Terrorists Win

[ArTkY_]

They truly have won. America is pissing itself with fear. All this talk about defeating the terrorists and stopping them, there's not even any result to it. Terrorists just have to make a bomb threat and we crap our pants. Its in their name people.

TERROR-ism. Act of causing terror.

[Louballs]

All this talk about defeating the terrorists and stopping them, there's not even any result to it. Terrorists just have to make a bomb threat and we crap our pants.
That's why it's completely ludicrous to go to war to "stop the terrorists" (thanks, Dubya, what a great idea). Who are we supposed to fight? Terrorists aren't representative of a country. If terrorism was an attack by another country's government, then we'd go to war with that country and (hopefully) win.

The only way we can effectively stop terrorism is by investing in security here, not by spending billions of dollars to attack Iraq, which is one step above a third-world nation (and, incidentally, hasn't been shown to have had anything to do with any terrorism in the U.S.)

[selftitled85]

That's why it's completely ludicrous to go to war to "stop the terrorists" (thanks, Dubya, what a great idea). Who are we supposed to fight? Terrorists aren't representative of a country. If terrorism was an attack by another country's government, then we'd go to war with that country and (hopefully) win.

The only way we can effectively stop terrorism is by investing in security here, not by spending billions of dollars to attack Iraq, which is one step above a third-world nation (and, incidentally, hasn't been shown to have had anything to do with any terrorism in the U.S.)


actually the taliban was funding and giving shelter to the terrorists and was using terroristic measures against the people. so yes a govt can be a terrorist element.

i completely disagree with invading iraq but if anyone believes leaving iraq now is a good idea deserves to be shot.

[commatosa]

honestly, the idea of declaring a full scale war on an action is fucking ridiculous. Hey maybe in like 20 years George P. Bush will become president and declare war on violence. The only way to prevent terrorism is to have good control over the people. And I'm sorry to be the one to say this, but Saddam Hussein had Iraq in check and we should have just left them alone. Afterall, we crippled him after Desert Storm. He was never ever a threat to us. Oh well, that's what we get for living in a country run by retards (oh wait, the president sentences retards to death)....haha.

[dai the flu]

And I'm sorry to be the one to say this, but Saddam Hussein had Iraq in check and we should have just left them alone.
thats like saying stalin had russia in check. dont be ignorant, he needed removed, and if any other country had done it, no one would complain. but because its the good ol' USA that everyone loves to hate, its a horrible crime against humanity that a sadist dictator/sexual predator/psychopathic egomaniac was removed.

[selftitled85]

honestly, the idea of declaring a full scale war on an action is fucking ridiculous. Hey maybe in like 20 years George P. Bush will become president and declare war on violence. The only way to prevent terrorism is to have good control over the people. And I'm sorry to be the one to say this, but Saddam Hussein had Iraq in check and we should have just left them alone. Afterall, we crippled him after Desert Storm. He was never ever a threat to us. Oh well, that's what we get for living in a country run by retards (oh wait, the president sentences retards to death)....haha.


saddam would of had to of been taken out sooner or later. i would of rather wanted later but he should of been taken out in 91. and yes maybe iraq is less stable at the present moment, but once the fighting subdues in a few years iraq should be able to function on its own.

[odnetnin]

Negative. Enemy down. Storm the front.

GET OUT OF HERE; IT'S GUNNA BLOW!

[selftitled85]

thats like saying stalin had russia in check. dont be ignorant, he needed removed, and if any other country had done it, no one would complain. but because its the good ol' USA that everyone loves to hate, its a horrible crime against humanity that a sadist dictator/sexual predator/psychopathic egomaniac was removed.


yaaaay a voice of rationality!

[dai the flu]

so the united states takes a threat seriously, and is criticized for creating a culture of fear.

but when they dont take threats seriously (9-11) they're criticized for ignoring the warnings.

nice.

admit it, no matter what the USA does, you're going to bitch.

[commatosa]

so the united states takes a threat seriously, and is criticized for creating a culture of fear.

but when they dont take threats seriously (9-11) they're criticized for ignoring the warnings.

nice.

admit it, no matter what the USA does, you're going to bitch.
please tell me how Iraq was a threat.

thats like saying stalin had russia in check. dont be ignorant, he needed removed, and if any other country had done it, no one would complain. but because its the good ol' USA that everyone loves to hate, its a horrible crime against humanity that a sadist dictator/sexual predator/psychopathic egomaniac was removed.
I never said it was a crime against humanity. Yeah, Saddam's a bad guy. That's been beat into our head for the last 15 years. Was removing him and waging a full scale war against his country, which he had in check, a good idea? Nope. Sorry. He wasn't going to do any more evil things. The sanctions were working. Desert Storm crippled him and cut off his resources for attacking us. It was a fucking mistake and yes, let's get the fuck out of there.

[Lueda Alia]

please tell me how Iraq was a threat.


