Poll: Should we invade Iraq??

War On Iraq: Yay or Nay??

Page 6 of 7 First ... 4567 Last
  1. Registered User
    PVSkyHigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    562
    Answers
    0

    Nay, Democracy won't work now, we had our chance for it to work. But we were to greedy and put in dictators. Now they are gone and we are once again back and this time we are trying to make a democracy work.. Moral of the story is: America is greedy and need to get their asses out of Iraq and stop trying to dominate the entire world. Just my $.02.

  2. Registered User
    ex_banana-eater's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    377
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by ex_banana-eater
    He is evil. So are all polititians though...
    He has been a threat to world security before... but that was dealt with... I can't see what it can't be done again.
    But what has he really done other than not comply with UN weapons regulations since the Gulf War? Not much to other countries.. although he has Cl2'ed the Kurdish people in Northern Iraq. I'm sure those people, deformed from the mustard gas would support the war.
    Has he done anything to the US since the Gulf War? Not really. It dosn't seem like it's America's war to me. It should be for the opressed people in the country.
    I don't really like to support war... because I know the effects of it. If there is a war I am sure thousands of innocent civilians will be killed... just like Afghanistan. Those civilians in Afghanistan had nothing to do with the terrorist bombings. Oh well they're Afghans they're not important.
    I, like you, are on the ropes about war. I can't really support it nor can I support the other side completely.

    Why dosn't the US just use propaghanda to convince the Iraqi people their dictator is not good, then kill him? (one casualty is better than thousands )

    BTW... BBC World is a good program that dosn't have American propaganda in it. Newspapers (depends who they are owned by) can also be relatively unbiased.

    I have changed my position since 2003 when I wrote this.

    My position is that America had the moral right to invade Iraq because it was a state that could make no claim to rights while it simultaneously violated the rights of its citizens. The real reason to go to war should be self-interest though, not as an altruistic sacrifice of American lives for "Iraqi Freedom." Iraqis do not, and will not accept freedom as their ideology is too primitive to allow it. Evidence the election's main parties: The secular communists, an agent of the Iranian theocracy, Kurdish socialists, and another religious group wishing to establish theocracy.

    Contrary to Bush's foolhardy opinion--freedom will not "ring."

    A good government could make the case to go to war with Iraq for self-interested reasons. They sponsored terrorists which murdered Israeli and American citizens, nationalized American and European owned oil, attempted the assassination of a president, and more.

    However, there was an enormous blanking out on the REAL enemy. Iran should have been taken out long before Sept 11. Iran is the primary state responsible for terrorism, it's terrorist agent Hezbollah has murdered over 400 American soldiers in a single attack, was involved in 9/11, brutally kidnapped Americans upon its overthrow of the Shah, sponsored the bombings on USS Cole, and most importantly--it is the radiant tower of the ideology of militant Islam.

    Iran should have been taken out even before Afghanistan. Afghanistan was simply a hole for them to hide.

    In retrospect (as I knew it would) the Bush government has failed miserably in carrying out this war in Iraq. The mightiest military in the world has succumbed casuality after casuality to a bunch of primitive savages. This is not because of our brave soldiers or the technology we have--it is because of the moral policy which guides their actions.

    This country (America) is too concerned with world opinion and hurting "civilians" (who turn around and harbour Islamists) that it won't bomb an enemy stronghold. They refuse to attack Mosques even if the KNOWN LEADER (Al Sadr) is in a particular Mosque and his men are popping out and murdering our soldiers! Soldiers frequently have to sacrifice their own safety and LIVES for the sake of Iraqi civilians.

    Is this a WAR we're waging? No. It's pathetic. It's a bloody sacrifice of thousands of American lives and they are all on Bush's head.

    We need a moral giant to lead this country to war. Ask yourself what the OTHER George would do--George Washington. I'm sure he would have waged a ruthless war against our enemy with no losses in American life. Primarily with a bombing campaign.
  3. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    296
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by PVSkyHigh
    Nay, Democracy won't work now, we had our chance for it to work. But we were to greedy and put in dictators. Now they are gone and we are once again back and this time we are trying to make a democracy work.. Moral of the story is: America is greedy and need to get their asses out of Iraq and stop trying to dominate the entire world. Just my $.02.
    Democracy can work there. Forming new countries that are successful takes lots and lots of time. It took the US about 15 years and even after that, there was a Civil War. France had several revolutions over the course of 60 years before stabilizing. Iraq will take a long time to stabilize.

    The best thing to do is to get the government there strengthened. Then most of the Coalition troops can leave but there will be a few bases here and there, not unlike South Korea.

    I'm sure he would have waged a ruthless war against our enemy with no losses in American life. Primarily with a bombing campaign.
    Interesting thought and I imagine its true. During the Revolutionary War, Washington employed guerilla tactics on the British, who fought traditionally.
    •   
       

  4. Registered User
    rrgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,028
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    Interesting thought and I imagine its true. During the Revolutionary War, Washington employed guerilla tactics on the British, who fought traditionally.
    Uh, you mean he did that against British soliders, not "the British."

