War On Iraq: Yay or Nay??
03-12-2003 09:26 PM
Enologist/Brewmaster/Damn good guy
Damn! I'll have to admit you guys are alright!!!!!!!
Let's rock and roll!
We're coming motherfuvkers. We will win and we will NEVER FORGET 9-11!!!!!!!!!
03-13-2003 01:55 PM
The True Warrior is one who conquers oneself
War is imminent, no doubt. Im behind it 100% also. What I think is we should let Britain take the spotlite for alittle while and not be so "hungry" just yet. Britain says 7-10 days for the deadline, we say by the 17th (i think)
We do need to be wary of the people who oppose us though. Russia and china to be the main concerns. China's not a country like Iraq, if we ever had to go to a war against them, thats not going to be a cake walk. Of course we will win, but many of us would die.
I just hope we aren't putting ALL of our focus on Iraq, while North Korea is just hanging out. We need to keep a watchful eye on them as well.
LG I agree with you also, I always say that we definitely have **** that people don't even know about (weapons etc.)
The ONLY reason we need other countries support on this is financially. Do you think GWB is trying to get support for fire power....hell no......we can not and will not be beaten. However when it comes time to REBUILD IRAQ, thats when we will need others help. Its going to cost a hell of a lot to fight the war......and even MORE to rebuild. Thats the ONLY reason I say lets wait just a little longer....granted we will find nothing..etc. BUt at least that will give us a chance to bring more countries behind us...
oh and all I know is....IRAQ watch out for the MOAB bomb.
03-02-2004 12:45 AM
Yes, I have always said we need to be careful of the bigger countries like China and Russia. Who knows they could ally up one day. Watch the movie Red Dawn and it will portray that. I mean yeah Russia is in economic turmoil but when you add that with over 10,000 nuclear weapons, its not a good situation .
And the MOAB I don't believe got used in Iraq, I think they said it wasn't operational quite yet. They were testing it in Florida, though.
03-17-2004 09:35 PM
Damn LAKE! Kicking it old school bro.
03-28-2004 02:39 AM
Wow this is an old thread. Well in the sense that it is better to arrive late then never, I feel that the war was fully justified. Are there weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Are they in Iraq? Maybe not. The fact is, if Iraq didn't/doesn't have WMD, then every nation in the world with half an intelligence agency was wrong. Everyone said Iraq had WMD, whether or not they actually wanted to go to war. Hell even if there aren't WMD, I believe that the war was COMPLETELY justified due to how bad of guys that Saddam and his two sons were. I'll probably be going over there next year, so I'll just have to find the WMD myself.
03-28-2004 04:38 PM
where do you get this stuff from? one of the reasons that most of the european countries didn't back the US-led invasion of iraq was b/c their intelligence agencies weren't sure whether the weapons were there or not. even in britain some of the M5 guys wrote objections to the 'sexed up dossier' at the time it was used to sell the war.
Originally Posted by Fender85
03-29-2004 09:05 PM
"Most" European countries didn't back the US led invasion? No, it was largely France and Germany who resisted. And btw, they both signed the UN resolutions backing the use of force to bring Iraq into compliance, so clearly the UN believed it as well.
Originally Posted by Number 5
The US believed Hussein had WMD, that should be enough for people living here in the US. But clearly Israel's intelligence told them Iraq had WMD, as did Germany's.
At one point before the war, recall that weapons inspectors found a cache of missiles with empty warheads that were outfitted to deliver chemical and biological weapons.
Does anyone believe for one minute that THAT was all there was? If so, I have a bridge I'd like to talk to you about purchasing at a deeply discounted bargain price my friend.
Understand that European countries, while allies, aren't going to act in our best interest. The US is THE global superpower. The U.N. and Europe want nothing more badly to level the playing field, to take our resources and our superiority away from us. France and Germany were doing business with Iraq in contravention of the embargo. The supposed "oil for food" program to partially lift sanctions against Iraq netted Hussein and family somewhere in the neighborhood of $350 million, and that's what's known.
France and Germany, were acting in their own best interest in working against the US because they stood the most to lose economically by a U.S. invasion, to say nothing of their aversion to seeing us flexing our military might elsewhere around the globe.
It had nothing to do with a lack of intelligence, nor quality nor interpretation of intelligence. We've heard possible accounts of weapons being sent to other countries, and even testimony that some were destroyed at the outset of the war.
Iraq had WMD. Iraq used WMD. Some were found prior to the war by the inspectors. And Hussein ACTED as if he had them. These were not the issues surrounding France and Germany's efforts to stop our invasion. It was their own economic and pollitical interests, and nothing more.
