FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


[Opinion] Iraq War





ShadowmasterX
Yea i know; kinda late by 4 years =P

Facts on why we went to war

On September 11, 2001; terrorist from al-Qaeda hijacked 4 commercial airplanes. 3 of the airplanes had reached its destination (Twin towers and the Pentagon); while the 4th crashed far away from its destined location, many think due to the fact that passengers tried to take control over the plane again. Over 3,000 people died in this attack. As far as the FACTS goes, we have declared the War on Terrorism launching an army force into Afghanistan. As a new threat came into view; on March 20, 2003; USA and other allied countries confirmed that Saddam and his alleged Weapons of Mass destruction. (Intelligence from Britain confirmed)

So from the Facts and NOT RUMORS; I completely support the war, until the War on Terrorism is completed. If more facts from the government leak out about secret reasons, and prove to me otherwise, I am not changing my view. I have heard many rumors about Iraq War for their Oil. But this is not true; I have researched.
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jun-08 May-08 YTD 2008 Jun-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,883 1,840 1,888 1,905 1,881
SAUDI ARABIA 1,479 1,579 1,523 1,501 1,407
MEXICO 1,124 1,116 1,193 1,392 1,454
VENEZUELA 1,085 1,030 1,012 1,135 1,109
NIGERIA 946 851 1,036 893 1,022
IRAQ 693 583 674 573 476

Iraq is the 6th in oil import and i do not think that this is the reason for the war.

I think if we did not go into Iraq, Saddam Hussien would have still been alive, and terroism would have been more threatening; if we have not invaded Iraq, we would have been sitting, waiting for terroist to bomb us, and we would have done nothing about it; so i think that the Iraq War was the right choice to make and i think that many people don’t approve of this decision is because of untrue rumors about it.

I am not a man of War or Violence, but i think that this decision was made to save many lives;

Thank you,

ShadowmasterX
Klaw 2
ShadowmasterX wrote:
Yea i know; kinda late by 4 years =P

Facts on why we went to war

On September 11, 2001; terrorist from al-Qaeda hijacked 4 commercial airplanes. 3 of the airplanes had reached its destination (Twin towers and the Pentagon); while the 4th crashed far away from its destined location, many think due to the fact that passengers tried to take control over the plane again. Over 3,000 people died in this attack. As far as the FACTS goes, we have declared the War on Terrorism launching an army force into Afghanistan. As a new threat came into view; on March 20, 2003; USA and other allied countries confirmed that Saddam and his alleged Weapons of Mass destruction. (Intelligence from Britain confirmed)

And were no single weapon of mass distruction has been found in Iraq. And there IS NO PROOF!

ShadowmasterX wrote:
So from the Facts and NOT RUMORS; I completely support the war, until the War on Terrorism is completed. If more facts from the government leak out about secret reasons, and prove to me otherwise, I am not changing my view.

Well there were no reasons to attack Iraq so why did they attack Iraq?
O
I
L
?

ShadowmasterX wrote:
I have heard many rumors about Iraq War for their Oil. But this is not true; I have researched.
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jun-08 May-08 YTD 2008 Jun-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,883 1,840 1,888 1,905 1,881
SAUDI ARABIA 1,479 1,579 1,523 1,501 1,407
MEXICO 1,124 1,116 1,193 1,392 1,454
VENEZUELA 1,085 1,030 1,012 1,135 1,109
NIGERIA 946 851 1,036 893 1,022
IRAQ 693 583 674 573 476

Iraq is the 6th in oil import and i do not think that this is the reason for the war.

Let's look at the list:
CANADA
Ally of US utterly foolish to invade; high death toll among US soldiers
No reason to invade to give to the public.

SAUDI ARABIA
Ally of US utterly foolish to invade; high death toll among US soldiers
No reason to invade to give to the public

MEXICO
(Ally?) utterly foolish to invade; high death toll among US soldiers
No reason to invade to give to the public.

VENEZUELA
No reason to invade to give to the public.

NIGERIA
No reason to invade to give to the public; high death toll among US soldiers
An other Vietnam everyone?

IRAQ
Bad army, Regime, In middle east so ties with Taliban Al Qaida are possible. Can get public support.
Looks more like they went down the list and when they found the first easy rarget. They chose it.

ShadowmasterX wrote:
I think if we did not go into Iraq, Saddam Hussien would have still been alive, and terroism would have been more threatening; if we have not invaded Iraq, we would have been sitting, waiting for terroist to bomb us, and we would have done nothing about it; so i think that the Iraq War was the right choice to make and i think that many people don’t approve of this decision is because of untrue rumors about it.

There were no links between al qaida and the goverment.
The only "proof" came from a man who was waterboarded (tortured) by US "interrogators"

ShadowmasterX wrote:
I am not a man of War or Violence, but i think that this decision was made to save many lives;
Thank you,
ShadowmasterX

To save lifes and now about 1.300.000 people are dead looks like that life saving is all going swell!
And there were no links;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
washingtonpost wrote:

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.


I think because of the Iraq war people are more resentfull of the US and joining terrorist groups. And it "showed" that US is some bad thing to a lot of muslims there and hat the US more for it
ShadowmasterX
Not yet,
I still think that they are a threat to human society as a whole, not just to us
Klaw 2
I added some stuff you answered before I could finish my post.
ShadowmasterX
[quote="Klaw 2"]
And were no single weapon of mass distruction has been found in Iraq. And there IS NO PROOF!

Well there were no reasons to attack Iraq so why did they attack Iraq?
O
I
L
?


CANADA
Ally of US utterly foolish to invade;
No reason to invade to give to the public.

SAUDI ARABIA
Ally of US utterly foolish to invade; high death toll among US soldiers
No reason to invade to give to the public

MEXICO
(Ally?) utterly foolish to invade; high death toll among US soldiers
No reason to invade to give to the public.

VENEZUELA
No reason to invade to give to the public.

NIGERIA
No reason to invade to give to the public; high death toll among US soldiers
An other Vietnam everyone?

IRAQ
Bad army, Regime, In middle east so ties with Taliban Al Qaida are possible. Can get public support.
Looks more like they went down the list and when they found the first easy rarget. They chose it.


There were no links between al qaida and the goverment.
The only "proof" came from a man who was waterboarded (tortured) by US "interrogators"


To save lifes and now about 1.300.000 people are dead looks like that life saving is all going swell!
And there were no links;







So you think that doing nothing will change everything?

Oil? dude, do you see us taking over their oil wells? and if there is no link between them, why is there suicide bombings and large citizen death tolls?
jmlworld
ShadowmasterX wrote:
I think if we did not go into Iraq, Saddam Hussein would have still been alive, and terrorism would have been more threatening; if we have not invaded Iraq, we would have been sitting, waiting for terrorist to bomb us, and we would have done nothing about it; so i think that the Iraq War was the right choice to make and i think that many people don’t approve of this decision is because of untrue rumors about it.


I don't really wonder why Bush invaded Iraq?

It was obvious mixture of "Operation Oil Hunt" and "Operation Power Drought". What the Republicans wanted was to create a STRONG BASE in the Middle East and Central Asia, and they didn't succeed their plan.

