-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Why are we in Iraq?
- Thread starter jdwilson44
- Start date
You're correct. I stand corrected. I don't know how I lost a year.bczoom said:
If will definitely pass it unless we bomb the shit out of them or get our. There is no way we can resolve it in our present situation.
You know, all the people who say we can't leave, said the same thing about Vietnam. We certainly did tuck our tails between our legs and leave Vietnam with resolving a thing. Guess what? Cruise ships are now stopping at Ho Chi Minh City.
OkeeDon said:
Don, I tend to agree with you here, but.. The problem is that we want to fight a gentlemans war with animals.... It will never work out in our favor.. War has no rules.. How did we win the previous wars that made this country great? Not by letting our enemy get the better of us, sometimes we have to get dirty to win.. If they thought we would desecrate them like they do us and not allow them to meet their Allah or have their virgins, they would quit.. We need to get midevill on their ass and fight like they do.. The English lost this country because they had an "I'm better than you" attitude...
OkeeDon said:
I'm not messing with you at all, I just think you don't realize the seriousness of the issues (terrorism, WMD, secular genocide, etc....) and that talk and complacency won't solve the problems. No need to feel sorry for me cause I'm doing fine living in the real world. You give a lot of critique but no realistic solutions the the problems like a lot of D.........! Us being in Iraq good or bad, better or worse will make the WORLD recognize something has to be done in all the middle east!
and BTW, I do realize this is after the fact of the thread subject but it is now currently the fact.
Not only do I realize the seriousness of the issues, I understand what part they have to play regarding our involvement in Iraq. The Bush people said we were going to invade because of WMD. When there was no WMD, they said we were invading because of terrorism. When the connection to terrorism was shown to be false (they admitted it, remember), they said it was because Saddam killed his own people. When it was pointed out that lots of tyrants kill their own people and we do nothing about it, they claimed we were there to spread democracy.Big Dog said:
I'm here to tell you that democracy will never work in a nation divided between Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims and Kurds. That is becoming more obvious every day, I can't wait to hear what new excuse the Bush folks will come out with...
From the President's own words, about an hour ago..."The key is that all of this violence and all of the threats are part of one single ideological struggle, a struggle between the forces of freedom and moderation, and the forces of tyranny and extremism." <emphasis added by me>HGM said:
The forces of moderation versus the forces of extremism --which are you?
OkeeDon said:
Hmmmm............ Sometimes you must use extreme measures to apply moderation, dont you think?
Now your playing a word game with me.... I'm simply asking you to look at why things are going wrong here, not why we are there.... If we were to fight the same fight these scumbags are fighting, to bring them to their knees(like this great country used to do), we would gain more respect and they wouldnt want to piss us off again.. Use whatever reason you'd like, terrorism, genocide, oil, whatever....If we were to let it be known that we arent going to play their games, go in and kick their ass back into shape and come home, then maybe we would have the ideal world so many think is possible.. But, that wont happen without that "big stick" being cracked over a few unruley heads and someone getting dirty in the process.. Like it or not, some people only respond to violence, not talk.. We, as a country, have let politics drive our military for the last 35yrs or so and our nations respect has deteriorated because of it.. Again, we cannot leave this one like it stands..
Dargo
Like a bad penny...
OkeeDon said:
Okay, I have an issue with these statements. First, I absolutely positively do not believe there is even a remote possibility that any WMD's that existed could not have been removed in the years they had to hide them. Hell, if you give me an unlimited amount of money and a few years, I guarantee I could hide, move, and make otherwise disappear WMD's. Do you not realize that what you are saying is that you think we can find something that could be relatively very small in an area about the size of California after giving a government years to hide or move them?? Sorry, but that notion is just flat crazy. I believe that about as much as I believe that we took down the World Trade Centers and that we (the government of the USA) blew up the levee system in N.O.
