Seeing as I'll be over there for a year, I was just wondering what everybody here thought about the conflict in Iraq. Should we be there, why or why not, what else/instead should we do, etc. etc.
Printable View
Seeing as I'll be over there for a year, I was just wondering what everybody here thought about the conflict in Iraq. Should we be there, why or why not, what else/instead should we do, etc. etc.
I say we should. Firstly we we're the only ones who even were giving a damn that Saddam was killing his own people for no reason, not to mention all the laws the U.N. created specifically for him, he broke all but I beleive 2. And yet the U.N. did nothing to stop this and no one else did anything when everyone knew what he was doing. So I think we had a good reason to go take out Saddam from power.
One less ruthless dictator in the world is a good thing, if you ask me. Going to Iraq was the right thing to do - now we need to rebuild it, much like Japan and Germany.
Thanks for all your doing over there, Sasquatch.
i think it was wrong to cover up the reasons with that whole 'they have world threatening weapons' bull and i'm still POed at the way blair kissed up to bush, yet again
But that aside, though the reasons for the attack where wrong the results where good, as has been said one less ruthless dictator in the world is definatly a good thing
what needs to happen now is iraq needs to be allowed to rebuild itself, its ok for other countries to help, but, like a lot of people i hold that whatever new government is formed should be the choice of the people who life there, after all they've been through they deserve at least that
227
I don't think we should have gone over there. There was no proof he had the weapons. The inspectors were not given enough time search even though they claimed they had more than enough time(the bush administration has had two times more time or more and have not found anything and are saying they are still out there somewhere and just need more time).
He broke all those sanctions that were placed against him...like all of the 14 when our friend Israel has broken like 66ish(correct me for I am terrible wrong on this can could really care less to do more research on such a thing). Lets go after them. They might be our friends now but so was saddam and we looked the other way for him at such a time.
No good reason to go to war at all. There are much worse dictators out there that we could have gone after so don't give me that lame reason.
I'm not saying the attack was right or justified, I am simply pointing out that the end result is favourable
and we all know it was about oil, apparently.. (is a brit, dosent get it)
227
I must say I wasn't pleased with the US putting their noses in other's affairs seemingly because of that whacky Texan and his family-feuds, but the relatively painless war itself was a fun watch. Now if you only would solve all the OTHER dictators in the world...
There are places where people are far worse off than they were under Saddam. I'm not saying that Saddam being removed isn't a good thing, but the best I could say was that it was the right war fought for the wrong reasons.
So what about the attacks on his own people? He tested biological weapons on his own people. Better them than us? Hell no, a life is a life. 15 years ago, he leveled a city in Iraq by bombing them. Why? To test out his weapons.Quote:
Originally posted by edczxcvbnm
I don't think we should have gone over there. There was no proof he had the weapons. The inspectors were not given enough time search even though they claimed they had more than enough time(the bush administration has had two times more time or more and have not found anything and are saying they are still out there somewhere and just need more time).
Saddam has been an issue for almost 30 years. Israel has been an issue since BC times. Saddam was in power because of the UN. Israel is a completely different situation.Quote:
He broke all those sanctions that were placed against him...like all of the 14 when our friend Israel has broken like 66ish(correct me for I am terrible wrong on this can could really care less to do more research on such a thing). Lets go after them. They might be our friends now but so was saddam and we looked the other way for him at such a time.
Lame reason? Excuse me? Our soldiers, our men and women are FIGHTING for YOUR freedom. There are worse dictators out there, sure... but one more gone from the list of bad dictators is better then letting him sit over in Iraq killing thousands of innocents.Quote:
No good reason to go to war at all. There are much worse dictators out there that we could have gone after so don't give me that lame reason.
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~Edmund Burke.
EDIT: The government says we were there for these reasons. Not all of our soldiers believe that. As long as you don't blame the soldiers for doing what they were taught and told to do, and you hate those who give the orders, I really don't care what you have to say about the war.
People there are free, now. They can do what they want to do. The result is right and good, so I don't see how going to war with them (even if for "wrong" reasons) is a bad thing.
I've always thought that "The only thing necessary for the triumph of good is for evil men to do nothing" has a better ring to it.
