure, they have other means... but they are less reliable and that makes a difference.
Quote:
Popular opinion really would be very different if the media would air a few unbiased interviews with the soldiers in Iraq. Believe me, they're anxious to speak out --- but the media is keeping a lid on it because it goes against the image they're trying to convey to the public.
Once again, naivete.
The media doesn't have a liberal bias. Just google "liberal media" and you'll get stuff from both sides of the argument. Having read some, I still find the "liberal media" to be more of a myth than anything. News corporation leaders are conservative in their views. It doesn't matter if the reporter is liberal, if the big guys don't like what he says he won't say it. Not if he wants to keep his job, anyway. Same goes for the people working on editorial positions and such. Anyway, being too "liberal" in the media and allowing the troops to speak out saying "we want out" would probably wreck morale, so it makes sense not to do it, or do it in the patchy way it is done so far.
If you really buy the "Fair and Ballanced" slogan that Fox and Bill O'Reilly so like to chant, you're just gullible.
Quote:
Keep terrorist leaders alive, you keep terrorist cells alive. When he died, you can be that a lot of terrorist cells went right with him.
Some died, some where born. One word: Martyr.
And besides, Hussein was locked in a prison. Let me know how you lead a terrorist army from prison. Not a very effective leader, huh? Anyway, those who hoped to get him out might have had to change their priorities, but that doesn't mean lay down arms. Getting angry and wanting to get the US out of the country is a perfectly reasonable reaction.
Quote:
What did I say before anyway? America didn't execute him, and it wasn't our say so if he lived or died. We'd already gotten all of the information that we could out of him, and there was almost nothing he knew that we didn't already know.
You said yourself that terrorists and others like them are uneducated and rather ignorant, spoon-fed with ideas by leaders. "The US killed Saddam" makes for excellent propaganda; these guys wouldn't be able to figure out the extent of US involvement in that. For them any involvement is more than enough.
Quote:
North Korea is far less likely to use the weapons because its leader can THINK.
And Saddam couldn't? If anything, managing to stay in power after the Kuwait fiasco means that the guy is a capable negotiator. Although I have to concede that Bush Sr. knew what he was doing a lot better than his son and took a hands-off approach. Anyway, China's backing IS an important reason why the US hasn't invaded Korea. There is unchecked genocide going on in Sudan right now, and the US hasn't moved a finger. Why? Nobody cares about Sudan. Too low profile and no tangible benefits. Think the US are as humanitarian as preached? Think again. It's all politics. Nobody liked Iraq, which made it a prime target for invasion, add to that a despised leader with crimes against humanity, attractive resources and forged/questionable evidence of WMDs and you have an invitation for invasion.
Quote:
because if he had, believe me, the U.S. would already have crossed North Korea's borders and China would've paved the way for us.
I doubt it. If Pyongyang does something China isn't too happy about China is more likely to just let it go and abandon it to its fate, rather than go into an expensive war that the overstretched US would wage anyway. _________________
Joined: Nov 15, 2005 Posts: 100 Location: Cyberspace
Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject:
Quote:
It wasn't up to the rest of the world. it was up to the recently "liberated" Iraqis, and since the ones in power turned out to be the ones who didn't like Saddam (like the US would have allowed anyone who liked him there anyway), He was executed under orders of Iraqis. The US didn't get him killed directly, but they did play a part, even if only in making his government collapse.
. . . I've said pretty much the same thing. Several times. It's just as you say, you're breaking up what I've posted with unimportant technicalities that I hadn't even ignored in the first place. When I state that the rest of the world had decided his fate, I meant that the rest of the world had decided he'd be handed to the Iraqis. The U.S. merely delivered Saddam to his fate, something he'd brought down on himself a long time ago anyway. Of course, it's not like America was against his death. If anything, most Americans were rooting for it, and justifiably so.
There was nothing naive about my previous post. History has shown a pattern with this kind of behavior. Not only am I going off on present facts and my own experience, I'm also basing it on past actions and reactions.
Just about everything you've brought up is mostly conjecture and, as you've stated, based on technicalities, and I'm not going to worry about technicalities if they don't present a major impact on what's actually going on. It's naive to take such presumptions without a grain of salt, especially those involving the media. I know for a fact it is biased, and I didn't need a google search to learn this. I have life experience. You work within a system long enough, you come to find out that what they air on TV isn't what's actually going on. Ratings is number one priority within the media world, and it's going to do whatever it can to stress the American public out enough to keep those ratings up. Again, I say this based on experience. I know.
