PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Halberto on April 09, 2004, 08:44:21 PM
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040410/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716
Why are we fighting a war for the Iraqi people, when we\'re fighting the majority of them. No wonder why everyone hates us. We put our nose in everything and force our ways on people with brute force. Not only that, the public doesn\'t even care. How many times do we have to fight for another country and murder eachother for a purpose that isn\'t worth it. If we went there for WMD\'s, where are they? If we went there to help the Iraqi people, why are our soldiers being blown up randomly in the streets?
And it\'s not like we\'re going to learn from this mistake we\'ve done it twice before. Korea is still unfinished war, and Vietnam was just a massacre and total failure.
Maybe this is just me letting off steam, but the U.S. is nothing like I was told it was.
-
Vote Kerry.
-
Kerry is a tool. And I can\'t vote Ill be 17
-
Pathetic, the first presidential race I can vote in and it\'s littered with worthless canidates.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Pathetic, the first presidential race I can vote in and it\'s littered with worthless canidates.
Get use to it.:mad:
-
The Iraqis are f*cked in the head. It seems that place is destined to be a hellhole for all eternity.
-
Originally posted by THX
The Iraqis are f*cked in the head. It seems that place is destined to be a hellhole for all eternity.
The whole region appears to be but I still have to believe the majority of people there want peace like the rest of us.
-
Originally posted by ViVi
If we went there for WMD\'s, where are they?
I swear no one reads my posts. A WMD isn\'t just nuclear weapons but anything that can kill a group of people. A truck bomb, biological and chemical weapons (which we ARE finding), the missiles that Hussein had and anything else that can kill a group of people or property. The civilian population is thinking and exagerating this WMD thing way too much. People think that they are nuclear weapons. But we aren\'t looking for them. We suspected that he had them but went in to disarm him from other stuff too.
-
Originally posted by ViVi
[And it\'s not like we\'re going to learn from this mistake we\'ve done it twice before. Korea is still unfinished war, and Vietnam was just a massacre and total failure.
Maybe this is just me letting off steam, but the U.S. is nothing like I was told it was.
Vivi - Korea was the UN - not just the US and it involved more countries than you realize. Do a little research on the Korean War and will see how many times the UN and the North Korean/Chinese forces took the whole pennisula only to have the the other side retake it in a counter attack. The peace was signed due to it being a stalemate.
Vietnam was a failure because the US government failed to commit what was needed for it to be a victory AND because the South Vietnamese didn\'t want to fight for their freedom - they wanted us to do it. When we left they lost because they didn\'t have the will to fight.
Personally I can\'t believe the average American is whimpering over the body count so far... our soldiers joined the military knowing they might have to go to war. The American public needs to get a backbone and be able to stomach some casualties. By the way people are whining it sounds like this is the repeat of the massacre at Little Big Horn. :rolleyes:
-
So, You are saying that it was the soldier\'s fault for joining the military in the first place and that they should of known that there was a possibility of dying for a useless war...? Perhaps somebody should of warned them that Bush was going to become President and try to finish of Hussain because his daddy couldn\'t.
Funny how at first we all were crying over not "supporting the troops" and how everytime an American soldier cried people made a big buzz about it. I think that a war has gone on too far when it get\'s to a point where casualties of war are thing that we have to become used to.
On a funnier note...Rice lied!
Bush was warned!
I mean...No he wasn\'t. There wasn\'t enough evidence or people telling to do something about the FBI investigations and other countries reporting what was going on. I mean cmon, what\'s a guy supposed to do?!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/index.html
RICE:
Rice told the commission Thursday that the briefing included mostly "historical information" and that most of the threat information known in the summer of 2001 referred to overseas targets.
Memo:
The memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S."
An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.
A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.
(CNN) -- The White House declassified and released Saturday the daily intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush a month before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
The declassified intelligence report said the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings."
The names of countries that supplied the CIA with intelligence have been removed from the memo dealing with Osama bin Laden\'s al Qaeda network and dated August 6, 2001.
"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to secure the release of \'Blind Sheikh\' Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists," the memo says in part.
Rahman is serving a life sentence for conspiring to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to blow up New York landmarks.
The White House said the presidential daily briefing, or PDB, was requested by Bush, who sought information about the possibility of an al Qaeda attack in the United States.
"The PDB article did not warn of the 9/11 attacks," the White House said in a statement released Saturday night. "Although the PDB referred to the possibility of hijackings, it did not discuss the possible use of planes as weapons."
The memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.," had been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant information about domestic al Qaeda threats.
The memo includes intelligence on al Qaeda threats as recent as three months before the attacks.
Highlights of the report include:
• An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
• An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.
• An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.
• Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.
• A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.
The two-page document became the highlight of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice\'s testimony Thursday before the commission investigating the attacks.
Rice told the commission Thursday that the briefing included mostly "historical information" and that most of the threat information known in the summer of 2001 referred to overseas targets.
