The Iraqi Perspective

I'm not pro Bush or pro Kerry or anything. I stay away from politics pretty much as far as I can but this past week I've spent a lot of time (like 5 hours a day not counting weekends) with Iraqi people. I've been learning how to talk and read in their lanuage, a lot about their culture, and what's really going on over there and the reasons behind it. The Iraqi's are extremely grateful that we invaded their country. They say themselves that wihtout us the country was going to die and dissapear. It was completely miserable over there. Most us of believe that the media is full of sh*t and it's mostly a bunch of hype. Only a select few overseas aren't happy about what has happened and the media is completely exploiting it and making it look like they hate us. At the same time, anti-war people believe everything the media is telling them because it's what they want to hear, even though with every other subject the media is still a liar or exaggerator. The country had billions of billions of dollars but wasn'y using the money to help the people. Now the gov. is giving elderly and unfortunate children money to get the things they need. Only regeme supporters were allowed to have cell phones and sattalite t.v. but now it's available to anyone who can afford it, which is more people than you would imagine. The internet was only available to those people, but now that's being worked on to make it more accesable. People don't live in fear of dying becuase they went outside their house and said the wrong thing. They call American soldiers their "First Martyrs", the first people willing to die to help them win a better life. They are so thankful Pres. Bush ended the Regeme. Don't believe media, believe experience. You can hate Bush all you want and you can hate me because my job is to kill people, but I don't really care. We didn't do it for you, we did it for them, and they appreciate it.

Awesome to hear this from a more relyable source than the TV. Thank you for taking the time to give us your perspective; I think it's great to hear. The media gives us a lot of "They hate us" or "They love us," but I never know what to believe from those people.

Do you have an online journal? You should start one; I'd like to read about what you're doing over there and stuff.

I could start one but I can't promise to post on a regular basis becuase I don't know how often I"ll be able to get on the internet once I get back over there.

That's understandable. We don't get to hear the soldiers' perspective over here very much, so I was thinking it'd be cool. Either way though, its up to you.

I'm going to say it again, not to be a smart ass, but because I think people are geniunely overlooking it.

The media only gives us what we ask for. (This of course goes on majority standards.)

Now, onward to topic.

You are a soldier. There's not a question in my mind why you're there and why you do what you do. In all honesty, I feel there's only one type of person who deserves a bit more of my respect right off the bat than most people, and that's a person willing to sacrifice themselves for something bigger than they are. I also understand that you have, in truth, liberated a people from the hands of a corrupt group. But that doesn't mean I believe you weren't sent there under false pretenses, and I think that's a disrespect to America, and a huge disrespect to all soldiers everywhere.

If this war had been about liberation, I would support Bush. However, I faithfully support our troops for doing their jobs, and I'll never stop doing so, because I know the great majority of you act with good hearts, and the best interests of not only America, but most of the world, at large.

But there's a difference between a soldier and the war s/he fights.

I didn't mention why we were sent over there because there are so many reasons on so many levels I don't believe their will ever be a straight answer. No matter the reason though, this thread was about the actions that took place once we did get overseas. Nobody really looks at that because they're too concerned about why they think we're over there. Just to clear one thing up though, they call the country "I-rack", it's not "I-rock".

I just don't get why people are so stuck on this idea of "false pretenses" as though there was one and only one reason we invated Iraq. The fact that we didn't find any WMD is good in spite of it being the main, but not the only, reason we entered Iraq.

I just think being so against something good just because the main reason for doing it turned out to be wrong is rediculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

I just think being so against something good just because the main reason for doing it turned out to be wrong is rediculous.

---

Up to a hundred thousand people are dead because of this 'good' thing. I doubt anyone's upset about Hussein's removal from power, but they're upset about the process - an illegal, poorly-planned, poorly-run and horrifically costly war that has harmed the innocent far more than it has harmed the guilty, and is having flow-on effects around the Middle East.

People aren't just against the war because of the Bush administration's lies, though that's just about reason enough. They're against it because there were so many better options than this divisive, deadly act by a small number of - dare I say it - rogue nations. Other countries are having to give up troops and money to help rebuild Iraq and keep more of its people from dying needlessly.