The media can be useful and isn't completely unreliable, but you really have to know what to look for and how to look for it to get dependable information from it. To believe otherwise is the worst kind of naivete.
Terrorists, btw, don't have martyrs. Research their structure and the psychology behind most of their members. You kill their leaders, you kill them, too. These are not revolutionaries, here, at least not in the mental aspect.
Terrorists will always continue to exist, of that we can all be certain, but we're talking about damage control here. Keep their numbers down, you keep the damage down. When Hussein was executed, Al Qaeda's numbers dropped by a dramatic margin. We are currently hunting down its remaining leaders so that we can completely kill this organization because this particular organization is definitely out to get us. It won't stop new orgs from popping up, but you could say the same thing about termites. You deal with the issues as they pop and do the best you can to keep them from getting worse. It's about maintainance.
Another point: I never stated that the U.S. government was humanitarian in nature, and I really don't believe I conveyed this message in any way. North Korea has not threatened us the way Iraq has, which is why we haven't come banging down its door, yet. I did keep stressing world politics, didn't I? No government is innocent from playing games, and I never even implied that America was the exception.
As for business ventures involving the oil industry, they could never serve as a main purpose behind an invasion of this scale. Whatever else we're getting out of this set up, they're mutual benefits that naturally come about from situations like this. Furthermore, we're not the only ones trying to stick our foot in, and we never imagined that it would be any other way. There's plenty of competition to go around.
We didn't invade Iraq for the oil or for anything attached to the oil industry. The benefits alone just aren't strong enough and the cons involved far outweigh the pros.
We're there primarily for the terrorists; secondly, to clean up our own mess. People are people, regardless of the politics, and we still carry a sense of responsibility for our actions. Everything else is tertiary in nature and it's only natural that the U.S. would attempt to recup some of its financial loss from an endeavor of this size. You get a bunch of lemons, you try to make some lemonade. Any other government, any other business, would do the same.
And I can't agree that Saddam was a savvy thinker. It wasn't his capabities as a negotiator that saved him from the Gulf War, for example. It was his surrender after he'd realized that he was outgunned, something that doesn't take a genius to do. At that time he hadn't been directly threatening us and he had once been ally, so we cut him a break. What he did was ride the political wave that was already there, given protocol and procedure. He also didn't accomplish anything while in prison other than exist. Al Qaeda generals ran things while he was locked up, and it was very loose to start with. They were all over the place when Saddam got captured. Besides that, Saddam's not their only leader.
I don't give Saddam any credit because any real method behind his actions was nonexistent. All he had going for him was his paranoia and ruthlessness.
But actual intelligence aside, Saddam made some pretty bad calls in his final years that any novice would've known better than to make. Maybe it's because he got cocky, but his actions were stupid any way you look at it. He wasn't even that covert about it.
Saddam had been given a chance to avoid an invasion, btw, and all he did was deny what we had already known was fact. He had purchased WMDs, mostly from the fallen Soviet Union, and with everything else that was going on at the time we weren't about to overlook it. He got cocky and thought he could get away with it.
As for the troops and how they feel about all of this, the vast majority of them wouldn't say "we want out". If you've lived by a military base (namely Ft. Hood) for most of your life and worked in a business that caters mostly to the military, you'd know that. Of course you'll have some that want to go home, but the majority feel they're doing their jobs as only they can do them. Most of them only want to go home because they miss their families and wish to see them from time to time, and most are given the opportunity. But most of them are also ready and willing to go right back to Iraq, too. The biggest complaint that the majority of them have with being there is in dealing with the heat and the very fine dirt that's everywhere. They are soldiers, and they're proud of it.
I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with the movement, but not when it's based on something unsupported. If you have an intelligent and legitimate basis behind your belief, then more power to you, but I've had it with people making unsubstantiated claims about U.S. soldiers and the current situation in Iraq.
Quote:
I doubt it. If Pyongyang does something China isn't too happy about China is more likely to just let it go and abandon it to its fate, rather than go into an expensive war that the overstretched US would wage anyway.
. . . how did you misconstrue what I'd posted as saying something to the contrary? "Paving the way" pretty much means just making it easy for us to do what we want, doesn't it? Right now China is acting as a giant road block, but they'd remove themselves if the aforementioned scenerio ever took place.
Much of what you've posted didn't really address my main points and sometimes only reiterized them, although I didn't get the impression that you were agreeing with any of them. Often, they were beside the points. I was a little confused about this, but, again, maybe I just didn't make myself clear enough. The other points of argument that I'd stressed outside of my main beefs, previously, were mostly to rebut certain other claims that had been made.
In any case, the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, just as you've said.