03-31-2004 02:47 PM
personally i thought it was unethical for US to invade iraq even though iraq posed no danger to the states, but saddam certainly was an *******, so if you guys feel removing him was worth billions of your $ and 100's of your dead then that's okay with me.
i just don't think you should accuse europe, israel or other countries of having bad intelligence when in fact the intelligence agencies of EU countries never made such claims. most european countries supported continued inspections in iraq to get more information about the weapons.
03-31-2004 05:07 PM
Of course the US knew he had WMD. We ****ing gave them to him in the 80s. This war was fueled by greedy and warped bastards in Bush's cabinet that had the opporturnity to profit largely off the destruction and then the rebuilding of Iraq.
France & Germany were against the war because they knew they would never see another dollar from Iraqi oil. If you think the US will ever leave Iraq you have another thing coming.
03-31-2004 08:59 PM
What are you talking about?!
Originally Posted by Number 5
No one is accusing Europe nor Israel of anything? There's a difference between not having accurate or complete information versus the intentional distortion of it. The U.S. had good reason for believing Saddam posed a "growing and gathering threat" to it's interests and to the interests of it's allies. The governments of both Israel and Germany had intelligence that also supported this view, we were not alone in that assessment. There's no arguing that point, whether or not every country within Europe had the balls to act on it.
I respect the opinion of anyone who feels the war is a mistake or was unwarranted, especially a friend or a family member of those enlisted in the armed services and are there in harm's way. God bless you, you are in my thoughts and prayers daily.
Irrespective of individual opinions, Saddam had the weapons, he used the weapons, he was in violation of U.N. sanctions. He is a mass murderer, rapist and a thug of the worst stripe. He provided training camps within Iraq for al Qaeda. Officials within his administration had contact with members of al Qaeda. He paid thousands of dollars to the family members of Hamas or al Aqsa martyrs brigade suicide bombers who killed innocent Israeli men women and children.
You're thinking of this conflict in historical terms. This is not a war of the U.S. against Iraq.
Repeat again: This is not a war of the U.S. against Iraq.
Say it again: This is not a war of the U.S. against Iraq.
Got it now? One more time, this is not a war of the U.S. against Iraq.
Our enemy is not contained within 1 pollitical border as in past wars. This is a war against militant radical Islamists who have distorted a religion with one goal in mind, to kill Americans and Jews. Iraq just happened to be a worthwhile place to wage the war, and Saddam's regime a worthwhile regime to topple in the process.
The leaders of our enemy are hiding in caves, sending others out to do their dirty work, having successfully convinced some of them that martyrdom and virgins awaits their self-sacrifice. They don't send their own family members, just the family members of others.
The U.S. btw, for those who have forgotten, are the GOOD guys in this. When Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, did the U.S. colonize the country after successfully completing the campaign? No. We are the first country in the history of humanity who have ever, repeat EVER successfully waged a military campaign in a country, and then handed it back over to it's original governing body. So this is NOT about oil. Get over that nonsense. If it was about oil, Kuwait would be the 51st state of the union. If it was about US Global domination, we wouldn't have vacated Europe after WWI and WWII. Get over that nonsense.
I applaud George Bush for his pre-emptive strike doctrine. I thank God he had the balls to adopt it. The middle east is a festering cesspool. And while my heart and daily prayers go out to the troops and their families who are over there in harms way every day, the truth is if the world will be a better and safer place when they're finished. And not the most vocal critic can argue with that.
None of this would have been possible btw, if these bastards didn't strike us on 9/11. NO NOT IRAQI's, militant, radical Islamists, from several middle eastern countries.
Appeasement is not the answer. Appeasement leads to one end, subserviance to the aggressor.
I'd rather not have the war either. I'd rather not be sending anyone into harm's way. It would be nice if we could send a team of diplomats to the caves in Afghanistan/Pakistan to negotiate a truce, establish diplomatic relations, host goodwill games, and on and on. But these bastards only want to see us dead. There is no negotiating with someone like that.
Disturbing as it remains today, Americans need to see reminders weekly, if not daily, of the Trade Tower attacks. This happened to every one of us. It's the reason we're there. And we need to stay there until the job is done, NOT against Iraqi's, but against radical militant islamists who would like to kill each and every one of us.
04-01-2004 07:29 AM
PC1 I'll get back to you on this later when I have the time to reply to all of your points.