She said she did not recall any reports about al Qaeda using aircraft as weapons before September 11.
Former counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke had testified two weeks before that the White House had ignored warnings about bin Laden\'s terrorist organization. Clarke said the Bush administration, including Rice, was aware of al Qaeda threats but did not treat them as "urgent."
The commission asked that the presidential daily briefing be declassified after Rice\'s testimony.
"This was the commission\'s hope," spokesman Al Felzenberg said Saturday.
"The White House has now complied. The White House agreed to release the documents. This is what the commission had hoped."
The August briefing was delivered to Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Some commission members said the administration was given enough information about bin Laden\'s intentions and capabilities to have warned the public that an attack was possible.
-
Like that information could have prevented 9/11 - get over the conspiracy theories kid.
It only said hijackings - not flying the damn planes into buildings. Do you comprehend what you read Sir Mystiq? Do you fail to realize that 9/11 was planned well before Bush was even elected? Where was our great intelligence network under Clinton? As most intelligent people know - this wasn\'t one person or adminstrations fault. It took years for Al Qaeda to plan these attacks.
As for soldiers dying - I guess people like you would be having a nervous breakdown if this were a real war - meaning front lines and casuality reports in the hundreds daily. The one advantage that the Islamic fundamentalists have over us is they aren\'t afraid to die - this week alone 450 died and that is close to our total in a year. People with your attitude are what make this country weak Mystiq. I am sure no soldier wants to be over there, but they are proud to serve their country and proud to be defending the US against radical Islamic facism.
In case you didn\'t know a lot of Arab foreigners aka terrorists are fighting alongside the Sunni\'s. This is a war - a war against an enemy who would mutilate you and string you up from a bridge regardless of your stance on this war. They don\'t hate us because we are over there - they would hate us period. They hate our lifestyle and our freedoms - so before you say this war is meaningless think about those things and maybe it is better to fight the war over there than have 9/11 type attacks on a routine basis.
-
Well said Giga, well said.
People with your attitude are what make this country weak Mystiq. I am sure no soldier wants to be over there, but they are proud to serve their country and proud to be defending the US against radical Islamic facism.
Bingo Giga.
So, You are saying that it was the soldier\'s fault for joining the military in the first place and that they should of known that there was a possibility of dying for a useless war...? Perhaps somebody should of warned them that Bush was going to become President and try to finish of Hussain because his daddy couldn\'t.
You totally missed what Giga was saying, don\'t you. A soldier joins the military knowing that he might go into a war that he/she may or may not agree with and fight no matter what, serve their country for the fat lazy bastards that take advantage of the soldiers\' cause and those too afraid to fight. A soldier joins knowing that they will be in a war and they may die. I\'m joining the military and I know I might be pulled into a war and have a chance on dying. But because I love this country, I would die for it and the freedoms and comforts that I have that another country may not have.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Personally I can\'t believe the average American is whimpering over the body count so far... our soldiers joined the military knowing they might have to go to war. The American public needs to get a backbone and be able to stomach some casualties. By the way people are whining it sounds like this is the repeat of the massacre at Little Big Horn. :rolleyes:
Agreed completely. It\'s amazing that if we have a couple...literally, a couple of casualties, it\'s big news. That doesn\'t speak to the fact that it\'s such an unexceptable thing as to the fact that there are so few American casualties overall for such a large military operation.
The fact is, the soldiers signed up to serve their country, knowing that might potentially mean putting their lives at risk. Whether you agree with us being in Iraq or not, or even if you agree with how we\'re handling the situation, the fact remains that that is exactly what they are doing.
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Funny how at first we all were crying over not "supporting the troops" and how everytime an American soldier cried people made a big buzz about it. I think that a war has gone on too far when it get\'s to a point where casualties of war are thing that we have to become used to.
This is a war, what did you expect? There are casualties in war, and that\'s a fact you have to accept. It isn\'t that people are fine with American soldiers dying, but if you want change, and decide it is necessary to achieve that change in such an aggressive military manner, you have to be willing to accept military casualties. The fact that our casualties have been so relatively low overall simply shows how prepared and efficient our military has become. Crying over such a small body count during a war is pointless. These men knew what they were signing up for, and they died supporting their country, something that anyone who volunteers for such service would be proud of, even if it is an unenviable fate.
And as for the war going on long enough, what are we supposed to do, just pull out now? What do you think would happen if we were to do that? The amount of violence and chaos that could and likely would break out in Iraq if we leave this situation unfinished at this point would be far more than what we\'re losing by staying there. When you start a job (once again, whether you agreed with starting it in the first place or not), you have to finish it. Otherwise, things could be worse even than they were before.
And by the way, this comes from someone who is and was fully against this war from the start.