I was going to put that quote in my post, but I couldn't remember the exact wording, or even who said it. Thanks for finding it for me, though. Great minds think alike.Quote:
Originally posted by Ultima Seraph
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~Edmund Burke.
Also, I don't think we should leave Iraq to rebuild itself. Chances are, another dictator would step in to fill the vacuum. Possibly someone from the Taliban or some other terrorist faction in the middle east. With the US and other nations at least assisting the recovery, the chances of this happening are significantly diminished.
And the problem with it is that it divides the world into two, the Gusd and the Theyvil.
I think it's a good thing the USA finally stood up for itself and defended what's right. Iraq was a threat, and had to be dealt with. I hope the USA remains true to the cause, and go after Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Korea (that place is.. scaring me) and many other nations which support terrorism.
Israel has 'broken' hundreds of UN 'regulations'. I put the '' because it wasn't really breaking, and they weren't really regulations. Some of these were straight-out hilarious, to the point you'd think some old Nazi thought of them. In reality, when Arab nations gather a majority (usually all of the UN, except Britain, the USA and Micronesia), they can pass all sorts of 'regulations'. These UN sanctions mean abseloutly nothing.Quote:
srael has broken like 66ish(correct me for I am terrible wrong on this can could really care less to do more research on such a thing). Lets go after them. They might be our friends now but so was saddam and we looked the other way for him at such a time.
Oh, and the re-newed State of Israel was founded as a democracy, and it will stay that way. This is hardly the case with Iraq, that has never been democratic, and probably won't be for a good deal of time ahead.
Yeah baby, we've been rocking since ancient times! :DQuote:
Israel has been an issue since BC times.
I will kill the next person that does another topic about this damn war.
Wow...15 years ago...you don't say? Well it seems to me that he really has not been doing anything like that in recent memory in which is why people can only bring up stuff that is completely irrelevant today. Everyone knew what he was doing then and they continued to ignore him. Then was the time to do something when he was actually...you know...doing something.Quote:
Originally posted by Ultima Seraph
So what about the attacks on his own people? He tested biological weapons on his own people. Better them than us? Hell no, a life is a life. 15 years ago, he leveled a city in Iraq by bombing them. Why? To test out his weapons.
Way to dodge the bullet. Not really. I don't know. This is one I need to think about a bit more.Quote:
Originally posted by Ultima Seraph
Saddam has been an issue for almost 30 years. Israel has been an issue since BC times. Saddam was in power because of the UN. Israel is a completely different situation.
They will be fighting for my freedom as soon as you point out how saddam was a threat to my freedom. Since he isn't and wasn't at the time they are not fighting for my freedom.Quote:
Originally posted by Ultima Seraph
Lame reason? Excuse me? Our soldiers, our men and women are FIGHTING for YOUR freedom. There are worse dictators out there, sure... but one more gone from the list of bad dictators is better then letting him sit over in Iraq killing thousands of innocents.
We were doing stuff. That is why we kept on him and kept doing weapon inspections and things of the sort. He would have never come into anything big if we kept it up. Doing nothing would literally be doing nothing. Like what Europe did with hitler. No inspections and he blatantly showed he was making weapons and showed them off for all to see and they did nothing to stop it. That is doing nothing.Quote:
Originally posted by Ultima Seraph
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." ~Edmund Burke.
I don't blame the soilders at all. They are grunts who have no choice in the matter.Quote:
Originally posted by Ultima Seraph
EDIT: The government says we were there for these reasons. Not all of our soldiers believe that. As long as you don't blame the soldiers for doing what they were taught and told to do, and you hate those who give the orders, I really don't care what you have to say about the war.
People there are free, now. They can do what they want to do. The result is right and good, so I don't see how going to war with them (even if for "wrong" reasons) is a bad thing.
I am not going to argue that the area is worse than before but I don't think it is any better with all the suicide bombings and the people who are trying to take power there. Religious fanatics in the middle east garner too much influence and power.
Thank you for pointing that out to me. I know most all if not all of them are usually crazy for the most part. It is just something I hear tossed around from time to time. If I could be bothered I would have done some sort of research but...I just don't care that much.Quote:
Originally posted by Ultima Seraph
Israel has 'broken' hundreds of UN 'regulations'. I put the '' because it wasn't really breaking, and they weren't really regulations. Some of these were straight-out hilarious, to the point you'd think some old Nazi thought of them. In reality, when Arab nations gather a majority (usually all of the UN, except Britain, the USA and Micronesia), they can pass all sorts of 'regulations'. These UN sanctions mean abseloutly nothing.