04-01-2004 05:20 PM
I don't believe anyone will argue with you that Saddam was a complete piece of **** and deserved to be treated as such. When I first knew we were going to attack Iraq I was all for it. I felt great that there would be one less murdering, terrorizing dictator in the world. Then instead of just being spoon fed my information from the media I decided to do some of my own research and what I found was ugly.
Bush's administration has so many ties to Lockheed Martin, Bechtel, Halliburton, and the list goes on. Many members of PNAC are part of Bush's administration including Wolfowitz, Feith, Woolsey, Perle, Cheney and Rumsfield. There are documents from these meetings stating their agenda in Iraq. These agendas included Iraqi oil fields, sending a message to the rest of the middle east, and establishing bases to use as a catalyst in future attacks on middle eastern states. Rumsfeld's list of possible terrorists states include 50 countries. Don't you find this somewhat disturbing? When does the killing stop? I can assure you attacking other countries isn't going to make it happen any faster. How many WTC attacks will this country be able to deal with mentally?
I agree. We are fighting a new kind of enemy, but why are we killing thousands and thousands of innocent people in the process? Do we really need to destroy roads, bridges, and factories to accomplish this goal? All this does is fuel the fire for the rest of the world to hate us and to strike back. Can you imagine how many Iraqi civilians wish they could bomb the US right now? Isreal is another situation and off topic to this discussion but their history isn't exactly made up of innocence and non provoked attack. Just think for a minute how their country was established. Think of how Kuwait was established. I guarantee you if a country attacked the US and carved up our country we would fight back one day to try and take back what was ours.
If we are fighting a new kind of enemy that hides in caves then why are we spending billions on a nuclear missle defense system? Why are we continuing to break nuclear treaties and develop new nuclear devices? If this country is fueled by good will then why has the department of defense never ruled out the possibility of using nuclear weapons in Afghanistan? Why money period point blank!
Noone is doubting the US citizens mean well. I'm doubting the Bush administration. Clinton was almost impeached for getting a blowjob. This president is guilty of invading a country, killing thousands of innocent people, and lying to the American people. Stop watching CNN and learn to look at the whole picture. The attack on 9/11 was the perfect catalyst for an attack on Iraq. Bin Laden and Al Qaede were responsible for the 9/11 attack, not Iraq, but the Bush Administration took advantage of America's vulnerability and fears, and went for Iraq when they knew America was ready to fight anyone that threatened our safety.
04-01-2004 08:49 PM
I have no problem with this "agenda" whatsoever. I'm surprised that you would?
Originally Posted by NPursuit
I have no shame in stating I'm a firm believer in "America First". Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the single greatest threat to the security and well being of America comes from fanatical militant Islamists. I've already indicated that Iraq was a convenient starting point in the military campaign against them because of Sadam's horrible track record in the area of human rights. Why should we fight this battle here in the U.S.? We shouldn't of course. That's why we're over there.
I find it disturbing that Rumsfeld has a list of 50 countries who sponsor terrorism against us, NOT because it's the fault of Rumsfeld! C'mon ! It's time to wake up and smell the coffee. One can argue all day about all the freedom of choice we have here in this country. By comparison, the inhabitants of most countries in the middle east are backwards and primitive. They hate us. And they want the resources that we have. Some of them are willing to blow themselves up just to kill 10, 15, or even just 2 of us. Is this because of Rumsfeld and Bush? Let's be serious here.
The killing will stop when either they smarten up and stop trying to kill us, or when we've killed all of them.
Once again, it would be great to send a diplomatic team over there and make a truce. We would be willing to do that. They would not. This is the fault of Rumsfeld or their religious and cultural perversion?
04-01-2004 08:51 PM
i'll just reply to this, i'll read the rest tomorrow and maybe comment, but my original post was a reply to
He implied, as have many other people on tv and radio, that the intelligence of all other nations indicated that Saddam had WMD's, which is just pure bull****.
Originally Posted by Fender85
04-01-2004 09:04 PM
bin Laden is many things but stupid is not among them. His father was an engineer, and in his preparations for this war he has been smart enough to apparently develop elaborate tunnels and escape routes in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Originally Posted by NPursuit
The answer to this question is very simple. Our conventional weapons probably will not penetrate deep and well fortified cave complexes. If we knew where bin Laden was at a given moment and we had the option of sending in American troops to kill him and would risk even the life of only 1 American..... OR
We could launch 1 nuclear missile and take out the whole lot of them without sending in troops, which would you opt for?
I would hope you would opt for the second option, as it's really no choice whatsoever. These cretins aren't worth spilling the blood of any Americans.
