Well, you'll have one hell of a time convincing me of this because I hate war in general. A difference of opinion I guess.
Printable View
Well, you'll have one hell of a time convincing me of this because I hate war in general. A difference of opinion I guess.
I like that "justification" and "corruption" are more important than the liberation of a country, people who will no longer be murdered by their own leader for sport, and being sure this country is no longer a threat to our county. Sure, compaired to all those worthless results the fact that the country did not have large missles to shoot at our country is truley tragic news.
I would like to add to what Big D said about WWII. While Germany did not attack us they declared war on us first because we declared war on their ally, Japan.
Justification for doing what we are doing, corruption being in self-interest, is that so wrong to ask? Frankly, I would not have minded if we were going to liberate other countries. The fact that it's just Iraq is what bothers me. I have friends who are of the "Lost Boys" of Sudan. I'm sure you've heard of them, they're the ones who trekked back and forth across the country in order to obtain freedom. Where was the US then? Frankly, if we want to play the liberators, that's fine, do it for everyone. If we are just invading Iraq (which has several connections to the Bush administration) then I find it a bit more questionable. At the very least, I wish they'd tell the truth of why we're in there. That's the bare minimum of what would cause me to at least accept the war.
Edit: I'm really depressed and angry and not thinking straight. I'd better go to bed before I make myself sound like even more of a _________. I'll hopefully be able to argue more coherently come morning.
That's a really depressing way to look at it. "Its good, but its not good enough," seems to be what you're saying. "You've done a good deed, but you benefitted from it too so that makes it not good enough for me."
I don't even know what to say about that. I'm genuinely sad over it.
Well here is a different prespective to why we shouldn't be over there. We have problems here that need fixing first. What ever their problems are over there can wait until things are fixed over here(which is all relative).
That's true, but me agreeing with you would just be weird so lets just pretend I said you're stupid and smelly.
Once again, try looking past your beliefs about why went went over there and look at the results. That was the topic of this thread.
Agreed... :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
Let's follow some logic here. Fallujah is a major wealthy city. To be wealthy in Iraq you have to of been a supporter of the regeme. Fallujah is where the Wassabi Sunni's CENTRAL COMMAND is. If you live in Falluja your a "bad guy". Civillian is someone not in the military. Just because they're not in the military doesn't mean they aren't insurgents. Civillians died because they are supporting the Wassabi Sunnis. These people fight really dirty. They have no ethics. They pay supporters to live in a free house in Fallujah and other cities. If they have intel they're about to get attacked the men LEAVE THEIR FAMILIES TO DIE!!!!!! so they can say the people who died were civiliians and make the US look bad. Simply, the "civillians" who died were supporting the Wassabi's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Of course. And we just know that the entire city is evil and deserves to die. After all, in the Old Testament there was Sodom and Gemorrah - cities where everyone was evil. So that proves that the entire civilian population of Fallujah is evil too, it's conclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by theundeadhero
I only mentioned Fallujah because it's solid proof that Iraq is not at peace. It is not 'free', it is not stable or safe.[q=ShlupQuack]...being sure this country is no longer a threat to our county[/q]The invasion basically just proved that Iraq wasn't a threat to the US. Following your logic, it would seem like it's OK for the US to invade any given country, destroy any government, based on the "need for proof" that they're not a threat. That could include my government and people. Scary stuff.
No-one's disputing that Hussein was a murderous dictator who deserved to lose power. What people are disputing is how it was done, why so many people had to die in the process, and what's going to happen now.
Not everyone but the overwhelming majority. The new Iraqi government insisted that anyone in the city that isn't a supporter needs to leave before they are killed. When it comes down to leave or die the choice is pretty easy to make. The ones who didn't choose to leave are being killed by the supporters on a much higher scale then our accidental deaths. Some accidenta; deaths are something that can be expected of war. They're killing the innocent civillians, then when we show up tp stop it, then the media show the results with several dead citizens and suddenly it's, look at all the citizens that died in the American battle, instead of look who the supporters were killing that the Americans put a stop to. The sunni Wassabi were killing innocents before the war started, they still kill them now, but that's why we're still their. To stop them from doing it. Fallujah is the city with central command, but all major cities under Sunni Wassabi have the same thing happening. Like you said, fallujah was just the one used in the example. Some time next year Fallujah will be invaded and innocent civillians will be lost. It will be a major battle and very bloody, but it will stop an even larger killing of innocents. Right now other less important cities are the ones falling due to gaining tactical advantage. You hate us over their because civillians die but if we leave even more will. We went over their under misleading circumstances because weapons of mass destruction weren't found. WMD are NOT the only the only thing that can prove a country is a threat. How about supporting Bin Laden who attacked us. I don't know about you but I think airplanes falling out of the sky into builidings is a pretty big threat to a country. How about funding Iran with their building of WMD. Iran openly admits they're hostile to America AND openly admits they're enriching Uranium. How about the French giving support to Iraq before the war to keep America out because they want to use the country for their own interest instead of letting us influence it. Nobody seems to remember the talks and meetings and everything that happened before the invasion that Saddam refused to allow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D
Heh. Even the US government admits there was no link between Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime. Unless, of course, you want to opt for 'guilt by association' since both groups are Arabic and both hate the US.Quote:
How about supporting Bin Laden who attacked us. I don't know about you but I think airplanes falling out of the sky into builidings is a pretty big threat to a country.
Ah, so it's ok for US allied to have WMD, but not US enemies? That sounds fair and reasonable.Quote:
How about funding Iran with their building of WMD. Iran openly admits they're hostile to America AND openly admits they're enriching Uranium.
Yet another piece of propoganda as released by the Bush regime. It's simple fallacy. France and others opposed the invasion because it was illegal under international law, and because there was no independent verification of the US intelligence - now known to be false - that was used to justify it.Quote:
How about the French giving support to Iraq before the war to keep America out because they want to use the country for their own interest instead of letting us influence it.
Just before the invasion, the only "diplomacy" from Bush was statements like "leave your country within 48 hours or we kill you". That's not "diplomacy", that's one country exerting control over another. It'd be like the EU saying to America, "you must let us inspect your WMD arsenal or else we'll invade to remove the threat you pose to the world".Quote:
Nobody seems to remember the talks and meetings and everything that happened before the invasion that Saddam refused to allow.
http://www.standwithme.org/images/3r...saddam-911.jpg
I can't look at this photo, a painting found in Sadaam's palace, and think he wasn't a threat, WMD or no. I don't know the numbers of how many Iraqi's would've been killed by Sadaam had we taken the time to do a better job at removing him from power versus the amount that were killed by our invasion, but as it is I have no reason to believe this wasn't the best plausible course of action.
Everyone's seen that picture, and it's old news that Hussein refused to condemn the attacks. But then, there's been plenty of promotion and bragging by Western sources, using images of destruction in Iraq as "trophies", of sorts. As he took delight from the destruction of American buildings, so too did Westerners make light of death and bombings in Iraq.During the first Gulf War, the US aided Kurdish rebels against Hussein. Following Iraq's withdrawl from Kuwait, that support vanished and the Kurds were massacred. The current invasion was poorly planned and poorly executed. On the first day, civilian targets were bombed; empty palaces were also destroyed, with the full knowledge that Hussein wouldn't be there and that the only casualties would be civilians.Quote:
but as it is I have no reason to believe this wasn't the best plausible course of action.
Basically, the invasion could, with more time and effort, have been held off until some genuinely useful intelligence was available. A single bombing raid, killing Hussein and his nearest and most powerful loyalists, would have got the job largely done. Not the best course of action, but preferable to what did happen, at least.