Hm. Let's look at the definition of terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."Quote:
Originally posted by War Angel
I think it's a good thing the USA finally stood up for itself and defended what's right. Iraq was a threat, and had to be dealt with. I hope the USA remains true to the cause, and go after Saudi Arabia, Iran, Northern Korea (that place is.. scaring me) and many other nations which support terrorism.
Sounds an awful lot like what the US is doing now, doesn't it? And yeah, that's really what we need, that US attacking a lot more countries. A goddamned brilliant idea. More war! Die, evil terrorist peasants, die.
It's not the US's place to decide what's right and wrong for other countries. If the US is so right in what it's doing, why does everyone hate them so much? They need to be knocked down a couple notches. Badly.
I agree but I wouldn't say the USA needs to be knocked down a couple of notches. The leaders of the country just need to be more concerned with what others want and figure out a comprimise. As the super power and strongest force, I would compair them to management and the other countries as different unions. You have to negotiate with the unions...but unlike the work force you can't fire them all and find new people.Quote:
Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
It's not the US's place to decide what's right and wrong for other countries. If the US is so right in what it's doing, why does everyone hate them so much? They need to be knocked down a couple notches. Badly.
If the USA has a good leader then everyone will like them. If they have people who don't listen to anyone and do what they want no matter what...then people will hate them.
Its not so much a matter of being taken down a peg as it is getting a good leader in charge of the country.
Someone has to decide right and wrong. I'd rather it be us than mostly anyone else. I think the war was a good thing, and the reasons were fine by me.
Now if you only would solve all the OTHER dictators in the world... --Nait
Whoa, one at a time. We're getting there.
I'm not going to wait around till Ricin is unleashed upon the people in my country. If Saddam wants to play games, play with the inspectors, and make threats I'm sold. I'm more than comfortable dealing with any dictator that thinks about hurting my loved ones in any fashion.Quote:
Originally posted by edczxcvbnm
They will be fighting for my freedom as soon as you point out how saddam was a threat to my freedom. Since he isn't and wasn't at the time they are not fighting for my freedom.
So me and the rest of our hard working soldiers are going to fight and die to protect those we love, I guess you'll get your protection as a freebie. You're welcome, go back to your daily routine and everything will work itself out, spit at the gift people sacrifice their lives for, it's more than worth it to protect those I care about even if that means letting the unappreciative receive security while riding on the backs of the men and women who serve.
Oh hell no, if someone said that to me in person I wouldn't be able to restrain myself. You need to fix yourself quick. There is no polite way to finish this.Quote:
Originally posted by Emerald Aeris They need to be knocked down a couple notches. Badly.
What threats did Saddam make? Where are these threats?Quote:
Originally posted by Talus
I'm not going to wait around till Ricin is unleashed upon the people in my country. If Saddam wants to play games, play with the inspectors, and make threats I'm sold. I'm more than comfortable dealing with any dictator that thinks about hurting my loved ones in any fashion.
So me and the rest of our hard working soldiers are going to fight and die to protect those we love, I guess you'll get your protection as a freebie. You're welcome, go back to your daily routine and everything will work itself out, spit at the gift people sacrifice their lives for, it's more than worth it to protect those I care about even if that means letting the unappreciative receive security while riding on the backs of the men and women who serve.
I don't spit at people who sacrificed their lives to protect my way of living. Never would I do such a thing to those brave enough to do something such as that. I don't spit on you or any soilders over in Iraq right now for you are doing what you are told whether you believe in what is being done or not.
But because Iraq posed no threat, you are not protecting my freedom.
Nice arguement and point of view on that one guy :erm:Quote:
Originally posted by Talus
Oh hell no, if someone said that to me in person I wouldn't be able to restrain myself. You need to fix yourself quick. You're the sore on our backs, the blisters on our feet, and the only one that needs to be taken down a notch is you, you spoiled pile of human garbage.
The reason for war in Iraq was that the Bush administration thought that there were weapons of mass destruction there and that Hussein had a direct link to Al-Quada (and thus a link to 9-11). Since neither of these cases are true, the war was a waste. President Bush himself has admitted to his going to war on faulty intelligence.