The death toll of American Soldiers (and civilians) in Iraq is more than the number of victims of 9/11. There is even BIGGER number of soldiers (who were really very excited while invading Iraq) but currently are amputated, disabled, crippled or partially disabled. Crying or Very sad

The average HATE of the American citizen escalated and there are many Americans who hide their identity while visiting Asia and Africa. Two continents hating the US because of Bush. "He who will unload for you (later) must not load for you".

Many American innocents were misled with the PROJECT "Counter Terrorism" which, the Republicans used for personal and financial purposes.

The funnier part of Counter Terrorism is that it is ongoing and endless misstated Project. Iraq had no part of it. But it was included by mistake! How did the British intelligence manage to paint the term "Weapons of Mass Distraction" in the brains of Bush, while the CIA and FBI failed to do so? I can translate it:

1. A trap laid by the British government to burn down the American dignity in the World.
2. A trap laid by the US government to turn part of Al-Qaeda's fire to Europe.

Anyway, USA didn't feel the pain before it become too late. Their muscle stretching experiment is eventually FAILED, and it did raise side effects against the US including:

1. Iran: wants to pre-equip for "the big clash", so they'll not hopefully follow the bath of Saddam Hussein and Taliban. They're almost finished their missiles, so there's no worry of US to invade a 3rd country in Asia.

2. Iraq: countless crazy Islamists blowing themselves in the middle of everywhere. NO WHERE TO RUN.

3. Pakinstan: Al-Qaeda packed Islamists trained ONLY TO KILL.

4. Afghanistan: after US committed many crimes out there, there is even growing number of people who lost their loved ones with the hands of US and they're ready for revenge. (US failed to capture Osama Bin Laden and his guys, and instead of hunting them, US bombarded wedding parties, markets and mosques knowingly).

5. Somalia: United Stated failed once to restore hope in there. Instead they killed more than 300 innocent people in hours. This caused to make to situation even bitter. With US still interfering the business there, Somalia become the most dangerous spot on Earth. Sea pirates, kidnappings, wars, crimes, terrorism, and every possible danger which is threatening even the outer part world.

6. Islamophopia: Western mass media still stirring the situation, drawing cartoons of respected ones. Aiming to raise their profiles, but creating tensions among the communities.

ShadowmasterX wrote:
but i think that this decision was made to save many lives!


Eagerly watching when Sudan's Omar Al-Basheer will face the International Court of Crimes and Mr. Bush is enjoying with the rest of his life in Texas, PEACEFULLY.

Sorry if I touched your nerves, but this is the opinion outside of the United States.

NB: I'm not against United States people, I feel the pain when innocent person gets hurt, but I'm against US mass intervention in Middle East, Asia, Former Soviet Countries and Africa.
liljp617
ShadowmasterX wrote:
Not yet,
I still think that they are a threat to human society as a whole, not just to us


Who is a threat? Iraqis? Iraq was NEVER a threat my friend and they definitely aren't right now. If you're referring to Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc., that's still flawed logic. Because those groups are now destroying Afghanistan and are located in Pakistan. AKA, we're in the wrong place if we're fighting them. Nor were they ever really in Iraq until we got there.
ThePolemistis
ShadowmasterX wrote:
Yea i know; kinda late by 4 years =P

Facts on why we went to war

On September 11, 2001; terrorist from al-Qaeda hijacked 4 commercial airplanes. 3 of the airplanes had reached its destination (Twin towers and the Pentagon); while the 4th crashed far away from its destined location, many think due to the fact that passengers tried to take control over the plane again. Over 3,000 people died in this attack. As far as the FACTS goes, we have declared the War on Terrorism launching an army force into Afghanistan. As a new threat came into view; on March 20, 2003; USA and other allied countries confirmed that Saddam and his alleged Weapons of Mass destruction. (Intelligence from Britain confirmed)


Firsly, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism -- so bringing 911 into this is a waste of time,, heck lets talk about WW1 too, it has jus as much relevance.

3000 died in WTC. That is very bad. How many innocent Iraqis and Afghans died as a direct consequence of American bombing? Should the world now invade America?

Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. We know this because WE SUPPLIED HIM WITH THEM during the Iraq-Iran war. No10 and the Whitehouse were all smiling and giving him standing ovations when images of dead Iranian children who were killed in the most violent way came up on our television screens. After Gulf War, Saddam no longer had these weapons.



ShadowmasterX wrote:

So from the Facts and NOT RUMORS; I completely support the war, until the War on Terrorism is completed.


The War on terrorism will not be completed, until the biggest terrorist of them all - AMERICA is destroyed.


ShadowmasterX wrote:

If more facts from the government leak out about secret reasons, and prove to me otherwise, I am not changing my view. I have heard many rumors about Iraq War for their Oil. But this is not true; I have researched.
...
Iraq is the 6th in oil import and i do not think that this is the reason for the war.



Oil is one thing, middle Eastern (ME) influence is another.

If you want govt leaks and stuff, look at the "sexed up" dossier from downing street which promoted the reason for war, which high ranking officers knew to be untrue but allowed it to be in (e.g. 45 minutes claim).

Also, read a book, the trial/prosecution of George Bush or something, writtn by a prominent lawyer in the US. I can get u the full book name if u want.


ShadowmasterX wrote:


I think if we did not go into Iraq, Saddam Hussien would have still been alive, ...


Before I read the rest, who put Saddam into power? Saddam was the same criminal in the 80s (when he had the full blessing of the US and UK govts) than he was in 1998 when he converted petrodollars to petroEuros.

ShadowmasterX wrote:


I am not a man of War or Violence, but i think that this decision was made to save many lives;


Over a million innocent Iraqis are now dead because of it and America is the most hated nation not jus in the Muslim world, but throughout the entire world. Great decision.

Is the blood of 3000 innocent Americans really greater than the innocent blood of the millions now dead as a direct consequence of American actions?
marrs
According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."
But Iraqs weapons of mass destruction where never found and possibliily was a hoax just to start the oil war
balend
If you really want to find out a lot about what happened on Sept. 11, I highly suggest you watch Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. 9/11 was none other than Bush's fault. On August 6, reports came in telling Bush Osama Bin Laden was planning an attack on U.S. soil. What did the Bush administration do? They dismissed these threats calling them to vague. In that movie, it also shows how he tried to prevent Congress and other private investigators into investigating the attacks on 9/11. Prior to him being a president, Bush started up his own oil company that was invested in by Saudis, which were the majority of the attackers on Sept. 11.

Now about the war on Iraq, when Bush first became president, he said Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and was not capable of producing any. However, he began singing a different tune during March 2003. He attacked Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks, while Osama Bin Laden was out there and was the real threat.