Just about everything you've brought up is mostly conjecture and, as you've stated, based on technicalities, and I'm not going to worry about technicalities if they don't present a major impact on what's actually going on. It's naive to take such presumptions without a grain of salt, especially those involving the media. I know for a fact it is biased, and I didn't need a google search to learn this. I have life experience. You work within a system long enough, you come to find out that what they air on TV isn't what's actually going on. Ratings is number one priority within the media world, and it's going to do whatever it can to stress the American public out enough to keep those ratings up. Again, I say this based on experience. I know.
The media can be useful and isn't completely unreliable, but you really have to know what to look for and how to look for it to get dependable information from it. To believe otherwise is the worst kind of naivete.
Oh, an empiricist. I really don't think that you're saying BS, but "I know" doesn't make for a compelling argument, if you ask me. If in college I had written a paper and as sources I had written "I know; it is my experience", I bet I would have got a big, fat F. Case in point, When the US invaded Iraq, the people in charge used Intelligence reports, not "I know"s. Unreliable as that intel might have been, it was there. It is based on evidence that people present their realities. You know that? Well it happens that I know otherwise.
Anyway, I wasn't saying that the media is always out there valiantly reporting on the frontlines of the truth, or that is is nothing but a bunch of pretty pictures hung in front of the public with no connection to reality. What I AM saying is that the media is indeed biased, depending on who the man in the armchair is, and as it happens, most (certainly not all) armchair men are conservative. There is liberal media? Yes, there is. There is conservative media? Yes there is, and it just happens to be more than the other. My point is that the Liberal media that you demonize so much is but a fraction of what's out there, and the smaller one at that.
Quote:
Terrorists, btw, don't have martyrs. Research their structure and the psychology behind most of their members. You kill their leaders, you kill them, too. These are not revolutionaries, here, at least not in the mental aspect.
Fine, Sigmund, they don't. But freedom fighters do. What's the difference between them? Perspective. A terrorist doesn't perceive himself as an evil agent out for blood or as the scum of the universe, he fights for a cause, be it homeland, beliefs, family, revenge, etc, and is willing to butcher innocents if he has to. But he is ultimately a hero of sorts, and heroes do have use for martyrs, don't they?
Quote:
When Hussein was executed, Al Qaeda's numbers dropped by a dramatic margin.
Sources, please. I can't say yay or nay, but if I recall Hussein didn't have ties to Al Quaeda, so the connection between one thing and the other is not there. No connection means little to no effect, by simple reasoning. Now, I have to agree that Iraq probably had links with more than 1 terrorist organization, but not with Al-Quaeda.
Quote:
We are currently hunting down its remaining leaders so that we can completely kill this organization because this particular organization is definitely out to get us. It won't stop new orgs from popping up, but you could say the same thing about termites. It's about maintainance.
Ok, that's right.
Quote:
I don't think I've made myself clear before. I never stated that the U.S. was humanitarian in nature, and I really don't believe I conveyed this message in any way.
You didn't. I took that tangent all on my own simply to make the point that"liberating the iraqi people" and getting rid of a bloodthisrty dictator amount to little more than excuses in the invasion of Iraq, leaving us with the Al-Quaeda ties (not proved) and the WMDs (not found). But what the US DID find were strategic oil reserves. As far as I'm concerned that is a little too convenient.
Quote:
North Korea has not threatened us the way Iraq has, which is why we haven't come banging down its door, yet.
I'll play the "idiot' card here and declare myself one. In what way was Iraq a threat? I honestly do not know, please explain it to me.
Quote:
I did keep stressing world politics, didn't I? No government is innocent from playing a dirty game, and I never even implied that America was the exception. But we didn't invade Iraq for the oil. That might have been presented as a side benefit, but it certainly was not the main motivation or the main priority. And of course we're going to jump at the chance to boost our business elsewhere. ANY government would've done the same thing because it's only natural to try and make the best of this or any other situation. In any case, we're certainly not staying there for the oil or possible business ventures. They are only possible bonuses. We're there primarily for the terrorists; the other purpose is to clean up our own mess. People are people, regardless of the politics, and we still carry a sense of responsibility for our actions.
Well, yes, We're on the same side of the argument here except for 1 factor. You say that the oil was no motivation for the war, I think that it was. I think that the temptation to boost businesses or obtain more resources had a bigger impact that you do, but that's about it.
Quote:
Whatever business ventures we may have there in Iraq, you can bet your ass that we're not the only country there trying to get their piece in.
Hell yeah!