Also, if we were truly concerned about world-wide safety, where were we when Hussein gassed the Kurds? We didn't view Hussein as a threat until he invaded Kuwait, threatening our oil supply.
"I'm not a bigot I'm just right": I'm almost certain this is the reasoning of pro-war supporters
Explain yourself. A Bigot shows intolerance to those who differ.Quote:
Originally posted by Pureghetto
"I'm not a bigot I'm just right": I'm almost certain this is the reasoning of pro-war supporters
Is SFC. Albuquerque a bigot for working with children in a sports facility in Kurdistan? How about Col. Ibraheim for working at the Al Thawra hospital? I guess Lt. Col. Wunderlich is a bigot for helping repair the city median in Baghdad.
I guess I never realized how blind most people are. Pureghetto, you know nothing about what's happening in Iraq. You think you have all the answers, to the point where you can throw words like Bigot around, but you're so wrong.
Nope, not even one bit alike. Fighting is not terrorism - the key-word is 'unlawful'. The USA did not attack to further its own interests, or to achieve a certain vicious goal. The USA attacked because it was threatened and attacked, and had to stand up for itself, and fight.Quote:
Hm. Let's look at the definition of terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
Sounds an awful lot like what the US is doing now, doesn't it?
Exactly. Unless, of-course, you wish to die yourself. There's no peacey-nicey-touchy way to deal with such threats. Unfortunately, only force works in these situations.Quote:
Die, evil terrorist
Because weak people always despise stronger ones, who stand up for themselves. America and its allies are currently fighting the war everyone else decides to ignore.Quote:
If the US is so right in what it's doing, why does everyone hate them so much?
"War is upon you, whether you're willing to risk it or not."
Call it biggotry, call it facism, call it whatever the fudge you want. But there are some things, and certain people, whom you cannot deal with using nice words. A time comes, when you have to raise your weapon of choice, and fight. A failure to do so would result in your destruction.
In my opinion, Hussein neede to be deposed. Too many innocent lives were lost because of his regime. However, I take great issue with how this was done, and the excuses that were used.
"But it's to liberate the oppressed peope of Iraq!"
Funny, after the first Gulf War, the Iraqi Kurds tried to overthrow Hussein, but they were counting on US support. America did nothing, so they were massacred. Why did America do nothing? Because Iraq was out of Kuwait, so Kuwaiti oil reserves and oil prices were safe. Nothing else mattered, least of all the people of Iraq.
Ten years later, there's a desperate urge to invade Iraq again. After plenty of ranting about 'terrorist links' and 'illegal weapons of mass diestruction', we're finally given the story that it's about saving the innocent Iraqi civilians. A noble cause, I agree... but how was this acheived? The first even in the war was the bombing of Husseins's Baghdad palaces. Any nitwit could tell you that the Hussein regime would not shelter in such obvious targets, yet they were destroyed first - undoubtedly killing hundreds of cooks, janitors, medics, and other innocent bystanders. The destuction expanded to consume the nation entire infrastructure, even demolishing water purification systems - not exactly going to cripple ol' Saddam, but didn't do a while lot of good for his people. Then there were the usual umpteen thousand bombs that were mis-directed and struck completely innocent targets.
The result: Saddam Hussein captured. Good. Thousands of innocent Iraqis killed, both accidentally and deliberately, by the coalition forces. Lives and livelihoods destroyed, entire cities reduced to a virtually pre-industrial state of existence. As with all wars, the innocent suffered more than anyone else. And now there are even some people who say that the people of Iraq should pay for the rebuilding of their country.
Hussein should've been eliminated by a single, well-planned strike - one bombing raid, based on reliable intelligence to pinpoint his exact location. Instead it was a free-for-all where no-one was safe, least of all those who the war was supposed to protect.[q=War Angel]The USA attacked because it was threatened and attacked[/q]By Iraq? A country that had been demolished once, and then kept in a state of near-perpetual poverty by internation sanctions? I think it's pretty clear by now that Iraq posed very little threat to the US. There's a chance it might have become a threat in the future, but by that same reasoning the US could 'justify' attacking every country in the world and killing its leaders.
Iraq wasn't a threat. They were not a threat to the surrounding countries, and they certainly were not a threat to us. The information used was falsified, they've known this from the start.