If you ask me, the war on Iraq was a very bad move. However, if Bush would've kept going after Bin Laden, I think by now Al Qaida would be nothing more than a name.
liljp617
balend wrote:
If you really want to find out a lot about what happened on Sept. 11, I highly suggest you watch Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. 9/11 was none other than Bush's fault. On August 6, reports came in telling Bush Osama Bin Laden was planning an attack on U.S. soil. What did the Bush administration do? They dismissed these threats calling them to vague. In that movie, it also shows how he tried to prevent Congress and other private investigators into investigating the attacks on 9/11. Prior to him being a president, Bush started up his own oil company that was invested in by Saudis, which were the majority of the attackers on Sept. 11.

Now about the war on Iraq, when Bush first became president, he said Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction and was not capable of producing any. However, he began singing a different tune during March 2003. He attacked Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks, while Osama Bin Laden was out there and was the real threat.

If you ask me, the war on Iraq was a very bad move. However, if Bush would've kept going after Bin Laden, I think by now Al Qaida would be nothing more than a name.


Don't take this the wrong way, but Moore isn't exactly what you would call "unbiased." And I say this as a pretty big liberal.

Clinton also failed in catching Bin Laden. Past administrations caused the turmoil and resent in the Middle East to begin with. This goes back a bit further than 2001. The argument that 9/11 is solely the Bush Administration's fault is pretty ridiculous. Now, how he handled it after wards is a different story.
Moonspider
balend wrote:
If you really want to find out a lot about what happened on Sept. 11, I highly suggest you watch Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
Moonspider
liljp617 wrote:
Don't take this the wrong way, but Moore isn't exactly what you would call "unbiased." And I say this as a pretty big liberal.


I don't know what the "wrong way" is, but the truth is that Michael Moore deserves no more respect as a documentary film maker than Ed Wood does as a horror film director.

In my case, if taking it the "wrong way" means he believes I'm disrespectful of Michael Moore's work and that I take anything that Moore says with a grain of salt and would never consider him a valid source on any subject (other than speculative fiction cloaked with the word "documentary"), then he's taking it the "right way."

liljp617 wrote:
Clinton also failed in catching Bin Laden. Past administrations caused the turmoil and resent in the Middle East to begin with. This goes back a bit further than 2001. The argument that 9/11 is solely the Bush Administration's fault is pretty ridiculous. Now, how he handled it after wards is a different story.


Absolulely! This war started in 1993, not 2001! The first act of war was the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Now, I understand not going to war over that. But what else happened in the Clinton administration? Al Qaeda bombed two U.S. embassies (an internationally accepted act of war) and they attacked a U.S. warship (USS Cole), most assuredly an act of war. At the time, I was furious that after all that Clinton simply lobbed a few cruise missiles. I wanted Clinton to conquer Afghanistan and rid us of that organization and the government that supported them. They were obviously waging war on us and we were kicking back like nothing was going on! Inaction on our part would only encourage them as history has always demonstrated.

That was President Clinton's greatest failure and historically will (should) cast a shadow upon his entire administration. If 9/11 had been much worse, then President Clinton would have been remembered in the same breath as President Buchanan.

So when 9/11 occurred I was obviously struck by the destruction and death toll, but not surprised one iota that it occurred or who was responsible It was inevitable based upon the conduct of our government during the previous administration. I was honestly just thankful it wasn't worse.

Imagine if Al Qaeda had followed the Tom Clancy novel, Debt of Honor (1994) and flown a jumbo jet into the Capitol Building during a joint session of congress. Or heaven forbid they'd actually obtained a nuclear weapon in the intervening years after they started waging war against the United States.

Respectfully,
M
Moonspider
Klaw 2 wrote:
ShadowmasterX wrote:
Yea i know; kinda late by 4 years =P

Facts on why we went to war

On September 11, 2001; terrorist from al-Qaeda hijacked 4 commercial airplanes. 3 of the airplanes had reached its destination (Twin towers and the Pentagon); while the 4th crashed far away from its destined location, many think due to the fact that passengers tried to take control over the plane again. Over 3,000 people died in this attack. As far as the FACTS goes, we have declared the War on Terrorism launching an army force into Afghanistan. As a new threat came into view; on March 20, 2003; USA and other allied countries confirmed that Saddam and his alleged Weapons of Mass destruction. (Intelligence from Britain confirmed)

And were no single weapon of mass distruction has been found in Iraq. And there IS NO PROOF!


So, let’s say you are playing poker (the best analogy I’ve ever seen for international relations) and your opponent is bluffing. Of course, you don’t know if he is or not. He could have a good hand, after all. You look at the cards in your hand, the cards on the table, watch your opponent for tells, and do the math in your head. Hmm…he could have a good hand.

But, the only way to know for sure is to call his bluff. If you don’t call it, you never get to see his hand. If you fold, you at the least lose that hand and the game continues if you have money to keep playing. And your opponent stays in the game.

That’s exactly what happened in Iraq. Hussein was simply bluffing for whatever reason (perception of power, ego, maintain a semblance of military power in the region, etc.). And apparently he did a pretty good job. It wasn’t as if the United States intelligence community was completely out of touch with every other intel community in the world. The U.S. and coalition invasion simply called his bluff, revealing that he held nothing in his hand.

You and others are claiming the invasion was wrong because the U.S., Britain, and other countries didn’t find what they thought might exist but could not prove existed without conquering Iraq. That’s very circular logic.

By that reasoning, every search warrant issued in a criminal case that turned up nothing is wrong. Are you saying the police need to know with 100% certainty that evidence exists before they can obtain a search warrant?

You can say it was wrong for any number of reasons. But don’t say it was wrong because after you opened the box you found Schrödinger’s cat to be dead.

Perhaps you play some version of poker in which the person who calls the bluff loses the game if the bluffing opponent holds nothing? Wink

Klaw 2 wrote:
ShadowmasterX wrote:
So from the Facts and NOT RUMORS; I completely support the war, until the War on Terrorism is completed. If more facts from the government leak out about secret reasons, and prove to me otherwise, I am not changing my view.

Well there were no reasons to attack Iraq so why did they attack Iraq?
O
I
L
?


Really? And you can provide proof that the U.S. has benefitted with regards to oil by conquering Iraq? I seriously doubt it but I’m willing to entertain such.

Klaw 2 wrote:
ShadowmasterX wrote:
I have heard many rumors about Iraq War for their Oil. But this is not true; I have researched.
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jun-08 May-08 YTD 2008 Jun-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,883 1,840 1,888 1,905 1,881
SAUDI ARABIA 1,479 1,579 1,523 1,501 1,407
MEXICO 1,124 1,116 1,193 1,392 1,454
VENEZUELA 1,085 1,030 1,012 1,135 1,109
NIGERIA 946 851 1,036 893 1,022
IRAQ 693 583 674 573 476

Iraq is the 6th in oil import and i do not think that this is the reason for the war.

Let's look at the list:
CANADA
Ally of US utterly foolish to invade; high death toll among US soldiers
No reason to invade to give to the public.






SAUDI ARABIA
Ally of US utterly foolish to invade; high death toll among US soldiers
No reason to invade to give to the public

MEXICO
(Ally?) utterly foolish to invade; high death toll among US soldiers
No reason to invade to give to the public.

VENEZUELA
No reason to invade to give to the public.

NIGERIA
No reason to invade to give to the public; high death toll among US soldiers
An other Vietnam everyone?