-
Originally posted by Capcom
Get use to it.:mad:
Somehow I\'m not suprised. So this is what I have to look forward to every four years. Sadly I can see how so many just end up not voting, between driving to a place to vote and the trash canidates, whats the point. As long as the country isn\'t turned into a dictatorship I\'ll fare in the end.
-
Originally posted by Bozco
Pathetic, the first presidential race I can vote in and it\'s littered with worthless canidates.
Go back in history and find a single election where the nominees were kick ass presidential material?
Fact is everyone has skeletons in their closet. just the good leader types are in industry and they don\'t have to worry about people drumming up their trivial past and they can make 100X\'s more money in the private sector.
-
So it\'s sad when Americans died during 9/11 but not when Americans died for a war that has nothing to do with 9/11? It\'s sad that so many Americans died during 9/11 but not when American soldiers die? In my opinion, one death is already too many. I don\'t see how people like me make this country "weak" So we are just supposed to sit back and watch the bodies roll in?
When a soldier signs up to serve in the military they know the risks that might affect them, I agree with you on that. It just all goes back to the beginning of the war, those soldiers shouln\'t have died because of it. The war is dragging on way too long and I\'ll never, ever, just "accept" their deaths. They are dying everyday after the war was officially called to be over. It\'s not that I don\'t see that this war like any other will bring casualties, I just don\'t see why there was the war to begin with. It has brought nothing, except maybe the deep happy breaths of those paranoid about Hussain having WMD. I guess they are happy to see that he had none to begin with. This war isn\'t going to end anytime soon, I don\'t see how this is helping against terrorims. Since Osama might still be alive, terrorist are still making threats and Spain was victim to a terrorist attack also.
The memo might have not warned Bush, but as all intelligent people know, if somebody is making a plot to kill you, most people would at least try to be more careful and put their guard up. They don\'t wait until somebody shoots them in order to do something about it. The plan took years to plan, but Clinton was the one that bombed Osama\'s place, and that was the time when Osama threatened to attack the US. You ask where was Clinton\'s intelligence, well where was Bush\'s?
-
Originally posted by Ace
The whole region appears to be but I still have to believe the majority of people there want peace like the rest of us.
Thats the thing though. They almost all want peace, but with their own way of life. Not "western ways" Alot feel we(USA) are telling them how to live.
Not to say some dont though.
-
Yes and how do they want to live? Another dictator that controls how the country\'s money is spent? Bad idea.
History has shown man is evil in nature, the couuntries that are doing the best financially and socially are the ones that break up their government into serveral parts where no single entity holds all the power.
It\'s a sad fact but any one person having control of that much money would most likely spend way too much on themselves (ie- big statues, huge palaces with golden fixtures), while their country is dirt poor.
If you give the power to the people you start to see some progess.
-
That is true. But it cant seem like its forced upon them.
-
Personally I can\'t believe the average American is whimpering over the body count so far... our soldiers joined the military knowing they might have to go to war. The American public needs to get a backbone and be able to stomach some casualties. By the way people are whining it sounds like this is the repeat of the massacre at Little Big Horn.
But you are wrong, have you not seen South Park? It\'s called having your cake and eating it too. It was created by our founding fathers. You see, we need the people with backbones so we don\'t seem like a weak and wimpy country, but we need the protesters and people like that who show we have sympathy.
Im a little bit country, Im a little bit rock and roll
Ill be the backbone of america, and ill be the caring soul!
-
Aren\'t they having a civil war?
Seems like we had one too...
-
Funny..i remember saying the same thing vid.
We had ours, maybe they need to have theirs as well. Like so many other countries. We did what we said we would do...found nothing....then it changed to liberating ppl...we did that too. Its time to let them do their thing, no matter how long it takes.
If we arent there, they cant drag our bodies through the streets.
-
I just want to know why America has to take the role on of big brother. They don\'t want our ways - they want their own. Let them have it. There is no reason for us to be over there and trying to change their lifestyle.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
So it\'s sad when Americans died during 9/11 but not when Americans died for a war that has nothing to do with 9/11? It\'s sad that so many Americans died during 9/11 but not when American soldiers die? In my opinion, one death is already too many. I don\'t see how people like me make this country "weak" So we are just supposed to sit back and watch the bodies roll in?
No one is saying it isn\'t sad when an American soldier dies. The fact is that when you start a war though, you weigh the potential for the death of American soldiers and anyone else who may be involved against the benefit the war may bring in the long term and the necessity to fight it. 9/11 was more tragic because the people who died were innocent in the sense that they hadn\'t knowing put themselves in danger, where as soldiers do.
People like you make the nation weak because you aren\'t willing to accept that loses are sometimes necessary to produce larger gains. You aren\'t supposed to "sit back and watch the bodies roll in". You have to accept, however, that sometimes such losses are necessary, and a time of war is one of those instances. If you aren\'t willing to put the lives of soldiers at risk, then what\'s the point of having them at all?