Those in power care nothing for the welfare of the Iraqi people. They care nothing for the welfare of the people who die every day under malicious dictators who WE put into power. The only thing any American official cares for, it seems, is their own wealth and power. Far be it from me to suggest that all politicians are like this, but many of them are. Saddam had to go, yes. Would we have been so interested in Saddam if he didn't have all that oil lying around in his country, or perhaps for some other reason yet unknown? Of course not. We are America. We cannot see past our own borders.
The things I have been hearing these last few days have sickened me to the core.
I have nothing really thought-provoking to add to this thread other than what has already been said. Except for this little quote I memorized a while back. The philosopher Jon Stewart Mills said this in a speech many, many years ago:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
And, ya know, I just remembered another little quote I memorized some time ago. I believe it was General H. Norman Schwarzkopf who said, after the Gulf War:
"A professional soldier understands that war means killing people, war means maiming people, war means families left without fathers and mothers. Alll you have to do is hold your first dying soldier in your arms, and have that terribly futile feeling that his life is flowing out and you can't do anything about it. Then you understand the horror of war. Any soldier worth his salt should be anti war. And still there are things worth fighting for."
Just some food for thought.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons
Not a bit a like? So the US didn't break a UN regulation in order to attack Iraq? It also says threatened use of force. So the US isn't threatening to use force over there? They aren't trying to intimidate, or coerce the Iraqi government (and others) through violent means? This wasn't a retaliation attack. The US was looking for WMDs (which it never even had sufficient proof of).
There's no "peacey-nicey-touchy" way? Like say, a trial? We liberal hippie peace nuts ask too much.
War is only upon us because the US wouldn't wait for the UN's decision of whether or not force was necessary. The whole point of the UN is to prevent nations from just doing whatever the hell they want. The US breaks UN regulations to attack Iraq because they broke UN regulations. Really nice.
OK, say you're a dictator of a third world country who brutally oppresses the people. If you got a letter from the UN, asking you nicely to "please come visit us so we can put you on trial, strip you of power and imprison you for war crimes. We'd really appreciate it."Quote:
Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
There's no "peacey-nicey-touchy" way? Like say, a trial? We liberal hippie peace nuts ask too much.
Somehow, I highly doubt you'd accept the offer.
Like it's been said countless times before, evil will only triumph when good men do nothing.
By the way, that quote is most often used in reference to the Rwanda genocides in the early 90's. In case you don't know what I'm talking about, that's when nearly two and a half million people - mostly Tutsis - were slaughtered. Instead of providing assistance, most other nations turned their heads, and even the UN decided to pack up and high-tail it out of central Africa because it was too dangerous. A lot of people wanted to stop the mass murders, but nobody did. Hence, the triumph of evil.
Call me cynical but I do not believe that the Iraq invasion was at all benevolent in nature. Why don't we invade North Korea? How about one of the many African countries who suffer under oppressive dictators? China? Cuba? Why JUST Iraq? Why is Iraq so important in the first place?Quote:
Like it's been said countless times before, evil will only triumph when good men do nothing.
I see many questions and few answers in this war.
Why aren't we in Cuba? -We have a base in Cuba.Quote:
Originally posted by Behold the Void
Why don't we invade North Korea? How about one of the many African countries who suffer under oppressive dictators? China? Cuba? Why JUST Iraq?
Korea? - You better believe we have soldiers all around Korea.
Africa? -Somalia
Some other countries? -Kosova, Bosnia, Grenada.
Why must we do everything at once? Why can't we do Iraq first?
My major problem with the Iraq war is there was no justification and it was done against the wishes of the UN. I also do not feel that the war is for moral reasons. While I am hesitant to say that it was for oil, even though I find that quite believable, I do not think it occured for the RIGHT reasons.
Talus is a true patriot. :D
What does that make me then? Unpatriotic?
No, sarcasm impaired.
You're damn right, he's a patriot. He's committed to serving and defending his country, as am I and thousands of other people. I find it rather petty that you would throw that term around as if it were some sort of insult.
Soldiers exist and fight, so that the rest of the people could live in blissful ignorance.