IRAQ
Bad army, Regime, In middle east so ties with Taliban Al Qaida are possible. Can get public support.
Looks more like they went down the list and when they found the first easy rarget. They chose it.


Give me a break. Despite the logic being just silly, once again I’d like to see any evidence that indicates that the United States has benefitted with regards to oil since conquering Iraq.

Over the past few years, oil prices have gone up, not down. Furthermore, higher oil prices, as they always have, directly benefit the United States’ greatest competitor since the end of World War II: Russia. Even if only for national security and global hegemony reasons, the United States needs oil prices to be low in order to keep Russia’s economy (and therefore power) in check. Since we conquered Iraq, I have not seen that. And unless you believe some conspiracy theory that the governing powers of the United States value profits at a few oil companies over U.S. strength and keeping Russia a third-rate power, I can think of no evidence you can provide to prove your point.

Furthermore, I don’t see U.S. coffers getting fat with Iraqi oil money. I do see Iraqi coffers filling.

I will concede that the United States is and always will be concerned with maintaining stability in the Middle East and preserving the security of oil traffic in the Persian Gulf. Did that come into play when conquering Iraq? Undoubtedly, but I don’t believe it to have been a primary reason.

Klaw 2 wrote:
ShadowmasterX wrote:
I think if we did not go into Iraq, Saddam Hussien would have still been alive, and terroism would have been more threatening; if we have not invaded Iraq, we would have been sitting, waiting for terroist to bomb us, and we would have done nothing about it; so i think that the Iraq War was the right choice to make and i think that many people don’t approve of this decision is because of untrue rumors about it.

There were no links between al qaida and the goverment.


Nope.

Klaw 2 wrote:
The only "proof" came from a man who was waterboarded (tortured) by US "interrogators"


Who was this? I’m not familiar with a prisoner who gave evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaeda.

Klaw 2 wrote:
ShadowmasterX wrote:
I am not a man of War or Violence, but i think that this decision was made to save many lives;
Thank you,
ShadowmasterX

To save lifes and now about 1.300.000 people are dead looks like that life saving is all going swell!


According to Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/), the civilian death toll is about 87M to 95M, much lower than your 1.3MM. I know there are a number of different estimates though with disparate numbers, but by a factor of more than 10?

Klaw 2 wrote:
I think because of the Iraq war people are more resentfull of the US and joining terrorist groups. And it "showed" that US is some bad thing to a lot of muslims there and hat the US more for it


I’m sure U.S. military action in the Middle East has helped terrorist recruiting. To be honest I don’t really concern myself with that. If terrorists flocked to Iraq after we invaded (which they obviously did), great! They foolishly chose to fight us where we had concentrated our greatest number of military assets, rather than focusing on more vulnerable areas domestically and abroad.

Furthermore, if someone chose to join a terrorist organization because of the Iraq War, honestly, how disinclined were they to joining before? Surely you don’t believe that they loved the United States prior to 2003 and then suddenly hated the United States after March of 2003 to the point that they’d commit suicide to blow up a few civilians or a handful of soldiers?

ShadowmasterX wrote:
Not yet,
I still think that they are a threat to human society as a whole, not just to us


I agree.

jmlworld wrote:
I don't really wonder why Bush invaded Iraq?

It was obvious mixture of "Operation Oil Hunt" and "Operation Power Drought". What the Republicans wanted was to create a STRONG BASE in the Middle East and Central Asia, and they didn't succeed their plan.


They did? (Evidence?) And why would the United States need a strong base in Iraq?

jmlworld wrote:
The death toll of American Soldiers (and civilians) in Iraq is more than the number of victims of 9/11. There is even BIGGER number of soldiers (who were really very excited while invading Iraq) but currently are amputated, disabled, crippled or partially disabled. Crying or Very sad


And many of those soldiers, sailors, and marines still believe we should be over there. Some have even returned to active duty.

Furthermore, I’ve never studied or seen a war in which the number of casualties during the war is less than those suffered after the first battle. You?

jmlworld wrote:
The average HATE of the American citizen escalated and there are many Americans who hide their identity while visiting Asia and Africa. Two continents hating the US because of Bush. "He who will unload for you (later) must not load for you".


So be it. I’ve been to South Korea and Thailand during the past three years, never attempted to hide my identity (as if I could!), yet never suffered any verbal let alone physical attacks for being American. Heck, no one ever even gave me a dirty look. Quite the opposite, I was well received in both countries.

jmlworld wrote:
Many American innocents were misled with the PROJECT "Counter Terrorism" which, the Republicans used for personal and financial purposes.


“Personal and financial purposes?” Sounds like a Michael Moore “documentary.” Wink What evidence do you have to support this hypothesis?

jmlworld wrote:
The funnier part of Counter Terrorism is that it is ongoing and endless misstated Project. Iraq had no part of it. But it was included by mistake! How did the British intelligence manage to paint the term "Weapons of Mass Distraction" in the brains of Bush, while the CIA and FBI failed to do so? I can translate it:

1. A trap laid by the British government to burn down the American dignity in the World.
2. A trap laid by the US government to turn part of Al-Qaeda's fire to Europe.


Which is it?

As for number one, I can’t imagine the British cutting their own throat by attempting to undermine the country to which they tied their destiny in the early 20th Century.

As for number two, what could the U.S. gain by Al Qaeda growing stronger in Europe? The United States committed itself to fighting terrorism globally.

jmlworld wrote:
Anyway, USA didn't feel the pain before it become too late. Their muscle stretching experiment is eventually FAILED,


“Muscle stretching experiment?” Do you honestly believe that’s all this is?

jmlworld wrote:
and it did raise side effects against the US including:

1. Iran: wants to pre-equip for "the big clash", so they'll not hopefully follow the bath of Saddam Hussein and Taliban. They're almost finished their missiles, so there's no worry of US to invade a 3rd country in Asia.


Iran possessed a nuclear program and harbored visions of future Middle East hegemony long before the United States attacked Iraq in 2003.

jmlworld wrote:
2. Iraq: countless crazy Islamists blowing themselves in the middle of everywhere. NO WHERE TO RUN.


I believe the situation is improving and the Iraqi government is growing stronger even as terrorist organizations weaken.

jmlworld wrote:
3. Pakinstan: Al-Qaeda packed Islamists trained ONLY TO KILL.


As opposed to the Al-Qaeda packed Islamists trained for peaceful purposes before the war…

jmlworld wrote:
4. Afghanistan: after US committed many crimes out there, there is even growing number of people who lost their loved ones with the hands of US and they're ready for revenge. (US failed to capture Osama Bin Laden and his guys, and instead of hunting them, US bombarded wedding parties, markets and mosques knowingly).


“Many crimes” is open to debate, but I doubt your claims hold enough water to stand up in court. Are you honestly claiming that the United States military is going about intentionally bombing wedding parties, markets, and mosques? If so, you are seriously deluded.

