Closed Thread
Page 1 of 9 1234 ... Last
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Catrina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    81

    Arrow The Unofficial 'War in Iraq' Thread

    If you guys are game, I'd like to discuss the war in Iraq. Let me begin with my personal views:

    1. The war in Iraq was justified because the former Iraqi government posed a threat to the United States. The line between 'is not a threat' and 'is a threat' is unfortunately gray and hard to determine. But I think that anyone examining the facts can see that Iraq clearly fell into the 'is a threat' side of the line. Saddam was vehemently anti-American. He had on numerous occasions provided bases, training camps and headquarters to terrorist groups, especially Palestinian ones. May it be noted that the US is pro-Israel. In addition, during the Gulf War Saddam attempted several terrorist attacks on American facilities. His link to terrorism cannot be denied. Isn't it logical to at least wonder if Saddam funded the recent American terrorist attacks, as his hatred of America was apparent?

    2. I believe that Saddam had WMDs at the time of the war. I believe this because he had such weapons during the Iran-Iraqi war in the 80s, when he used poisonous gases like mustard gas and sarin against Iranian soldiers. In 1988, Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons. If he had them then, why wouldn't he have them now? Would you anti-war folk have rathered that Saddam proved that he had them by USING them? I say we did right by seeing to it that Saddam didn't have a chance to use those weapons.

    3. Whether or not Saddam had WMDs, he never-the-less refused to cooperate with American authorities prior to the war. Am I the only one who remembers all the chances we gave that rat to abdicate? The fact that he would not comply with US demands show that the dictator had something to hide.

    4. Our primary motivation for going to Iraq was not to "do good," but it is apparent that the Iraqi people are far better off with out Saddam and his devestating rule. They are free. Sure, some of the insurgents over there are causing trouble for our troops, but they are the minority. After being subjected to the heavy and cruel rule of Saddam, don't you think that most of the Iraqis are relieved to havae been liberated? Don't let the rebels (who probably benefited from Saddam's reign and hence are angry towards our soldiers) make you think that everyone in Iraq hates us. Far from the truth. Am I the only one who has seen the telling pictures of the Iraqis hugging, kissing, and celebrating with our troops? Check out the December edition of Readers' Digest, for just a couple of the many examples.

    If you've made it this far, thanks for reading. What are your thoughts?

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    464

    Default

    I'm tired of hearing the news about bombings and American military kids getting hurt. I'm afraid it's going to take a long time to bring about any lasting change in that part of the world and too many more will be hurt. Forgive me for questioning whether it's worth it.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Winfield, IL
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Catrina,

    I feel that it is right for us to be there and helping the people of Iraq. I fully support President Bush in this action.

    Patrick

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Catrina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Originally posted by LEWTFL
    I'm tired of hearing the news about bombings and American military kids getting hurt. I'm afraid it's going to take a long time to bring about any lasting change in that part of the world and too many more will be hurt. Forgive me for questioning whether it's worth it.
    I hate it too. Nothing worse than hearing of our soldiers dying. But think of it, if you can, as being a sacrifice for the greater good. If Saddam was kept in power, many more people would have died, certainly Iraqis, and Palestinians, as well as other victims of the terrorism that Saddam funded. War stinks: I hate it with all my might.

    But what I hate more is hearing of innocent people suffering at the hands of a merciless dictator. We have to do what we can to correct injustice when we see it. Even if it means we have to sacrifice American blood (God bless our fine troops). And I would have hated it even more if Saddam finally did attack us, as perhaps he has indirectly done already.

    Is it worth it? I think so, because we have saved more lives than have been taken by the fighting.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Catrina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Originally posted by Patrick631
    Catrina,

    I feel that it is right for us to be there and helping the people of Iraq. I fully support President Bush in this action.

    Patrick
    *high fives Patrick* Ah, the silient majority speaks...

  6. #6
    HNFC FF/President
    mdoddsjffhnfc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Camden County, NJ
    Posts
    587

    Default

    I support the decision that my president made to send American men and women over to Iraq. We've helped liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam, and some of them really appreciate what we did. I support the Armed Forces of the United States and of the Coalilition countries. If we didn't go over when we did, who knows what may have happened with Saddam and his WMD's.