So, to say that "there was no WMD" is ludicrous. Perhaps it you could say that after giving Iraq years to hide them, we have been unable to beat them at hide and seek. Otherwise, it's about online with saying that Iran will never be able to produce a nuclear bomb and, that their only intentions are for nuclear power. Yeah, sure, I'm buying that one as well...
Grooming Snow
New member
I really do think the Iraq people are better off then when they were under Saddam's rule. May not be what any one really wanted. Biggest problem is the road side bombs, thats what are killing the US troops and the Iraq people,The Iraq people can't even travel, you hear of 20 to 30 of Iraq's people being killed almost ever day by the war Lords, You see they don't want to do the hand to hand fighting, are guy are winning that part of the war. They can not belive how the American troops Fight, Thats why the road side bombs. Kind of like Vietnam send a small child with a bomb, up to a GI and as he would give them a candy bar BOOM 
I think any one of us would be a little jumpy or trigger happy.
Talked to some of the troops that just came back ! Happy to be home ((but)) said they would go back> The Iraq people are good people ,they would like this be over. This is the mideast and ther will be wars rumor’s of war till the end. And if we just look to are south at the USA & Mexico boarder with the drug lords. If we don't fight back they will just come and take what ever they want. So call me what ever you want but they will think twice before they come and try to take what I have! Fight over THERE OR HERE IT"S UP TO YOU .
Ask any criminal ,they will pass by the place with the big dog even if ! They say OH he won't bite and look for the easy mark
FEAR THAT's LIFE
YOU KNOW I DON'T CARE, I LOVE THE USA GOOD OR BAD, AND IF YOU DON'T I HERE, THERE IS LAND FOR SALE IN FRANCE OR MEXICO
I think any one of us would be a little jumpy or trigger happy.Talked to some of the troops that just came back ! Happy to be home ((but)) said they would go back> The Iraq people are good people ,they would like this be over. This is the mideast and ther will be wars rumor’s of war till the end. And if we just look to are south at the USA & Mexico boarder with the drug lords. If we don't fight back they will just come and take what ever they want. So call me what ever you want but they will think twice before they come and try to take what I have! Fight over THERE OR HERE IT"S UP TO YOU .
Ask any criminal ,they will pass by the place with the big dog even if ! They say OH he won't bite and look for the easy mark
FEAR THAT's LIFEYOU KNOW I DON'T CARE, I LOVE THE USA GOOD OR BAD, AND IF YOU DON'T I HERE, THERE IS LAND FOR SALE IN FRANCE OR MEXICO
As ludicrous as to say, "They had them, and their intention was to use them, so we went to war to stop them, but even though they had them, they didn't use them against us."Dargo said:
You know, I believed they had them, too. In fact, that was one of my arguments against going in -- I couldn't see the benefit as opposed to the risks we were taking of chemical or biological warfare. Someone was talking about hindsight; in hindsight, it would appear that the Bush people KNEW there were no WMD and that's why they were willing to invade; they knew there was no risk.
Regardless, we've had plenty of time to find them since, and...nada. The final proof is the fact that they DID change their excuses.
Dargo
Like a bad penny...
OkeeDon said:
The only interesting thing about that is that Isreal did not intentionally try to target the most populous areas with unguided weapons with the intentions of simply killing all they could. If they were allowed, or so inclined, I actually do think they could have effectively removed Hezbollah. Of course, most of the population of Lebanon would no longer exist either, but that is the methods that Hezbollah used and they had zero consideration for collateral damage. They actually do not recognize collateral damage. They feel that any dead Israeli is a good thing.
Although for obvious reasons a reasonable man realizes that we cannot do that in Iraq, but if we were to do such, do you think that Iran or North Korea would be making so much noise? Again, do not confuse that rhetorical question with support for the massacre of all present in Iraq, but most of the what we consider terrorists want to do exactly that; inflict the most possible deaths on Americans and Israelis as possible with no reservations about who they kill. Basically, we are not playing by the same rules. It is frustrating and there is no real easy answer. However, I do think it would be an absolute apocalyptic mistake for Iran to use a nuke on Israel or any U.S. installation.