Besides, you spoke of capturing Bin Laden in the past tense. Trust me, this war will continue at least until Bin Laden is dead or captured. (I personally don’t think he’ll allow himself to be taken alive.) The correct statement you should have made was, “The US has thus far failed to capture Bin Laden.” His eventual capture or death by his or our own hands is a foregone conclusion. His life is forfeit.

jmlworld wrote:
5. Somalia: United Stated failed once to restore hope in there. Instead they killed more than 300 innocent people in hours. This caused to make to situation even bitter. With US still interfering the business there, Somalia become the most dangerous spot on Earth. Sea pirates, kidnappings, wars, crimes, terrorism, and every possible danger which is threatening even the outer part world.


Yes. Somalia has problems, but not because of us or our allies working in the region.

To what 300 people are you referring? The First Battle of Mogadishu (1993)? I saw an estimate of about 200 civilians during the two-day battle. Regrettable, as civilian casualties always are, but honestly, not too bad considering the battle was fought in the middle of a city. In any case, I don’t think this accounts for a significant fraction (if any at all) of the problems in Somalia.

jmlworld wrote:
6. Islamophopia: Western mass media still stirring the situation, drawing cartoons of respected ones. Aiming to raise their profiles, but creating tensions among the communities.


Just because someone pokes fun at Mohammed doesn’t make them an “Islamophobe.” It’s certainly no reason for violence. If cartoons are “creating tensions,” I argue that the tensions already existed.

jmlworld wrote:
ShadowmasterX wrote:
but i think that this decision was made to save many lives!


Eagerly watching when Sudan's Omar Al-Basheer will face the International Court of Crimes and Mr. Bush is enjoying with the rest of his life in Texas, PEACEFULLY.

Sorry if I touched your nerves, but this is the opinion outside of the United States.


Like I said, I don’t think any evidence you could present against President Bush could hold water in a court of law.

jmlworld wrote:
NB: I'm not against United States people, I feel the pain when innocent person gets hurt, but I'm against US mass intervention in Middle East, Asia, Former Soviet Countries and Africa.


The United States is the people. The U.S. government is not a separate entity from the U.S. population. And whether people agree with it or not, the United States will be heavily involved in the Middle East, Asia, “former Soviet Countries” (that sounds condescending IMHO, like calling Texas that “former Mexican territory” instead of by its name, as if you don’t respect them as independent nations) and Africa and every other corner of the globe as long as any of us are alive, unless some natural disaster utterly devastates the United States (like the Yellow Stone caldera erupting, an asteroid impact, etc.)

ThePolemistis wrote:
Firsly, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism -- so bringing 911 into this is a waste of time,, heck lets talk about WW1 too, it has jus as much relevance.


I disagree to some extent. True, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 or terrorism. However, I argue that the Iraq War would not have occurred without the attacks of 9/11.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with Nazi Germany either.

ThePolemistis wrote:
3000 died in WTC. That is very bad. How many innocent Iraqis and Afghans died as a direct consequence of American bombing? Should the world now invade America?


So you believe that once casualties in a war exceed the losses incurred in the first battle, the war should be ended?

Yes, it is regrettable when civilians are killed in the course of war. War itself is a horrible thing. However, can you provide a better example of a country in the modern era that takes more care to minimize civilian casualties than the United States?

ThePolemistis wrote:
Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. We know this because WE SUPPLIED HIM WITH THEM during the Iraq-Iran war.


No. You are wrong.

I will concede that the U.S. provided targeting information that may have been used in chemical attacks, and that U.S. sold helicopters to Iraq that may have been used in chemical attacks. I’ll also concede that at least one U.S. company sold several tons of a chemical weapon precursor in violation of U.S. law.

As I recall, the companies involved in assisting chemical weapon production in Iraq were European, such as Karl Kobe of Germany.

Iraq was an ally of the Soviet Union, not the United States. However it is true that we assisted Hussein during the war. The U.S. wanted neither Iraq nor Iran to win or to lose. Our goal was to maintain the status quo.

But we never provided Iraq with chemical or biological weapons. That is pure fantasy and urban mythology.

Sources:
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/81/81ali.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/gulf/cia/960702/72566_01.htm

ThePolemistis wrote:
No10 and the Whitehouse were all smiling and giving him standing ovations when images of dead Iranian children who were killed in the most violent way came up on our television screens.


I seriously doubt that! Can you provide evidence of either government approving such conduct?

ThePolemistis wrote:
After Gulf War, Saddam no longer had these weapons.


Apparently not. We proved that by calling his bluff and conquering the place to find out for sure.

ThePolemistis wrote:
ShadowmasterX wrote:

So from the Facts and NOT RUMORS; I completely support the war, until the War on Terrorism is completed.


The War on terrorism will not be completed, until the biggest terrorist of them all - AMERICA is destroyed.


Have at it.

Respectfully,
M
Klaw 2
Moonspider wrote:

So, let’s say you are playing poker (the best analogy I’ve ever seen for international relations) and your opponent is bluffing. Of course, you don’t know if he is or not. He could have a good hand, after all. You look at the cards in your hand, the cards on the table, watch your opponent for tells, and do the math in your head. Hmm…he could have a good hand.

But, the only way to know for sure is to call his bluff. If you don’t call it, you never get to see his hand. If you fold, you at the least lose that hand and the game continues if you have money to keep playing. And your opponent stays in the game.

That’s exactly what happened in Iraq. Hussein was simply bluffing for whatever reason (perception of power, ego, maintain a semblance of military power in the region, etc.). And apparently he did a pretty good job. It wasn’t as if the United States intelligence community was completely out of touch with every other intel community in the world. The U.S. and coalition invasion simply called his bluff, revealing that he held nothing in his hand.

You and others are claiming the invasion was wrong because the U.S., Britain, and other countries didn’t find what they thought might exist but could not prove existed without conquering Iraq. That’s very circular logic.

By that reasoning, every search warrant issued in a criminal case that turned up nothing is wrong. Are you saying the police need to know with 100% certainty that evidence exists before they can obtain a search warrant?

You can say it was wrong for any number of reasons. But don’t say it was wrong because after you opened the box you found Schrödinger’s cat to be dead.

Perhaps you play some version of poker in which the person who calls the bluff loses the game if the bluffing opponent holds nothing? Wink

As far as I can remember hussein never claimed to have weapons of mass destruction. He just didn't want people looking around every base for the rest of time so he refused to let them in.

Moonspider wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
ShadowmasterX wrote:
So from the Facts and NOT RUMORS; I completely support the war, until the War on Terrorism is completed. If more facts from the government leak out about secret reasons, and prove to me otherwise, I am not changing my view.

Well there were no reasons to attack Iraq so why did they attack Iraq?
O
I
L
?


Really? And you can provide proof that the U.S. has benefitted with regards to oil by conquering Iraq? I seriously doubt it but I’m willing to entertain such.