Suppose some vigilantes think your neighbour has class-A drugs in his house. A speed lab or something. If they blow up his house, then discover that he had no drugs, then destroying his house is hardly a "good thing" just because the guy wasn't nice.

Read attachment please.

Lovely manipulation of the truth in that attachment.

Quote:

---

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of
January .
. .

---

US personnel, or does that include civilian deaths, prisoner deaths, collateral fatalities?

Quote:

---

FDR...led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. €
From
1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

---

The US was attacked; it was fighting in self-defence and to aid its allies, who were fighting for their very survival. World War Two was a fight against the genocidal expansionism of the Nazis. The war was a moral cause, as well as a political one.

Quote:

---

Truman...finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never
attacked us. € From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of
18,334
per year.

---

Everyone knows that the Korean War was a "police action" against communism. It was little more than an abomination; it's exactly the kind of thing we're seeing in the "war on terrorism". Just because bad things happened in the past doesn't make the present any better or more justifiable.

Quote:

---

John F. Kennedy...started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
attacked us. Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire. € >From
1965-1975,
58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

---

No kidding. Atrocities happened regularly in Vietnam; if anything, it should've shown the world that meddling in other nations' affairs like that should never be done without dire need.

Quote:

---

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia
never
attacked us.

---

The NATO air strikes prevented the genocide of 300,000 Kosovar Muslim innocents. It also led to the fall and current war-crimes trial of Slobodan Milosevic. It was a swift, efficient campaign; the civilian death toll was far too high, but it was far better than Bush's bungles.

Quote:

---

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times
by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

---

After the USS Cole attack and the African embassy bombings, Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on terrorist facilities and camps in Afghanistan. They were trying to capture or kill Bin Laden from 1997 onward. Whoever wrote this document is either lying, or poorly informed.

Quote:

---

In the two years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has
...liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida

---

Yes, Iraq is so free right now, and there's no violence or fear in Afghanistan.:rolleyes2 Afghanistan is still under UN interim administration, and insurgents are capturing Western civilians. Iraq is both a mess and a bloodbath.

Quote:

---

put
nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a
shot

---

By threatening to invade other sovereign nations and kill their leaders and cause heavy collateral casualties, yes. Way to go.

Quote:

---

and
captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

---

Hussein's wars killed two million people. Those wars were fought with US and Russian weaponry and support. Up to a hundred thousand people have died in the war that eventually led to Hussein's capture. Again, way to go.

Quote:

---

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking,
but...It
took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

---

In the Branch Davidian case, the US authorities were actually trying to avoid bloodshed. In Iraq, Bush made it clear he was going to invade and kill no matter what was said or done.

Quote:

---

We've been looking for
evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary
Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records. It took less time
for the
3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican
Guard
than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank
at
Chappaquiddick.

---

The US government has already announced that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Not that they haven't found any, but that there were none at all.

Quote:

---

It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!!

---

Tell that to the people of Fallujah.

Quote:

---

Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is
high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

---

Yes, and this message was brought to you from a totally non-biased source. Also, US forces are overjoyed at their sometimes poor equipment and poor support.

Quote:

---

For those who don't remember - During WWII, Howard Metzenbaum was an
attorney representing the Communist Party in the USA. Now he is a
Senator!

---

Yeah, getting a fair trial with equal legal representation has never been important in the US, especially for communists. We know this already. It's what makes America the greatest land of freedom in the world.

Quote:

---

If you can read this, thank a teacher.... If you are reading it in
English
thank a Veteran. It might not be a bad idea to keep this circulating
'till
next November . . .

---

Yep, don't bother thanking the president who decided to go to the world's aid against the Nazis. That had nothing to do with it; it was all G.I. Joe's doing.


I mean, omgwtf.
That's one of the most stereotypical pieces of garbage propoganda I've ever read. If the US public are buying into that, it's no wonder Bush is currently ahead in the elections. I fear for this world, I really do...