    Let's honor our brave men and women who take time out of there lives to serve our country and protect the citizens of the United States. Stay strong men, this American patriot will always be with you!
    Firefighter, Volunteering since Oct 2001

    CCFA 05-04, best overall class for 2005
    "GOOD GAME!"

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Catrina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    81

    Default

    ^^^Amen to that. No matter whether or not we disagree with the reasons for going to war, we must always support our troops who HAVE to go and fight. I have great admiration for our soldiers who are the backbone of America.

  8. #8
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Webster NY
    Posts
    306

    Default

    War sucks, It shouldn't be part of life but it is. Should we gone to Iraq again no. We should of taken him out back in the first war but we didn't so then yes this war was right. This all from a kid who wants to join the army out of high school.
    Last edited by Quigger; 12-07-2003 at 01:37 PM.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    From the "other" thread:
    Time will tell, but remember: we cannot say for sure that the WMDs do NOT exist. That's impossible.
    We should NOT be waging war and invading other countries based on this "logic." We can't prove that Spain DOESN'T have an army of 300 foot bunnies, ready to stomp American cities into submission; should we invade them, just in case the bunnies exist?? It is well known that the Bushies wanted an excuse to pull this "war" off; and they used the WTC attacks to "justify" the invasion. And, if the great leader Bush was so damn sure that Saddam had WMD and had real proof and intel to back it up, don't you think he should know exactly WHERE to look for the stuff??? If Saddam had any REAL weapons of mass destruction, he would have used them, don't you think?

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Far from the truth. Am I the only one who has seen the telling pictures of the Iraqis hugging, kissing, and celebrating with our troops? Check out the December edition of Readers' Digest, for just a couple of the many examples.
    Sure...and they hugged and kissed Saddam, too.
    I believe that Saddam had WMDs at the time of the war. I believe this because he had such weapons during the Iran-Iraqi war in the 80s, when he used poisonous gases like mustard gas and sarin against Iranian soldiers. In 1988, Saddam gassed thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons. If he had them then, why wouldn't he have them now? Would you anti-war folk have rathered that Saddam proved that he had them by USING them? I say we did right by seeing to it that Saddam didn't have a chance to use those weapons.
    OK, first of all, we are the ones who gave him these weapons in the first place, to help fight the Iranian evil-doers. He doesn't have them now, because we quit giving them to him.

    3. Whether or not Saddam had WMDs, he never-the-less refused to cooperate with American authorities prior to the war. Am I the only one who remembers all the chances we gave that rat to abdicate? The fact that he would not comply with US demands show that the dictator had something to hide.
    This had nothing to do with "American authorities," but the United Nations. The United Nations should have been allowed to handle it. George Bush's lone ranger approach has done nothing but **** off a large part of the world.


    This war was built on lies by the GWB administration, just like the lies his father set up about babies being tossed out of incubators by Iraqi soldiers. It seems that it is OK for the government to lie, as long as it is for what they think is the common good. This is NOT the way it should be.

    1. The war in Iraq was justified because the former Iraqi government posed a threat to the United States. The line between 'is not a threat' and 'is a threat' is unfortunately gray and hard to determine. But I think that anyone examining the facts can see that Iraq clearly fell into the 'is a threat' side of the line. Saddam was vehemently anti-American. He had on numerous occasions provided bases, training camps and headquarters to terrorist groups, especially Palestinian ones. May it be noted that the US is pro-Israel. In addition, during the Gulf War Saddam attempted several terrorist attacks on American facilities. His link to terrorism cannot be denied. Isn't it logical to at least wonder if Saddam funded the recent American terrorist attacks, as his hatred of America was apparent?
    Iraq was nowhere near the "threat" side of the "line." He could do nothing more and MUCH less than most of the nations in this world to hurt us. He was ani-American? Guess what; much of the world is. Should we bomb the hell out of them, too? The only terrorist operations in Iraq were operated by the religious fanatics (Shi'ites, Kurds) and were in areas not controlled by Saddam after the Gulf War.