When a soldier signs up to serve in the military they know the risks that might affect them, I agree with you on that. It just all goes back to the beginning of the war, those soldiers shouln\'t have died because of it. The war is dragging on way too long and I\'ll never, ever, just "accept" their deaths. They are dying everyday after the war was officially called to be over. It\'s not that I don\'t see that this war like any other will bring casualties, I just don\'t see why there was the war to begin with. It has brought nothing, except maybe the deep happy breaths of those paranoid about Hussain having WMD. I guess they are happy to see that he had none to begin with. This war isn\'t going to end anytime soon, I don\'t see how this is helping against terrorims. Since Osama might still be alive, terrorist are still making threats and Spain was victim to a terrorist attack also.
The point of the war to begin with, in a large part, was to free the Iraqi people from an opressive dictator. In case you haven\'t noticed, that has been accomplished. Whether you agree with that or not, you can\'t deny that we accomplished this. If we pull out now, the anarchy and chaos that would result in Iraq would certainly cause numerous deaths and might leave the Iraqi\'s worse off than they are now. Is that what you want? Or maybe only American soldier\'s lives matter, and not other innocent people. The fact is, for a war, the body count in Iraq has been very low. Yes, there are still people dying, but their numbers are still minimal.
While I personally don\'t think we can force democracy on them or anything like that, and I was against the war in the first place, I think that pulling out now, before there is a stable government in place, would be about the worst course of action we could take for the Iraqi people.
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
People like you make the nation weak because you aren\'t willing to accept that loses are sometimes necessary to produce larger gains. You aren\'t supposed to "sit back and watch the bodies roll in". You have to accept, however, that sometimes such losses are necessary, and a time of war is one of those instances. If you aren\'t willing to put the lives of soldiers at risk, then what\'s the point of having them at all?
That is scary - I thought you were quoting me for a second, but that is really you saying that. ;)
The only thing I have to say is will get to a point where we say enough is enough - too many US soldiers have died? I don\'t really think so because by that time I would hope that the international community would step in.
One worrisome aspect is the martyr syndrome and the open borders Iraq shares with Iran and Syria. The results are in influx of Islamic fantatics bent on killing US soldiers - apparently there is no greater glory :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by shockwaves
No one is saying it isn\'t sad when an American soldier dies. The fact is that when you start a war though, you weigh the potential for the death of American soldiers and anyone else who may be involved against the benefit the war may bring in the long term and the necessity to fight it. 9/11 was more tragic because the people who died were innocent in the sense that they hadn\'t knowing put themselves in danger, where as soldiers do.
People like you make the nation weak because you aren\'t willing to accept that loses are sometimes necessary to produce larger gains. You aren\'t supposed to "sit back and watch the bodies roll in". You have to accept, however, that sometimes such losses are necessary, and a time of war is one of those instances. If you aren\'t willing to put the lives of soldiers at risk, then what\'s the point of having them at all?
The point of the war to begin with, in a large part, was to free the Iraqi people from an opressive dictator. In case you haven\'t noticed, that has been accomplished. Whether you agree with that or not, you can\'t deny that we accomplished this. If we pull out now, the anarchy and chaos that would result in Iraq would certainly cause numerous deaths and might leave the Iraqi\'s worse off than they are now. Is that what you want? Or maybe only American soldier\'s lives matter, and not other innocent people. The fact is, for a war, the body count in Iraq has been very low. Yes, there are still people dying, but their numbers are still minimal.
While I personally don\'t think we can force democracy on them or anything like that, and I was against the war in the first place, I think that pulling out now, before there is a stable government in place, would be about the worst course of action we could take for the Iraqi people.
i agree with everything you stated shoky except the part about freeing the iraqi people..the war was from the beginning to uncover wmd\'s..luckee said it best when the initiatives went from wmd\'s to liberating the iraqi people...even you can\'t deny how bush was acting up to the point of war...he just said f**k everybody & went it alone..now the u.s. was putting up a huge offensive front in the wake of those gruesome deaths..only to scale it back for a ceasefire..yea the u.s. bombed those area\'s heavily but they were still being met with stiff resistance..
bottom line is that even tho the u.s. will ultimately win this war..they need help..it wasn\'t long after the war started bush went right back to the u.n. for help..bush went to china, germany etc..& asked them for help (militarily) but stated they would have no-say in contracts for the country & such..what kind of proposal was that?
anyway i\'m startin\' to touch on other points on the war..i\'m not going to touch anything else you stated because i agree with you otherwise...
-
Originally posted by clips
i agree with everything you stated shoky except the part about freeing the iraqi people..the war was from the beginning to uncover wmd\'s..luckee said it best when the initiatives went from wmd\'s to liberating the iraqi people...even you can\'t deny how bush was acting up to the point of war...he just said f**k everybody & went it alone..now the u.s. was putting up a huge offensive front in the wake of those gruesome deaths..only to scale it back for a ceasefire..yea the u.s. bombed those area\'s heavily but they were still being met with stiff resistance..
bottom line is that even tho the u.s. will ultimately win this war..they need help..it wasn\'t long after the war started bush went right back to the u.n. for help..bush went to china, germany etc..& asked them for help (militarily) but stated they would have no-say in contracts for the country & such..what kind of proposal was that?
anyway i\'m startin\' to touch on other points on the war..i\'m not going to touch anything else you stated because i agree with you otherwise...