Quote:

---

I mean, omgwtf.
That's one of the most stereotypical pieces of garbage propoganda I've ever read. If the US public are buying into that, it's no wonder Bush is currently ahead in the elections. I fear for this world, I really do...

---

Truer words were never spoken.

*salutes Big D*

The US actions in Iraq might not have been the best solution, but they were a solution. That puts the US a step above any of the "we shouldn't get involved" nations, and two steps above those nations who pretended not to get involved, while actually being paid off by a corrupt Food for Oil program. The oustings of the Taleban and Hussein could've been handled better, but considering noone else was willing to handle them, noone should be able to complain about how they were handled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garland

The US actions in Iraq might not have been the best solution, but they were a solution. That puts the US a step above any of the "we shouldn't get involved" nations, and two steps above those nations who pretended not to get involved, while actually being paid off by a corrupt Food for Oil program. The oustings of the Taleban and Hussein could've been handled better, but considering noone else was willing to handle them, noone should be able to complain about how they were handled.

---

This is true. Its easy to say "You're doing it wrong!" when you aren't the one trying. People've died and continue to die, but people were dying before, being murdered by their own leader, and no other country did anything.

I can't say I'm entirely happy with whats going on, but I think whats worse is so many people are willing to say "Sure, Iraq is free from a murderour dictator, but..." Its quite depressing.

My major problem is justification and corruption, but hey, who cares about picky little details like that?

There's a selfish reason behind everything, if you look hard enough. The US involvement in WWII is largely seen as a good thing, though it wasn't brought about by any sense of good will or justice. It was revenge on Japan. The French aided the fledgling US-to-be in the American Revolution, not out of good will, or a desire to help a down trodden people, but to see England humiliated for beating France in a prior war. There's never a wholly selfless reason for any good deed when it comes to politics. Sometimes, though, there are good ends that come about from all the selfish actions that drive world politics. Granted, the war in Iraq may have been selfish in its intent, but what war isn't? They're all based on greed or revenge on some level. At least some good came of this war, though. That's more than can be said for many wars before it.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

That's true, but me agreeing with you would just be weird so lets just pretend I said you're stupid and smelly.

---

Agreed... :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

Tell that to the people of Fallujah.

---

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 theundeadhero

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.

---

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.
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

...that proves that the entire civilian population of Fallujah is evil too, it's conclusive.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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 funding Iran with their building of WMD. Iran openly admits they're hostile to America AND openly admits they're enriching Uranium.

---

Ah, so it's ok for US allied to have WMD, but not US enemies? That sounds fair and reasonable.

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.

---

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:

---

Nobody seems to remember the talks and meetings and everything that happened before the invasion that Saddam refused to allow.

---

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".

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.

Quote:

---

but as it is I have no reason to believe this wasn't the best plausible course of action.

---

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.
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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

wrong

Quote:

---

Ah, so it's ok for US allied to have WMD, but not US enemies? That sounds fair and reasonable.

---

You're avoiding the subject.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Nope. Political cover-up. The Iraqi people themselves admit to this.

Quote:

---

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".

---

Like I said, you don't remember the talks they had.

Quote:

---

A single bombing raid, killing Hussein and his nearest and most powerful loyalists, would have got the job largely done.

---

Because we all know that Hussein kept all his people togther real close. He met up with them all the time because he didn't really think we would attack him.

I'm tired of this. Any more questions then refer to my first post where I said, I don't care if you like it or not, it wasn't done for you, it was done for them, and they appreciate it.

I guess its just depressing to be thought of as evil because of something other people in your country did that "could've been done better." I'd rather just not think poorly of anyone, but grr... nevermind.

Quote:

---

Ah, so it's ok for US allied to have WMD, but not US enemies? That sounds fair and reasonable.

---

Simple, people who believe that killing people will get them into heaven are capable of ignoring the effects of launching nuclear weapons (Mutually Assured Destruction) and therefore are a threat to world security.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Where did you get this info from? I have to agree with previous posters who said that any information that you get from the media is REALLY biased. (I live in Canada and like all we have are bush-whackers :mad: )

Quote:

---

The US government has already announced that there were no WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion. Not that they haven't found any, but that there were none at all.