Fact: There were no WMDs between the end of the 1st gulf war and now. Saddam was effectively dismantled. Anything before that "doesn't count" because he was our ally until he invaded oil, i mean kuwait. This is important because it changes the nature of international law. He most certainly violated UN resolutions. And then Colin Powell wipes his with the UN charter on national TV when the UN wouldn't edorse the use of force. This makes the use of force illegal under international law in the same sense that Saddam committed crimes. The most tragic consequence is the practical abolition of the UN. It was the legacy of WWII and all the people who died in that madness.
Fact: Iraq does not have links to al-qaida. Bin-Laden doesn't like Saddam because he invaded fundamentalist Iran and received military aid from the US. Saddam fought fundamentalist Iran because he feared a similar uprising being inspired in Iraq's shiite population. The truth is al-qaida recruitment has increased since the beginning of the war and more troops have died since Saddam was captured. National security?
It is interesting to point out that in 1982 Iraq was considered a terrorist state and in 1983, in order to sell arms, it wasn't. At that moment Nelson Mandela was then put on the terrorist list. Define terrorism again.
Debateable point: We are there bringing democracy and stability to Iraq. We can't compare this situation to Japan or Germany. Japan is probably the most industrious nation in the history of the world, their recovery was inevitable. Germany was at the time of Nazism probably the most culturally and scientifically advanced nation on earth, again their recovery was inevitable. Iraq doesn't have these qualities. The one defining condition for democracy and peace will be in Iraq's soveriegnty. If Iraq's resources are nationalized and the poverty situation improves, then we did well. If Iraq's oil resources are sold to international businesses the people of Iraq won't get a dime. That will lead to civil war, and if the poverty situation becomes worse than Iraq will effectively become Iran. This is the more likely situation. Just ask the Kosovars.
Fact:
http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm
Shows information about first world trade center attack, as well some allegede ties to iraq.
And Saddam supporting suicide bombings in Israel:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...mas-iraq_x.htm
But yea that is all old news, but that alone is enough proof for me to have attacked Iraq. There are no WMDs there at this point in time, but once were a few or so monthes ago. Who knows if the wmds can be found or ever ? Half of iraq is mostly desert and its easy to hide stuff in the sand? Or Saddam could've just destroyed them all years ago, or monthes ago before the war actually started. But hell if Saddam supported Hamas then he supported terrorism, because that is what terrorism is...
Your first link is outdated. It was part of the war propaganda machine. The truth: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3909150/Quote:
Originally posted by noname
Fact:
http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm
Shows information about first world trade center attack, as well some allegede ties to iraq.
And Saddam supporting suicide bombings in Israel:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...mas-iraq_x.htm
But yea that is all old news, but that alone is enough proof for me to have attacked Iraq. There are no WMDs there at this point in time, but once were a few or so monthes ago. Who knows if the wmds can be found or ever ? Half of iraq is mostly desert and its easy to hide stuff in the sand? Or Saddam could've just destroyed them all years ago, or monthes ago before the war actually started. But hell if Saddam supported Hamas then he supported terrorism, because that is what terrorism is...
I never said Saddam didn't sponsor terrorists, but he most certainly didn't support those responsible for 9/11.
Does it really matter, though? So he sponsored a thousand others...Quote:
I never said Saddam didn't sponsor terrorists, but he most certainly didn't support those responsible for 9/11.
It matters if the reason for invading Iraq was supposedly WMDs that we knew they didn't have, as well as propoganda and hints that he had connections to 9/11 which they knew he didn't have.
Didn't support those responsible for 9/11? How about the murals of Planes striking the World Trade Center found in Saddam's palace?Quote:
Originally posted by goyabean
I never said Saddam didn't sponsor terrorists, but he most certainly didn't support those responsible for 9/11.
Or the huge poster found by the 3rd ID of the World Trade Center attack in the background while Saddam smokes a cigar?
So I paint a picture of the trade centers, and approve of the 9/11 attacks. That's grounds to bomb me?
You missed the whole point completely Emerald Aeris, I'll walk you through it. Goyabean said that Saddam did not support the terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center. In response to that, I believe Saddam did support the attacks, so much as to have artwork of it displayed all over his palaces.
So you're trying to take an argument about one point and apply it to a whole different area. Try to focus.
I would like people to list the terrorists that Saddam supported please. With some actual proof and not hear say and stuff you heard.