One texas company has a deal with the kurds in northern Iraq. according to: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/09/business/main3244774.shtml

further:
Quote:
Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shock-and-oil-iraqs-billions-amp-the-white-house-connection-431977.html (dunno how reliable this one is.)

moonspider wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
ShadowmasterX wrote:
I have heard many rumors about Iraq War for their Oil. But this is not true; I have researched.
Crude Oil Imports (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)
Country Jun-08 May-08 YTD 2008 Jun-07 YTD 2007
CANADA 1,883 1,840 1,888 1,905 1,881
SAUDI ARABIA 1,479 1,579 1,523 1,501 1,407
MEXICO 1,124 1,116 1,193 1,392 1,454
VENEZUELA 1,085 1,030 1,012 1,135 1,109
NIGERIA 946 851 1,036 893 1,022
IRAQ 693 583 674 573 476

Iraq is the 6th in oil import and i do not think that this is the reason for the war.

Let's look at the list:
CANADA
Ally of US utterly foolish to invade; high death toll among US soldiers
No reason to invade to give to the public.

SAUDI ARABIA
Ally of US utterly foolish to invade; high death toll among US soldiers
No reason to invade to give to the public

MEXICO
(Ally?) utterly foolish to invade; high death toll among US soldiers
No reason to invade to give to the public.

VENEZUELA
No reason to invade to give to the public.

NIGERIA
No reason to invade to give to the public; high death toll among US soldiers
An other Vietnam everyone?

IRAQ
Bad army, Regime, In middle east so ties with Taliban Al Qaida are possible. Can get public support.
Looks more like they went down the list and when they found the first easy rarget. They chose it.


Give me a break. Despite the logic being just silly, once again I’d like to see any evidence that indicates that the United States has benefitted with regards to oil since conquering Iraq.

Over the past few years, oil prices have gone up, not down. Furthermore, higher oil prices, as they always have, directly benefit the United States’ greatest competitor since the end of World War II: Russia. Even if only for national security and global hegemony reasons, the United States needs oil prices to be low in order to keep Russia’s economy (and therefore power) in check. Since we conquered Iraq, I have not seen that. And unless you believe some conspiracy theory that the governing powers of the United States value profits at a few oil companies over U.S. strength and keeping Russia a third-rate power, I can think of no evidence you can provide to prove your point.

Furthermore, I don’t see U.S. coffers getting fat with Iraqi oil money. I do see Iraqi coffers filling.

I will concede that the United States is and always will be concerned with maintaining stability in the Middle East and preserving the security of oil traffic in the Persian Gulf. Did that come into play when conquering Iraq? Undoubtedly, but I don’t believe it to have been a primary reason.

US needs oil stability and Iraq wasn't the exactly the most stable country now.
As for the list someone claimed that US didn't invade Iraq beacuse Iraq is only number 6 on the list so I countered it because the top 4 country's wouldn't be invaded because of a possible high US soldier deathtoll. For the 5th there is no reason to invade it that leaves number 6.

Moonspider wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
ShadowmasterX wrote:
I think if we did not go into Iraq, Saddam Hussien would have still been alive, and terroism would have been more threatening; if we have not invaded Iraq, we would have been sitting, waiting for terroist to bomb us, and we would have done nothing about it; so i think that the Iraq War was the right choice to make and i think that many people don’t approve of this decision is because of untrue rumors about it.

There were no links between al qaida and the goverment.


Nope.

I take you mean nope as in nope no links were found.

Moonspider wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
The only "proof" came from a man who was waterboarded (tortured) by US "interrogators"


Who was this? I’m not familiar with a prisoner who gave evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaeda.

There was one guy who told it after intense water boarding, he figured that they would stop if he told them that there were links so he did saw it on tv. Anyway some people in the US took it seriously and claimed to have proof, while infact only one tortured man said that.

Moonspider wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
ShadowmasterX wrote:
I am not a man of War or Violence, but i think that this decision was made to save many lives;
Thank you,
ShadowmasterX

To save lifes and now about 1.300.000 people are dead looks like that life saving is all going swell!

According to Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/), the civilian death toll is about 87M to 95M, much lower than your 1.3MM. I know there are a number of different estimates though with disparate numbers, but by a factor of more than 10?

I take that here "M" stand for 1000?
In that case only 87.000 is way too low.
Anyway the problem is that there many reports with different numbers
IPS wrote:

A study by doctors from the Johns Hopkins School of Health in conjunction with Iraqi doctors from al-Mustanceriya University in Baghdad, published in the British medical journal The Lancet in October 2006, estimated the number of excess deaths as a result of the occupation at above 655,000.

Just Foreign Policy, an independent organisation "dedicated to reforming U.S. foreign policy" offered an updated total of 1,213,716 at the time of this writing.

On Sep. 14, 2007, Opinion Research Business (ORB), an independent polling agency located in London, produced a figure of 1,220,580 deaths as a result of the invasion.

That is accord to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42618
they got a figure of 1,220,580 wich was 1 year ago so 1,3 million is likely (if the figure is true).
But nevertheless even if in October 2006 only 655.000 people died that doesn't change the argument they aren't saving lives in anyway.

Moonspider wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
I think because of the Iraq war people are more resentfull of the US and joining terrorist groups. And it "showed" that US is some bad thing to a lot of muslims there and hat the US more for it


I’m sure U.S. military action in the Middle East has helped terrorist recruiting. To be honest I don’t really concern myself with that. If terrorists flocked to Iraq after we invaded (which they obviously did), great! They foolishly chose to fight us where we had concentrated our greatest number of military assets, rather than focusing on more vulnerable areas domestically and abroad.

So bassically you want people to go to iraq and to try kill a few US soldiers and meanwhile blow up a whole lot of civilians?

Moonspider wrote:
Furthermore, if someone chose to join a terrorist organization because of the Iraq War, honestly, how disinclined were they to joining before? Surely you don’t believe that they loved the United States prior to 2003 and then suddenly hated the United States after March of 2003 to the point that they’d commit suicide to blow up a few civilians or a handful of soldiers?

If one's country is invaded that can call a lot of strong nationalistic feelings wich drive you to hate americans. I don't believe that they loved US but what reason had they to hate the US either? Now the US has provided wthem with a reason to do so. And recruiting figures of many terrorist groups in iraq who fight against the US were something at 0 no they have gone up considerably.
pikappaalpharu
its crazy how were in the 21st century still killing eachother and all that. we need to resolve things like human beings
liljp617
pikappaalpharu wrote:
its crazy how were in the 21st century still killing eachother and all that. we need to resolve things like human beings


Why does it matter what time period it is? People have been saying this since the 3rd century lol
ocalhoun
pikappaalpharu wrote:
its crazy how were in the 21st century still killing eachother and all that. we need to resolve things like human beings

The major problem is that many parts of the world have yet to really enter the 21st century.
Moonspider
Klaw 2 wrote:

As far as I can remember hussein never claimed to have weapons of mass destruction. He just didn't want people looking around every base for the rest of time so he refused to let them in.


No, but as you pointed out, he never refuted it nor did he deal openly and allow international inspectors to see his hand. He left room for ambiguity. And like I said, he did that intentionally. Bluffing is a risky strategy. He was hoping that we’d either give up and stop caring or that we wouldn’t have the desire or stomach to conquer his country on the chance that he might have them.