---

No nuclear weapons perhaps, but biological or chemical weapons.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I have no clue how you see that. No similarities at all.

Quote:

---

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.
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.

---

If Hussein was just killed and the US left, his regime still would be dominant and carry on killing many more Iraqis than the US. It has to be removed little by little.

Whatever the case, in the long run, removing dictators who kill whoever they feel like saves the most lives. Fine maybe the US could have done it a little bit better but it needed to be done and that is the point, I believe, of this this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auronhart

No nuclear weapons perhaps, but biological or chemical weapons.

---

Like smallpox. The US stopped giving children smallpox shots in the 70's I believe and the Army stopped giving it to troops in the early 80's. The virus was not a threat until Hussein started using it as a biological weapon. Now I have a big itchy scar on my arm, a side-effect of the smallpox shot.

Quote:

---

No nuclear weapons perhaps, but biological or chemical weapons.

---

US inspectors haven't found any significant biological or chemical weapons materials, either. That's their own admission. It's common knowledge that they existed previously, but even the US president accepts that Iraq's stockpiles ceased to be during the decade following the first Gulf War.

Quote:

---

Simple, people who believe that killing people will get them into heaven are capable of ignoring the effects of launching nuclear weapons (Mutually Assured Destruction) and therefore are a threat to world security.

---

Saddam Hussein was largely un-religious; he was basically a secular dictator. It's too easy, or perhaps convenient, to assume that all powerful/nasty Arabs are Islamic fundamentalists.

Quote:

---

Whatever the case, in the long run, removing dictators who kill whoever they feel like saves the most lives. Fine maybe the US could have done it a little bit better but it needed to be done and that is the point, I believe, of this this thread.

---

You do realise, I hope, what the world is fearing now: that President Bush has shown a propensity for "killing whoever he wants". Regimes he disagrees with, or considers a threat; not all evil dictators, mind you, only those that control valuable resources or potentially support anti-US activities. It's got nothing to do with "world security" and everything to do with pecuniary advantage. [b]That[/i] is what makes the world so afraid.

The MAD principle certainly applies in the the case of Iraq; they'd never have risked directly starting another war that'd involve the US or its allies.

Quote:

---

I have no clue how you see that. No similarities at all.

---

When people celebrate the loss of innocent life in another country, it makes no difference what colour skin the victims had.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

wrong

---

You may wanna check your facts http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Quote:

---

President Bush said there has been no evidence that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, disavowing a link that had been hinted at previously by his administration.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," the president said yesterday after a meeting at the White House with lawmakers.

---

By the way, are you saying you're a soldier in Iraq? Because that first post was hard to understand. Where are you stationed at, by the way? What's your division and what platoon are you in? You must have really nice commanders if they let you on the internet so much.

Quote:

---

You do realise, I hope, what the world is fearing now: that President Bush has shown a propensity for "killing whoever he wants". Regimes he disagrees with, or considers a threat; not all evil dictators, mind you, only those that control valuable resources or potentially support anti-US activities. It's got nothing to do with "world security" and everything to do with pecuniary advantage. [b]That[/i] is what makes the world so afraid.

---

I guess this matter is just one of opinion, because it all has to do with whether Bush was mostly just acting for selfish purposes. This is my take on the situation.

Europe: (except GB): It's none of our business if Hussein is killing a whole lot of his own citizens, let them deal with with it, after all it's out of our jurisdiction and we don't want to give any of our lives to save Iraqis.

US: We have to remove this dictator from power and stop the countless future deaths that he will cause. We even will possibly have to give our lives for this cause.

Europe: What the heck are you doing, let the Iraqis deal with their own problem or just keep him, don't you have a brain?

US: They can't though because his regime is too strong, we have to remove him as quickly as possible.

Something like that and don't flame me for this, it's just what I see and as far as I can tell, the US isn't going to get anything out of the deal except improved safety.