I never said it was a crime against humanity. Yeah, Saddam's a bad guy. That's been beat into our head for the last 15 years. Was removing him and waging a full scale war against his country, which he had in check, a good idea? Nope. Sorry. He wasn't going to do any more evil things. The sanctions were working. Desert Storm crippled him and cut off his resources for attacking us. It was a fucking mistake and yes, let's get the fuck out of there.
Well first off, Saddam/Iraq had WMDs. Second off, he had ties with Al Qaeda.


Oh, wait.........

[ArTkY_]

People bitch about the US because we consume a quarter of the world's resources and don't even have close to a quarter of the population.

[youcomebeforeyo]

I would maybe title it USA loses.

There are other countries that are under threat of terrorist attacks but have not reacted so extremely. I think this qualifies that the USA has put itself into a fear cycle more feverent than other countries (Australia, Great Britain) and for that loses. Until Australians and English people start reacting in the exact same way Americans do I would say terrorists haven't won.

I don't think i've explain that too well.

[FScott]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html Hate to bring up the past...

I agree Saddam needed to be taken out of power but why at that time? He posed no threat to the US and there was no evidence of WMDs. We had just begun the war on terror (which seemed to be quite a success to me). Bushes approval rating was the highest along with American pride (at that time). The Bush Administation needs to prioritize.

[lackofcolour 13]

meh. they aren't so tough.

[aminorthreat55]

thats like saying stalin had russia in check. dont be ignorant, he needed removed, and if any other country had done it, no one would complain. but because its the good ol' USA that everyone loves to hate, its a horrible crime against humanity that a sadist dictator/sexual predator/psychopathic egomaniac was removed.
The ends don't justify the means.

[lackofcolour 13]

when does anyone think we will start seeing a new age of isolationism, because I think the world could use one?

[dai the flu]

People bitch about the US because we consume a quarter of the world's resources and don't even have close to a quarter of the population.those damn americans and their two showers a day

really, people need to think.
take away the populations of third world countries, which dont use hardly any resources at all, and comparably speaking, we're no worse than most other so-called civilized nations.
the media throws these numbers at us and skews things to make it look like americans are so horrible. people just need to step back and be rational for once.

[Kid Kilowatt]

The west shouldn't have trained, or put in power, those we are fighting now, in the first place.

Interesting side note, there was a revolt in Iraq, which would have overthrown Saddam in the early 90's, however, the US refused to help, and basically gave Saddam permission to crush them.

[selftitled85]

when does anyone think we will start seeing a new age of isolationism, because I think the world could use one?

according to some key poly sci analysts the next isolation phase starts around 2014.

The west shouldn't have trained, or put in power, those we are fighting now, in the first place.

Interesting side note, there was a revolt in Iraq, which would have overthrown Saddam in the early 90's, however, the US refused to help, and basically gave Saddam permission to crush them.


thats because in the early 90's the second we would enter an international conflict we were berated by the public. ie: kosovo and somalia. exact reason why we didnt enter Rwanda. we believed helping out was no big deal to us.

[GhostsDaddy]

Simply put, the terrorists are smart. They realized that confining themselves to stupid borderlines that people forever ago drew on the ground and pledging your allegiance to the area in which you were born is retarded.

Once the United States realizes that it's just as moronic for being proud to be American as they would be for being proud to be Afghan or Pakistani or whatever, then we'll finally make some progress.

[Kid Kilowatt]

thats because in the early 90's the second we would enter an international conflict we were berated by the public. ie: kosovo and somalia. exact reason why we didnt enter Rwanda. we believed helping out was no big deal to us.I wasn't speaking of direct intervention, but simply support.

[selftitled85]

I wasn't speaking of direct intervention, but simply support.

well i agree with that.

but even if you look at that. america usually does an awful job just supporting. ie: helping put saddam in power, giving osama weapons

[a speedo model]

He wasn't going to do any more evil things.
that made me fucking laugh......he wasn't going to do ANY MORE evil things? oh, well then i feel much better...

[lackofcolour 13]

according to some key poly sci analysts the next isolation phase starts around 2014.




thats because in the early 90's the second we would enter an international conflict we were berated by the public. ie: kosovo and somalia. exact reason why we didnt enter Rwanda. we believed helping out was no big deal to us.
but the world ends before then.

[commatosa]

that made me fucking laugh......he wasn't going to do ANY MORE evil things? oh, well then i feel much better...
yeah, I'll admit, that was a pretty lame thing to say. What I meant was that he was incapable of doing any more evil things. Anyway, Iraq was much better off with Saddam Hussein in control.

[selftitled85]

yeah, I'll admit, that was a pretty lame thing to say. What I meant was that he was incapable of doing any more evil things. Anyway, Iraq was much better off with Saddam Hussein in control.


the first statement is false. the second one can still be proven wrong in time.

saddam still had the capability to put up a good fight against smaller nations like england or france. it was the fact that he always had us right there to put him back in his place.

so yes the second he would do something bad we would kick him out. come to think of it i think this would've been the best option. if we did this we would prob have most of the worlds major countries support.

but back to the point, to say he was incapable is just stupid because he was.