Ha, you don\'t have to tell me that, believe me. I was VERY much against this war. And yes, I know the main issue was weapons of mass destruction, however the government and the people in favor of the war often tried to use the idea of liberating the Iraqi people as another reason for war. I mean, I pretty much agree with all you said too. I\'m just trying to say it\'s stupid to say that absolutely nothing was accomplished here.
And Giga, sure we may usually disagree, but it doesn\'t mean I don\'t have at least a little common sense :p
-
I\'ve just read through this thread, and everybody is making really solid points.
My thoughts and opinions on this war in general have been on a rollercoaster ride. Before it began, I was for it because Saddam Hussein has always been bad news. It essentially would kill three birds with one stone: ousting a power-hungry dictator and liberating the Iraqi people, seizing WMDs, and heck I was looking forward to paying less at the pump as well. So regardless of why you believe we went to war, whether it was a personal vendetta, or just a way to capture some oil fields, you cannot ignore the fact that it was going to help a lot of innocent people.
Then the war started... Hussein lost power, and would eventually be captured... No WMDs discovered, too bad, it would have been nice, but we still accomplished many other things... What I never really thought would go so bad is our occupation and attempt to establish a stable government.
The body count and death tolls don\'t bother me, like it has been stated, in a war, people die. Its just it seems no progress is being made whatsoever and we\'re at a stalemate here. It\'s even disheartening that so many \'allies\' just sit comfortably and watch and do nothing. We went into this alone, however the job would be so much more easier with support from other countries and all this bloodshed that they\'re griping about can come to a quicker conclusion.
And finally, with Islamic fanaticism at an entirely new height, Muslims from every Middle Eastern nation are flocking to Iraq to get a chance to do what their \'god\' promises will earn them salvation, killing an American. I hope they all just gradually flood in and we can kill every one of them and weed as many out of the human race as possible.
Oh and for every moron saying this was for oil, why am I paying $2.11 to fill my tank? Idiots.
-
b/c OPEC who controls these things are comprising primarily of Arab countries. Most may not be against us but will not allow us use of their countries or even like us. I dont really know much about the oil game, but it seems as if they are putting the squeeze on us.
PS im rocking $1.79 :D
-
Originally posted by luckee
b/c OPEC who controls these things are comprising primarily of Arab countries. Most may not be against us but will not allow us use of their countries or even like us. I dont really know much about the oil game, but it seems as if they are putting the squeeze on us.
PS im rocking $1.79 :D
That is true, but if going into Iraq was about "cheap oil" - which was a popular anti war slogan (not by you luckee) why don\'t we just pump that oil straight to America to relieve OPEC\'s squeeze? We can\'t because it isn\'t our oil regardless of the fact that we are the defacto rulers of Iraq.
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
That is true, but if going into Iraq was about "cheap oil" - which was a popular anti war slogan (not by you luckee) why don\'t we just pump that oil straight to America to relieve OPEC\'s squeeze? We can\'t because it isn\'t our oil regardless of the fact that we are the defacto rulers of Iraq.
well i admit in the back of my mind i thought part of the reason bush went to war was to get at least a piece of the oil trade in iraq..but i wasn\'t sayin that this war was about the oil just that the war period wasn\'t just right (i know you wasn\'t directing that post at me giga i\'m just sayin\' ;)) anyway it turns out that was not the case & those a$$holes from opec have the whole oil charade locked down...:evil:
-
Well oil can be made from pig doo doo according to the Associated Press! Our problem is solved!
-
Take that, you anti-swine Muslims and Jews...
-
Even if it still may be, I dont think even Bush is dumb enough to anything about it now. That would certainly promise that he wouldnt get re-elected.
-
All that and still No WMD... Huh anyone would start to think that they didn\'t exsist.
;)
-
Hussein himself was a WMD.
-
What do you guys think about us going after Al-Sadr dude? I still don\'t know why we\'re going after him.
-
Originally posted by SwifDi
Hussein himself was a WMD.
Like i said no WMD found yet...
Come on if they where ready to use in 45 minutes then surely we would of found them by now... or even the means to support and produce them...