Quote:

---

When people celebrate the loss of innocent life in another country, it makes no difference what colour skin the victims had.

---

I see no celebrating over dead Iraqis. (unless you mean the capture of Hussein, and yes I would celebrate over the death of any heartless tyrant no matter his skin color)
In my opinion this is to save Iraqis, not kill them, as we would know if the objective was to kill as many Iraqis as possible, simple. Plus, the US are trying to avoid as many civilian casualties as possible, which is the complete opposite of Osama's terrorist attack.

Quote:

---

You may wanna check your facts http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer

---

That link is over a year old, you might want to update yourself on the subject.

Quote:

---

Saddam Hussein was largely un-religious; he was basically a secular dictator. It's too easy, or perhaps convenient, to assume that all powerful/nasty Arabs are Islamic fundamentalists.

---

Hussein wasn't but we're not fighting him we're fighting the sunni Wassabi and they are.

Quote:

---

the US president accepts that Iraq's stockpiles ceased to be during the decade following the first Gulf War.

---

Yet, they still make all deploying troops get anthrax and smallpox shots. It must be because they like us to have permanent scars on our arms. What other reason is their?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

That link is over a year old, you might want to update yourself on the subject.

---

Because the subject was a year old. They dont continually keep saying it after they've made the announcement. Prove to me otherwise. Show me a link with the White House saying it. Please.

And would you please answer my other questions?

I'm in the states. Give me some time to find a link.

You're in the states? But I thought you'd been spending time with Iraqis? And even in the states, you're still part of a division. What is it? And where are you stationed?

I'm in the states AND spending time with the Iraqi's. That's not hard to understand. The rest I can't tell you most of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vice president

Vice President Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that success in Iraq means "we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

---

The very same link. As you know, polititions flip-flop what they say all the time.

More proof, more recently

http://search.aimhome.netscape.com/a...0407230835.asp

http://search.aimhome.netscape.com/a...2F092503F.html

You mean you're spending time with Iraqi-Americans. Your original post made it sound as though you were spending time with Iraqis living in Iraq. I'd be much more interested in their perspective. The rest you can tell me, but choose not to.

edit: Cheney still isnt saying that Saddam had the connections, and the link you showed me (the first one is a cannot find server) says nothing about the president. You said Big D was wrong about the White House admitting that there is no link. The link you showed me is just as valid as anything Micheal Moore says... twisted facts and opinions. Still not what you said Big D was wrong about.

Nope, I mean I'm spending time with Iraqi citizens who live in Iraq but are in America right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

Nope, I mean I'm spending time with Iraqi citizens who live in Iraq but are in America right now.

---

What are they doing in America? How long have they been in America? Do you have any proof to back this up? Because by refusing to tell me anything about your military service, I'm getting the strong impression that you're making this up.

Two good friends of mine, who are indeed stationed in Iraq told me a very chilling story over the phone that all Americans are referred to as "Jews" by the Iraqi media and people, which if they understand it correctly, means that they are considered people of no value or that have nothing to say or have no place in Iraq. It's sad that many of the people in Iraq and the USA still have no idea why we're over there. Frankly, I really don't have a clue either. If we're liberating Iraq, one would figure we'd have planned it out better.

Also of note, if you're going using Dick Cheney as your talking head to support Iraq-Al Qaeda links, you may want to get more solid information as even he has said in various press conferences that Iraq might not have as strong a link as it was believed to have.

Now granted, Iraq right now is a hive for Al Qaeda, but pre-American invasion, there has been little to no evidence, no matter the spin, supporting this theory.

Take care all.

" Success in Iraq means we will have a victory at the heart of the base...of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

That means the Vice Pres. said victory in Iraq will hurt the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Those terrorists would be the Taliban. Why would it hurt them if they weren't linked?
The Iraqi's ( three of them) are here to teach us their language and about their culture. I don't know how long they've been here. You have to understand that I can't tell you much about my military service because I'm so close to deploying again.

The first link was fixed by the time you posted.

