Iraq Speculation
BaconTheory
Join Date: 2003-09-06 Member: 20615Members
Join Date: 2003-09-06 Member: 20615Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">What do you think?</div> I'm about to eat dinner, so I'm going to get right to the point.
On all of George Bush's adresses, he was always justifying the War on Iraq. However, I have a few problems with his War on Iraq.
1. Did we actually find and kill Saddam? NO
2. Did we find weapons of mass destruction? NO
3. Did <i>ALL</i> of the Iraqis really want us in Iraq? NO
4. When the Iraqis started burning the oil fields, he told the troops to save as many as they could.
So, I tell you my comrades, decide for yourself what the war accomplished.
On all of George Bush's adresses, he was always justifying the War on Iraq. However, I have a few problems with his War on Iraq.
1. Did we actually find and kill Saddam? NO
2. Did we find weapons of mass destruction? NO
3. Did <i>ALL</i> of the Iraqis really want us in Iraq? NO
4. When the Iraqis started burning the oil fields, he told the troops to save as many as they could.
So, I tell you my comrades, decide for yourself what the war accomplished.
Comments
2. Yes you actually did.
3. Only the non-brainwashed ones.
4. Why do you figure this? (Hint: they were saved to keep Iraqs economy from crumbling so it wouldn't take 10 years just to get the infastructre back on...)
You tree hugging hippies make me laugh :)
_______
Saddam isn't dead, but he was removed from power, and both of his sons (also major players in his regime) are dead.
No, we have not found weapons of mass destruction, nor have we found any research plans for WMD. The best we've found is that Saddam had many scientists who would have been able to pursue a WMD research program, if one had existed.
"All" is a rather idealistic word. All of America didn't want GWB to be present; hell, not even a majority of the country did. q: But that's another story. Regardless, the number of Iraqis who "wanted" an invasion doesn't really play into it.
Iraq's oil fields are a vital resource for the entire world, not just America or Iraq. Immediately, they are Iraq's major means of generating wealth, and so if Bush wants to stabilize Iraq and let it grow on its own, the new government will need the oil.
______
Personally, I think GWB is warmongering; Gary Trudeau (writer/artist of <i>Doonsbury</i>) draws him quite accurately as a Roman cavalier's plumed helmet. I think we went into Iraq rashly and for the wrong reasons. Do I think the world will be a better place once Iraq has stabilized? Probably. Do I think your four points are valid arguments? Except for #2, no.
which part exactly are you disputing?
the war was a joke.
the idea that you can attack a country for 'possible future attacks' is absurd, and no one should ever forget this.
I mean, who can say a certain country 'doesnt have the right to defend itself', and isnt 'allowed' weapons of its own.
and dont attack people for being teenage, we were all teenage once, unless your 12, in which case get off the disscusions board and go to the park or somthing.
And people shouldn't have any illusions about what a 'paradise' we plan on turning Iraq into. take a look at the <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=28&t=46568' target='_blank'>87 billion dollars</a> thread, and ask yourself if the miniscule portion of the money that's going to reconstruction is enough. Not to mention that you should ask yourself whether <a href='http://www.iraqbodycount.net/' target='_blank'>6,000 to 8,000</a> dead civilian men, women, and children is an acceptable price...
Note that Bush has also claimed that creating a stable democracy in Iraq would have a domino effect in the middle east, toppling all of the 'brutal terrorist regimes' that are in place there. It should be noted that the countries whom are included in the Middle East who do not have democratic governments right now are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and quite a few of our allies. Oddly enough, Iran DOES have form of democratic government, even if it isn't as free as we might expect our government to be. But everyone has their own cup of tea, and at the moment Iran is very stable, and is more likely to change due to deep rooted political activism from its very large under 25 population than from any US influence... so long as that influence is not a direct invasion.
But given the right opportunies and actions, it is not entirely unforseeable to have Bush toppling several other governments in the middle east, or putting enough pressure on them to allow the US to dictate policy. Between Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, this would give the US control of over HALF of the world's oil supply.
Whomever controls the gold makes the law - in this case, the gold is simply black.
How many died in the 12 years of sanctions where Saddam let his people suffer whilst using the sanctions as the scapegoat to stir up as much anti-american sentiment as possible, thus ensuring his position as the head of the country?
If your busy hating the US, you don't care much about what your leader is doing. Things you normally wouldn't tolerate are suddenly tolerable. Just like with american nationalism in the war on terror. You think ordinarily we'd let our rights be squeezed like this? I wonder what the iraqi people would have thought if they realized saddam could have done something and didn't....
yes I said it, saddam let his people suffer when had the power to change it. I'm not shifting all the blame on him (as you would quickly do if it was the US) but he wasn't an innocent pawn in all of this.
Contrary to popular belief, the sanctions weren't in place to strangle the iraqi people. In fact, the stuff saddam was allowed to sell was SUPPOSED to go to only food and medicine for his people. They did not.
Instead of feeding them, giving them medicine, etc. he lived high on the hog with his 6 palaces- and why <i>should</i> he help them? All he's got to do is tell his people that america is responsible for their suffering, and is not letting him get anything for the people to help them. Bad america. Hate america and we'll change that!