I'll admit, I don't have the answer. At least now one that would be popular in the court of world opinion. You?
I don't ever recall anything being said about them using them. Only that they had them. Only that there was credible evidence (even in the eyes of France and Russia) that WMD did exist. Only that Iraq was in defiance with the U.N. mandates (and again even France, Russia, Germany, etc were in agreement of that).OkeeDon said:
But I don't beleive there was any inclination that we (or anyone else) justified any military action because they might use them on us. I believe you have modified history to suggest that "their intention was to use them."
Dargo
Like a bad penny...
OkeeDon said:
You beat me on your post. I'll agree with you. That leads to how do we get out without bringing out a really big hammer on someone? I say that because I do think that as insane as Saddam may or may not be, he realized that if he used such weapons on U.S. troops, the response would be extremely disproportional. In essence, that was a sane move on his part where many did not think him capable of any sane thought. If he had released all he had on us, he would go down in history as the man who caused the Iraqi people to be removed from existance.
Slightly off the subject, do you think that guy 'Amadida john' (or however you pronounce it) is sane? The thought that he may honestly be insane is a bit unsettling. Do you think he realizes that he will cause the end of Iran if he uses nukes on Israel or the U.S.? I know you would realize what would happen with your beloved Bush administration as well. We would be forced to deal with them with previously unthinkable ways, and the country would again unite much as it did after 9/11. You know that it wouldn't only be everyone's favorite NASCAR guys, but a large contingent of the U.S. population that would support a harsh response by our military. That would likely raise Bush's approval rating more than Bin Laden's head on a stick at a fortuitous time.
I'm about as far from being an isolationist as one can be. You want that, you got Pat Buchanan. And, you can have him.
And, I'll agree with Dargo and everyone else; attack our country and get what you deserve. Like Dargo said, if Iran was stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon, they would cease to exist, and with my blessings.
The problem is, Iraq did not attack our country, and there was just about zero chance that they would try, with the blanket we had spread over them. Iran will almost certainly not use nuclear weapons even if they had them; they don't want to commit suicide, and if we didn't have the guts to nuke 'em after they nuked someone, Israel would. But, Iran has not attacked us, either.
I love this country probably more than the rest of you, because I don't want to see it stopped into the gutter. I don't want us to be guilty of war-mongering, pre-emptive attracks on people who haven't attacked us.
I supported the effort in Afghanistan because it was pretty obvious who was behind the attack on 9/11. The nationalities didn't matter (or else we would have attacked Saudi Arabia), but the organization did, and by getting rid of the Taliban, we made it nearly impossible for al Queda to operate freely. But, we've dropped the ball in Afghaistan, and the Taliban is creeping back.
We supported the Afghans who fought against the Soviet invaders. Then, we abandoned them, and left a void which the Taliban filled. The Taliban, being fundamentalist Islamics, allowed bin Laden and his people to operate freely. That group attacked us. We went in and helped get rid of them, and helped create a new government.
Then, we repeated the same mistake. We pretty much abandoned them, again. Oh, we still have a few token troops there, and we're spending a billion here and a billlion there, but the real effort was pulled away. So, it's sliding back, and we'll end up with problems again.
We should not be in Iraq unless we were invited, or they attacked us. We should not bother with Iran until there is a real threat, not an imagined one. We are not attacking the North Koreans; the only reason I can see is because they don't have anything we want.
And, I'll agree with Dargo and everyone else; attack our country and get what you deserve. Like Dargo said, if Iran was stupid enough to use a nuclear weapon, they would cease to exist, and with my blessings.
The problem is, Iraq did not attack our country, and there was just about zero chance that they would try, with the blanket we had spread over them. Iran will almost certainly not use nuclear weapons even if they had them; they don't want to commit suicide, and if we didn't have the guts to nuke 'em after they nuked someone, Israel would. But, Iran has not attacked us, either.
I love this country probably more than the rest of you, because I don't want to see it stopped into the gutter. I don't want us to be guilty of war-mongering, pre-emptive attracks on people who haven't attacked us.