The Iraqi calling Americans Jews are the ones we're fighting against.

I don't understand how you can say you didn't do this for "us", that you did this for "them", when you did it cause you were ordered to do it. I'm not being accusatory, I'm just confused.

I'm glad Saddam has been stopped from killing people, and stealing money from his people. (I read in the 1999 World Almanac that Iraq's GNP was something around $51 Billion, Saddam was worth about a sixth of that I think). But now you have to stop the people that are left from killing each other.

Like I said before, I respect the soldier that does his/her duty. And I respect the good deeds they do regardless of orders. But I don't have to agree with your orders, and I don't have to respect them just because some good stuff happened as a result of them. That's like saying "I'm a drug trafficker, and I was speeding down the freeway running from cops, and I hit this pedestrian with my car, and the pedestrian was a child molester." Yes, it's good that there's one less child molester left in the world, but that doesn't justify my actions, now does it?

"That means the Vice Pres. said victory in Iraq will hurt the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Those terrorists would be the Taliban. Why would it hurt them if they weren't linked?"

Because, perhaps, they weren't linked.

Both sides of this argument, Liberal and Conservative alike need to take a step back for a moment and put aside differences and just look at the facts. I think, what we're arguing about is politics and not facts, which is depressing to me frankly, even though I'm just as guilty.

Saddam had no love for the Taliban because they represented a threat to his power over Iraq, so I find it darn near impossible to believe they teamed up for 9/11. You know who ARE linked with the Taliban though, Saudi Arabia. Why didn't we invade there? Or Iran, or any place that has CLEAR, crystal clear links to the Taliban?

Now from what I understand, as a soldier, you can't go against the president, but at the same time, you are still allowed to believe what you believe and not what the army tells you to believe. If you can confidently say that you agree with the Vice President, then I'll leave it at that. However, if you're just agreeing because you HAVE to agree, perhaps a change is needed.

Take care all.

Everything I've written is not what I'm told to believe. I'm not told to believe anything, they leave that up to us as individuals. Your right though about this argument getting out of hand and I'm stepping down to forget about it. I was tired of it a long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theundeadhero

" Success in Iraq means we will have a victory at the heart of the base...of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

That means the Vice Pres. said victory in Iraq will hurt the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Those terrorists would be the Taliban. Why would it hurt them if they weren't linked?
The Iraqi's ( three of them) are here to teach us their language and about their culture. I don't know how long they've been here. You have to understand that I can't tell you much about my military service because I'm so close to deploying again.

The first link was fixed by the time you posted.

The Iraqi calling Americans Jews are the ones we're fighting against.

---

1. That doesnt mean that Hussein had ties. That meant that terrorists could possibly be in Iraq. And do you know the difference between the Taliban and Al Queda?.
2. You're full of it. You can tell me when you're stationed, for one. You can also tell me your division. Your division doesnt change when you're deployed. What's your MOS? Where was your basic? How bout your AIT? Can you tell me any of that.
3. No it wasnt.

Quote:

---

2. You're full of it. You can tell me when you're stationed, for one. You can also tell me your division. Your division doesnt change when you're deployed. What's your MOS? Where was your basic? How bout your AIT? Can you tell me any of that.

---

Where I'm stationed at tells you what division I'm in. Division has EVERYTHING to do with when your deployed. 21E20 Ft. Leonard Wood, Ft. Leonard Wood

As for the rest I've dropped the subject.

No, your MOS has to do with what Division your in. You're at Ft. Leonardwood, eh? What about the rest? What's your MOS?

Not at Ft. Leonard Wood, thats where basic and AIT was. 21E's are stationed at every Army istallation so that doesn't help you there.

Will both of you shut up please?

I think we can reach several firm conclusions from this thread:

*Different Iraqis have different opinions about the invasion and deposing of Hussein

*Different American civilians have different opinions about the war

*Different US servicemen have different opinions about their reasons for fighting in the war

*Different non-US civilians and military also have their own opinions about it all

*Sometimes, these opinions conflict with one another

I guess that just about sums it up. Facts are easy enought to establish; it's interpretations and implications of those facts that set most people apart.