And in terms of why we should have nukes in the first place, I personally don't care what it takes for us to maintain our superiority over the rest of the world. We are the superpower. We are the freedom loving constitutional republic who democratically elects leaders. We try to plant the same seeds in other countries, to give them a model that WORKS, so they can elect their own representatives. We don't colonize other countries. We are unique, freedom loving people. Most of the rest of the world is not. They want what we have, not vice versa. And yeah, I make no bones about the need for us to maintain military, pollitical and financial superiority over all other countries across the globe. NOT for the purpose of conquering other countries on a whim, but to maintain and preserve our way of life. We CANNOT be a nation that kow-tows to the U.N., or any other country or organization. We must always do what we believe to be right with respect to our interests and the interests of our allies, the U.N. and any other 3rd world pygmy country be damned.
04-01-2004 09:23 PM
This is what I really have a problem with. I don't care if someone holds different viewpoints than my own, that's what this country is all about. What I do have a problem with is the NONSENSE that Bush has lied to the American people. Please.
Originally Posted by NPursuit
There are several things Bush has done and not done that have bothered me about his presidency. I won't go into them here. But lying, scandal, coverups, all that crap, is nothing but democrat election year bull****.
Consider first, that he is a man of deep religious conviction. Who do you get your news from, Richard Clarke? Is it the Richard Clarke who during 2/02 indicated there was no specific plan handed down from the Clinton administration to deal with al Qaeda, and who indicated the Bush administration laid out a 7 point plan to deal with global terrorism, including a 5 fold increase in funding to the CIA? Or the Richard Clarke who just last week was running his mouth saying the Bush administration didn't make terrorism as high a priority as the Clinton administration? The Clarke who said only 2 days ago on Hardball that, in response to whether or not 9/11 could have been prevented, said the answer wasn't so "fascile" (french for "simple") or the Clarke who during the same 9/11 inquiry stated rather emphatically, "No" it couldn't have been prevented?
With respect to Haliburton and other companies that Bush and Cheney held substantial equity investments in: You need to remember that BOTH of them prior to taking office submitted personal financial statements to a senate oversight committee (the name escapes me right now) seeking advice on whether or not they should hold, sell, or sell a portion of their investments. THEY FOLLOWED THE RECOMMENDATION. So please, don't be listening to democrat bull**** about how these guys are somehow lining their own pockets by executing pollitical policy favorable to this industry or that one. Because that's also a bunch of crap.
These guys already have wealth. They're not in pollitics for the money. Most polliticians are in it for the power. Different ego trip altogether.
04-01-2004 09:26 PM
I apologize to you if my above posts seem overly harsh or critical of you. I don't mean anything personally directed at you.
You are a great bro here on this board. I admire and respect you.
But pollitically, I think many americans have been brainwashed by liberal left winged traitors who's every utterance in any global sense, includes the words U.N. People need to wake up and realize that the U.N. does NOT care about what's best for the U.S. It seeks to take from us, and level the playing field globally. Screw that I say.
04-02-2004 07:51 AM
No offense taken bro. I respect you and until recently thought exactly like you. I will respond to your points later when I have time.
04-02-2004 09:11 AM
And I feel that many have been brainwashed by FOX News and the right Republican party. Do you directly transcribe Rush Limbaugh fused with Hannity overtones?? (A simple rib, nothing personal)
In your earlier posts you seem to make the connection between Iraq and the entire Middle East terrorism/anti-American sentiment that apparantly the Bush administartion has failed to convince the public of. That's simply amazing that you seem to see the imaginary connection between 9/11, terrorism and Iraq.
I DO believe in patriotism and am thoroughly disgusted by your insinuations that liberals are "traitors" (thank you very much for that incredibly improper use of the word, Ann Coulter). Liberals are simply asking: what is best for America, what is the smart thing to do, do we have all the information to justify making such leaps in foreign policy?
As for an alleged threat to the US: what about North Korea?? Are they simply not to be taken seriously? Have they not made threats with nuclear weapons? Well let's just forget about them because daddy didn't have any major issues with them, and they don't have oil and we can't as easily promise contracts in rebuilding the nation, right?
I realize that every point made regarding this war, and foreign policy in general now, always has many sides....but I prefer the truth. I see none of that in this administration. Here's two left-wing sites just for the enjoyment of all the Repubs on the board: http://www.misleader.org/daily_misle...f03242004.html and http://ww.howardstern.com
Every politician and administration lies, that is a given. Whether they lie about a blowjob or facts regarding a war and impacting thousands of lives however, is to me quite a different story.
