Why we are losing the war in Iraq...

[rbaldino]

Originally Posted by wanabebell
The hatred for Israel is a little more deep than Israel just being a Jewish country
True, but it certainly has nothing to do with them practicing democracy, which was my point. Beyond that, it concerns the mere creation of the state of Israel (which the U.N. did) and territories that Israel occupies (which the arabs lost in wars that they started).

 

[b bauer]

the ans to why we did not go into Afghanistan on 9/12 is that we first asked the taliban gov to turn bin laden over.when they refused then spec ops worked with n alliance to over throw the afgan gov.I am not a Bush fan but on his defense to this is if we went in with out trying to first try diplomacy can you imagine the worlds reaction.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by b bauer
the ans to why we did not go into Afghanistan on 9/12 is that we first asked the taliban gov to turn bin laden over.when they refused then spec ops worked with n alliance to over throw the afgan gov.I am not a Bush fan but on his defense to this is if we went in with out trying to first try diplomacy can you imagine the worlds reaction.
he went in, after using diplomacy for years, and look at the worlds reaction.

 

[reefraff]

The world hates about anything the US does except for giving away money and goods. Been that way for decades.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by rbaldino
True, but it certainly has nothing to do with them practicing democracy, which was my point. Beyond that, it concerns the mere creation of the state of Israel (which the U.N. did) and territories that Israel occupies (which the arabs lost in wars that they started).
I know that this statement is true, but my point is that why would they model themselves after Israel and western goverments if they hate us, regardless of their reasoning why they hate us - why would they want this? For the most part it is against their culture... and if they did do this, party lines would be split between different cutlural/religious sects which would further cause additional violence.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Crimzy, I have always respected your view point....So I will explain thoroughly to you and anyone else that cares my personal view on this war.
In the beginning Iraq was NOT a battle against Al Qaeda. It was however part of the greater war on terror. Every nation and intelligence organization from EVERY major power in the world was agreeing Sadaam was procuring/or had WMDs. So he was violating the Resolutions. Add on top of that he openly announced he would pay terrorist's families money to blow themselves up, especially at Isreal. This is openly supportting Terrorism. Why do you guys ignore this? This part alone justifies our action as part of the war on terror. However, once we defeated the Iraqi Army and Got Sadaam That portion and the "Iraq" war as we knew was over in my estimation. As we had toppled the regime and taken the country (Usual terms that dictate winning a war). It has now turned into a war/peace keeping mission against Jihadists and Al Qaeda.... Which further entrenches it in the war on Terror now. What we are doing now is no different than a peace keeping mission into an african country for instance Kosovo. We a;ready removed Sadaam and his regime which WAS the goal. We are helping set up a government which is what we should be doingh as it is the right thing to do to help the average Iraqi citizen gain a better life.
.
Question- If Saadam was financing terrorist- why are all the terrorist from other countries and not Iraq? Also, why haven't we gone after other countries who are known to support terrorists such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt,...etc...etc...etc...? Second, the reports say that they are not even sure if Sadaam had any ties to Al Queda... This war violated International rules and Bush Admin mislead the U.S people - point blank. I think it's possible that Iraq was better off with Sadaam is power because he controlled the region that detiered the civil war and violence those people are experiencing.
And the violence is going to continue for years as different groups try to take power. Its probably going to be impossible to set up a demorcracy there.
I read the reports and I think about the VTech shooter and that he killed 32-33 people, and in then I think how I hear daily reports over there of 75 dead, 30 dead, 50 dead... etc...etc... day after day... How are we helping that country by what we did?
Also, if all the terrorist are in Iraq- why are places such as the UK and Spain getting hit now?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Question- If Saadam was financing terrorist- why are all the terrorist from other countries and not Iraq? Also, why haven't we gone after other countries who are known to support terrorists such as Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt,...etc...etc...etc...? Second, the reports say that they are not even sure if Sadaam had any ties to Al Queda... This war violated International rules and Bush Admin mislead the U.S people - point blank. I think it's possible that Iraq was better off with Sadaam is power because he controlled the region that detiered the civil war and violence those people are experiencing.
And the violence is going to continue for years as different groups try to take power. Its probably going to be impossible to set up a demorcracy there.
I read the reports and I think about the VTech shooter and that he killed 32-33 people, and in then I think how I hear daily reports over there of 75 dead, 30 dead, 50 dead... etc...etc... day after day... How are we helping that country by what we did?
Also, if all the terrorist are in Iraq- why are places such as the UK and Spain getting hit now?