Thank you, we both agree on that.

Quote:

---

but what war isn't? They're all based on greed or revenge on some level.

---

And that is why war should never be happening.

Quote:

---

I like that "justification" and "corruption" are more important than the liberation of a country,

---

I can't recall a single time in U.S. history that we did not put a dictator in power after ousting a regime. Yes, we "liberated" them from a dictator. But I am one hundred percent sure that we will be putting another dictator in his place. We have NEVER done otherwise, and we are not going to now.

Quote:

---

Simply, the "civillians" who died were supporting the Wassabi's.

---

So, if the civilians of Dresden supported the Nazi party, then they also deserved what they got?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Alot like the "Nuke Iraq" shirt's I have seen worn around here. Disgusting, if you ask me.

Quote:

---

Simple, people who believe that killing people will get them into heaven are capable of ignoring the effects of launching nuclear weapons (Mutually Assured Destruction) and therefore are a threat to world security.

---

That's a laughable concept. World leaders don't believe that, even if they are muslim. When was the last time you saw a terrorist leader do a suicide bombing? Never, because they don't want to die. They simply use other people to carry out their deeds.

Quote:

---

No nuclear weapons perhaps, but biological or chemical weapons.

---

A weapon of mass destruction includes biological and chemical weapons. When we announced that there were no WMD's we meant no nuclear, biological, or chemicals weapons. Period.

Quote:

---

Something like that and don't flame me for this, it's just what I see and as far as I can tell, the US isn't going to get anything out of the deal except improved safety.

---

Read an essay called "rebuilding america's defenses" (written by many conservatives, such as Paul wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, and Donald rumsfeld just to name a few) then you will understand what America has to gain from Iraq.

Quote:

---

Nope, I mean I'm spending time with Iraqi citizens who live in Iraq but are in America right now.

---

Well, it seems like getting a biased account from these guys. Go to Iraq, talk to Iraqi's IN IRAQ, and THEN tell us about how grateful they are.

Quote:

---

That means the Vice Pres. said victory in Iraq will hurt the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Those terrorists would be the Taliban. Why would it hurt them if they weren't linked?

---

Just because the vice president says something doesn't mean it's the truth.

Quote:

---

The Iraqi's ( three of them) are here to teach us their language and about their culture. I don't know how long they've been here. You have to understand that I can't tell you much about my military service because I'm so close to deploying again.

---

Are these Iraqi's employed, or volunteering for the U.S. army?

Anyway, I guess my biggest point that I made here was that the U.S. has never put anyone in power who was NOT a dictator. Yes, we removed a horrible dictator from power. Does anybody realize that the person who we gave power to over Iraq worked for the CIA? Does anybody realize that this same man blew up a bus full of children? I am one hundred percent sure that Iraq will be placed in the hands of another ruthless, iron fisted dictator when this is all said and done. It is what has happened every time in the past, and it is what is going to happen now. In my opinion, this kind of blows the "liberating the people" argumen clean out of the water.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

I guess its just depressing to be thought of as evil because of something other people in your country did that "could've been done better." I'd rather just not think poorly of anyone, but grr... nevermind.

---

I can guarantee that I would never believe you, or any other American, to be "evil" because of this. However, I do believe the war, as it has turned out, to be a horrible act. It "could've been done better"; and if it had been, thousands of innocents would be alive today who are not. It wasn't "done better" because of a lack of foresight, a lack of planning, and basically because of undue haste. Innocent people died because someone else chose not to spend a bit of extra time and extra money beforehand, and that's something I can't readily abide.

nik0tine raises some interesting points, too.

I'd like to think that, with the world's help, Iraq can become a genuine democracy, or at the very least a country that determines its own future system of government. The UN interim administration in East Timor worked there; the same happened in many former USSR states. They're handling things in Afghanistan right now. However, the US acting alone doesn't really stand much chance of creating a truly independent, democratic nation. To avoid bias as much as possible, input from the rest of the world is crucial.