PDA

View Full Version : War in Iraq? Worth it or not?



Andover[yT]
11-02-2005, 05:19 PM
Personally , I agree with it since we did get rid of Saddam and as much as i hate to say it... Our US backed goverment over there beats Saddams Rule anyday.

Ok, we never found those WMD's but we knew we were there cuz we even gave him some during operation Desert Shield.

Vote on the poll and post your reasons

IversonAli3
11-02-2005, 05:51 PM
']Personally , I agree with it since we did get rid of Saddam and as much as i hate to say it... Our US backed goverment over there beats Saddams Rule anyday.

Ok, we never found those WMD's but we knew we were there cuz we even gave him some during operation Desert Shield.

Vote on the poll and post your reasons
If I stated all the reasons we should not have gone, I would be typing all ngiht, so i'll try and keep it short.

First, I have no idea where you got the idea that we gave Sadaam nuclear weapons, it never happened. Operation Desert shield was put into action to protect Arab nations from invading Iraqi forces. The United States was AGAINST Sadaam, not with him.

Secondly, The Bush administration pushed the UN inspectors out and did not let them continue the search for WMD, even though the Iraqi government was cooperating. Sadaam Hussein also agreed to be Exiled from his country when he saw that the U.S. planned to invade, but we ignored that request and went in anyways. The Bush Administration created false intel, and used untrustworthy intelligence in their reason to go to war. That's not only wrong, but illegal.

Thirdly, please remember the reason we went into Iraq in the first place, to retrieve any WMD. Once there were no WMD to be found, the whole reason for invasion shifted to removal of Sadaam Hussein. Before the invasion, removing Sadaam hussein from power for the sake of Iraqi citizens was hardly talked about.
Also, the Iraq war has removed Sadaam Hussein from power, Yes. But it has also fueled anti-american sentiment all around the world, which puts us in a worse position than ever before. We are extremely lucky terrorists have not attacked us harder than ever before, but thats just a matter or time. The Iraq war has driven this country into an almost irreversible bankruptcy. This country is so in debt that if the bird flu ever broke out we would not be able to afford vaccines for 90% of the population.
Iraq posed NO threat to the United States whatsoever, our freedom was never on the line. The first time in the history of this country that we were the aggressors that incited a war.
Due to our presence in Iraq, more people have died because of us than of Sadaam Hussein. Are we really doing them a favor? That country is in more turmoil that ever before. Democracy will never work there, and once we find out there is no more money to be had, we will leave our puppet government alone in Iraq to be torn to shreads by the various rebel groups. Vietnam, anyone?

So tell me, what has the United States of America gained from going to war with Iraq?

Ikji
11-02-2005, 06:37 PM
My reasoning is simple: I liked Saddam therefore I am against the war. While talking about O. Desert Storm: Saddam did ask our ambassador(sp?) about it, our representative said that we do not care about Middle East politics. Our answer was a lie, since we have been involved in the Middle East since Roosevelt I believe. The region has always been a back drop on our foreign policy until awhile ago (10-30 yrs). To secure ourselves oil has been our number one goal since the beginning.
About securing democracy, we defended Kuwait - which is an absolute monarchy so that theory is worthless.

IversonAli3
11-02-2005, 07:18 PM
Did anyone else see that news report about bushes reasoning to go to war?

Bush claimed god talked to him and told him to go to war. Im serious, it was hilarious, he was talking to middle eastern leaders and he said, "God said, George, you gotta make a palestinian state and get Sadaam out".

Heres the article. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051006/ts_alt_afp/mideastbritainusiraq_051006214432)

Ikji
11-02-2005, 07:25 PM
Did anyone else see that news report about bushes reasoning to go to war?

Bush claimed god talked to him and told him to go to war. Im serious, it was hilarious, he was talking to middle eastern leaders and he said, "God said, George, you gotta make a palestinian state and get Sadaam out".

Heres the article. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051006/ts_alt_afp/mideastbritainusiraq_051006214432)
That wasn't funny at all - it was rather scary. To think that our leader is following "God." Our country is being led by a nut, to put it bluntly.

Andover[yT]
11-02-2005, 08:26 PM
Your History is quite wrong , there were 2 operations that occured. The first was Operation Desert Shield , in which we protected Iraq from harm which included giving him WMD which were a deterrant for other countrys to attack Iraq. Then it turned into Operation Desert Storm , where we invaded Iraq and Bush SR. could have removed Saddam Right there.

Edit: Fixed the name of the wars

Ikji
11-02-2005, 08:33 PM
']Your History is quite wrong , there were 2 operations that occured. The first was Operation Desert Storm , in which we protected Iraq from harm which included giving him WMD which were a deterrant for other countrys to attack Iraq. Then it turned into Operation Desert Storm , where we invaded Iraq and Bush SR. could have removed Saddam Right there.

You said Desert Storm twice. I think you are referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's in which we gave Iraq weapons. (the first one)

I was referring to Desert Storm (early 90's).