Ryan, did you read the thread? Many of your questions have already been answered.
Saddam paid Palestinian terrorists.. Are you disupting that?
We are working in countries across the world to capture terrorists... why would you think we aren't?
"President Bush mislead the people"... Read the thread. This has been addressed. EVERY Democratic leader was saying Saddam had WMD's. So if Bush "mislead" the people it was a joint effort. President Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 to destroy their "chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities"..., remember? That's "point blank".
17 UN resolutions were passed demanding Saddam comply. So much for "international" law.
The region was better off with Saddam? I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranian villagers who would disagree.
Many countries have had war remove their governments to support Democracy. Only time will tell if Iraq can be one of them.
As for your last statement... are you saying there are not terrorists in Iraq? Spain got hit to make them withdraw their troops. They caved and withdrew. Not surprisingly to some of us, they continue to have to battle terrorism (kind of defeats the "if we leave Iraq things will get better" mentaility). England is having to deal with terrorists because they have a large population of radical muslims.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Ryan, did you read the thread? Many of your questions have already been answered.
Saddam paid Palestinian terrorists.. Are you disupting that?
We are working in countries across the world to capture terrorists... why would you think we aren't?
"President Bush mislead the people"... Read the thread. This has been addressed. EVERY Democratic leader was saying Saddam had WMD's. So if Bush "mislead" the people it was a joint effort. President Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 to destroy their "chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities"..., remember? That's "point blank".
17 UN resolutions were passed demanding Saddam comply. So much for "international" law.
The region was better off with Saddam? I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of Kurds, Kuwaitis and Iranian villagers who would disagree.
Many countries have had war remove their governments to support Democracy. Only time will tell if Iraq can be one of them.
As for your last statement... are you saying there are not terrorists in Iraq? Spain got hit to make them withdraw their troops. They caved and withdrew. Not surprisingly to some of us, they continue to have to battle terrorism (kind of defeats the "if we leave Iraq things will get better" mentaility). England is having to deal with terrorists because they have a large population of radical muslims.
e
I read the thread, but for us to say that Saadam supports terrorism is a ploy by the U.S to gain support for the war. Do you think we really know everything about this war? Do you think that are military/government will pass information through the media to draw up support? For the terrorists that we were going after are they palestian or are they from other countries? If I recall these terror activities and camps were taking place in other countries and not Iraq.
As for as us being mislead- who do you think they get their information from? Do you think democrats have access to the same information as Pres. Bush and his staff? NO!!!
We violated international law- is this a correct statement? The UN is a league of nations and there are other countries that pose a much more serious threat to us than Iraq. There are other countries and leaders that are responsible for more genocide death that Saadam. There are also other nations to known to have nuclear and biological weapons that are against UN sanctions. There are other nations that finance and harbor terrorist to a much higher degree. ....SO WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON?
Of course there are terrorist in Iraq - I never said there weren't.
To say they are better off right now...I don't think so... you hear about the daily reports of the unemployment rate and how bombers are killing dozens of people everyday. If I was living there I would not feel safe if I stepped one foot out of my home.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
e
I read the thread, but for us to say that Saadam supports terrorism is a ploy by the U.S to gain support for the war. Do you think we really know everything about this war? Do you think that are military/government will pass information through the media to draw up support? For the terrorists that we were going after are they palestian or are they from other countries? If I recall these terror activities and camps were taking place in other countries and not Iraq.
As for as us being mislead- who do you think they get their information from? Do you think democrats have access to the same information as Pres. Bush and his staff? NO!!!
We violated international law- is this a correct statement? The UN is a league of nations and there are other countries that pose a much more serious threat to us than Iraq. There are other countries and leaders that are responsible for more genocide death that Saadam. There are also other nations to known to have nuclear and biological weapons that are against UN sanctions. There are other nations that finance and harbor terrorist to a much higher degree. ....SO WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON?
Of course there are terrorist in Iraq - I never said there weren't.
To say they are better off right now...I don't think so... you hear about the daily reports of the unemployment rate and how bombers are killing dozens of people everyday. If I was living there I would not feel safe if I stepped one foot out of my home.