-
well this is going a little off topic..i came in on the tail end of bushes speech on iraq last night & i have to say i don\'t know how he performed before i came in but the part of the speech i did see i was highly impressed with his honesty & compassion for how he felt about the war. In another thread i posted how he performed horribly on the televised meet the press interview..this time around he was confident & wasn\'t takin\' no S**t from nobody & he spoke his mind..none of that political bulls**t.
i didn\'t see this part but somebody asked him about apologizing for what happended ..he stated "it was bin laden who did this..he attacked us"..and he\'s right it wasn\'t his fault 911 happended & lets be honest.. NOBODY would have ever thought somebody was going to fly planes into the world trade ctr..i can only imagine how many threats the u.s. receive everyday. I\'m baffled as to why people are tryin\' to find out what & why it happended..it was a historic tragedy..& caught everybody by surprise..why ask questions & waste time trying to figure that out? just move on & put policies in place so hopefully it won\'t happen again period.
a reporter asked him do you think you\'ve failed to get your point across on iraq because he (the reporter) was implying that bush repeats the same thing in all his speeches..so bush stated and this wasn\'t his exact words but it was to this effect that ..look i\'m not going to come out here & be phony or say things that i don\'t feel is coming from my heart..he admitted that seeing body bags is hard but there was a purpose...like i said i came in on the tail end of it but even tho..i don\'t agree with how he handled iraq..i have alot of respect for him because he doesn\'t back down under pressure & says what he feels & that goes a long way for me...
so my conclusion even tho some may say i\'m gullible to the pres. speeches but i consider myself to be a good judge of character..i can tell when a politician is spouting political bulls**t & i can tell when some are truly sayin\' what they feel..bush said what he felt in his heart was right & he doesn\'t change his tune because of public or political pressure...i gotta give it up to him for that..bush for pres..he\'s not the best...but he\'s better than kerry & he needs to clean this crap up that he has goin\' on..
-
looks like no-one is getting this so i will say it again.
One YEAR on & still No WMD found ?
Why did we go to war in the first place then.
I mean i can\'t be for Humanitarian reasons… because if it was then there are Far worse Dictators out there
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Like i said no WMD found yet...
I swear to GOD no one reads my posts. This is from THIS thread what I said about WMDs earlier.
A WMD isn\'t just nuclear weapons but anything that can kill a group of people. A truck bomb, biological and chemical weapons (which we ARE finding), the missiles that Hussein had and anything else that can kill a group of people or property. The civilian population is thinking and exagerating this WMD thing way too much. People think that they are nuclear weapons. But we aren\'t looking for them. We suspected that he had them but went in to disarm him from other stuff too.
I wouldn\'t say that. My dad is in the reserves and works with WMDs. They are finding stuff. The media keeps putting nuclear weapons as WMDs and that is what we\'re looking for (which we really aren\'t). A WMD includes a truck bomb, chemical and biological weapons (which we\'ve been finding) and the means of deliverance of these weapons. That is what we are looking for and that is what we are finding. People just keep making WMDs more than they really are.
-
but just like most murder cases....you must have the gun..the slug that matches the barrel of said gun, and possibly a matching shell case.
-
Was it not enough that we saved thousands of Iraqis?
-
There was no real guarantee we did though. Saddam hadnt really done anything in a while anyway. Of course he probably would have..but we cant go around locking ex-cons up after they serve their time on the basis they might/probably will commit another crime.
-
Well Titan that\'s too bad that people don\'t know the vast quantity of different types of WMD. Simply because when a person hears "WMD" on the TV, radio or whatever, they think of the big black mushroom cloud. And you know what, that\'s the exact thought that Bush\'s Government wanted people to see in order to push the effort of the war.
If we have found any biological weapons they would surely be on the news. I\'ve heard of weapons that have been found but were no longer a threat as a weapon.
Saddam himself was the weapon...Hmm, nope. I don\'t remember Bush ever saying that. Except after no real weapons were found. They had to find some kind of excuse though right? Besides who\'s the "bigger weapon" Saddam or Osama, which by the way, hasn\'t even been captured and I believe they have found a recent video of him still alive and itching to kill some more.
Bush\'s press conference was pretty good. The guy spoke with much confidence. But overall it was always the same thing. He always fled away from the question and got in all kinds of things that he wanted to say. In all, he took more time answering on question than trying to answer as many as he could.
-
Originally posted by Titan
I swear to GOD no one reads my posts. This is from THIS thread what I said about WMDs earlier.
Like i said.. NOT REAL WMD found.
We tend to think that WMD can include the odd Lab here and there but the real practicalites of having a WMD programme meas you have to go large SCALE... AND maintain a constant production because most chemical & Biological agents have a Very Short shelf life.
Also They had Jack Shit in the Way of delivery.
-
I wonder if Saddam is thinking to himself, "Osama shouldn\'t have pushed to have the WTC destroyed, then I\'d still have a country."
We went into Iraq because we wanted the world to be a safer place. The Bush administration never want another 9/11 to happen again, so instead of just going after Afghanistan they went for target #2 and got Iraq. Who knows what would have been next (or if) but the way things are going it looks like Iraq will be the last stop in the Mideast... until another 9/11 happens.