There's substantial evidence that he had WMDs up untill 1998. After that, he may had them, or not. Does it REALLY matter? He had them, he intended to use them, that's grounds enough.Quote:
It matters if the reason for invading Iraq was supposedly WMDs that we knew they didn't have,
Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I ask again, does it REALLY matter? Despite what American might think, Al-Qaueda is not the only terroristic organization in the world, and there has been a lot of terroristic activity before the eleventh of Septmenber, 2001. Iraq had supported, funded and generally sponsored much of that activity.Quote:
he had connections to 9/11 which they knew he didn't have.
Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PLO, Hizaballah (with suport from Syria and Iran as well, Hizballah is a major org.), and many others. And if you're into picante details, Iraq even gave money to many families of suicide bombers, 10,000 dollars each.Quote:
I would like people to list the terrorists that Saddam supported please
Oh, and Talus - having those paintings in Saddam's palaces doesn't mean he had direct connection to the 911 events. It just means he supported and condoned them, along with the rest of the Islamic\Arab world.
Focus. Ok.Quote:
Originally posted by Talus
You missed the whole point completely Emerald Aeris, I'll walk you through it. Goyabean said that Saddam did not support the terrorists that attacked the World Trade Center. In response to that, I believe Saddam did support the attacks, so much as to have artwork of it displayed all over his palaces.
So you're trying to take an argument about one point and apply it to a whole different area. Try to focus.
Saddam did support the idea of destruction of the US(naturally, US screwed him over), hence the artwork. But he was not responsible for 9/11, Colin Powell has already admitted that there was no connection between Bin Laden and Saddam.
And if we focus even more, the idea of Saddam giving WMDs to Islamic fundamentalists is ridiculous. Money? Of course. WMDs? Never. Saddam was brutal but too smart to arm Bin Laden with weapons. Fundamentalists is the keyword. Saddam was not a fundamentalists, and thus he accurately realized that by arming them he could have those weapons pointed at him.
That's what I meant by support. My bad.
Interesting that when Saddam sponsors terrorism it's bad but when the US sponsors terrorism, it's justified. Arming Bin-Laden and fabricating the Afghan war in the 1980s: justified. Nicaragua: justified. Selling arms and highly subsidized food to Saddam: justified. Harboring terrorists who slaughtered innocents in Cuba: justified. Greneda:justified. 2 million dead in Indochina: justified.
All those 3rd world countries...does it REALLY matter?
Not all terrorist organizations are Islamic fundamentalists. Most aren't, actually. Not all fight out of religious conceptions, and those are the ones Saddam helped.Quote:
And if we focus even more, the idea of Saddam giving WMDs to Islamic fundamentalists is ridiculous. Money? Of course. WMDs? Never. Saddam was brutal but too smart to arm Bin Laden with weapons. Fundamentalists is the keyword. Saddam was not a fundamentalists, and thus he accurately realized that by arming them he could have those weapons pointed at him.
I so much like the dripping attitude in that post, Talus. Very nice. You missed my point. So what if he approves of the attacks? That's irrelevant. It's not grounds to arrest him, and certainly not grounds to bomb him, or any other country who supports them. Giving money to known terrorists would be grounds for an arrest, as aiding criminals is illegal. Approving of them, or having paintings of their attacks is not. Those also aren't proof of him actually supporting (funding, helping etc) anything at all. It's all speculation. There's a big difference between agreeing with what they did, and funding it. I believe goyabean & co meant that Saddam wasn't linked to the attacks, which he wasn't. Whether or not he approved of them isn't, and shouldn't be an issue.
If we attacked every country who gave money to terrorists we'd have taken over Saudi Arabia long before Iraq. For some reason we tend to turn a blind eye to the Saudi's support of terrorism, their tyrrany of their people, etc.
Agreed.Quote:
If we attacked every country who gave money to terrorists we'd have taken over Saudi Arabia long before Iraq. For some reason we tend to turn a blind eye to the Saudi's support of terrorism, their tyrrany of their people, etc.
Besides, Saudia has tons more oil than Iraq! :D
A person who is right is not a bigot. A bigot is an intollerant person who is (often) wrong. If I insisted that 1 + 1 = 2 and wouldn't hear of any other argument would I be a bigot? I don't think so, and thus my 'quote' applies. I'm not saying all bigots are right (though I think that could be inferred).Quote:
Originally posted by Talus
Explain yourself. A Bigot shows intolerance to those who differ.