Ok, first off, Sadaam has been offering money to suicide bombers since the 1990's, this is not something made up by the current administration. So pull your head out and actually acknowledge he helped fund terrorism...not Al Qaeda, but TERRORISM! That is all I have every said.
Second of all, What you see is on the news is small area in Iraq surrounding Baghdad where this stuff is occurring.....The rest of the country is pretty peaceful and free of fighting. Would you determine the state of Texas based off of what is going on in the Dallas area alone?
As for your comment about other countries possibly being worse than Iraq was.....This is a left wing talking point and nothing more. EVERY country in this world has terrorists in them, It is where the LEADERSHIP that supports them is that we have to deal with first.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Ok, first off, Sadaam has been offering money to suicide bombers since the 1990's, this is not something made up by the current administration. So pull your head out and actually acknowledge he helped fund terrorism...not Al Qaeda, but TERRORISM! That is all I have every said.
Second of all, What you see is on the news is small area in Iraq surrounding Baghdad where this stuff is occurring.....The rest of the country is pretty peaceful and free of fighting. Would you determine the state of Texas based off of what is going on in the Dallas area alone?
As for your comment about other countries possibly being worse than Iraq was.....This is a left wing talking point and nothing more. EVERY country in this world has terrorists in them, It is where the LEADERSHIP that supports them is that we have to deal with first.
Ok, then isn't the enemy we are fighting Al Qaeda? This proves my point...What nations are supporting them. Hasn't the attacks made to U.S interest been Al Qaeda? There is fighting in other parts besides Baghdad.
But in regards to this left wing idea you have.... and it being just talking points... What?
So you are trying to tell me that Iraq posses the single most greatest risk to the U.S? Are you telling me that Iraq is the largest contributer to terrorist activities? Are you telling me that Saadam is the only leader/president that supports terrorism? If these statments are true, then we should be in Iraq.
Are they?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I read the thread, but for us to say that Saadam supports terrorism is a ploy by the U.S to gain support for the war.... For the terrorists that we were going after are they palestian or are they from other countries? If I recall these terror activities and camps were taking place in other countries and not Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...bbas.arrested/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
Read up on the Palestinian Liberation Front, who were based in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Report on the $35 million Saddam paid out to terrorist families. Do you really want to try to argue that this is not the truth but a ploy by the US Government? We can argue that if you like, I just want to make sure I understand your position.
Originally Posted by Rylan1
As for as us being mislead- who do you think they get their information from? Do you think democrats have access to the same information as Pres. Bush and his staff? NO!!!
I keep saying this... President CLINTON, when attacking Iraq said: "Their (our forces) mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs...". Was he part of the vast conspiracy? What about Former Vice President Gore when he said "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Again, part of a conspiracy?
Originally Posted by Rylan1
]We violated international law- is this a correct statement?
Did Pres. Clinton break International Law when he bo,bed Iraq? Bosnia? If this is true why didn't the UN stop us? Why didn't they stop Iraq from invading Kuwait, stop the genocide in Darfur, stop the border disputes in Kasmir? Stop Afghanistan from harboring terrorists, etc?
Originally Posted by Rylan1
....There are other countries and leaders that are responsible for more genocide death that Saadam.
Who?
r />Originally Posted by Rylan1
There are also other nations to known to have nuclear and biological weapons that are against UN sanctions. There are other nations that finance and harbor terrorist to a much higher degree. ....SO WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON?
Again, who? Give some proof and examples...
Originally Posted by Rylan1