Andover[yT]
11-02-2005, 08:36 PM
You said Desert Storm twice. I think you are referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's in which we gave Iraq weapons. (the first one)

I was referring to Desert Storm (early 90's).

fixed it , thanks for pointing that out.

That is another example though of us giving Iraq weapons

llafnwod
11-02-2005, 08:40 PM
My reasoning is simple: I liked Saddam therefore I am against the war.Hooray for Kurd gassing! Why?

Ikji
11-02-2005, 08:42 PM
']fixed it , thanks for pointing that out.

That is another example though of us giving Iraq weapons


"Operation Desert Shield

In 1990, fellow Arab Gulf states refused to endorse Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's plan to cut production and raise the price of oil, leaving him frustrated and paranoid. Iraq had incurred a mountain of debt during its war with Iran that had lasted for most of the previous decade, and the Iraqi President felt that his Arab brothers were conspiring against him by refusing to raise oil prices. Therefore, after weeks of massing troops along the Iraq-Kuwait border and accusing Kuwait of various crimes, Hussein sent seven divisions of the Iraqi Army into Kuwait in the early morning hours of 2 August 1990. The invasion force of 120,000 troops and 2,000 tanks quickly overwhelmed Iraq's neighbor to the south, allowing Hussein to declare, in less than a week, that Kuwait was his nation's nineteenth province. The United Nations responded quickly, passing a series of resolutions that condemned the invasion, called for an immediate withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, imposed a financial and trade embargo on Iraq, and declared the annexation void.

Regarding Iraq's actions as a threat to a vital interest of the US, namely the oil production capability of the Persian Gulf region, President George Bush ordered warplanes and ground forces to Saudi Arabia after obtaining King Fahd's approval. Iraqi troops had begun to mass along the Saudi border, breaching it at some points, and indicating the possibility that Hussein's forces would continue south into Saudi Arabia's oil fields. Operation DESERT SHIELD, the US military deployment to first defend Saudi Arabia grew rapidly to become the largest American deployment since the Southeast Asia Conflict. The Gulf region was within US Central Command's (CENTCOM) area of responsibility. Eventually, 30 nations joined the military coalition arrayed against Iraq, with a further 18 countries supplying economic, humanitarian, or other type of assistance.

Carriers in the Gulf of Oman and the Red Sea responded, US Air Force interceptors deployed from bases in the United States, and airlift transports carried US Army airborne troopers to Saudi Arabia. Navy prepositioning ships rushed equipment and supplies for an entire marine brigade from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to the gulf. During the next six months the United States and its allies built up a powerful force in the Arabian peninsula. The navy also began maritime intercept operations in support of a US-led blockade and United Nations sanctions against Iraq.

On 17 January 1991, when it became clear that Saddam would not withdraw, Desert Shield became Desert Storm. " -http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/desert_shield.htm

Desert Shield became Desert Storm. We didn't give Iraq weapons during this time, it was in the 80's when Iraq was at war with Iran.




@llafnwod: "Gassing Kurds

Some 30 million Kurds are spread over Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria, a unique non-Arab people divided by colonial borders and modern wars. Kurds in northern Iraq make up 15 – 20 percent of the country's total population. Their struggle for independence and ethnic differences led to ongoing struggles with Saddam's regime.

Perhaps the single biggest human-rights abuse of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime is the chemical weapons attack against the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988. An estimated 5,000 civilians were killed in revenge for the Kurds' perceived backing of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war." Gassing is efficient and instills fear into people.

llafnwod
11-02-2005, 08:58 PM
Perhaps the single biggest human-rights abuse of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime is the chemical weapons attack against the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988. An estimated 5,000 civilians were killed in revenge for the Kurds' perceived backing of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war." Gassing is efficient and instills fear into people.:lol: You know you're what's wrong with the world, right? Lord, I wish you could get a nice taste of mustard gas now, you sub-Machiavellian ****.

Orchidomegaly
11-02-2005, 10:17 PM
The first time in the history of this country that we were the aggressors that incited a war.


I don't know exactly what you mean here, but i believe we were the agressors in every war exept the world wars and the revolution. Ex. war 1812, veitnam, bay of pigs?

Anyway i do believe that the cost of this war has greatly outweight the benefits, but there are a few good things that happen.

1. As more time goes by the oil prices will fall, (yes i feel dirty even saying it but i believe its true)
2. Sadam Hussein was a horrible dictator and the world is better without him (overlooking the lives that were spent :( )
3. A successful democracy in the middle east could be very influential to other nations and spread democracy.
4. It showed the terrorist that the consequences of their recent actions were very bad for their Arab nation.

IversonAli3
11-02-2005, 10:18 PM
Your History is quite wrong , there were 2 operations that occured. The first was Operation Desert Shield , in which we protected Iraq from harm which included giving him WMD which were a deterrant for other countrys to attack Iraq. Then it turned into Operation Desert Storm , where we invaded Iraq and Bush SR. could have removed Saddam Right there.