Klaw 2 wrote:

One texas company has a deal with the kurds in northern Iraq. according to: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/09/business/main3244774.shtml

further:
Quote:
Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/shock-and-oil-iraqs-billions-amp-the-white-house-connection-431977.html (dunno how reliable this one is.)


I never said some U.S. companies didn’t benefit. I said the United States didn’t benefit.

As for Shell taking over production after the invasion, some company had to. Arguing against that would be like saying the United States shouldn’t have sent Americans to Germany in 1945 to revive Volkwsagon and other German companies/industries.

Klaw 2 wrote:
US needs oil stability…


True. In fact, the entire world needs oil stability to varying degrees. Russia possesses a large domestic supply, and therefore instability in the Middle East is better for them as it tends to push up oil prices (which directly benefits their economy and allows them to build up their military. I believe low oil prices in the 1980s were arguably a factor in their collapse.) However Russia’s oil reserves ensure supply for themselves and gives them strategic leverage over oil dependent Western Europe.

The U.S. has long sought to maintain stable oil supplies from the Middle East, not merely for itself, but also for her allies.

Klaw 2 wrote:
…and Iraq wasn't the exactly the most stable country now.
As for the list someone claimed that US didn't invade Iraq beacuse Iraq is only number 6 on the list so I countered it because the top 4 country's wouldn't be invaded because of a possible high US soldier deathtoll. For the 5th there is no reason to invade it that leaves number 6.


I simply think your argument is fatally flawed. No group of U.S. leaders sat around ticking off potential countries to conquer in order to gain their oil supplies. The notion is ludicrous and therefore not a valid argument for an “Iraq War for oil.” One can certainly argue that GW II was and is about oil, but not using your logic.

Moonspider wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:


Nope.

I take you mean nope as in nope no links were found.


Yes, I agree that no links were found.

Klaw 2 wrote:
Moonspider wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
The only "proof" came from a man who was waterboarded (tortured) by US "interrogators"


Who was this? I’m not familiar with a prisoner who gave evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaeda.

There was one guy who told it after intense water boarding, he figured that they would stop if he told them that there were links so he did saw it on tv. Anyway some people in the US took it seriously and claimed to have proof, while infact only one tortured man said that.


I’ll take your word for it.

Klaw 2 wrote:

I take that here "M" stand for 1000?


Yes.

Klaw 2 wrote:
In that case only 87.000 is way too low.
Anyway the problem is that there many reports with different numbers
IPS wrote:

A study by doctors from the Johns Hopkins School of Health in conjunction with Iraqi doctors from al-Mustanceriya University in Baghdad, published in the British medical journal The Lancet in October 2006, estimated the number of excess deaths as a result of the occupation at above 655,000.

Just Foreign Policy, an independent organisation "dedicated to reforming U.S. foreign policy" offered an updated total of 1,213,716 at the time of this writing.

On Sep. 14, 2007, Opinion Research Business (ORB), an independent polling agency located in London, produced a figure of 1,220,580 deaths as a result of the invasion.

That is accord to http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42618
they got a figure of 1,220,580 wich was 1 year ago so 1,3 million is likely (if the figure is true).
But nevertheless even if in October 2006 only 655.000 people died that doesn't change the argument they aren't saving lives in anyway.


I won’t go into it here, but suffice it to say The Lancet study generated a lot of controversy and raised many questions about the methodology and execution of their statistical analysis. And since “Just Foreign Policy” (a “non-partisan” website that is anything but) uses that same study as a basis for generating their number, that 1.2MM figure is questionable for the same reasons.

I’m no statistician, so I don’t want to get into an argument over whose statistics are better than whose. All I would do is find articles by statisticians that support my position and you’d do the same to support yours while neither of us argued from a position of expertise.

However I will point out that the 2006 study you mentioned is dramatically higher (by a factor of more than 10) than U.S., Iraqi, British, and even anti-war website “Iraq Body Count.”

Moonspider wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:
I’m sure U.S. military action in the Middle East has helped terrorist recruiting. To be honest I don’t really concern myself with that. If terrorists flocked to Iraq after we invaded (which they obviously did), great! They foolishly chose to fight us where we had concentrated our greatest number of military assets, rather than focusing on more vulnerable areas domestically and abroad.


So bassically you want people to go to iraq and to try kill a few US soldiers and meanwhile blow up a whole lot of civilians?


No, I don’t want any blood to be shed period. I’m just saying that from a military perspective, if your enemy is attacking you where you have massed your forces (your strong point) then you have the advantage over your enemy. Thus the United States has an advantage over these terrorist organizations and that is good for the U.S. military.

Klaw 2 wrote:
If one's country is invaded that can call a lot of strong nationalistic feelings wich drive you to hate americans.


Agreed. But in Iraq that is not simply what we are seeing. There is a larger picture of an internal power struggle and there are certain parties (not political, I mean groups) that we wish to be marginalized or destroyed. Al-Sadr, for example, is now hiding out in Iran and his organization is fractured. Al Qaeda in Iraq is almost crippled. Things are improving in Iraq.

You speak as if the United States is looked upon by the majority of Iraqis the way the Polish or French looked upon the Germans almost seventy years ago. That just is not the case. Attacks against coalition and Iraqi targets are not part of some resistance movement seeking to liberate Iraq. On the contrary, they are against a free Iraq period. Coalition forces will eventually leave once a peaceful transition to Iraqi authority under a stable, representative Iraqi government is achieved. And based upon recent events it may be sooner than even I expected. Therefore, logically there is no need for an armed resistance movement, since its activities work to actually keep coalition forces in Iraq, not hasten their departure. One must conclude that violence against coalition units to force their removal by political expediency to be a secondary or even tertiary objective.

If these organizations do not wish to see the United States leave peacefully along the political path currently in motion, then they must not believe in the current Iraqi government system, and have neither the political power or will to work peacefully within it or change it without violence.

On a side note, I do expect an upsurge in violence over the next 60 to 90 days. I believe it possible that personnel from these and other groups are in Iran training and regrouping for an autumn offensive. If this does come to pass, I believe their success will be marginal and quickly reversed by coalition and Iraqi forces. I also believe it could further damage Western and Iranian relations, especially if further direct evidence of Iranian involvement is uncovered during these attacks. More importantly, it may damage Iraq/Iran relations, which we in the U.S. want, I think, in order to limit Iranian influence in Iraq.

Klaw 2 wrote:
I don't believe that they loved US but what reason had they to hate the US either? Now the US has provided wthem with a reason to do so. And recruiting figures of many terrorist groups in iraq who fight against the US were something at 0 no they have gone up considerably.


Like I said, these terrorists don’t represent the majority of the Iraqi people. Furthermore, their ranks also include significant numbers of foreign “fighters.”

As a postscript, although I believe such discussions worthwhile from an academic standpoint, they are moot in the scheme of things. We are where we are. The primary issue is not how we got here, but how are we going to get to our objective. The past is only an issue as it applies to the strategy forward.

Unfortunately, many people domestically and abroad are so blinded by events of the past that they could care less about working toward a successful journey ahead.