    Here's some reading for you:
    http://islandimage.net/oc/13myths/Factsheet.cfm?ID=5

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ullrichk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deleted by the forum gremlins
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    I'm afraid I can't buy into the conspiracy theories. I do think that we got into the war based on the best intelligence we had at the time. If it turns out that we were wrong, history will judge us accordingly. If we were right, it may be years before that information will be released to the general public for fear of compromising intel sources and capabilites.

    On a related note, I'm tired of all this nation-building B.S. There are many people in the world who don't want to be like Americans - and that's fine as long as they leave us alone. . .
    ullrichk
    a.k.a.
    perfesser

    a ship in a harbor is safe. . . but that's not what ships are for

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    FFMcDonald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    N 41* 2.770' W 74* 7.338'
    Posts
    272

    Default

    We are merely sccomplishing a task that should have been accomplished in 1991, following the 1st Gulf war.

    I feel we have acted on the best intelligence that we have.

    Nozzleman - I wish you would research all of your facts - much more completely.

    Did you know that we 'sold' weapons to the Iranians before the Shah of Iran fell? They are the only country other than the US to operate the Grumman (now Northrop Grumman) F-14 Tomcat. However- due to lack of technical support and spare parts from the US they are not airworthy.

    Yes in the late 1970's we also sold weapons to the Iraqis. Why?
    Ever hear the saying that you are the friend of your enemies enemy?
    We were combatting the Ayatollah Khomenhi.

    We aided the Iraqis because they were the enemy of our enemy (IRAN).

    What are the tanks the Iraqis are using? T-55's, T-62's, T-72's, etc...

    AK-47's, AK-74's, AKM's, SVD's, RPG's, etc...
    These are all Soviet Bloc weapons systems - strangely - not American.

    The United Nations should have handled it - yes. As a matter of fact - there were at least a dozen UN resolutions that were on the books and Saddam was completely ignoring them.

    All we did was lend some muscle. We enforced what was already on the books....
    Iraq was nowhere near the "threat" side of the "line." He could do nothing more and MUCH less than most of the nations in this world to hurt us.
    Do you think Al-Queda isn't a threat either? I'll bet there are several thousand people in New York City, and Washington, DC that would disagree with you. What constitutes a threat? NEWSFLASH - You don't have to be a 'country' in order to pose a threat to US national security.

    A textbook definition of terrorism is the advancement of religious, idelogical, or political goals through the use terror.

    I think we should pull out of NATO -- After 9/11 the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization reaffirmed their conviction that an attack upon one member is an attack upon all members. Too bad they haven't stuck with their word.

    The United Nations is a farce. Without any enforcement power behind its decisions -- you have exactly what occured in Iraq for 10 years. How about all the United Nations Famine Relief that gets shipped to Africa... I bet all of that food actually makes it to people too....
    Marc

    "In Omnia Paratus"

    Member - IACOJ
    "Got Crust?"

    -- The opinions presented here are my own; and are not those of any organization that I belong to, or work for.

  13. #13
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Duffman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Chicago area
    Posts
    780

    Default

    Do you think Al-Queda isn't a threat either? I'll bet there are several thousand people in New York City, and Washington, DC that would disagree with you. What constitutes a threat? NEWSFLASH - You don't have to be a 'country' in order to pose a threat to US national security.
    FF McDonald,

    You asked a question of TheNozzleman, and then made comments based on a presumed answer. How can you bet anyone would disagree with him when he hasn't answered the question?

    What does Al-Queda have to do with Iraq anyway? NEWSFLASH - Iraq had no role in the 9/11 attacks. I am sick and tired of the Bush administration trying to tie Iraq in with 9/11. There is a war on Terror, and a war in Iraq. It is not the same war. Where is Osama Been Forgotten anyway. Some of us remember that his organization was and is the real threat.

    I'll bet 130,000 troops and 87 billion dollars would have gone a long way toward finding him.
    "We shouldn't be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in New York City."