Don't tell me you think we gave them any more than conventional weapons. Do you seriously think we gave them WMD, if we did, they would of definately used them against Iran. Sadaam was extremely desperate, thats why he used the chemical weapons.

The whole idea of us giving Iraq any conventional weapons at all is controversial itself. You really need to get up to date with your information.


I don't know exactly what you mean here, but i believe we were the agressors in every war exept the world wars and the revolution. Ex. war 1812, veitnam, bay of pigs?

War of 1812, the British incited the war due to various acts they committed.
Bay of Pigs, lol, this isnt considered a war.
Vietnam, The north Vietnamese technically attacked first and were the aggressors in the war. They shot down 2 US helicopters before we went to war with them. After that incident, the US Armed forces were told to fire at will.

llafnwod
11-02-2005, 10:32 PM
What were those helicopters doing there in the first place? Diplomatic mission?

IversonAli3
11-02-2005, 10:34 PM
That's not the point llafnwod! :lol:

Anyways, we didn't start the war, the South Vietnamese did. We simply jumped in to prevent the spread of communism, and boy did that backfire.

Orchidomegaly
11-02-2005, 11:15 PM
what about the mexican war? sure they attacked one of our outpost first, but come on it was on their soil. So maybe we don't always initiate the violence, but we do cause it. Anyway sorry to go off on a tangent again...

IversonAli3
11-02-2005, 11:27 PM
Yes, but thats not even comparable to the aggression we displayed by going to war with Iraq.

Orchidomegaly
11-02-2005, 11:35 PM
Yes back on topic. The reasons we were given for going to war were the most ridiculous ones in history. One reason i think bush wanted to got to war that not many people think about, was he wanted to make a place in history for him. Most the presedents that are actually remembered by the general public were presedent during a war.

Andover[yT]
11-03-2005, 09:11 AM
:lol: You know you're what's wrong with the world, right? Lord, I wish you could get a nice taste of mustard gas now, you sub-Machiavellian ****.

I Beg of you admins and mods to PLEASE show respect to other peoples opinions, please set an example by fallowing the rules I put in play here so others will fallow the examples you set.

-Andover[yT]
ICG Mod

Akazukin
11-03-2005, 10:43 AM
Hi all, I'm on the oppose team.

War in Iraq is definately worth it.

A president's job is to ensure security, production and happiness of the civilians. The problem : Saddam supports Terrorism. Iraq's region is unstable. All the oil are belong to them. Now, the President cannot do nothing. He must :

1. Invade Iraq to combat terrorism.
2. Create a 'quick attack' (unlike vietnam).
3. Put some government there to get cheap oil.
4. Stable Iraq's region.

If time could be reversed, the president should do the same, but with better strategies.

....

Hmm I can only write in a republican's perspective. Thus I have confidence to conclude that only republicans will support the war on Iraq. Really nothing much to write if you wish to support the attack.

IversonAli3
11-03-2005, 01:07 PM
Hi all, I'm on the oppose team.

War in Iraq is definately worth it.
I've been wating to lure you into this thread, now the great Akazukin will do battle.

Since you have so many errors in your logic, I have no choice but to break it down into individual statements.



A president's job is to ensure security, production and happiness of the civilians. The problem : Saddam supports Terrorism. Iraq's region is unstable. All the oil are belong to them. Now, the President cannot do nothing.
Do you think Iraq is and will ever be as stable as when Saddam was in power? He was a brutal leader, and kept his country in check with an iron fist, there was nothing more stable.


All the oil are belong to them
:lol:
That's right, it's theirs and they can choose to do with it as they want. Surely the United states, the police dogs of the world know this.



1. Invade Iraq to combat terrorism.

That's humorous. Our invasion of Iraq has only fed terrorism and has fueled anti-American animosity. The world is at least 5 times more dangerous now than before we ever went in. 9/11 ≠ Iraq
And let me remind you, Osamah Bin Laden is still a free man.



2. Create a 'quick attack' (unlike vietnam).

I believe the motto was 'shock and awe':lol:, yet casualties are rising faster now, almost 2 1/2 years later. I'm surprised not one of the thousands of military advisors this country has spoke up and confronted him about it...oh wait they did...and they were fired instantly.
Quick attack ≠ Escalating guerilla warfare


3. Put some government there to get cheap oil.

Are you seriously using this point to defend the war? This is a prime fact anti-war people use. Youre basically saying killing thousands of innocent people is justifiable as long as we get their oil? Last time I checked oil prices were at an all time high.


4. Stable Iraq's region.

Iraq is on the brink of civil war, there are numerous terrorist rebel groups killing civilians and our servicemen. Iran has called for Israel to be wiped off the map, Syria is secretly letting terrorists slip through their borders into Iraq. Stable?
On a side note;
When a reporter jokingly asked Condoleeza Rice if she would think the United States would be out of Iraq within 10 years, she responded with "I'm just not sure about that".
Iraq's region, commonly known as the middle east, is currently as unstable as when the Crusades were taking place. And there is no break on the horizon to look forward to, its only getting worse.