I supported the effort in Afghanistan because it was pretty obvious who was behind the attack on 9/11. The nationalities didn't matter (or else we would have attacked Saudi Arabia), but the organization did, and by getting rid of the Taliban, we made it nearly impossible for al Queda to operate freely. But, we've dropped the ball in Afghaistan, and the Taliban is creeping back.
We supported the Afghans who fought against the Soviet invaders. Then, we abandoned them, and left a void which the Taliban filled. The Taliban, being fundamentalist Islamics, allowed bin Laden and his people to operate freely. That group attacked us. We went in and helped get rid of them, and helped create a new government.
Then, we repeated the same mistake. We pretty much abandoned them, again. Oh, we still have a few token troops there, and we're spending a billion here and a billlion there, but the real effort was pulled away. So, it's sliding back, and we'll end up with problems again.
We should not be in Iraq unless we were invited, or they attacked us. We should not bother with Iran until there is a real threat, not an imagined one. We are not attacking the North Koreans; the only reason I can see is because they don't have anything we want.
Let me pose a situation.
Iran makes some weapons grade plutonium. Iran is smart enough not to make a nuclear bomb. But Iran is crazy enough to pass that weapons grade plutonium to a terrorist organization that is not directly affiliated with any particular nation. For example Manuel Rodrigues Partiotic Front (FPMR) or perhaps the al-Islamiyya or maybe the Revolutionary Nuclei.
Now these groups are known to be hostile to civilian targets, and known to pick international targets, and they have the nasty stuff and obtain the ability to create a "dirty bomb."
They make, and deploy such bomb. Civilians die.
Who is to blame?
Iran makes some weapons grade plutonium. Iran is smart enough not to make a nuclear bomb. But Iran is crazy enough to pass that weapons grade plutonium to a terrorist organization that is not directly affiliated with any particular nation. For example Manuel Rodrigues Partiotic Front (FPMR) or perhaps the al-Islamiyya or maybe the Revolutionary Nuclei.
Now these groups are known to be hostile to civilian targets, and known to pick international targets, and they have the nasty stuff and obtain the ability to create a "dirty bomb."
They make, and deploy such bomb. Civilians die.
Who is to blame?
How do we get out? What was it the Vermont Senator said during Vietnam, "Declare victory and leave." Saddam is gone and undergoing trial by his peers. An Iraqi government has been established (even if they did go on vacation for a month shortly after taking office -- guess they've been taking lessons from Mr. Bush). According to Mr. Bush, we've trained thousands of Iraqi soldiers. If we pull out and leave our hardware and supplies behind, they will have everything they need to fight the terrorists themselves.
If we leave, we deny the Islamofacists the one successful weapon they have, now -- the fact that we are there, and they don't like it. If we aren't there, what do they have to complain about? I don't believe those stories about how Iraqis are so happy we're there; the fact that we're there is why 20 to 40 Iraqis are getting blown up every day, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it. Like the TV ads, even a caveman isn;t that dumb.
As long as we are there and provide an excuse for the terrorists to bomb us, many of the mainstream Muslims will support them, or at least turn a blind eye. If we leave, and if the terrorists continue to blow up other Muslims without our provocation, the mainstream Iraqis will put a stop to it. If not, and the country slides into something really dangerous, we'll have time to take care of it, then. In the meantime, our guys are dying for nothing, because there will never be any progess as long as we are there.
If we leave, we deny the Islamofacists the one successful weapon they have, now -- the fact that we are there, and they don't like it. If we aren't there, what do they have to complain about? I don't believe those stories about how Iraqis are so happy we're there; the fact that we're there is why 20 to 40 Iraqis are getting blown up every day, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it. Like the TV ads, even a caveman isn;t that dumb.
As long as we are there and provide an excuse for the terrorists to bomb us, many of the mainstream Muslims will support them, or at least turn a blind eye. If we leave, and if the terrorists continue to blow up other Muslims without our provocation, the mainstream Iraqis will put a stop to it. If not, and the country slides into something really dangerous, we'll have time to take care of it, then. In the meantime, our guys are dying for nothing, because there will never be any progess as long as we are there.