    IACOJ

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    384

    Default

    Tread lightly around Mac on this subject. The force is strong with him lest ye find yourself in an arguement with a Marine who knows his military and political info better than just about anyone I know personally.

    Presumed answer? What part? We did sell weapons to Iran before the fall of the Shah and we did sell weapons to Iraq when they were fighting Iran. Those are facts.

    If you read AP news for today, you'll note an article where Al-Queda is shifting forces from Afghanistan to Iraq. A connection? Sounds like one to me.

    Here's the link to the AP article I mentioned:

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...raq_qaeda_dc_2
    Last edited by engine1321; 12-08-2003 at 02:49 AM.

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Nozzleman - I wish you would research all of your facts - much more completely.
    I do.
    Did you know that we 'sold' weapons to the Iranians before the Shah of Iran fell?
    So what? It is only one more case where we were screwing around where we shouldn't be.
    We aided the Iraqis because they were the enemy of our enemy (IRAN).
    And tell me again why Iran was our enemy?? Oh, that's right; they are a bunch of religious nuts (terrorists) who took charge of their own country, just like is happening IN Iraq today.
    These are all Soviet Bloc weapons systems - strangely - not American.
    Well, that's no big mystery; Iraq is right next to Russia and the border of the old Soviet Union. The availablity of cheap ex-Russian weapons is there. As for the AK 47, hell I can go to the nearest trailer park and purchase one of those. Plus,they are a much more reliable weapon to have in desert conditions. They tend to fire, no matter what.
    Last edited by ThNozzleman; 12-08-2003 at 09:40 AM.

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,694

    Default

    The United Nations should have been allowed to handle it. George Bush's lone ranger approach has done nothing but **** off a large part of the world.
    For 12 years, we did let the UN handle it. After that 12 years, was it any better there? Was ANYTHING the UN was doing actually working? The "Lone Ranger" approach was to take care of a problem, not "play nicy nicy" because we don't want to offend anyone. A threat was seen, he took care of that threat. You don't here too much from North Korea anymore...anyone wonder why?
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    If you read AP news for today, you'll note an article where Al-Queda is shifting forces from Afghanistan to Iraq. A connection? Sounds like one to me.
    Not really; these fundies didn't even exist in Iraq (except in the areas not controlled by Saddam) because the Baath party wouldn't put up with them. Who do you think is in all those mass graves? Now that Saddam has been "removed from power," all the fundies have come out of the woodwork and from the surrounding countries (the real hotbed for terrorism) and are now meeting the enemy.
    We have played the oil game in the Middle East for years; it is the only reason we have interest in the wretched place. And it never works.

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Hey Bob;

    It's much easier and more relaxing to take my approach to this debate and not get involved for the umpteenth time.

    But in the interest of news (with no opinion attached):

    [QUOTE[/i]
    Iraqi Colonel: WMD Could've Been Launched in 45 Minutes

    Sunday, December 07, 2003

    Saddam Hussein (search) had weapons of mass destruction and his army was capable of firing them off in less than 45 minutes, according to statements from an Iraqi colonel.

    Lt. Col. al-Dabbagh told the London Telegraph that cases of WMD warheads were shipped under cover of darkness to front-line units, including his own, near the end of 2002, in a report published in Sunday editions.

    In September of 2002 the British government published a controversial intelligence report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, claiming WMD could be launched within 45 minutes. Al-Dabbagh said he believed he was the source of the claim, which was widely criticized as being a ploy by British Prime Minister Tony Blair (search) to gain support for military action in Iraq (search).

    "I am the one responsible for providing this information," al-Dabbagh, 40, told the Telegraph when shown the dossier. "It is 100 percent accurate."

    "Forget 45 minutes, we could have fired these within half-an-hour," he was quoted as saying.

    Al-Dabbagh told the paper that the weapons were Iraqi-manufactured and were designed to be launched from hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. Whether the weapons contained biological or chemical agents was not made clear by al-Dabbagh, the report said.