[Cal Smith]

The west shouldn't have trained, or put in power, those we are fighting now, in the first place.

and the other side of this is by not helping at the time you risk the soviets taking Afgh. You have to look at the other side of it too.

Interesting side note, there was a revolt in Iraq, which would have overthrown Saddam in the early 90's, however, the US refused to help, and basically gave Saddam permission to crush them.

That's bullshit. I'm not saying it might not have, but claiming it would have is ridiculous and completely unfounded.

Also I'd point out there is a lot of arm chair quarterbacking going on here.

In one sentence you're saying we shouldnt have supported afghan. rebels against the soviet invasion, but in the next sentence you're criticizing for not supporting Iraqi rebels against Saddam. Monday mornign quarterback deluxe.

[richter915]

actually the taliban was funding and giving shelter to the terrorists and was using terroristic measures against the people. so yes a govt can be a terrorist element.

i completely disagree with invading iraq but if anyone believes leaving iraq now is a good idea deserves to be shot.
I'm so sick of that mindset. It's just like "well, we might as well finish what we started" honestly, go tell that to the kid who just lost his home and parents in the name of "freedom"...When you're so detached from war it's easy to say that, but I doubt anyone will think ten years into the future and realize that we're creating terrorists by claiming to "stop" them.

[Cal Smith]

I'm so sick of that mindset. It's just like "well, we might as well finish what we started" honestly, go tell that to the kid who just lost his home and parents in the name of "freedom"...When you're so detached from war it's easy to say that, but I doubt anyone will think ten years into the future and realize that we're creating terrorists by claiming to "stop" them.

I'd say to those who are bitching about the "War on Terror" go tell that to someone who lost a loved one on 9/11.

[commatosa]

I'd say to those who are bitching about the "War on Terror" go tell that to someone who lost a loved one on 9/11.
no one is saying that fighting terrorists is wrong. But can you name 1 time that Iraq has ever terrorized the US? If anything, we have terrorized the SHIT out of them. From 1991 up to the day before the Iraq war, we've killed close to half a million innocent Iraqi civilians from US bombing campaigns. God knows how many we've killed since the war began. Oh well, it's all about perspective. George W. Bush had a hunch (which was completely wrong). Now we're stuck in Vietnam II. Oh well.

[Cal Smith]

no one is saying that fighting terrorists is wrong. But can you name 1 time that Iraq has ever terrorized the US?

Let's look at why Al Qaeda and groups like them want us dead.............our support for Israel mainly being what I'm gettting at. Now look at why we have to support Israel.............you have/had countries like Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc........ supporting and funding groups like Hamas. So quit giving Saddam a "terrorist free card". Hell, Iraq has been on the list of countries that has supported terrorism for years. It's not that difficult.

If you want to stop terrorism you have to get at the root of the problem...............those that fund it.

[commatosa]

If you want to stop terrorism you have to get at the root of the problem...............those that fund it.
well then, looks like the US is going to go to war against the US.

[Kid Kilowatt]

and the other side of this is by not helping at the time you risk the soviets taking Afgh. You have to look at the other side of it too.I tend to believe in absolute morality, rather than relativisim.



That's bullshit. I'm not saying it might not have, but claiming it would have is ridiculous and completely unfounded.It involved the the ethnic group that makes up the majority of Iraq.



Also I'd point out there is a lot of arm chair quarterbacking going on here.

In one sentence you're saying we shouldnt have supported afghan. rebels against the soviet invasion, but in the next sentence you're criticizing for not supporting Iraqi rebels against Saddam. Monday mornign quarterback deluxe.I wasn't asking for the US to send arms, or train the Iraqi rebels. I am also criticizing the US for helping Saddam crush them.

[Cal Smith]

I tend to believe in absolute morality, rather than relativisim.

Please explain what absolute morality has to do with helping/not helping Afghan. against the Soviets?

It involved the the ethnic group that makes up the majority of Iraq.

Ok, and still claiming that it would have defenitley overthrown Saddam is nonsense.


I wasn't asking for the US to send arms, or train the Iraqi rebels. I am also criticizing the US for helping Saddam crush them.

Well it seems when you say, "the US refused to help, and basically gave Saddam permission to crush them" you are criticizing the US for not aiding the rebels...................?

Also I might be wrong but I dont think the US helped Saddam put them down in the early 90's. It wouldnt make much sense considering the Guld War had just ended and as a result of the US not helping the Kurds, Saddam bulldozed them then the US set the no-fly zones.