He didn't tell them he was spending goo-gobs of money smuggling in fiber optic missile network technology from china. He didn't tell them that money could have been used to "smuggle in" food and medicine.
His people DIED in DROVES and all he did was let the media, which he controlled, sap it for all it was worth. He could have stopped it one of three ways (complying and getting sanctions lifted, giving his people the food and medicine that he was supposed to be providing and had the means to provide, or even smuggling in food and medicine as a last resort if it wasn't "enough". He didn't do any of that).
I concede that the sanctions weren't very productive, don't get me wrong. They did nothing but ensure saddams power. The guy ain't stupid. He saw an oppertunity and used it.
Saddams actions were just as inexcuseable as americas. A lot of you will disagree with me, but thats just my $.02.
the war was a joke.
the idea that you can attack a country for 'possible future attacks' is absurd, and no one should ever forget this.
I mean, who can say a certain country 'doesnt have the right to defend itself', and isnt 'allowed' weapons of its own.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was disputing the part where he had no idea what he was talking about.
Second, are you saying attacking Nazi Germany or Japan was also absurd?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And people shouldn't have any illusions about what a 'paradise' we plan on turning Iraq into. take a look at the 87 billion dollars thread, and ask yourself if the miniscule portion of the money that's going to reconstruction is enough. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then ask yourself how much Iraq is going to MAKE the US money.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Not to mention that you should ask yourself whether 6,000 to 8,000 dead civilian men, women, and children is an acceptable price... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Compared to the 25,000+ people Saddam killed every year?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Reall, I believe that the major reason that we have gone in and conquered Iraq is for the dream of American Empire - <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This just made me laugh. I think what you wrote is enough for everyone :-]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Note that Bush has also claimed that creating a stable democracy in Iraq would have a domino effect in the middle east, toppling all of the 'brutal terrorist regimes' that are in place there. It should be noted that the countries whom are included in the Middle East who do not have democratic governments right now are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and quite a few of our allies. Oddly enough, Iran DOES have form of democratic government, even if it isn't as free as we might expect our government to be. But everyone has their own cup of tea, and at the moment Iran is very stable, and is more likely to change due to deep rooted political activism from its very large under 25 population than from any US influence... so long as that influence is not a direct invasion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you are saying countries Saudi-Arabia or Afghanistan *ARENT* brutal terrorist regimes? Whoo-hoo lad... If you also think that anybody else but Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has the last word in EVERYTHING going on in Iran (meaning the "government" there is fake) you are a true fool.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But given the right opportunies and actions, it is not entirely unforseeable to have Bush toppling several other governments in the middle east, or putting enough pressure on them to allow the US to dictate policy. Between Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, this would give the US control of over HALF of the world's oil supply.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's hope Bush can topple as many as possible before another democrat starts supplying North-Koreas with nuclear designs *cough* Clinton *cough*...
I guess I'll go gas me a kurd now!
please, cut out the rhetoric and one liners!
you need some perspective.
Funny democrats
Massacre : To kill in considerable numbers <b>where much resistance can not be made; to kill with indiscriminate violence, without necessity</b>, and contrary to the usages of nations; to butcher; to slaughter; -- limited to the killing of human beings.
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3105574.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/3105574.stm</a> - Iraqi police killed
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3162485.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_ea...ast/3162485.stm</a> - Journalist killed
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2946054.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2946054.stm</a> - Cluster bombs used in inner city areas
just a few for you here ( from the BBC i might add, im sure ide find better examples elsewhere, but this is about as 'reliable' as I can think of)
*edit* and by the way, i am not a democrat
Just think for a second what you are saying and what massacre means.
please, forgive my stupidity and enlighten me...
... Don't you think peoples are goin' t' be killed?
and just because its a war, is no excuse to (yes, im sure this word applies) massacre civilians/ police/ journalists.
MISTAKES HAPPEN. You tout a camera around a battlezone and it just might be mistaken for an rpg launcher. Don't start whining when you have a hole the size of my fist in your head due to your own stupidity. Want to burn the American flag in front of US soldiers? Well be prepared to catch some serious artillery for it, idiot.
Then acknowledge that this sort of inexcuseable action is happening on both sides, at the very least to cover all your bases and make responses like this not nessissary.
I'm tired of hearing that whenever an innocent person from another country gets killed, it's americas fault and is unjustifiable and inexcuseable. Bad bad america.
But when thousands of americans die, many of which would probably wholeheartedly agree with you, it's excuseable simply because the people doing the killing are, in your eyes, "oppressed people who are just defending themselves". Please.
We've established that mistakes happened. Thousands of innocents died. We already understand that. But what are you trying to prove? You think we don't believe you? I mean, I could do the opposite to support the other side. I could sit here and post news reports showing israeli civilians in cafes and busses being bombed. I can sit here and post news of all the attacks made against the united states and other powers like russia and britain, france and germany. I can post stories of how miserable the iraqi civilians were under saddams rule. How many thousands died with no end in sight.