If time could be reversed, the president should do the same, but with better strategies.
If time could be reversed Bush would have never been voted into office, if the people had known he'd destroy the country and economy. His approval ratings are in the high 30's - low 40's



Hmm I can only write in a republican's perspective. Thus I have confidence to conclude that only republicans will support the war on Iraq.

I know many many people who are republican that voted against bush. I now people who are in Iraq now that are against Bush and the war. That's a false assumption.


Really nothing much to write if you wish to support the attack.
Want to know why? Surprise! Because we have accomplished nothing, therefore there isnt anything to brag about!

DA(
11-03-2005, 01:22 PM
Nicely done, Ali.

llafnwod
11-03-2005, 03:35 PM
']I Beg of you admins and mods to PLEASE show respect to other peoples opinions, please set an example by fallowing the rules I put in play here so others will fallow the examples you set.

-Andover[yT]
ICG ModPerhaps you should look at the opinion I was responding to.
Perhaps the single biggest human-rights abuse of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime is the chemical weapons attack against the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988. An estimated 5,000 civilians were killed in revenge for the Kurds' perceived backing of Iran during the Iran-Iraq war." Gassing is efficient and instills fear into people.But I understand. Obviously the wanton murder of thousands of innocent people is nothing compared to pointing out a person's ridiculously skewered opinion.

Ikji
11-03-2005, 03:42 PM
Perhaps you should look at the opinion I was responding to.But I understand. Obviously the wanton murder of thousands of innocent people is nothing compared to pointing out a person's ridiculously skewered opinion.

Truman ordered the atomic bomb to be dropped twice on Japanese soil, was that wrong also for you, too?

llafnwod
11-03-2005, 03:48 PM
Truman ordered the atomic bomb to be dropped twice on Japanese soil, was that wrong also for you, too?Yes. Don't try to look for self-contradiction in me, you won't find it.

Ikji
11-03-2005, 03:58 PM
Yes. Don't try to look for self-contradiction in me, you won't find it.
For me, I see the gassing of the Kurds and the dropping of the atomic bomb as the same thing. The purpose was to kill the enemy and let them be aware of the power that we possess so they give in, surrender if you will; come to the other side. Also, I feel no sympathy for inferior peoples.

llafnwod
11-03-2005, 04:00 PM
For me, I see the gassing of the Kurds and the dropping of the atomic bomb as the same thing. The purpose was to kill the enemy and let them be aware of the power that we possess so they give in, surrender if you will; come to the other side.Yes, and I am against both.
Also, I feel no sympathy for inferior peoples.Sorry, what makes the Kurds inferior to you?

Ikji
11-03-2005, 04:06 PM
Yes, and I am against both.Sorry, what makes the Kurds inferior to you?
No offence to anyone here, but it is their religion. I hate the Abrahamic religion called Islam which has troubled the western world for centuries. To make it fair, I am not too fond of Christianity or Judaism. Christianity held the west back during the dark ages while my opinion on the other is far too controversial to discuss, I'll probably get banned for elaborating on that.

llafnwod
11-03-2005, 04:07 PM
No offence to anyone here, but it is their religion. I hate the Abrahamic religion called Islam which has troubled the western world for centuries. To make it fair, I am not too fond of Christianity or Judaism. Christianity held the west back during the dark ages while my opinion on the other is far too controversial to discuss, I'll probably get banned for elaborating on that.I'll make an exception for your next post, go on.

Ikji
11-03-2005, 04:32 PM
My problem with the Jews begins with their excessive victimization. They have been victimized since the beginning of civilization. Ancient Egypt, Rome, the Middle Eastern Empires, Germany, ect.
The modern state of Israel was attacked by Arab "terrorists." Were they terrorists or freedom fighters fighting for their own land. After ww2 Israel was established as a state because of the Holocaust. They had been kicked out of that land thousands of years before, there home should not have been established there. Now they are the victims there, while the Arabs are played as the enemies who form alliances of evil against this small country.
There is no mention of the Jewish crimes that have been committed. I find the most appalling event was when a Jew entered a Mosque and fired randomly at a crowd praying.
When a person says anything "bad" about Jews today, they are condemned. They are supposed to be little angels who should never be accused of wrong doing.
Furthermore, I find their race as greedy. I shall use a language perspective to futher this idea. Once while looking up the language Hebrew I came accross Jewish site after Jewish site offering to teach it. Did I find many free lessons? No, almost every single site required payment. I can tell from experience, that for almost every other language course this is not true.
I also have a problem with the current war. The Jewish influence is strong. We are fighting a war for Israel, remember that Saddam offered payment to suicide bombers. For Israel, our war is only a plus.

Belphegor
11-03-2005, 05:29 PM
If I stated all the reasons we should not have gone, I would be typing all ngiht, so i'll try and keep it short.