Quote:
And I can't agree that Saddam was a savvy thinker. It wasn't his capabities as a negotiator that saved him from the Gulf War. It was his surrender after he'd realized that he was outgunned. And at that time he hadn't been directly threatening us. He was an old ally. What he did was ride the political wave that was already there, given protocol and procedure.
Well yes, And I did say that the US had little intention of kicking him out anyway. Still, if he were such an idiot he could have simply continued fighting until the US beat the crap out of him. Well, even more. Anyway, I really don't think that if the guy were such a loser he could have maintained himself in power in the first place
Quote:
I don't give Saddam any credit because any real method behind his actions was nonexistent. Besides that, we'd given Saddam a chance to respond and negotiate, and all he did was deny what we know is fact.
My memory is blurry, but if I recall Iraq was willing to accept even more weapons inspectors again, to confirm his denial. It's not like he was saying "No WMD's, GTFO". Still, without the hard evidence (the weapons) it is well possible that the US could have been operating under incorrect information, and the fact that at least some information was known to be unreliable doesn't make to strong a case for a legitimately security-driven invasion. You've mentioned weapon receipts and everyone knows Iraq did own WMDs at some point, but it in the Gulf war Iraq was forced to get rid of them.
While I don't buy that Saddam was a goody 2 shoes and complied with all expediency and no bitterness, by the time the invasion was launched those weapons were apparently all out of commission, with no recent acquisitions in sight. At least I don't recall any being found... which contradicts what the US had used as a rationale for the invasion and confirms what Iraq had been saying all along. I doubt Iraq was following its international sanctions to the letter, but not to the extent that it was claimed either.
Quote:
The troops wouldn't say "we want out", btw. If you've lived by a military base (namely Ft. Hood) for most of your life and worked in a business that caters mostly to the military, you'd know that. Of course you'll have some that want to go home, but the majority feel they're doing their jobs as only they can do them. Most of them only want to go home because they miss their families, and most of them are given time each year to spend time with their families.
Well, I have to admit that I blundered there, I really expressed myself incorrectly. While I can't say that the troops are eager to leave, the government itself isn't making it easy for them to do their job either, which is bound to make many uncomfortable, to say the least. Its not like they want out today or tomorrow, but they do want an exit strategy fr the future, at least. So, the US will stay the course? That's great and I'm sure the troops will be proud to take on the assignment. But nobody has defined "the course" as far as I know. Right now what they are doing is going there, making raids, getting shot at and causing lots of collateral damage in the conflagration (something they have no control over; the troops can't be blamed for that). But where is the line drawn? Violence only breeds more violence. If not, ask Colombia, which has had guerrilla warfare going on since forever, even since before the nice cash flow from drug trafficking. But I digress. Point is, if you only have people fighting you're not going to get a solution. The troops are doing what they can, but it is not working. You said it yourself, they are doing "damage control". How much is enough?
Quote:
. . . how did you misconstrue what I'd posted as saying something to the contrary? "Paving the way" pretty much means just making it easy for us to do what we want, doesn't it?
Overemphasis. I understood "paving the way" as China getting so pissed at korea that they would do a joint attack with the US.... for which Korea would practically have to shoot at the chinese first if its ever gonna happen. As I said, more than disagreeing I overemphasized it. My bad. Maybe saying "getting put of the way" would have been more unambiguous, but that is just phraseology. *shrug* Nobody cares.
Quote:
although I didn't get the impression that you were agreeing with any of them.
With some yes, with some no.
Quote:
In any case, the invasion of Iraq was inevitable, just as you've said.
Now that I didn't say. I said that there were plenty of reasons for invasion, but no matter how Machiavellian you get about it it was never "inevitable". I honestly think that not all diplomatic routes had been exhausted by the time the invasion was launched. _________________
Joined: Nov 15, 2005 Posts: 100 Location: Cyberspace
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:43 am Post subject:
Okay, whatever you say.
I respect your position, candor, and insight. As it is, I'll leave this argument for everyone else as I've had my say and feel I've said all I've needed to say. People can check the validity of my statements on their own, and they can either confirm or discount them. It makes no difference to me as long as they know that there is more than one valid side of the same story.
Joined: May 01, 2007 Posts: 309 Location: All aboard to nowhere!!
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:12 am Post subject:
For the ones that are in control . . . I mean, come on. Do you really think that it wouldn't make a difference for them if we did air our plans on TV? Whatever they've got going on in however ways that they do, we don't need to make it any easier for them. This much is just common sense, and if you can't even comprehend that in this little argument of yours, I don't even understand why I'm wasting my time with you. It's obvious to me that you aren't looking for the truth. You're just trying to complain about things you've only heard about.
you tell me!
you said this earlier!