As a whole I think if Bush would have dealt with THIS country more, and less with OTHERS, Ameericans would have been much better off. I supported the War on Terrorism and certain post 9/11 actions (sans the Patriot Act). But if anyone can truly think that the war in Iraq has much to do with the war on terror, they are full of ****.
04-02-2004 11:47 AM
I'm not a big Buchanan fan, but he wrote an interesting article, which is a few months old but still a good read. I'm not sure if this is the full version of his original article or some sort of a abbreviation but take a look.
Have the Neocons Killed a Presidency?
by Patrick J. Buchanan
George W. Bush "betrayed us," howled Al Gore.
"He played on our fear. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure, dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9-11 ever happened."
Hearing it, Gore's rant seemed slanderous and demagogic. For though U.S. policy since Clinton had called for regime change in Iraq, there is no evidence, none, that Bush planned to invade prior to 9-11.
Yet, the president has a grave problem, and it is this: Burrowed inside his foreign policy team are men guilty of exactly what Gore accuses Bush of, men who did exploit our fears to stampede us into a war they had plotted for years. Consider:
– In 1996, in a strategy paper crafted for Israel's Bibi Netanyahu, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser urged him to "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power" as an "Israeli strategic objective." Perle, Feith, Wurmser were all on Bush's foreign policy team on 9-11.
– In 1998, eight members of Bush's future team, including Perle, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, wrote Clinton urging upon him a strategy that "should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein."
– On Jan. 1, 2001, nine months before 9-11, Wurmser called for U.S.-Israeli attacks "to broaden the (Middle East) conflict to strike fatally ... the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Gaza ... to establish the recognition that fighting with either the United States or Israel is suicidal."
"Crises can be opportunities," added Wurmser.
On Sept. 11, opportunity struck.
On Sept. 15, according to author Bob Woodward, Paul Wolfowitz spoke up in the War Cabinet to urge that Afghanistan be put on a back burner and an attack be mounted at once on Iraq, though Iraq had had nothing to do with 9-11. Why Iraq? Said Wolfowitz, because it is "doable."
On Sept. 20, 40 neoconservatives in an open letter demanded that Bush remove Saddam from power, "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the (9-11) attack." Failure to do so, they warned the president, "would constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
While Bush had taken office as a traditional conservative skeptical of "nation-building" and calling for a more "humble" foreign policy, after 9-11, he was captured by the neocons and converted to an agenda they had worked up years before. Suddenly, he sounded just like them, threatening wars on "axis-of-evil" nations that had nothing to do with 9-11.
And here is where Bush's present crisis was created.
Though he had internalized the neoconservative agenda for war, he had no rationale, no justification, no casus belli. Iraq had not threatened or attacked us.
Enter the WMD. Neoconservatives pressed on Bush the idea that Iraq must still have weapons of mass destruction and must be working on nuclear weapons. And as Saddam was a figure of such irrationality – i.e., a madman – he would readily give an atom bomb to Al Qaeda. An American city could be incinerated.
Therefore, Saddam had to be destroyed. Bush bought it.
The problem, however, was this: While there is much evidence Saddam is evil, there is no evidence he was insane. He had not used his WMD in 1991, when he had them. For he was not a fool. He knew that would mean his end. Why would he then build a horror weapon now, give it to a terrorist and risk the annihilation of his regime, family, legacy and himself, a fate he had narrowly escaped in 1991?
Made no sense – and there was no hard evidence on the WMD.
Thus, when the CIA was unable to come up with hard evidence that Saddam still had WMD, or was building nuclear weapons, neocon insiders sifted the intelligence, cherry-picked it, presented tidbits to the media as unvarnished truth, and persuaded Powell and the president to rely on it to make the case to Congress, the country and the world. Powell and the president did.
Now the WMD case has fallen apart. Powell has egg on his face. And the president must persuade Tim Russert and the nation that Iraq was a "war of necessity" because we "had no choice when we looked at the intelligence I looked at."
But, sir, the intelligence you "looked at" was flawed. Who gave it to you?
To its neocon architects, Iraq was always about empire, hegemony, Pax Americana, global democracy – about getting hold of America's power to make the Middle East safe for Sharon and themselves glorious and famous.
But now they have led a president who came to office with good intentions and a good heart to the precipice of ruin. One wonders if Bush knows how badly he has been had. And if he does, why he has not summarily dealt with those who misled him?
Similar Forum Threads
By djbombsquad in forum Politics
Last Post: 11-04-2008, 11:40 AM
By gupark in forum Anabolics
Last Post: 10-06-2007, 10:53 AM
By spatch in forum Politics
Last Post: 03-27-2006, 01:53 AM