    Iraqi military commanders could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam, al-Dabbagh told the paper, adding: "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon."

    So why weren't the weapons launched against the allied forces encroaching on Iraq? Al-Dabbagh said the majority of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam.

    "The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he told the paper. "If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences."
    [/QUOTE]

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

    BTW, did you hear from Seligman? PM me.

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    OK. Here we go.

    Why should we not have supplied Iran with the ability to defend itself as a sovereign nation? Was the Shah as much of a dirtbag as Hussein? Not quite but he certainly was not a poster child for good behavior.

    Throughout the entire 40+ year cold war the U.S. supplied weapons to the "friends" of ours and the Soviet Union supplied their weapons to their "friends." Such is life.

    As for access to former soviet weapons, well most of the weaponry was bought, probably, before the last Gulf War from the Soviet Union. As for the AK, overall a much better weapon than the piece of garbage M-16 / M-4 that the military is using now. A wepon that is 40 plus years old and weapons technology has changed enough that we can upgrade to newer weapons. Exactly why I hear the Marine Corps is trying to find a better weapon to replace the M-16.

    As for support of terrorism, as I said in a different thread, it has been widely known in the intelligence communities that for the past 20 to 30 years the countries of Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, China, North Korea, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan, and others have either supported terrorism by governmental support or harbored terrorists. While the war on Iraq may be a different war, it is part of an overall fight on terrorism.

    The reason I say this is that as a supporter of terrorism, thousands of dollars to each homicide bomber in Israel, and training areas for terrorists, it is a step along the way to ridding the worls of many terrorists.

    On a different track -

    Over the past 20 plus years, U.S. policy has led us to a dangerous position in one aspect. We have taught the "fundies" - love the term by the way - that if we get a bloody enough nose, we will withdraw.

    This goes all the way back to the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut Lebanon, 1982 or ''83 I believe. 240+ of my brother Marines and Corpsman dead. What did we do? We pulled out, no hunting or tracking down, we pulled out. The overtaking fo the embassy in Iran. One failed rescue mission, and we stopped attempts to get them out.

    Mogadishu, 18 great men dead, largely due to improper aerial support due to denied requests for additional firepower, in a legendary battle for life and we leave.

    Now we are in Iraq, good, bad, or indifferent. Due to this, if we leave now, our nation will be worse off. Once more a bloody nose to the U.S. and we leave. We have taught them that we do not have the fortitude for battle and losses. What do you expect from them?

    Let' say that Iraq is rebuilt - and it will be - a representative democracy is established adn even succeeeds. When this occurs, it is a huge threat to the stability of these monarchy / dictatorships. Individual rights and freedoms are a precious commodity and as a ruler you hold the power over these. If your neighbor next door gives them to their citizens, it will certainly build unrest and undercut your power. Would you like that if you are ruling Jordan or Syria?

    As for Iran, well in the next few years I feel that you will see a violent popular uprising. Every report establishes a love for freedom, expansion of personal rights and a despisal of the ruling mullas. By the way, Iran is a democracy, unfortuanetly the will of the democratically elected officials in Iran is overruled by the three mullas at the head of the country. What a shame.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    DaSharkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    4,713

    Default

    As for not catching "Osama Been Forgotten" - I like that one too by the way - I compare it to fighting two battle fronts in World War II. Should we have eliminated the threat from Germany first while Hirohito and Tojo continued to destroy, rape, pillage, plunder, and kill the citizenry? I do not feel so. But then again the conspiracy theorists say the FDR wanted to enter the war so we allowed for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

    Notice that we have been pushing and prosecuting Bin Laden. HAve we caught him yet? No. However, by pushing and prosecuting you keep him off guard and unstable. By eliminating and reducing the organization infrastructure, you undercut his ability to execute missions and assaults. Effective, yes, but not the optimal choice of eliminating him I agree.

    Remember, with a little bit of money, it is not difficult to move around unnoticed and undetected. You must only have the will to do it.
    "Too many people spend money they haven't earned, to buy things they don't want, to impress people they don't like." Will Rogers

    The borrower is slave to the lender. Proverbs 22:7 - Debt free since 10/5/2009.