[richter915]

I'd say to those who are bitching about the "War on Terror" go tell that to someone who lost a loved one on 9/11.
people don't bitch about the "war on terror" they bitch about our presence in Iraq even though there were other nations which harbored more terrorists that threatened the US...and if you wanna equate us in Iraq to the war on Terror (which a lot of people still do)...there's really no point in continuing.

[Cal Smith]

people don't bitch about the "war on terror" they bitch about our presence in Iraq even though there were other nations which harbored more terrorists that threatened the US...and if you wanna equate us in Iraq to the war on Terror (which a lot of people still do)...there's really no point in continuing.

---"That's why it's completely ludicrous to go to war to "stop the terrorists" (thanks, Dubya, what a great idea). "

---"honestly, the idea of declaring a full scale war on an action is fucking ridiculous."

Those are 2 from this thread alone.

[Louballs]

---"That's why it's completely ludicrous to go to war to "stop the terrorists" (thanks, Dubya, what a great idea). "

---"honestly, the idea of declaring a full scale war on an action is fucking ridiculous."

Those are 2 from this thread alone.Taken brilliantly out of context, bud.

There's a difference between "the war on terror"-- i.e., putting massive resources and energy into protecting the U.S. at home from terrorism through greater security measures (which currently border on unconstitutionality, but that notwithstanding)-- and sending thousands of troops and upheaving a country which had no tangible responsibility for the 9/11 attacks (or does no one read the news anymore) and had no WMD's (which apparently some people in this thread didn't realize) in order to suppress a threat from an extremist group who happened to be located in that geographical area.

[YoungNastyMan]

people don't bitch about the "war on terror" they bitch about our presence in Iraq even though there were other nations which harbored more terrorists that threatened the US...and if you wanna equate us in Iraq to the war on Terror (which a lot of people still do)...there's really no point in continuing.
Yeah, they harboured them but they never trained and armed them like the US

[Cal Smith]

Taken brilliantly out of context, bud.

There's a difference between "the war on terror"-- i.e., putting massive resources and energy into protecting the U.S. at home from terrorism through greater security measures (which currently border on unconstitutionality, but that notwithstanding)-- and sending thousands of troops and upheaving a country which had no tangible responsibility for the 9/11 attacks (or does no one read the news anymore) and had no WMD's (which apparently some people in this thread didn't realize) in order to suppress a threat from an extremist group who happened to be located in that geographical area.

It wasnt taken out of context. In that post you were talking about the war on terrorism in general.................now you are narrowing it down to Iraq. There's more going on in the war of terrorism than just Iraq. You might recall we have a couple thousand troops still in afghan., we have major developments between Israel and Palestine (Bush hasnt got near the credit for this), we have Iran still looking to see how far they can toy with the UN, and you also have Syria supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

[ArTkY_]

All I can say is that we call the insurgents in Iraq terrorists for some reason. Why? They're defenders, we're the terrorists.

[dai the flu]

All I can say is that we call the insurgents in Iraq terrorists for some reason. Why? They're defenders, we're the terrorists.
in that case, what exactly are they defending? their right to live in anarchy?

[ArTkY_]

in that case, what exactly are they defending? their right to live in anarchy?
They're defending their country. What would you do if foreign invaders came into your territory? The same thing.

[Cal Smith]

They're defending their country. What would you do if foreign invaders came into your territory? The same thing.

And removed a dictator like Saddam, and tried to help set up a democratic country...........hmmmmm.........be thankful? I know I wouldnt blow up people trying to vote, or blow up the Iraqi police force.

[Kid Kilowatt]

Please explain what absolute morality has to do with helping/not helping Afghan. against the Soviets?
Supporting bad people to overthrow bad people is absolutely wrong, rather than good because of the situation.


Ok, and still claiming that it would have defenitley overthrown Saddam is nonsense.
It was likely.


Well it seems when you say, "the US refused to help, and basically gave Saddam permission to crush them" you are criticizing the US for not aiding the rebels...................?

Also I might be wrong but I dont think the US helped Saddam put them down in the early 90's. It wouldnt make much sense considering the Guld War had just ended and as a result of the US not helping the Kurds, Saddam bulldozed them then the US set the no-fly zones.
My statement doesn't intimate I was speaking in terms of military aid. Also, there are reports of US forces helping to quell the rebellion by limiting their movements.

And removed a dictator like Saddam, and tried to help set up a democratic country...........hmmmmm.........be thankful?
Doubtful. Then again, you are looking from the American perspective.

[lackofcolour 13]

george bush doesn't care about black people.

[ArTkY_]

george bush doesn't care about black people.
hahaha, you're awesome.

And removed a dictator like Saddam, and tried to help set up a democratic country...........hmmmmm.........be thankful? I know I wouldnt blow up people trying to vote, or blow up the Iraqi police force.
American perspective, you gotta be able to put yourself in their shoes.

Ah, damn, Dom beat me to it.

[lackofcolour 13]

hahaha, you're awesome.


American perspective, you gotta be able to put yourself in their shoes.