First, I have no idea where you got the idea that we gave Sadaam nuclear weapons, it never happened. Operation Desert shield was put into action to protect Arab nations from invading Iraqi forces. The United States was AGAINST Sadaam, not with him.

Secondly, The Bush administration pushed the UN inspectors out and did not let them continue the search for WMD, even though the Iraqi government was cooperating. Sadaam Hussein also agreed to be Exiled from his country when he saw that the U.S. planned to invade, but we ignored that request and went in anyways. The Bush Administration created false intel, and used untrustworthy intelligence in their reason to go to war. That's not only wrong, but illegal.

Thirdly, please remember the reason we went into Iraq in the first place, to retrieve any WMD. Once there were no WMD to be found, the whole reason for invasion shifted to removal of Sadaam Hussein. Before the invasion, removing Sadaam hussein from power for the sake of Iraqi citizens was hardly talked about.
Also, the Iraq war has removed Sadaam Hussein from power, Yes. But it has also fueled anti-american sentiment all around the world, which puts us in a worse position than ever before. We are extremely lucky terrorists have not attacked us harder than ever before, but thats just a matter or time. The Iraq war has driven this country into an almost irreversible bankruptcy. This country is so in debt that if the bird flu ever broke out we would not be able to afford vaccines for 90% of the population.
Iraq posed NO threat to the United States whatsoever, our freedom was never on the line. The first time in the history of this country that we were the aggressors that incited a war.
Due to our presence in Iraq, more people have died because of us than of Sadaam Hussein. Are we really doing them a favor? That country is in more turmoil that ever before. Democracy will never work there, and once we find out there is no more money to be had, we will leave our puppet government alone in Iraq to be torn to shreads by the various rebel groups. Vietnam, anyone?

So tell me, what has the United States of America gained from going to war with Iraq?I agree with almost every statement in this post, excluding the ones on our deals with Iraq, with WMD. When I go back to school monday, Ill get my notes on what I was informed happened.

I believe that we did in fact give them WMD, purely for boasting reasons. Otherwise they most probably would have been invaded instantly. I also believe the chemicals had a "expiration date".

As for Saddam, like Hitler I believe he was a intelligent man. Although I do not believe in him killing his own people, it's far better then other countries.

llafnwod
11-03-2005, 07:25 PM
My problem with the Jews begins with their excessive victimization. They have been victimized since the beginning of civilization. Ancient Egypt, Rome, the Middle Eastern Empires, Germany, ect.
The modern state of Israel was attacked by Arab "terrorists." Were they terrorists or freedom fighters fighting for their own land. After ww2 Israel was established as a state because of the Holocaust. They had been kicked out of that land thousands of years before, there home should not have been established there. Now they are the victims there, while the Arabs are played as the enemies who form alliances of evil against this small country.
There is no mention of the Jewish crimes that have been committed. I find the most appalling event was when a Jew entered a Mosque and fired randomly at a crowd praying.
When a person says anything "bad" about Jews today, they are condemned. They are supposed to be little angels who should never be accused of wrong doing.
Furthermore, I find their race as greedy. I shall use a language perspective to futher this idea. Once while looking up the language Hebrew I came accross Jewish site after Jewish site offering to teach it. Did I find many free lessons? No, almost every single site required payment. I can tell from experience, that for almost every other language course this is not true.
I also have a problem with the current war. The Jewish influence is strong. We are fighting a war for Israel, remember that Saddam offered payment to suicide bombers. For Israel, our war is only a plus.I don't understand why you think you would be banned for any of this. You provided enough backing for each of your point that, though I might not agree with all of them (your stance on Jew victimization I agree with), I haven't reason nor will to ban you.
remember that Saddam offered payment to suicide bombers:rofl:

JLTucker
11-03-2005, 08:00 PM
I believe that we should get attacked again, based on the info Iverson gave in his first post in this thread.

llafnwod
11-03-2005, 08:05 PM
I believe that we should get attacked again, based on the info Iverson gave in his first post in this thread.Hah. I notice that's "we", not "I". Bit undesirable to be directly on the receiving end, eh?

Ikji
11-04-2005, 06:19 AM
I believe that we should all try to live in a world of peace, but that is idealistic and with my primitive racist views I do not believe that this is possible. I try to eliminate my racist views, but I am not sure how to explain the world without some standpoint which is sound. To say that we should be attacked again, though - that is immature and childish.

llafnwod
11-04-2005, 02:38 PM
Knowing that areas with heavy black population are more prone to crime is not racism, it's simple fact. Racism is the belief that a member of a specific race regardless of how they are raised or what conditions they are subject to are in some way inferior to another race. I most certainly do not believe all black people are prone to crime, or even that those brought up in stereotypical Compton-type conditions must be. I simply know that, due to conditions forged by history and current discrimination, areas that have a high black population generally have more petty crime.