    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." - New York Judge Gideon Tucker

    "As Americans we must always remember that we all have a common enemy, an enemy that is dangerous, powerful and relentless. I refer, of course, to the federal government." - Dave Barry

    www.daveramsey.com www.clarkhoward.com www.heritage.org

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    I never said we should "pull out" and leave such a mess behind.
    Throughout the entire 40+ year cold war the U.S. supplied weapons to the "friends" of ours and the Soviet Union supplied their weapons to their "friends." Such is life.
    And life needs to change.
    As for support of terrorism, as I said in a different thread, it has been widely known in the intelligence communities that for the past 20 to 30 years the countries of Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria, China, North Korea, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan, and others have either supported terrorism by governmental support or harbored terrorists. While the war on Iraq may be a different war, it is part of an overall fight on terrorism.
    My point, all along. We do nothing to these other countries, but then again, they don't have the massive amount of oil that Iraq does. Just the way the government looks the other way on Saudia Arabia is sickening. They sell us oil, we make a few of 'em rich, and we overlook the terrorist activities there. Just the problems with Russia over the oil could be enough to strain relations with the fledgling democracy. Their government has stated that they think the real reason for the war was an oil grab. Iraq stands a good chance of turning into a miserable, sh*t hole, ran by Muslim fundies (like the Taliban) and if we let them truly choose, as a real "democracy" states, then that's what will happen. But, then again, who are we to force our way of living down someone elses throat? What a mess.
    Let' say that Iraq is rebuilt - and it will be - a representative democracy is established adn even succeeeds. When this occurs, it is a huge threat to the stability of these monarchy / dictatorships. Individual rights and freedoms are a precious commodity and as a ruler you hold the power over these. If your neighbor next door gives them to their citizens, it will certainly build unrest and undercut your power. Would you like that if you are ruling Jordan or Syria?
    Sure; this theory has worked SO well with Israel over the last 50 years. The ONLY way for these people to truly become like us, is to do it THEMSELVES, just like we did. Thousands will die, most of them horrible deaths, in a true revolution. For us to go there in this day and age and try to force this idea is a waste of time. If anything, it has set things back. Lucky for us, most of the "leaders" in this culture are self-serving fools, and couldn't possibly get along with each other, any more than they would with us. We would have a REAL bad situation if these countries had any nuts and formed an alliance against us. We pay off most of these countries by the BILLIONS every year, including Israel. We even paid off Turkey with billions, just to help out with the invasion. What a joke! Oh, well; I suppose that when it's all over, Conaleeza Rice can sail her oil tanker there and fill 'er up.
    As for the rifles, I don't have to tell you which one I'd pick up first, if I found them both in the dirt/sand.

  22. #22
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    384

    Thumbs down

    DaSharkie, The USMC did find a better weapon to replace the M16A2. They have approved the M16A4, supposedly a heavy, shorter, and more robust M16 model. Let me play with it, I'll find a way to break it. I'm sure how well the A4 model will perform in a dirty or desert environment. I'll find out soon enough.

    The "War for Oil" arguement is so old. All this time we are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and people still manage to get this excuse. Give it a rest and actually try proving it, and not with statistics or here-say, I actually want a quote. Saying that Iraq has a huge reserve of oil maybe true, but you prove that we're there for that with a quote and then maybe I'll believe you. Until then, presenting opinion in the face of overwhelming fact is like throwing a stone at a tidal wave.

    Do it themselves huh... history showed Saddam had a wonderful history with his people, whenever they said something he didn't like, hey, let's throw them in torture chamber. Or gas whole villages or slaughter thousands more by drawing them out of their homes and gunning them down like sporting game. Yeah, a revolution would last for really long over there, against cut-throat desert pirates who have NO PROBLEM with killing thousands with a single word.

    The media doesn't know what's going on behind the scenes. The insurgents are afraid that we will succeed, why do you think they are attacking civilians and non-military targets. After the ***-whooping they got a couple days ago, they know better. What was that convoy doing? Transporting money to a bank so that Iraqis could trade in the existing currecy for new currency.