... you hear about the daily reports of the unemployment rate and how bombers are killing dozens of people everyday. If I was living there I would not feel safe if I stepped one foot out of my home.
And who is doing that? Who is responsible for the death? US troops or terrorists, criminals, militias, and Iranian supported insurgents?
Yes, living in Baghdad is brutal. As I've pointed out, however, many places in Iraq aren't like that. In many places Democracy and Capitalism are growing. The people there don't have to worry about being murdered, raped, gassed, or tortured by Saddam or his sick kids... so I'd say for them things are much better now.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...bbas.arrested/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
Read up on the Palestinian Liberation Front, who were based in Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
Report on the $35 million Saddam paid out to terrorist families. Do you really want to try to argue that this is not the truth but a ploy by the US Government? We can argue that if you like, I just want to make sure I understand your position.
I keep saying this... President CLINTON, when attacking Iraq said: "Their (our forces) mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs...". Was he part of the vast conspiracy? What about Former Vice President Gore when he said "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Again, part of a conspiracy?
Did Pres. Clinton break International Law when he bo,bed Iraq? Bosnia? If this is true why didn't the UN stop us? Why didn't they stop Iraq from invading Kuwait, stop the genocide in Darfur, stop the border disputes in Kasmir? Stop Afghanistan from harboring terrorists, etc?
Who?
Again, who? Give some proof and examples...
And who is doing that? Who is responsible for the death? US troops or terrorists, criminals, militias, and Iranian supported insurgents?
Yes, living in Baghdad is brutal. As I've pointed out, however, many places in Iraq aren't like that. In many places Democracy and Capitalism are growing. The people there don't have to worry about being murdered, raped, gassed, or tortured by Saddam or his sick kids... so I'd say for them things are much better now.
genocide- Sudan, Liberia, Rwanda, we however did go into Kosovo. Why haven't we gone into nations that are of greater risk such as Iran and S. Korea who are not just pursing WMD, they have them and are testing them. What about Russia- are they selling arms to these countries or insurgents?
Ok and lets say you are correct about the $35 million from Iraq to terrorists. Do you think that Iraq is the single largest supporter of terrorist organizations or could another country be even a larger contributor. -- what is the liklihood of this being true? I don't think Iraq is the country we need to fear the most.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
I keep saying this... President CLINTON, when attacking Iraq said: "Their (our forces) mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs...". Was he part of the vast conspiracy? What about Former Vice President Gore when he said "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Again, part of a conspiracy?
Did Pres. Clinton break International Law when he bo,bed Iraq? Bosnia? If this is true why didn't the UN stop us? Why didn't they stop Iraq from invading Kuwait, stop the genocide in Darfur, stop the border disputes in Kasmir? Stop Afghanistan from harboring terrorists, etc?
Why do you assume that anyone against the war is a democrat or pro-Clinton? Do you really think that people who don't want to see any more American soldiers killed feel that way because they are democrats???? Are you for the war simply because your party line tells you to think this way? My point is that we should leave the party politics out of this discussion because it has nothing to do with it. I hope that most people involved in these discussions are exercising independant thought, not party politics.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
genocide- Sudan, Liberia, Rwanda, we however did go into Kosovo. Why haven't we gone into nations that are of greater risk such as Iran and S. Korea who are not just pursing WMD, they have them and are testing them. What about Russia- are they selling arms to these countries or insurgents?
Ok and lets say you are correct about the $35 million from Iraq to terrorists. Do you think that Iraq is the single largest supporter of terrorist organizations or could another country be even a larger contributor. -- what is the liklihood of this being true? I don't think Iraq is the country we need to fear the most.