Wondering if the crazies realize that if they hurt the US there will just be more mideast presence.
-
Originally posted by ooseven
Like i said.. NOT REAL WMD found.
But wouldn\'t the chemical and biological weapons they have still classify as a "real" WMD?
Mystiq, I have seen plenty of news stories a few months back of warheads and weapons labs/stockpiles of nothing but chemical and biological weapons. They are reporting them.
-
They are reporting shit that is useless. chem/bio weapons they find are basically no more harmless than sniffing anmonia(sp?) too long. The delivery systems are also outdated and most arent even complete.
The US are comming up empty...bigtime.
-
I\'m sure the real potent stuff is buried in the sand somewhere and we will never find it.
-
And that too will be useless when and ever it is found.
But while we are on buring things in the sand...dont forget about millions of barrels of oil...billions in cash..3 palaces and a city the size of san francisco.......
-
We\'ll I don\'t think it\'s going to help the cause if we can ever find them now is it?
Nope.
-
Hmmm Still no WMD found....
Also the Spanish are pulling out.
Looks like the whole place is turning in to an even more SHIT hole that it was a year a ago.
-
How will the USA win in Afganistan, and how will they win in Iraq?
Please, Iraq will cost the USA 2000+ soldiers a year in terrorist attacks, i guess Bush couldnt\' find terrorists so he had to manufacturer them ..... Bush = fag
Bush should concentrate on the assHolz like Bin Laden and his ilk and not force his "Bullzhit" democracy on other nations. I guess the Iraqi\'s dont\' want to become a puppet state, anything is better than that i guess.
-
They won\'t be a "puppet state". They will be a free country if they pull their shit together and stop relying on us to fight their battles for them.
-
The USA is as credible as a drunken Ho saying she didn\'t get paid for head.
Bush kissing Sharon’s ass last week really nailed the last nail in the coffin for American unbiased peace brokering in the middle east. So does anyone think we will be credible when it comes to Iraq or Afghanistan?
-
Originally posted by Titan
They won\'t be a "puppet state". They will be a free country if they pull their shit together and stop relying on us to fight their battles for them.
that\'s a little premature to say..the u.s. are the ones that came in there,.. wrecked havoc, and basically broke down the military,..how can you say they need to fight when they have no army to fight with? that\'s like another country comin into the u.s. defeats whoever is in charge & then isurgents from our regime rise up and then the foreign country states to you & me "ok go fight for your country now!"
how do you expect you or me to fight when we don\'t have weapons or access to any weapons? the point is we\'re just average joes in the game & our response would be "wtf are you talkin\' bout?" It\'s bad policy if you\'re just gonna come to a country blow s**t up then when s**t hits the fan you tell the people "ok go handle your business.. go fight" with what? yea the u.s. trained some of the iraq police force but they aren\'t ready to police themselves & govern the iraq people..hell sadr & his peeps took over several police stations with ease..
sheeit every time i see an iraqi police officer they don\'t even have bullet proof vests on..
-
Originally posted by clips
that\'s a little premature to say..the u.s. are the ones that came in there,.. wrecked havoc, and basically broke down the military,..how can you say they need to fight when they have no army to fight with? that\'s like another country comin into the u.s. defeats whoever is in charge & then isurgents from our regime rise up and then the foreign country states to you & me "ok go fight for your country now!"how do you expect you or me to fight when we don\'t have weapons or access to any weapons?
I see your point now. I wasn\'t saying that we should pull out, I was just saying that the people should start fighting for themselves and not rely on the US so much. And the weapons part; the people can get weapons easily enough. Look at all those militias that started from nothing in Iraq. Its not that hard to get an AK47 or even some M16s (if our govenment gave them some old model M16 rifles). But this could create new problems that will give us a headache. We need to help them establish a military first so they could defeat those factions, which is more easily said than done.
the point is we\'re just average joes in the game & our response would be "wtf are you talkin\' bout?" It\'s bad policy if you\'re just gonna come to a country blow s**t up then when s**t hits the fan you tell the people "ok go handle your business.. go fight" with what? yea the u.s. trained some of the iraq police force but they aren\'t ready to police themselves & govern the iraq people..hell sadr & his peeps took over several police stations with ease..
sheeit every time i see an iraqi police officer they don\'t even have bullet proof vests on..
Totally agree with you there.
-
Originally posted by Titan
I see your point now. I wasn\'t saying that we should pull out, I was just saying that the people should start fighting for themselves and not rely on the US so much.
Totally agree with you there.
I think that he also pointed out that they have no choice now. The people of Iraq didn\'t ask to be freed, sure it was implied but hey what are they supposed to do? They don\'t have a good army, and half of it died fighting for Hussain? It\'s not that they aren\'t trying to fight they\'re own battles, it\'s just that the US started the battle, and now it\'s our neck in the line for them.