    And now I turn my attention to the foreign powers that be that didn't like what we're doing. The French, for example. Despite being arrogant, foolish snobs, they managed to show their true colors when they stated something to effect of "we didn't sell weapons to Iraq." Then when we actually get in there, we find that the French have been selling weapons since before the Gulf War. As proof, we find a brand new French made Roland anti-aircraft missle launcher. Hey way to go France! You're a back stabbing liar.

    It's no secret Russia was selling weapons to Iraq, but I stumbled upon an article after we overwhelmed the Iraqis that Russia was rethinking it's own defense strategy. It truns out the defense around Baghdad was designed by a Russian general who just happens to be in charge of defense of Russia's borders. Hey, whadda ya know? Do I see a connection forming? I'm not quite sure what Germany's motive was, maybe they didn't want to lose Qusai and his taste for expensive foreign cars while the people around him starved to death.

    Any way you look at it, we did the right thing. All the arm-chair diplomats and generals couldn't have done it any better.

  23. #23
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    The "War for Oil" arguement is so old. All this time we are trying to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and people still manage to get this excuse. Give it a rest and actually try proving it, and not with statistics or here-say, I actually want a quote. Saying that Iraq has a huge reserve of oil maybe true, but you prove that we're there for that with a quote and then maybe I'll believe you. Until then, presenting opinion in the face of overwhelming fact is like throwing a stone at a tidal wave.
    Once again, there is no other reason to be there. We do not invade other nations, simply because they've been "bad." If that were the case, we would be invading countries all over the world. There is no link between Iraq and the WTC attacks. The terrorist link has been proven to be joke. Of course, now that we're there, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of terrorists there. Big oil is behind all this; you don't have to look any further than the White House to see proof of that.
    Do it themselves huh... history showed Saddam had a wonderful history with his people, whenever they said something he didn't like, hey, let's throw them in torture chamber. Or gas whole villages or slaughter thousands more by drawing them out of their homes and gunning them down like sporting game. Yeah, a revolution would last for really long over there, against cut-throat desert pirates who have NO PROBLEM with killing thousands with a single word.
    Nobody said it was easy. My main point being, these people DON'T want to be "just like us." And, until they do, we will be wasting our time.
    And now I turn my attention to the foreign powers that be that didn't like what we're doing. The French, for example. Despite being arrogant, foolish snobs, they managed to show their true colors when they stated something to effect of "we didn't sell weapons to Iraq." Then when we actually get in there, we find that the French have been selling weapons since before the Gulf War. As proof, we find a brand new French made Roland anti-aircraft missle launcher. Hey way to go France! You're a back stabbing liar.
    OK, I'm sick to death of all the France-bashing. They've done nothing we haven't (and much more of) when it comes to the Middle East. America is the leader in self-serving BS in the Middle East. That's why the common man there hates our guts with unbridled fury. Just because France took a position different from ours doesn't make them woosies, commies, back-stabbers, pansies, or any other name thrown about today. France is a tough nation, full of people who love their country and are willing to fight for it, when they see a real reason. They've been a nation far longer than we have, so they obviously are doing something right.

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    384

    Default

    I never said that them choosing adifferent side from us made them anything. I was refering to the attitude of the French people toward anyone who didn't agree with them. If it's filled with people willing to fight for France, then why do they have to rely on foreigners to provide the backing to their military? Don't think so, try the French Foreign Legion.

    If there's no other reason to be there, PROVE IT. You've given nothing but secondary reasons, which are usually incorrect anyways. Let me ask you this, why were we involved in World War I? Did we have any particular reason to be involved or did we just step in there too? We stepped in to end German aggression in Europe. We stepped in in Iraq to end Iraqi aggression in the Middle East and stop the cash flow to several other terrorist organizations in Gaza and the West Bank. It was obvious Saddam had no intention of helping the Palestinans gain their own state except through supporting global terrorism and he sought our destruction and the deaths of the American people. Is that motivation enough?