Of course . . . when that information can compromise the integrity of their fight against terrorism, that is. The government is only concealing their efforts against the terrorists because the terrorists watch TV, too, and it would be counterintuitive to reveal what we're doing about them to them.
yeah don't waste my time with me...i'd like you to do that..
Quote:
What part of "world politics" did you not understand? It wasn't up to us. The rest of the world decided on Hussein's fate.
as ive said before if there's a tyrant there will be an Angry Mob waiting for him to be put down..
But i don't accept that Oligarchy or Mobocracy is what you call World Politics..
Look at me im doing the same things as you but i have the only thing an ordinary guy typing on the net, the Media
Even if you say maybe, just maybe...what media is presenting is not 100% true even if its just 10%...its better than just howling at the stars!
Quote:
. . have you even spoken to any member of the troops? Have you ever spoken to or interviewed a terrorist? Hence, you really don't know what you're talking about.
And you may have spoken with them, i trust?
Quote:
Study the psychology of a terrorist before you make any more claims. The vast majority of them are uneducated and ignorant people who are only doing what their leaders are telling them. Most of them are brain-washed. 95% are what is labeled as Wannabes while only 5% are True Believers. Completely different mentalities there.
Its easy to say 89% 5% 100000000% to that right...
I'd admit yes you may have more experience in talking with them..
But what you don't know is this saying that Our Drill sergeant made taught us...
What you see, what you hear..you leave it here
And if you are an outsider of some sort..We wont tell you...even if you are goldilocks..Well that's how we operate but i don't know if it's different in the US army..
Quote:
Saddam had been given a chance to avoid an invasion, btw, and all he did was deny what we had already known was fact. He had purchased WMDs, mostly from the fallen Soviet Union, and with everything else that was going on at the time we weren't about to overlook it. He got cocky and thought he could get away with it.
could you redirect mo to a link that, i like to read! as simple as that, don't read between the lines...
Oh btw Mr. Freud..
Im still not seeing the Receipt
*jan jan jan*
you keep avoiding this one..
If you think your arguements are better than mine then present with anything that can support that..or are you still justifying that media cannot be trusted..Oh Cmon!!!
I presented mine..now where's that god-forsaken receipt so
that i can frame it..or at least a report...
People are fickle and will change their minds on nothing more than a fart in the wind. It wouldn't surprise me either way.
I couldn't agree more.. _________________ Am I Existing or Am I Alive? Make me Feel..
[IMG:350:120:df27381c0c]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/jameshn/takumikun.jpg[/img:df27381c0c]
My Multiply Site..here
I respect your position, candor, and insight. As it is, I'll leave this argument for everyone else as I've had my say and feel I've said all I've needed to say. People can check the validity of my statements on their own, and they can either confirm or discount them. It makes no difference to me as long as they know that there is more than one valid side of the same story.
Well yeah, you can always say "it is more complicated than that"
Anyway, despite the rather prolific posts of late, we're all really straying off topic. _________________
Joined: May 01, 2007 Posts: 309 Location: All aboard to nowhere!!
Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 5:58 am Post subject:
I've pretty worn out..and kinda cranky,
this is my last post in this thread..
I apologize if anyone was offended
ohhh!!! This topic!
Quote:
Well, picture this: In about 10 years, we have a president worse then Bush ever was. And during that time, you guys will probably say "Man. Although we didn't think this before, Bush was a really good president. I wonder why we said all those things about him?" I think that will happen in about 10 years time.
Do you think it will, or won't happen?
@ryan
Lets just stick around and see what happens..
That is if we're still alive at that point.. _________________ Am I Existing or Am I Alive? Make me Feel..
[IMG:350:120:df27381c0c]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/jameshn/takumikun.jpg[/img:df27381c0c]
My Multiply Site..here
Joined: Jun 16, 2007 Posts: 68 Location: Somewhere
Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:36 pm Post subject:
Yes I totally agree with you, there will always be a president worse tahn Bush. I admit that I've said what he does is retarded, he is actually doing something to protect our country. If Bush did not send troops to Iraq, They would have sent more 9-11s to several other cities. And they would have brought their troops to our homeland instead of the other way around. Having a war over to the other side of the world is better.
I do have a brother over there on the other side fighting to protect us like the rest of the soldiers and he tells me that this war is inevitable. We just need to keep up this war for the sake of our families. _________________ Satan reasons like man, but God thinks of eternity.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All images and comments are property of their respective owners, all the rest � 2002 by Anime-Source.com.
You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php.
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