Ah, damn, Dom beat me to it.
no you are.

[splitsecond]

How many times can you kids type the same ignorant shit on the internet? Obviously infinitely...

All I can say is that we call the insurgents in Iraq terrorists for some reason. Why? They're defenders, we're the terrorists.
Especially you.

[lackofcolour 13]

How many times can you kids type the same ignorant shit on the internet? Obviously infinitely...


Especially you.
until Communist Russia makes a comeback, or the internet is un-inveted. And Hey, Bill O' Reily called. He wants you to be a moderator on the O'Reily factor message boards for kids.

[dai the flu]

lets see. the iraqi people are finally able to experience democracy, voting for their own leaders. having a say in their government, holding free elections, finally living as autonomous individuals instead of being dominated by a dictator.
the insurgents attack and kill both the iraqi citizens exercising those new-found rights, and the iraqi police force thats trying to protect them.
and yet you say they arent terrorists, but defenders?

thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard in my life.

[ArTkY_]

lets see. the iraqi people are finally able to experience democracy, voting for their own leaders. having a say in their government, holding free elections, finally living as autonomous individuals instead of being dominated by a dictator.
the insurgents attack and kill both the iraqi citizens exercising those new-found rights, and the iraqi police force thats trying to protect them.
and yet you say they arent terrorists, but defenders?

thats the dumbest thing i have ever heard in my life.
Do you seriously think the entire world wants a democracy?

[Cal Smith]

It was likely.

Give me a break.........you have absolutely no idea.

My statement doesn't intimate I was speaking in terms of military aid. Also, there are reports of US forces helping to quell the rebellion by limiting their movements.

are these accessable?


Doubtful. Then again, you are looking from the American perspective.

It's human perspective for the most part. Do you think anyone would like being under the rule of Saddam (unless of coarse you were one of the few elite), also most people like being given the chance to decide there government.

hahaha, you're awesome.


American perspective, you gotta be able to put yourself in their shoes.

Ah, damn, Dom beat me to it.

Yes, and if you look at the polls and surveys conducted after the war the majority of Iraqis were thankful, also look at the large turnout who went out to vote.

Do you seriously think the entire world wants a democracy?

Yes for the most part i believe the majority of the world's citizens would rather have a voice in their government. Obviously it's a fruitless argument, but it seems common sense that people want to have a say on how there life is controled, rather than having it imposed.

[Dan Hollister]

Yes. Everyone wants a democracy.

Just because our government has some strange ways of going about instituting democracy in other places does not mean people don't want it. Do you think people like living under oppression in military states? Bullshit! Many people don't like being egotistcal about America, but when it comes right down to it, you bet your ass we're still a beacon for the rest of the planet. Despite what anyone wants to complain about, we're still by far the most free country in the world. (And the most successful, too.)

Iraq is not our first attempt at building a democracy. We've built up several other countries, and in most cases it was the best thing that ever happened to them.

Take Japan, for instance. Post World War II, they had virtually no economy. Much of the population was dirt poor, they had no products, no industry, no technology, nothing. You know how the Japanese are now known for being one of the technology and industry capitals of the world? Well, wake up - we taught them how to do it.

There aren't many people these days that are willing to argue that it was a mistake for us to do that. Japan now has a lot of money, a big economy, and a better government. But, of course, at the time, everyone opposed it.

My guess is that Iraq will turn out the same.

If nobody in Iraq wants democracy, tell me, why are so many citizens risking their lives go to vote? They're seeing higher voting percentages than we do!

[dai the flu]

good post. if i had scene power, id use it.

[Dan Hollister]

Thank you. :)

I wish someone could. For some reason my scene points are way negative. I made one remark about oil that got some people pissed off at me, but the control panel thing said I only had like 3 people subtract points from me... how that makes me go from like 7 million to -2.5 million, I don't know...

[splitsecond]

Thank you. :)

I wish someone could. For some reason my scene points are way negative. I made one remark about oil that got some people pissed off at me, but the control panel thing said I only had like 3 people subtract points from me... how that makes me go from like 7 million to -2.5 million, I don't know...
I can tell you how: some people have no lives, and get their kicks by forming groups of 10 stupid internet friends, who back each other no matter how ignorant the matter.

[Louballs]

Yes. Everyone wants a democracy.
Nice bold, completely unsupported assertion.

We've built up several other countries, and in most cases it was the best thing that ever happened to them. . . Take Japan, for instance. Post World War II, they had virtually no economy.
Hehe. Uh, I'm sure that had everything to do with their political system, and nothing to do with the fact that we fucking wiped out two major cities.

Furthermore, equating economy with the quality of their national existence starts from a false premise: Capitalism. The U.S. is a capitalist country, and so is much of the world, but that doesn't mean that everyplace has to be. Many countries have existed contentedly for years without the "benefits" of a capitalist democracy.