Ok, if a country HAS Nuclear capabilities and weapons and can currently shoot them at another country....What do you think they would do if attacked? Think real hard....
Ok, in the past since 1990, only ONE country has attacked and taken over another country...This same country has supported terrorists and paid money to families....Large amounts of about 35 million. Divide 35 million by 10-25,000 dollars this averages out 1750 terrorists......Iraq repeatedly shot at our plans....Sadaam starved and killed the people under his rule...he tortured them regularly....
Now compare this to any other country in the world and if you can come up with equal to that as a threat, then I will gladly support your point...but no single country in the world had their government doing ALL of these things.
Now just to throw this out.....With Alqaeda moving into Iraq.....do we have to search as hard for them?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by crimzy
Why do you assume that anyone against the war is a democrat or pro-Clinton? Do you really think that people who don't want to see any more American soldiers killed feel that way because they are democrats???? Are you for the war simply because your party line tells you to think this way? My point is that we should leave the party politics out of this discussion because it has nothing to do with it. I hope that most people involved in these discussions are exercising independant thought, not party politics.

Crimzy I agree...this is not a party topic....anymore at least...however you must admit the majority against the war completely are Democrats. The Majority of republicans against the war are against how it is being handled....there is a difference...and the polls never reflect that difference.
I also believe Journey is referencing Clinton to point out it wasn't just BUSH "lies" regarding these topics....

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW

Ok, if a country HAS Nuclear capabilities and weapons and can currently shoot them at another country....What do you think they would do if attacked? Think real hard....
?
Did Iraq ever have this capabliity? Did they at the time we went to war?
Russia, S. Korea, Iran....

ouch...
And we are sitting back while S. Korea and Iran are adding these capablities and building their military? I don't want a war but it seem very hypocritical. There are warheads going up in Russia. We say we are going into Iraq to disarm them while other countries..S Korea and Iran especially... are at odds with the U.S

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Did Iraq ever have this capabliity? Did they at the time we went to war?
Russia, S. Korea, Iran....

ouch...
And we are sitting back while S. Korea and Iran are adding these capablities and building their military? I don't want a war but it seem very hypocritical. There are warheads going up in Russia. We say we are going into Iraq to disarm them while other countries..S Korea and Iran especially... are at odds with the U.S
Iraq had chemical weapons capability (we thought) and were attempting to get nuclear capability (didn't have)....

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Did Iraq ever have this capabliity? Did they at the time we went to war?
Russia, S. Korea, Iran....

ouch...
And we are sitting back while S. Korea and Iran are adding these capablities and building their military? I don't want a war but it seem very hypocritical. There are warheads going up in Russia. We say we are going into Iraq to disarm them while other countries..S Korea and Iran especially... are at odds with the U.S
Well I blame N. Korea's (south Korea is not the problem) armament on the previous administration....Iran doesn't have the capability yet and if they do not stop what they are doing within the next year a conflict should occur.....S. Korea is a different situation all together as diplomacy has never worked and they have the weapons......(pointed at china and japan) and if used would cripple our economy.....Iraq, Iran, and N Korea are not all the same....Iran has similarities but are vastly different as they don't torture and kill their own people, haven't conquered an country in the last 20 years. Those are the main differences....However Iran has been a huge Terrorist supporter for many years and I feel they should be handled...

 

[darthtang aw]

I would like to ask a couple questions....Regardless of past with concerns for Iraq. Two Questions.
We all seem to be in agreement that Al Qaeda is in Iraq and causing the majority of the fighting. There seems to be no question there.
Do you think Al Qaeda is to blame for 9/11?
Do you think we should be fighting Al Qaeda?
If you answer yes to both...Then you should support IRAQ as Al Qaeda is there fighting us now. If you truly feel we should be going after Al Qaeda and the organization that DID attack us on 9/11 your anti-war stance for Iraq should be changed now as we ARE now fighting AL Qaeda in IRAQ.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
Well I blame N. Korea's (south Korea is not the problem) armament on the previous administration....Iran doesn't have the capability yet and if they do not stop what they are doing within the next year a conflict should occur.....S. Korea is a different situation all together as diplomacy has never worked and they have the weapons......(pointed at china and japan) and if used would cripple our economy.....Iraq, Iran, and N Korea are not all the same....Iran has similarities but are vastly different as they don't torture and kill their own people, haven't conquered an country in the last 20 years. Those are the main differences....However Iran has been a huge Terrorist supporter for many years and I feel they should be handled...
I meant N Korea, and the first Iraq war was legit. The bombings during Clinton Admin probably were too. Regardless of who's fought or when problem occured is irrelevant. But those countries our definitely a more serious threat that Iraq ever was. If our current Admin aim was to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq then I can almost understand that. But the based and gave support to this war on lies. I understand what is going on over there and that it allows us to fight insurgents in their part of the world, but it was all built on lies and propoganda generated by the powers that be...I can't really even blame Bush because he is essentially a puppet.