Respectfully,
M
GLOBALSTRATEGY
Klaw 2 wrote:

And were no single weapon of mass distruction has been found in Iraq. And there IS NO PROOF!


That the weapons of mass destruction were not found doesn't mean that they weren't there. Labs of bioweapons could easily be destroyed in a very few time, and heavy material was probably transported to Syria, a part of the alliance of evil. An American author brings very interesting information on this issue:

Relating to the year 2003, he writes: "In September, U.S. and allied forces intensified their undeclared war against Iraq. The aerial bombing of military targets in southern and central Iraq was stepped up, including attacks on civilian objectives such as Basra Airport. Using their wide array of technical capabilities, U.S. Intelligence tracked Iraqis as they used barges and other river craft, particularly in northwest Iraq near the Syrian border, to transfer and store materials used in its WMD programs, laboratories, and technical facilities." Yossef Bodansky. 2004. The Secret History of the Iraq War. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, page 54.
deanhills
GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote:
Klaw 2 wrote:

And were no single weapon of mass distruction has been found in Iraq. And there IS NO PROOF!


That the weapons of mass destruction were not found doesn't mean that they weren't there. Labs of bioweapons could easily be destroyed in a very few time, and heavy material was probably transported to Syria, a part of the alliance of evil. An American author brings very interesting information on this issue:

Relating to the year 2003, he writes: "In September, U.S. and allied forces intensified their undeclared war against Iraq. The aerial bombing of military targets in southern and central Iraq was stepped up, including attacks on civilian objectives such as Basra Airport. Using their wide array of technical capabilities, U.S. Intelligence tracked Iraqis as they used barges and other river craft, particularly in northwest Iraq near the Syrian border, to transfer and store materials used in its WMD programs, laboratories, and technical facilities." Yossef Bodansky. 2004. The Secret History of the Iraq War. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, page 54.


I'm totally on your page in this Globalstrategy. I believe after Sept/11 United States took the fight against terrorism out of the United States to where the terrorists are! It had an enormous learning curve in Iraq (at a great price) and then moved into Afghanistan where it collected crucial intelligence to keep people in the United States safe. I am completely grateful for that!

Where I am we sometimes joke that Hussein was the Weapon of Mass Destruction Smile Which maybe if you think about it, he had been! The greatest Weapons of Mass Destruction for me are terrorists, and the greatest counter-terrorist offensive, one that has the collection of intelligence about terrorists as its main objective. If you can figure out their strategies, then you can design your own.
GLOBALSTRATEGY
At the end of the day, I think we can agree with Bush, that, above all kind of mistakes, the world is better without Hassam Hussein that with him.
LumberJack
GLOBALSTRATEGY wrote:
At the end of the day, I think we can agree with Bush, that, above all kind of mistakes, the world is better without Hassam Hussein that with him.


One could argue that the world would have been better off without Bush.
shkumbin
The war in Iraq and afghanistan is totally useless and only brings damage to the american people....
Parkour_Jarrod
TBH IMO the war in Iraq is just WWIII but no-ones been brave enough to go right there it is WWIII because otherwise everyone gets involved (except Switzerland) and goes IM CHARGIN MAH then America goes SHOOP DA WHOOP and destroys the planet completely with only 67.8% of there Nuclear weapons add that to russia and you have a Radioactive Hotspot in the solar-system other than the sun....
ptfrances
Iraq War has been the worst decision of the presidency of W Bush.
Everybody knew that there was no weapons of massive destruction there and the only reason to legitimize this war was oil.
Sad
Moonspider
ptfrances wrote:
Everybody knew that there was no weapons of massive destruction.


I beg to differ. There was mixed intel, but most of the intelligence agencies of world governments at the time believed Hussein was hiding something because he wanted, even needed them to believe he was hiding something in order to maintain a perception of power in the region. We know now he was bluffing. But you can't see someone's cards unless you call their bluff.

Respectfully,
M
goniagara
ptfrances wrote:
Everybody knew that there was no weapons of massive destruction there and the only reason to legitimize this war was oil.
Sad

I agree that Bush went to war in Iraq because of the oil, but do you mean no WMD's ever or no WMD's in 2003? Iraq had WMD in the 80s, and they still had them in 1991. If they didn't have them in 2003, then where is the proof that they were destroyed? If not, then they have to be somewhere.
deanhills
goniagara wrote:
ptfrances wrote:
Everybody knew that there was no weapons of massive destruction there and the only reason to legitimize this war was oil.
Sad

I agree that Bush went to war in Iraq because of the oil, but do you mean no WMD's ever or no WMD's in 2003? Iraq had WMD in the 80s, and they still had them in 1991. If they didn't have them in 2003, then where is the proof that they were destroyed? If not, then they have to be somewhere.


There was a book written about this by a guy from the United Nations who was on the expeditionary force to check up on the WMDs in 2003 and who since then resigned in disgust. Just checked up and the name of the guy is Scott Ritter (refer URL below). I hope I am not making a "misstatement", but since Iraq has been under embargo for quite a number of years after the beginning of the nineties, the chemicals were losing their effect and the theory is whatever was there by the time when the United Nations had to do their weapon inspections, would have been obsolete as Sadam had neither the money nor access to the chemicals necessary for arming the weopons of mass destruction.

http://www.c-span.org/iraq/ritter.asp

Of course nobody wanted to listen to that guy at the time. At least they found one WMD, the human one, Sadam Hussein, and the other very valuable part of this exercise was obtaining super intelligence about that area of the Middle East. Maybe it was a mistake initially with really horrible and irreversible consequences, but I think all one has to do is to imagine what it would have been like if the United States would not have gone in there? I would put my money on it that Iraq's arch enemy, Iran, would have moved in big time, and of course that is much more dangerous as they have one ENORMOUS weapon of mass destruction, ready to go. So good for the United States to be in Iraq and to keep a watchful eye on Iran at the same time.
Bikerman
Moonspider wrote:
ptfrances wrote:
Everybody knew that there was no weapons of massive destruction.


I beg to differ. There was mixed intel, but most of the intelligence agencies of world governments at the time believed Hussein was hiding something because he wanted, even needed them to believe he was hiding something in order to maintain a perception of power in the region. We know now he was bluffing. But you can't see someone's cards unless you call their bluff.

Respectfully,
M

The way to call the bluff was to leave the weapons inspectorate in place. Hans Blix and his team were ready and able to continue their work but unfortunately Blix's report to the UN did not suit the US agenda and both he and his team were forced to pull-out whilst preparations for the invasion proceded. The 'mixed' intel which you refer to was doctored and exaggerated to an extent which borders on criminal fraud and was certainly deception.
Related topics
A soldier's rant
Civilian Casualties in Iraq...
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
In No Uncertain Terms
Justification for War in Iraq
Dems still 2-faced, get butt-hurt when called on their BS
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Enemy Press
More front page news NOT on the front page..
Muslims Should be Thanking US for Iraq Invasion
Gallery of US Military Dead During Iraq War
Is the war in Iraq a war on terrorism?
Iraq War costs 6 trillion $ in energy costs?
Iraq War Today
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.