DA(
11-04-2005, 06:43 PM
You mean stereotyping not racisim.

llafnwod
11-04-2005, 06:46 PM
You mean stereotyping not racisim.I don't mean either of those. I mean racism.

DA(
11-04-2005, 06:54 PM
Opps, an extra I. I'm serious, that was a typo.

llafnwod
11-04-2005, 06:58 PM
I know, I was being a jackass.

Stewie
11-06-2005, 06:54 PM
No because George W. Bush's main purpose was to find Weapons of Mass Destruction such as Biological and Chemical weapons made by Saddam Hussian, sure he did overthrow Saddam. But has he ever find the "Weapons of Mass Destruction" the answer is no. He's lost over 2,000 U.S. Soldiers, and as well for Iraqi civlians ever think of that? Many of the civilians die each day by the car bombings. Right now, Iraq is in a civil war since the Insergents want Iraq to be this way and the civilians to be another way. But I say no because George W. Bush's main goal was to find Weapons of Mass Destruction. Right now, Geroge Bush is funding billions of dollars into the Iraq War, he doesn't have much money to help people from the Hurricanes down in the Gulf Coast, if he wants to help the Gulf Coast, he's gonna have to higher taxes, or borrow money. Thus I am against the war in Iraq. Iraq was not even a threat, it was just a small bump and didn't become a threat for the US. In fact even when Saddam was in control, less people died than today. Today more Iraqi civlians die. Either way the Iraqi civlians get raped. But I'm against the war. Right now, Iraq is an unstable country, it's not balanced in anything. There's always gunfire 24/7. The president will have to think a better strategy to help Iraq.

banana_sam
11-06-2005, 08:18 PM
My problem with the Jews begins with their excessive victimization. They have been victimized since the beginning of civilization. Ancient Egypt, Rome, the Middle Eastern Empires, Germany, ect.
The modern state of Israel was attacked by Arab "terrorists." Were they terrorists or freedom fighters fighting for their own land. After ww2 Israel was established as a state because of the Holocaust. They had been kicked out of that land thousands of years before, there home should not have been established there. Now they are the victims there, while the Arabs are played as the enemies who form alliances of evil against this small country.
There is no mention of the Jewish crimes that have been committed. I find the most appalling event was when a Jew entered a Mosque and fired randomly at a crowd praying.
When a person says anything "bad" about Jews today, they are condemned. They are supposed to be little angels who should never be accused of wrong doing.
Furthermore, I find their race as greedy. I shall use a language perspective to futher this idea. Once while looking up the language Hebrew I came accross Jewish site after Jewish site offering to teach it. Did I find many free lessons? No, almost every single site required payment. I can tell from experience, that for almost every other language course this is not true.
I also have a problem with the current war. The Jewish influence is strong. We are fighting a war for Israel, remember that Saddam offered payment to suicide bombers. For Israel, our war is only a plus.What anti-Semitic garbage. An individual buffoon that fired upon a Mosque should not be considered as signs of Jewish conspiracy, and I can't imagine how having to pay for Hebrew lessons is a crime.

Bottom line, there is no excuse to hate another race, none at all. Now run home, turn on your TV, and watch Schindler's List. Try not to laugh you racist pig.

Akazukin
11-07-2005, 07:24 AM
I've found many wrongs from the support team as well.


He was a brutal leader, and kept his country in check with an iron fist, there was nothing more stable.
Under saddam's leadership, everyone live in fear. It's like a corrupted police force. If you dont do what they want, you get it. After Saddam's fall, his officers were captured. Why will Ali3 (support team) call this a stable government? It's like an occupation by another country and everyone were prisoners of war. If the civilians cannot overthrow Saddam, the US should help.


That's right, it's theirs (oil) and they can choose to do with it as they want.
What have Saddam do with his oil? he tried using it as a political weapon. US were blammed for supporting Israel, and oil shipments were cut during Saddam's rule. The US had exchange food for oil for Iraq's civilians, if oil was cut because Saddam feels like it, then the US should help the Iraq civilians and her own economy by throwing Saddam away.


That's humorous. Our invasion of Iraq has only fed terrorism and has fueled anti-American animosity.
Please remember that Iraq is a supporter of Terrorism. What if the US had did nothing? the whole middle East will be targets of Terrorism (although not US). Iraq will continue to support terrorist by giving money and weapons (sponsors). After 911, I'm sure many of us can understand how cruel terrorists can be. Some selfish souls have argued that the attack of IRAQ caused terrorism on US. I say thankfully we have stopped the sponsor and saved billions of life on the middle east.


You're basically saying killing thousands of innocent people is justifiable as long as we get their oil?.
This is a critical point. Most people from the support team will argue about those innocent Iraq civilians. However, what has happened before the invasion? Iraq civilians were hungry, they died of heart attacks and illness. The death rate was even higher. Their Leader, Saddam, does not care for his people. Iraq has no proper law and order. Oftenly there were sucide bombers exploding themselves in market places, killing more innocent women and children then the US attack. If you want justice, US soldiers who were charged with killing officers will face death penalty. Please do not forget what has happened to Russia's revolution, and we should not repeat history. The Iraq invasion have actually saved more people in the long term.