There aren't many people these days that are willing to argue that it was a mistake for us to do that. . . My guess is that Iraq will turn out the same.
I won't argue that it's a mistake for us to go to Iraq and put back together a civilization that we helped throw into anarchy. What I will argue is that we shouldn't have gone there in the first place.

If nobody in Iraq wants democracy, tell me, why are so many citizens risking their lives go to vote? They're seeing higher voting percentages than we do!
Oh come on. Do you seriously think the only reason people are voting is because they "wanted democracy?" Maybe they thought that the sooner they elected their own leader, the sooner U.S. troops would get the fuck out of their country. Maybe they faced some "motivation" from those U.S. troops. Or maybe, after living under the control of a foreign military for the better part of two years, they were desperate to see an Iraqi in a position of control over their country.

Look, I'm not saying that democracy is a shitty system, but I think it's pretty arrogant to assume not only that it's the best system, but that everyone else wants it. (Huh... "they all want it." Sounds kinda like something a rapist might say.)

There certainly are governments and systems around the world that are oppressive, and in which the people don't have a voice. And maybe there's good reason to step in and "liberate" people in those countries. But I think that (especially under our current President) the broader body of perspective offered by the U.N. might be better equipped to identify those instances-- and the U.N didn't support our going into Iraq.

So the response is "oh, you just want to let people be oppressed and murdered?" No. I don't. But while you're espousing the virtues of the American way, recall that no one helped us out when we began revolting against Britain. Once we started, of course, it was a different story: But we showed the rest of the world that we wanted out by acting on our own. I don't see why we couldn't give Iraq the chance to do the same.

"But Saddam's been in power for years, and they haven't done anything yet." Well, maybe that should tell you something. Maybe the Iraqi people decided that living under an oppressive regime was acceptable, since he also provided control and security. Surely Americans can appreciate that sentiment--at least if you support the USA-PATRIOT Act.

Finally, if you still insist that it's our role to be the "world's police," and step in wherever we see injustice and the need for democracy, then why start in Iraq? Why not start someplace like East Timor, where natives are being slaughtered by the millions? Oh, wait..... there's no oil there.

[A picasso blue]

what I want to know is--and this is to all the people here in favor of Iraq occupation--why aren't you enlisted? if you feel so storngly in favor of it, why not do something about it?

[splitsecond]

what I want to know is--and this is to all the people here in favor of Iraq occupation--why aren't you enlisted? if you feel so storngly in favor of it, why not do something about it?
Ohhhh points for originality..... not.

[A picasso blue]

Ohhhh points for originality..... not.
you didn't answer my question

[Cal Smith]

you didn't answer my question

do you support the insurgents actions to rebel against the new iraqi gov. and the coalition troops?

[Louballs]

do you support the insurgents actions to rebel against the new iraqi gov. and the coalition troops?
That's ridiculous on so many levels.

[Cal Smith]

That's ridiculous on so many levels.

i agree, so would be assuming everyone who supports the war should join.

[Dan Hollister]

what I want to know is--and this is to all the people here in favor of Iraq occupation--why aren't you enlisted? if you feel so storngly in favor of it, why not do something about it?

That is completely irrelavent. The military is not the place to go if you are a free-thinker and want to make a difference. The military is where to go if you aren't vocal about it, beause you're not going to have a say in anything that you do. At all. Your beliefs do not matter once you enlist.

Besides, I didn't say I'm in favor of our initial occupation. I'm saying it's a death sentance if we leave now, for us and for them. And that because it was not correctly initiated doesn't mean that there can't be some small trace of good to result from it.

Oh come on. Do you seriously think the only reason people are voting is because they "wanted democracy?" Maybe they thought that the sooner they elected their own leader, the sooner U.S. troops would get the fuck out of their country. Maybe they faced some "motivation" from those U.S. troops. Or maybe, after living under the control of a foreign military for the better part of two years, they were desperate to see an Iraqi in a position of control over their country.

You're throwing about a bunch of "maybes" for someone telling me I'm not being accurate enough.

All we have is the facts. The facts are that Iraqis are putting their lives at risk in order to vote. We can't sit here and say some assasnine thing like "well maybe they're doing it so they leave." Not likely. We aren't murdering them. Most people did not benefit from Saddam's rule. So unless you're willing to say that we're terrorizing the people of Iraq much worse than Saddam or the government ever did, then your logic is false.

In any case, we can't fuck around with "maybe" statements. The fact is, they are showing optimism for this democracy. Period.

I don't understand why people are unwilling to say that our democracy is the best way to do things right now. I'm not saying it's the best system that ever will exist in the future, but how can you argue that it's the best right now?

- We are no doubt the richest country in the world, right now.
- We are no doubt the most free country in the world, right now.
- We are no doubt the most advanced country in the world, right now.