Is SFC. Albuquerque a bigot for working with children in a sports facility in Kurdistan? How about Col. Ibraheim for working at the Al Thawra hospital? I guess Lt. Col. Wunderlich is a bigot for helping repair the city median in Baghdad.
I guess I never realized how blind most people are. Pureghetto, you know nothing about what's happening in Iraq. You think you have all the answers, to the point where you can throw words like Bigot around, but you're so wrong.
To elaborate I don't think people who support the war have enough reasons to be right, and hence are bigotted. :p
That's not really the definition of a Bigot.Quote:
Originally posted by Moo Moo the Ner Cow
A bigot is an intollerant person who is (often) wrong.
I think your word choice is off, if someone said, 'I want war with Iraq so I can fight Arabs' that would be a Bigot.
The way you use the word bigot could better be replaced with, say, stubborn.
Calling someone a bigot can be considered an extremely offensive insult, so make sure you use it correctly.
Yeah, a lot of people assume a big is racially related, but that doesn't make it true. Bigots are generally intolerent. His use of the word was correct, however, since it deals with opinions, they aren't necessarily wrong either. People strongly against the war could also be called a bigot, in the same context. But this is mostly semantics anyway.
It seems to me that questioning your countries motives, or actions is seen as unpatriotic. At least, that's the vibe I get from a lot of Americans, especially with the phrase "true patriot" floating around.
well, those of us with brains in the US know that questioning your government is one of the main tenets of our country.
Bush killed patriotism. I'm not saying that there aren't any more patriots, but rather that the ideal of patriotism has been polluted and twisted to a 21st century Red Scare complete with an all new wave of McCarthyism. The Communists are replaced with terrorists and the and the new illegal party is Islam.
I don't think that's entirely true. Sure, there are some people who feel that way, but they are usually among the extreme. You have the right to question whatever you want. To me, an American patriot is someone who believes that all mankind is free and equal, and that said freedom comes at a cost.Quote:
Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
It seems to me that questioning your countries motives, or actions is seen as unpatriotic. At least, that's the vibe I get from a lot of Americans, especially with the phrase "true patriot" floating around.
Bigot actually does sort of mean stubborn. It doesn't mean ignorant or whatever 'I want to kill some Arabs! Sign me up!' implies.
big·ot
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
A patriot isn't a bigot. Don't get me wrong. I just feel that a lot of people have become so patriotic that they won't hear the counterarguments regarding the war, s'all. I'm not trying to insult anybody, even if I was blunt way way back there *points up*
I support the war, but I know it's bad. I don't support the alternative of having Saddam and Al Queda roaming around planning how to mess with America and unsettle the world's relative safety. But that doesn't mean I won't become warmongering and bigotted.
And one more time the quote 'i'm not a bigot i'm just right' can (should) be understood as sarcastic/cynical/sardonic. I'm done here.
Uhm, a patriot is someone who supports their country. There's really no other definition. A lot of people take that as someone who defends it without considering whether their actions are right or wrong.Quote:
Originally posted by DocFrance
I don't think that's entirely true. Sure, there are some people who feel that way, but they are usually among the extreme. You have the right to question whatever you want. To me, an American patriot is someone who believes that all mankind is free and equal, and that said freedom comes at a cost.
I believe whoever used bigotted in reference to pro-war people meant that they won't listen to the other side, ie, won't consider that maybe the war isn't right, or wasn't started for the right reasons.
Yeah, it's MY definition, not THE definition.Quote:
Originally posted by Emerald Aeris
Uhm, a patriot is someone who supports their country. There's really no other definition. A lot of people take that as someone who defends it without considering whether their actions are right or wrong.
I believe whoever used bigotted in reference to pro-war people meant that they won't listen to the other side, ie, won't consider that maybe the war isn't right, or wasn't started for the right reasons.
You could also say the same thing about a lot of people who are against the war. You could call them bigots because they refuse to believe that the war could be the right thing to do.
Besides, it's your personal opinion. I firmly believe the that the war, while not a good thing because many people have and will die, is the right thing to do. It's going to take quite a lot for anyone else to convince me otherwise. I guess I'll just have to a bigot for now.