I know many many people who are republican that voted against bush.
If your 'many many' is 100, then those republican who support bush should be 900 or more, because a republican is someone who plans for long term benefits.

[quote=IversonAli3]Want to know why? Surprise! Because we have accomplished nothing.
The new governing council was an archivement. However, Iraq civilians thought that this is an invasion. This is actually a helping hand given to them, only it has backfired. When I give you $2 and you slap me, am I wrong to give you something? no.

I hope the wise members from the support team will realise what the US have done is a necessary move for long term benefits, and not an 'invasion' evil plan.

War in Iraq, a necessary move? what a President should do? worth it? Yes.

banana_sam
11-07-2005, 07:57 AM
I commend your effort Akazukin, but keep in mind that there are no teams. Just state your own opinion on the matter. A debate will create itself eventually, don't worry.

Akazukin
11-07-2005, 08:44 AM
Ok, I'll do that :)

IversonAli3
11-07-2005, 08:53 AM
I'm glad you responded, Akazukin.

I've found many wrongs from the support team as well.

Under saddam's leadership, everyone live in fear. It's like a corrupted police force. If you dont do what they want, you get it. After Saddam's fall, his officers were captured. Why will Ali3 (support team) call this a stable government? It's like an occupation by another country and everyone were prisoners of war. If the civilians cannot overthrow Saddam, the US should help.
You don't understand what stability is. No matter how morally wrong a government is, it can still be extremely stable.
Heres a definition of Stable;
<LI type=a>Resistant to change of position or condition; not easily moved or disturbed: <CITE>a house built on stable ground; a stable platform.</CITE> <LI type=a>Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation: <CITE>a stable economy; a stable currency.</CITE>
2. Enduring or permanent: a stable peace
Maintaining equilibrium; self-restoring: <CITE>a stable aircraft.</CITE>
And for you to say the people should overthrow Sadaam because they didnt like him.. Does that mean we should overthrow our own government because 90% of the worlds population hates the United States? What gives us the right to choose what governments are good and should stay, and who are bad and need to be invaded? We were never appointed to be the watchguards of the middle east, thats what the United Nations is for. An organization we spit on, and kicked to the side of the road by invading Iraq.




What have Saddam do with his oil? he tried using it as a political weapon. US were blammed for supporting Israel, and oil shipments were cut during Saddam's rule. The US had exchange food for oil for Iraq's civilians, if oil was cut because Saddam feels like it, then the US should help the Iraq civilians and her own economy by throwing Saddam away.
Every country uses Its own natural resources as a political tool. If the United States doesnt like someone, they cut trade relations and deprive that country of our exports. That country suffers for a while until it gives in to our demands. This is known as an embargo or a sanction, and is not illegal.
Again, The United States has no right to invade a country on these premesis. The oil belonged to Iraq, and they could do with it as they please. If they wanted to burn it off, they could. If they wanted to stop shipping to the United States, they could.
The "oil for food" project was a complete failure, It was plagued with corruption, and Sadaam Hussein made billions of dollars for himself.
Click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4445609.stm) to read more about the "Oil for food" scandal
What the United States did was a "fine, if we can't have the oil, neither can you".
Also, let me remind you that Sadaam Hussein agreed to be exiled from his country before the Invasion, but it was rejected.



Please remember that Iraq is a supporter of Terrorism. What if the US had did nothing? the whole middle East will be targets of Terrorism (although not US). Iraq will continue to support terrorist by giving money and weapons (sponsors). After 911, I'm sure many of us can understand how cruel terrorists can be. Some selfish souls have argued that the attack of IRAQ caused terrorism on US. I say thankfully we have stopped the sponsor and saved billions of life on the middle east.
There are so many errors here, youre really making it hard on me.


What if the US had did nothing? the whole middle East will be targets of Terrorism (although not US).
The middle east is the home of all these "Terrorists", if the United States would have stayed out, there would be no reason for them to attack Iraq. The only reason they are attacking Iraq right now is because the United States claims it is their's, and the only reason they attack Saudi Arabia is because their government is a puppet for the US. Your claim that the entire middle east would be targets is completely absurd.


Some selfish souls have argued that the attack of IRAQ caused terrorism on US. I say thankfully we have stopped the sponsor and saved billions of life on the middle east.
I guess I'm one of those 'selfish souls' then. With all the hundreds of billions of dollars spent, the mastermind and leader of Al-Qaeda is still on the loose. The entire eastern hemisphere is swarming with people who hate the United States. Sadaam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. He didnt have an idea it was going to happen, and his ties with Osamah bin Laden were extremely limited. Because of the Invasion, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have come in the crossfire between Insurgents and US servicemen.
Were not saving lives over there, we're taking them.

.