How did we achieve these things? With our democracy, and with capitalism. Not for any other reason. So why are people unwilling to admit that democracy and capitalism has the potential to turn countries ruled by dictatorships or under martial law into countries that ar richer, more free, and more advanced than they were before? It's simple logic. We are these things, and they didn't appear by accident.

Also, Louballs, your sarcasm is actually correct regarding Japan. We didn't just repair Japan because we bombed 2 of their cities. We tried to repair them because we felt that was our obligation, and we've learned in the past that not repairing them could end up stabbing us in the back. We've tried to repair every country we've fought against since the end of World War II, whether we obliterated them or not. It doesn't matter if we drop a nuke, or kill a single civilian - if we fought against a nation, we will make some effort of repairing them. Take Germany, for instance. After World War I, we left Germany to rot, they were being babysat by rest of the world, and in return, they came back full force in World War II. When you leave nations to rot after a war - whether it's the war in Iraq or World War I - the nation eventually gets fed up. Whereas if we help them rebuild, we help instill a peaceful government, more wealth, more opportunity, and we get ourselves some allies.

I'm not saying we should've gone in to Iraq in the first place. But I'm saying that doesn't matter at all. Not even a single tiny bit. The fact is we are there now, and we need to make the best of the situation we were given. If we pull out now, don't you think that will be an even bigger insult to Iraq? We just finished killing your terrorists but now we're going to leave you in shambles? No. The best thing to do is leave them in a better condition than when we found them, and that's exactly what we're trying to do.

[Louballs]

You're throwing about a bunch of "maybes" for someone telling me I'm not being accurate enough.
I never said you weren't being accurate, I said you were making unsupported assertions, which is exactly what they are. So are my "maybes." That's the point.

All we have is the facts. The facts are that Iraqis are putting their lives at risk in order to vote. We can't sit here and say some assasnine thing like "well maybe they're doing it so they leave." Not likely. We aren't murdering them. Most people did not benefit from Saddam's rule. So unless you're willing to say that we're terrorizing the people of Iraq much worse than Saddam or the government ever did, then your logic is false.
1. It's "asinine."
2. We don't know shit about what life was really like in Iraq under Saddam; we only know the bits and pieces that make it to the news. If some other country attacked the U.S., arrested Dubya, held him captive, occupied our country, and said "okay, now elect a new president, and we'll leave," you can bet your ass that I'd vote. And it would have nothing to do with being starved for democracy. For that reason, I don't think we can say that any proposed reason for Iraqi cooperation right now is "asinine."
3. Again, we don't know shit about what life was like before our occupation. I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't a tyrant, but I sure as hell can't authoritatively say that "most people" didn't benefit from his rule. (Incidentally, if you can, please let me know what your sources are.) In fact, obviously some people did benefit from his rule, since they're actively fighting his replacement: the insurgents.
4. OR, better yet, maybe (to use your favorite word) the insurgents just pissed off that we're there. There are issues of nationality at play here. I've got no love for Dubya, but if another country came and removed him, you bet your ass I'd do whatever I had to to get them out of my fucking country. SO, even if we aren't terrorizing the people of Iraq "much worse" than they've suffered before, that doesn't necessarily render my "logic" "false."

In any case, we can't fuck around with "maybe" statements. The fact is, they are showing optimism for this democracy. Period.
[Bzzzzzz.] I'm so sorry, but that answer's incorrect. The fact is that they're voting, and cooperating with armed troops occupying their streets. Your insight about "optimism" is an inference, which may or may not be correct. Neither you nor I can say for sure.

I don't understand why people are unwilling to say that our democracy is the best way to do things right now. I'm not saying it's the best system that ever will exist in the future, but how can you argue that it's the best right now?

- We are no doubt the richest country in the world, right now.
- We are no doubt the most free country in the world, right now.
- We are no doubt the most advanced country in the world, right now.
Again, I question your basis for evaluating the "best" system. Being the "richest" and "most advanced" country are only valuable goals for a capitalist country. NOT EVERY COUNTRY HAS TO BE A CAPITALIST DEMOCRACY, and thus, not every country has to care about those goals. Unless, of course, we're establishing the global American Empire.

Also, please explain to me how you measure freedom? I'll admit there are probably freedoms that we enjoy that the Iraqis under Saddam did not. BUT I'd be willing to bet that it works both ways, and there are freedoms that they enjoyed that we do not. If you don't mind, give me your "freedom scoring sheet" so I can see how we come out on top. Otherwise, we shouldn't presume to impose our values of freedoms on anyone else.

Also, Louballs, your sarcasm is actually correct regarding Japan. We didn't just repair Japan because we bombed 2 of their cities. We tried to repair them because we felt that was our obligation, and we've learned in the past that not repairing them could end up stabbing us in the back.
Okay . . . so you're saying that we didn't "repair" Japan because we bombed them, we repaired them because we bombed them and we didn't want it to come back and bite us in the ass. Much better. That still does absolutely nothing to weaken my point, which is that we never start wars with other countries because we want to "liberate" their people from an oppressive government. That's what's called a "post hoc rationalization" for what an action that we've taken for some other reason. And it's fucking dishonest.