    Of course there hundred if not thousands of terrosits there now, and when we leave Iraq in the hands of the Iraqi people then they won't have very much to whine about anymore. These terrorists think we'll play Clinton and cut and run. They'll run out of steam eventually and things will return to normal. We've been around for 228 years, we've seen things like this come and go, we're not going anywhere.

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    FFMcDonald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    N 41* 2.770' W 74* 7.338'
    Posts
    272

    Default

    Ahhhh -- if only we could learn from history....

    ThNozzleman -
    I can tell you this, I am very educated as to the politics of the region. I lived in the Middle East for 2 years, I have been to downtown Beirut, Lebanon. Amman, Jordan. Turkey - been there. Stationed at the American Embassy in Damascus, Syria. Kuwait City, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Spoken with Muslim imams. Been to mosque -

    Broken the fast during Ramadan with muslim friends.

    Spoken with the political officers of the British, Canadian, German, and Dutch embassies.

    I went on a patrol of the Golan Heights that separates Syria from Israel with the Austrian contingent of the UNDOF (United Nations Disengagement Observer Force).

    Witnessed the annual pilgrimmage to Mecca, known as the haaj.

    Heck -- I even own a persian rug that is older than the United States. That's not a typo either.

    If you know your history - you will know that the United States has has had limited interaction in the Middle East. The earliest interacton we had in the middle east was in 1801-1805 during the Barbary Wars when pirates of 4 nations there raided American shipping. These states were Algiers, Morocco, Tunis and Tripoli.

    After that we pretty much never touched the region until after WWII when we supported - along with most of Europe - the creation of a jewish state - Israel.

    Since we weren't there - lets talk about who was --The French and the British. In April 1920, in the small Italian town of San Remo, Britain and France divide the Middle East into mandates while the American ambassador read his newspaper in the garden. Britain obtained Palestine, Transjordan and Iraq; the French acquired Syria. Know what the French Mandate is?? In 1926 the French divided Syria into 6 regions, isolating different religious sects. Don't worry - the British had their hand in there too --- They controlled Lebanon, and Jordan. It's why Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, and - basically the whole region are as messed up as they are today?!

    But no - blame the current Presidential administration for the troubles in the middle east. Forget the crusades... (1095-1295) that was only a 200 year religious war.


    That's enough of a history lesson -- American hands aren't nearly as dirty as european hands.
    OK, I'm sick to death of all the France-bashing. They've done nothing we haven't (and much more of) when it comes to the Middle East. America is the leader in self-serving BS in the Middle East.
    see above

    France is a tough nation, full of people who love their country and are willing to fight for it, when they see a real reason.
    There are 11 American cemeteries in France maintained by the US government honoring 66,033 Americans killed fighting for France against Germany. They are as follows:

    Aisne-Marne Cemetery: 3,349 Americans killed
    Somme Cemetery: 2,177 Americans killed
    Brittany Cemetery: 4,908 Americans killed
    Oise-Aisne Cemetery: 6,253 Americans killed
    Epinal Cemetery: 5,679 Americans killed
    Rhone Dragungnan Cemetery: 1,155 Americans killed
    Lorraine Cemetery: 10,933 Americans killed
    Meuse-Argonne Cemetery: 15,200 Americans killed
    St. Mihiel Cemetery: 4,437 Americans killed
    Suresnes Cemetery: 998 Americans killed
    Normandy Cemetery: 10,944 Americans killed



    Yeah --- they're just raring to go... chompin' at the bit.


    Anyway --

    I stand by my original statement -- we are merely accomplish a task that should have been accomplished after the 1st Gulf War. We are enforcing the Resolutions that were passed by the United Nations.

    I fully agree with DaSharkie - our nose is bloodied - but we cannot. Must not leave the fight. we must show conviction and perseverance.

    Oh- and they are fundamentalists, not 'fundies'.
    Marc

    "In Omnia Paratus"

    Member - IACOJ
    "Got Crust?"

    -- The opinions presented here are my own; and are not those of any organization that I belong to, or work for.

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 9 1234 ... Last

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register