This is a critical point. Most people from the support team will argue about those innocent Iraq civilians. However, what has happened before the invasion? Iraq civilians were hungry, they died of heart attacks and illness. The death rate was even higher. Their Leader, Saddam, does not care for his people. Iraq has no proper law and order.
People die of hunger and heart attacks in the United States too, if I'm not mistaken. And your wrong, more people have died due to our invasion of Iraq, than due to Sadaam Husseins treatment of his people. Statistics don't lie.


Oftenly there were sucide bombers exploding themselves in market places, killing more innocent women and children then the US attack.
Before the US invasion, there has never been a case of a suicide bomber in Iraq. Where the hell do you get your information from? I challenge you to find me one piece of evidence saying otherwise.


If you want justice, US soldiers who were charged with killing officers will face death penalty. Please do not forget what has happened to Russia's revolution, and we should not repeat history. The Iraq invasion have actually saved more people in the long term.
Wrong, the people brought to justice account for maybe 1% of the actual perpetrators. The United States is simply using them as scape goats and are making examples out of them.
I do not see the onnection you are trying to make between the Russian Revolution and whats going on now. Maybe because no connection exists. History will repeat itself no matter what we do or no matter how hard we try to stop it from happening.

I think in the long run, we're heading down a long, dark and bloody path that will eventuallly lead to the loss of millions of lives and bankruptcy for this country. No country lasts forever, and the United States is not an exception. The golden age of this country has come to an end.



If your 'many many' is 100, then those republican who support bush should be 900 or more, because a republican is someone who plans for long term benefits.

The new governing council was an archivement. However, Iraq civilians thought that this is an invasion. This is actually a helping hand given to them, only it has backfired. When I give you $2 and you slap me, am I wrong to give you something? no.

I hope the wise members from the support team will realise what the US have done is a necessary move for long term benefits, and not an 'invasion' evil plan.

War in Iraq, a necessary move? what a President should do? worth it? Yes.
The new governing council is a hand-puppet of the United States, and everyone knows it. Iraq has lost its freedom and sovereignity. The majority of the United States may not see it, but the world does. Why do you think the United States is the most hated country in the world right now? People are not as naive as you, and can understand that the United States does not care about anyone but themselves. And that we are willing to kill thousands of people for our own profit and gain...but this plan has backfired in our faces. We are leaft with a 'Vietnam-style' situation, and I'm quite certain this war will end just like Vietnam did.
We have no 'long-run' plan, because we don;t have enough money to support this war for much longer.

Ikji
11-07-2005, 03:03 PM
What anti-Semitic garbage. An individual buffoon that fired upon a Mosque should not be considered as signs of Jewish conspiracy, and I can't imagine how having to pay for Hebrew lessons is a crime.

Bottom line, there is no excuse to hate another race, none at all. Now run home, turn on your TV, and watch Schindler's List. Try not to laugh you racist pig.
I never said it was a Jewish conspiracy and I never said that paying for lessons was a crime. Please actually read my statement and analyze it without your socialized bias :).
And about Jews being killed during WW2, I feel no sympathy for them, but I do not find it comical.

llafnwod
11-07-2005, 03:15 PM
Please remember that Iraq is a supporter of Terrorism. What if the US had did nothing? the whole middle East will be targets of Terrorism (although not US).News Flash: Terrorism cannot be defeated. There is no determinable number of terrorists, as the term itself is arbitrary and depends entirely on whose using it. Anyone who opposes our blatantly imperialistic cultural and military assaults on the world in labeled a terrorist. Occasionaly, as is the case of France, they won't be called terrorists outright, merely by implication. When CNN conducted a survey on who the US should attack next to combat terrorism, one of the top answers was France (there were other features of this poll that were equally hilarious and depressing, but I won't go into detail on it). So long as any large group of people continue to oppress or encroach on the people or values of any culture, terrorism will not cease to exist.

Ikji
11-07-2005, 03:29 PM
News Flash: Terrorism cannot be defeated. There is no determinable number of terrorists, as the term itself is arbitrary and depends entirely on whose using it. Anyone who opposes our blatantly imperialistic cultural and military assaults on the world in labeled a terrorist. Occasionaly, as is the case of France, they won't be called terrorists outright, merely by implication. When CNN conducted a survey on who the US should attack next to combat terrorism, one of the top answers was France (there were other features of this poll that were equally hilarious and depressing, but I won't go into detail on it). So long as any large group of people continue to oppress or encroach on the people or values of any culture, terrorism will not cease to exist.
End of Human Race: maybe the end of terrorism! Unless those pesky aliens exist and may be terrorists! They shall be called the Republic of Terroristan :).

Americans are ignorant - attack France, that just shows it right there. And yes, llafnwod, you're correct about terrorism.

banana_sam
11-07-2005, 03:57 PM
And about Jews being killed during WW2, I feel no sympathy for them.Why?

Ikji
11-07-2005, 04:44 PM
Why?
They had fair warning of what was to come, they did not heed the warnings. I feel no sympathy for ignorant and stubborn people.