-
Originally posted by SirMystiq
I think that he also pointed out that they have no choice now. The people of Iraq didn\'t ask to be freed, sure it was implied but hey what are they supposed to do? They don\'t have a good army, and half of it died fighting for Hussain? It\'s not that they aren\'t trying to fight they\'re own battles, it\'s just that the US started the battle, and now it\'s our neck in the line for them.
There are 3 problems in Iraq that are hindering their self rule:
1. Foreign Terrorists
2. Sunni\'s
3. Shiites
The first group is obvious... the other two groups dislike each other. This whole problem stems from British colonialism when Britain divided the Middle East up into countries regardless of religious and cultural differences between the people in the newly created countries. Granted, hindsight is 20/20 and it is hard to blame Britain for something that is happening 30-40 years after the fact.
-
We need to get tolerance between the Sunnis and Shiites but I dont\' think that would happen. What if they divide Iraq into North and South Iraq. One for Sunnis and one for Shiites. That could solve the problem of them fighting, atleast at a politcal ground but I think it would create more problems.
-
Then you have the Kurdish problem ;)
-
TO join 3 people into one "Country" you need to make sure you share the resources equally (Oil) and that you have a leader that is respected or feared by all sides.
Right now americans have a big target on their backs in Iraq, since that is the easiest way to score one for the terrorist, just get over the border and score some hit-points against GI-Joe, no planes or trucks needed, just point and shoot.
-
Originally posted by Titan
They won\'t be a "puppet state". They will be a free country if they pull their shit together and stop relying on us to fight their battles for them.
They already are a puppet state:
Puppet State (http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/27/iraq.flag.ap/index.html)
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661871.stm
US sets limits to Iraqi self-rule
Critics of the handover plan say it is not offering full sovereignty
The US has warned that the new government due to take power in Iraq on 1 July will have to delegate some of its powers to the coalition.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said it was important that coalition troops continued to operate under US command.
His comments came after a day of heavy fighting in Falluja, where US soldiers and Iraqi security forces had been due to begin joint patrols on Tuesday.
The BBC\'s Jennifer Glasse in Fallujah says the patrols have been delayed.
The patrols are now expected to begin later this week.
At least one US soldier and eight Iraqi fighters were killed in Monday\'s violence, the US said.
US officials said marines retaliated when militiamen opened fire with rockets, mortars and machine-guns from a mosque.
It is with the understanding that they need our help and for us to provide that help we have to be able to operate freely
Colin Powell
US Secretary of State
New unrest was also reported in Kufa, outside the Shia holy city of Najaf, and an explosion in Baghdad killed two US soldiers.
The US has insisted it is sticking to the planned timetable of transferring power to an interim Iraqi government after 30 June despite the upsurge of violence in Iraq.
But in an interview with Reuters news agency, Mr Powell said that while the new government would take full sovereignty over the country, it would have to give some of it back to the Americans so that the US would still be in command of its own troops.
"I hope they will understand that in order for this government to get up and running - to be effective - some of its sovereignty will have to be given back, if I can put it that way, or limited by them," Mr Powell said.
"It\'s sovereignty but [some] of that sovereignty they are going to allow us to exercise on their behalf and with their permission."
\'Army of occupation\'
Speaking in Washington, Mr Powell said the coalition did not mean to "seize anything away" from the planned caretaker government.
"It is with the understanding that they need our help and for us to provide that help we have to be able to operate freely, which in some ways infringes on what some would call full sovereignty," he said.
But in an interview with the Associated Press, the current head of the US-backed Iraqi Governing Council, Massoud Barzani, accused the US of behaving like "an army of occupation".
I probably wouldn\'t have made the mistake of letting an army of liberation turn into an army of occupation
Massoud Barzani
Current head of Iraqi Governing Council
"If it were me, I wouldn\'t have allowed it to come to this by making earlier mistakes," Mr Barzani said.
"I probably wouldn\'t have made the mistake of letting an army of liberation turn into an army of occupation."
The veteran Kurdish leader, who holds the rotating presidency of the Iraqi Governing Council for April, added that the US-led invasion had helped the Kurds to "accomplish a major part" of their rights.
The BBC\'s State Department correspondent, Jon Leyne, says there is a danger that the new Iraqi government will be seen as a puppet of the American occupiers.
Mr Powell insisted that the coalition wanted the new government to have a real part to play in rebuilding Iraq:
"From day one on, I hope that they will exercise more and more control over the ministries, over the priorities for reconstruction, over answering questions of their people. It is in our interest to have that happen."
Earlier, Mr Powell said a compromise was being sought in Falluja despite the failure of a US truce which was extended for two days from Sunday.
Talks were under way with civic and tribal leaders in the surrounded city to arrange joint patrols with US and Iraqi forces, he said.
The aim, Mr Powell said, was to win the confidence of the citizens and to persuade gunmen to lay down their arms.
Yeah. What next? "In order to keep our troops there...Mr. Bush request that you give up some of your oil too?"