Let me pose a situation.OkeeDon said:
A parent finds that his son's appearance and attitude dramatically and suddenly changes. He begins to wear black. His grades fall. His friends of many years no longer call. New friends appear and all are very secret in their actions. You find unusual things in his room, books on how to build a bomb. Anarchy materials and racist literature. A flag with a swastica is found hanging in his closet.
Your son and his new 'friends' make and then explode a bomb at the local school. Students & teachers die.
Who is to blame?
jdwilson44
New member
HGM said:
You are part of the way there towards understanding why we will never "win" the war against terrorism the way we are fighting it. A few of the responders in this thread seem to be of the opinion that if we kill enough of them then they will cower in their boots and stop fighting us and all become good little doobies. To that attitude I say you need to read a little more history to get a better idea of how humans behave during warfare. Hitler and Stalin went at it during WWII and killed 10's of millions of each others citizens (and their own) but neither ever backed down. It was a slugfest from beginning to end. The British and the Americans bombed the crap out of the Germans trying to kill their industrial capacity - but after the war the US did surveys and found that German industrial production and armaments production INCREASED during the latter years of the war.
In the war against Japan during WWII we bombed, blockaded, and invaded the Japanese right to the brink of starvation. Yet the entirety of the population of Japan was being mobilized to fight us when we invaded the home islands, with sticks and stones - and suicide bombers (sound familiar?) if necessary.
The only thing that beat the Germans was pounding them into the dust - the only thing that beat the Japanese was the threat ( from nuclear weapons) of the utter annihilation of the Japanese people.
It seems as if some of you think that this type of strategy is going to work against the Muslims - but you are missing one vital piece of the puzzle - Al Queada is not a NATION. It is a movement. When we defeated Japan and Germany during WWII we defeated nations who organized the entirety of their people around their war aims. This is not what is happening today with the so called Islamofascist. Al Queada, Hezbollah, Hamas and all of the others are not sovereign goverments who have rule over people to make them do what they want them to do. They are movements that attract people who believe in their cause.
When we go into Iraq and bomb the country into dust all we do is attract more people to their cause by proving what they say is true - and what they say is that we are imperialists, we do not care about the plight of Arabs, we are against Islam, we are pawns of Israel who do their bidding, etc.
If we are ever going to "win" this war it will never be done by the same old tired warfighting strategies that have failed us in Vietnam and are failing us now. All of those people who claim we just have to stay the course are making excuses for bad decisions. What we are fighting here is much more like our own American Revolution than it is like WWII. You will not win against guerilla armies that have the support of the people - Israel just found that out when they went up against Hezbollah in Lebanon. We found that out in Vietnam when we fought the Vietnamese, the Russians found it out in Afghanistan and Chechnya, the Germans found that out in Yugoslavia in WWII, and the British found that out in the US during our own Revolutionary War. It is a tired old story that countries with big armies never seem to learn - you will almost always lose if you fight a war against a guerilla army that is supported by the population.
For some historical background try watching the recent History Channel series about our own American Revolution - the Revolution was bankrupting the British Empire - and the money supplied to the Americans to fight the British was bankrupting the French too. In the end we became an independent nation anyway - and the British and the French empires went down the tubes eventually because of their imperial overreaching.
In the end if we bankrupt the country and the USA goes down the tubes financially and we lose all of our freedoms here under the pretense of fighting the war on terrorism then what is the point? You will not keep your standard of living or your way of living if those things happen. And the terrorists will win because we will not be able to keep up the fight. It is time to start thinking a little bit smarter about this problem than the same old lets go blow everything up and kill everybody mentality that some people seem to have. Which is just immoral to my mind anyway - I am not very religious at all - but it seems to me that a lot of the people spouting this crap ought to be ashamed of themselves if they have this attitude and still consider themselves good Christians.