I'm not saying we should've gone in to Iraq in the first place. But I'm saying that doesn't matter at all. Not even a single tiny bit. The fact is we are there now, and we need to make the best of the situation we were given.
This is the only thing you've said that I agree with. Whatever we went there for (revenge, oil, you name it), we're there now, and we do have an obligation to help put the country back on its feet. And the only way we know how to do that is with democracy. But don't hold up our being there as some noble cause for the freedom of the world, when it's really just a job we got stuck with because we fucked everything up.

[Cal Smith]

3. Again, we don't know shit about what life was like before our occupation. I'm not saying that Saddam wasn't a tyrant, but I sure as hell can't authoritatively say that "most people" didn't benefit from his rule. (Incidentally, if you can, please let me know what your sources are.)

did you really type this or is your computer set on ignorant :lolbang:

[Louballs]

did you really type this or is your computer set on ignorant :lolbang:Did you really just type this, or is your computer set on "6th-grade insults" because you can't come up with a real argument and support it?

(And you're the "politics writer?")

[Cal Smith]

Did you really just type this, or is your computer set on "6th-grade insults" because you can't come up with a real argument and support it?

(And you're the "politics writer?")

No...........give me a little credit. Most 6th graders dont know the defenition of "ignorant". If anything it's set on "immature sophmore insults"

Also who said I couldnt come up with anything? I was hoping my appeal to common sense would be all the "support" i needed.

First common sense will tell you about 33% of Iraq (the Kurds in the North) did not benefit under Saddam. So this leaves us with 66% of Iraq's.

Link 1 (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/51/plenary/a51-496.htm) (Feel free to read it all but here are some quotes)

"Since his first
appointment in June 1991, the Special Rapporteur has observed the
constantly deteriorating situation endured by the population. This
dire situation has met the steadfast refusal of the Government of Iraq
to take advantage of resources available to alleviate the suffering of
the people - as the Government is obliged to do under international
law. As such, there can be no doubt that the policy of the Government
of Iraq is directly responsible for the physical and mental pain,
including long-term disabilities, of millions of people and the death
of many thousands more."

"The humanitarian situation throughout Iraq is dismal. The
majority of the civilian population is believed to be living
below the poverty line. At present, family incomes are
generally not more than a fraction of pre-1991 levels. The
non-replenishment of basic food and health items in the
market place, linked largely to expectations regarding the
implementation of Security Council resolution 986 (1995), has
resulted in price increases of 50-100 per cent during the
period between late August and early September 1996. The
cumulative effects of economic sanctions, hyperinflation,
unemployment and of this year's 30 per cent drop in crop
production have contributed significantly to the hardship and
suffering of the vulnerable groups of the Iraqi population
which have now reached disquieting levels."

Link 2 (http://www.zmag.org/edwinthalliday.htm)

[dai the flu]

hopefully this is the last thing i ever post on this subject. so it might be a long one.

first of all, i have no love for george bush myself.
i was looking over some of ronald reagan's speeches when he was president, specifically the speech he gave concerning the soviets attacking a commercial jet, and really i was struck by the contrast between how reagan presented himself and how bush presents himself.
reagan condemned the attack with a bold and strong face to the world, but also with a dignity and respect that george bush lacks. he was an intelligent, responsible and respectable person, which is exactly how a leader should be, and thats such a contrast to george bush.
i dont think bush could even read one of reagan's speeches, much less understand it. and he certainly couldnt write one.
but bush's intelligence (or lack of), i feel, is the extent of his faults on iraq. i feel his intentions were good. i dont think he's smart enough to even have an ulterior motive. and however misguided or misled the american people were, i think he was misled just the same. george bush is a puppet. and whatever entity or individuals control him, he acted out in their behalf.
but no matter what reasoning or purpose was behind it, the removal of saddam is such a benefit to human society. and i disagree with aminorthreat earlier in this topic. the ends in this case DO justify the means.
those that oppose this occupation or the removal of saddam, i feel for the most part (not all of you) dont fully comprehend just how blatantly evil saddam hussein and his sons were. these are the same people that would torture and kill athletes and their familys for not winning in the olympics. they had sex palaces built where hundreds of iraqi women were kidnapped from their families to live as sex slaves to saddam and his sons, facing torture and rape.
its unbelievable how inhumanely he treated his people, i cant even begin to describe it. and it makes me sick to see people saying "oh he didnt have weapons of mass destruction...he had iraq in check we shouldve left him alone...blahblahblah" saddam himself is a weapon of mass destruction. he had to be removed, and i dont care how much money dick cheneys making from it, there isnt one government in existence that isnt corrupt. the removal of saddam was the best thing that couldve happened to humanity in general and specifically the iraqi people.