Its tragic that those 8-10,000 people died in the war on terror. But the difference is, now the people have hope for a better future. Those deaths can't be excused, but at least they were not in vain, at least if we do the reconstruction thing well. And that is a far sight better than 100,000+ dying with no hope of anything changing, like in the 12 years after gulf war 1, when saddam didn't help his own people when he could. Thats not to say we (america) had no part to play in the matter- but don't leave out the others.
We did not massacre police, cameraman and reporters. Even by the definition you posted. The soldiers thought they were threatened, and they defended themselves. EVERY DAY their comrades are dying when a guy suddenly drops an RPG on their shoulder and nails them. Then one day some guy dropped a camera on their shoulder and pointed it at them. What did you expect them to do? If I walk up to you and punch you in the face every day, then one day you get tired of it and decide to defend yourself, and THAT is the day I decide to shake your hand instead, and you knock my lights out when I approach you, can I really blame you?
On the other hand, what of the kurds who WERE massacred? What of the resistance in kuwait that was massacred? What about the ethnic clensing going on all over the world? Oh, americas fault, I forgot. We MADE them slaughter their own people in the name of religion and power, ok.
The difference between my argument and yours mel is that while I'm concedeing that america isn't entirely innocent, I'm also pointing out that you should also address the inexcuseable actions of other countries who are doing similar things, sometimes even more directly and intentionally rather than accidently.
Then acknowledge that this sort of inexcuseable action is happening on both sides, at the very least to cover all your bases and make responses like this not nessissary.
I'm tired of hearing that whenever an innocent person from another country gets killed, it's americas fault and is unjustifiable and inexcuseable. Bad bad america.
But when thousands of americans die, many of which would probably wholeheartedly agree with you, it's excuseable simply because the people doing the killing are, in your eyes, "oppressed people who are just defending themselves". Please.
We've established that mistakes happened. Thousands of innocents died. We already understand that. But what are you trying to prove? You think we don't believe you? I mean, I could do the opposite to support the other side. I could sit here and post news reports showing israeli civilians in cafes and busses being bombed. I can sit here and post news of all the attacks made against the united states and other powers like russia and britain, france and germany. I can post stories of how miserable the iraqi civilians were under saddams rule. How many thousands died with no end in sight.
Its tragic that those 8-10,000 people died in the war on terror. But the difference is, now the people have hope for a better future. Those deaths can't be excused, but at least they were not in vain, at least if we do the reconstruction thing well. And that is a far sight better than 100,000+ dying with no hope of anything changing, like in the 12 years after gulf war 1, when saddam didn't help his own people when he could. Thats not to say we (america) had no part to play in the matter- but don't leave out the others.
We did not massacre police, cameraman and reporters. Even by the definition you posted. The soldiers thought they were threatened, and they defended themselves. EVERY DAY their comrades are dying when a guy suddenly drops an RPG on their shoulder and nails them. Then one day some guy dropped a camera on their shoulder and pointed it at them. What did you expect them to do? If I walk up to you and punch you in the face every day, then one day you get tired of it and decide to defend yourself, and THAT is the day I decide to shake your hand instead, and you knock my lights out when I approach you, can I really blame you?
On the other hand, what of the kurds who WERE massacred? What of the resistance in kuwait that was massacred? What about the ethnic clensing going on all over the world? Oh, americas fault, I forgot. We MADE them slaughter their own people in the name of religion and power, ok.
The difference between my argument and yours mel is that while I'm concedeing that america isn't entirely innocent, I'm also pointing out that you should also address the inexcuseable actions of other countries who are doing similar things, sometimes even more directly and intentionally rather than accidently. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No. You didn't make them.
<b>We</b> armed and trained them, however and gave them support in the UN and financial aid when their opposition of Iran suited us. So in a manner of speaking, yes America is responsible. As is Britain, France and a number of other countries in the West.
what I am doing is saying these people have died, and they probably wouldnt have died had american troops not shot them. simple as.
and actually i was simply trying to shut up absentic, whos been getting on my nerves to be honest.
I think this concludes this thread, it is obvious you are yet again a person who has a big mouth and uses it to spew "facts" about things he has no clue about.
No, in a manner of speaking, america is PARTLY responsable for SOME of the senseless killings. Guys, needless killing and bad policies have been around LONG before america and will be around long after we're gone. Just because it's a small time thing; some warlord in some obscure country killing his own people, does not mean it's any less unjust. It's a universal problem we have on our hands, and although america is in the spotlight right now and we're focusing on it, just don't forget.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->look, im not trying to say iraq are some holy nation incapable of doing wrong.
what I am doing is saying these people have died, and they probably wouldnt have died had american troops not shot them. simple as<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There you go; thats all I was asking for. Just acknowledge at least when you point out some of the flaws in american actions and policy that other people are doing similar things, your just not referring to america at the moment in specific. This way it doesn't sound like your excusing them.
since you came to this board you have done nothing but attack others based on your 'highly educated' views which usually involve telling people they are idiots, or just straight up denying thing.
you have offered NO EVEIDENCE to back up a single thing you have said.
you refuse to read peoples points (or at least you dont understand them).
and your arrogance is really doing my head in.