    Washington did not behead civilians, hold journalists hostage, hang burn and drag civilian bodies through the street, or attack trains in Madrid. There's a bit of a difference between that and guerilla tactics against uniformed redcoats.
  5. Registered User
    thetimbomb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Age
    33
    Posts
    160
    Answers
    0

    nooooooooooo who cares what some idiot dictator is doin in his free time... he had no wmds who gives
  6. Registered User
    rrgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,028
    Answers
    0

    Tim - So according to you, Milosevic should have been left in power too.
  7. Registered User
    mtruther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    218
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by thetimbomb
    nooooooooooo who cares what some idiot dictator is doin in his free time... he had no wmds who gives
    Actually, you're wrong on the WMD claim. Hussein DID have WMD and plans to attack the United States and US targest abroad. Further, he was developping a nuclear program that was more advanced than what we knew about. Expect this story to break soon. Right now we're awaiting the documents to be released collectively. I suspect Syria and Russia are going to be catching some pretty negative press soon enough.

    Having read some of these tapes, not only does Hussein admit to having weapons programs, but he discusses what he should lie about it comes time to question them.

    Sorry, Bush (along with the world intel community) was right on Saddam's weapons programs. It should also be noted that Saddam predicted (before 9/11) that the US would be hit by terrorist attacks within a few years. Further, Russian intel points out that he had plans to attack US targets in the US and abroad.

    Give it time. The truth will come out eventually, regardless of whether or not the press tries to hide it.

    WMD:
    Now that Leno and Letterman have had their way with Vice President Cheney's hunting accident and the port controversy, maybe we can get back to something really important — like Saddam's WMD program.
    Yes, the linchpin of opposition to the Iraq War — never really strong to begin with — has taken some real hits in recent weeks. And "Bush lied" — the anti-war mantra about the president, Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction — looks the most battered.
    Inconveniently for critics of the war, Saddam made tapes in his version of the Oval Office. These tapes landed in the hands of American intelligence and were recently aired publicly.
    The first 12 hours of the tapes — there are hundreds more waiting to be translated — are damning, to say the least. They show conclusively that Bush didn't lie when he cited Saddam's WMD plans as one of the big reasons for taking the dictator out.
    Nobody disputes the tapes' authenticity. On them, Saddam talks openly of programs involving biological, chemical and, yes, nuclear weapons.
    War foes have long asserted that Saddam halted his WMD programs in the wake of his defeat in the first Gulf War in 1991. Saddam's abandonment of WMD programs was confirmed by subsequent U.N. inspections.
    Again, not true. In a tape dating to April 1995, Saddam and several aides discuss the fact that U.N. inspectors had found traces of Iraq's biological weapons program. On the tape, Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law, is heard gloating about fooling the inspectors.
    "We did not reveal all that we have," he says. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."
    There's more. Indeed, as late as 2000, Saddam can be heard in his office talking with Iraqi scientists about his ongoing plans to build a nuclear device. At one point, he discusses Iraq's plasma uranium program — something that was missed entirely by U.N. weapons inspectors combing Iraq for WMD.
    This is particularly troubling, since it indicates an active, ongoing attempt by Saddam to build an Iraqi nuclear bomb.
    "What was most disturbing," said John Tierney, the ex- FBI agent who translated the tapes, "was the fact that the individuals briefing Saddam were totally unknown to the U.N. Special Commission (or UNSCOM, the group set up to look into Iraq's WMD programs)."
    Perhaps most chillingly, the tapes record Iraq Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz talking about how easy it would be to set off a WMD in Washington. The comments come shortly after Saddam muses about using "proxies" in a terror attack.
    9-11, anyone?
    In short, let us repeat: President Bush was right. We had to invade to disarm Saddam — otherwise, he would have completely reconstituted his chemical, nuclear and bio-weapons programs when inspectors left.
    Saddam probably knew better than to use them himself against the U.S. But it's likely he wouldn't have hesitated giving one or more to terror groups with which he had routine contact.
    Lest you think we're making the case entirely based on these tapes, let us assure you that other evidence — mounting by the day — points to the same conclusion.
    We've been very impressed by the story told by Georges Sada, the former No. 2 in Iraq's air force. He has written a book, "Saddam's Secrets," that details how the Iraqi dictator used trucks, commercial jets and ships to remove his WMD from the country. At the time, the move went largely undetected, because Iraq pretended the massive movement of materiel was to help Syrian flood victims.
    Nor is Sada alone. Ali Ibrahim, another of Saddam's former commanders, has largely corroborated Sada's story.
    So how was Saddam able to use his "cheat and retreat" tactics without being found out? He had help, according to a former U.S. Defense Department official.
    "The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," said John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense, in comments made at an intelligence summit Feb. 17-20 in Arlington, Va.
    "They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special ops) units out of uniform that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.
    These are extraordinary developments. They deserve a full airing in the media, since they essentially validate part of Bush's casus belli for invading Iraq and deposing the murderous Saddam.
    But once again, the mainstream media have dropped the ball. They seem more interested in **** Cheney's marksmanship and American port management than in setting the record straight about one of the most important developments of our time.
  8. Registered User
    mtruther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    218
    Answers
    0

    Well, that is, if the media doesn't distort the tapes themselves:

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/17/125334.shtml?s=ic

    Saddam Translator: ABC Re-interpreted Tapes
    NewsMax ^ | 2/17/06


    The FBI translator who supplied the 12-hours of Saddam Hussein audiotapes excerpted by ABC's "Nightline" Wednesday night now says the network discarded his translations and went with a less threatening version of the Iraqi dictator's comments.

    "What you heard on ABC News was their translation," former U.N. weapons inspector Bill Tierney told ABC Radio's Sean Hannity on Thursday.

    "They came up with something different on a key element regarding terrorism in the United States," Tierney insisted.

    In the "Nightline" version of a 1996 recording, Saddam predicts that Washington, D.C. would be hit by terrorists. But he adds that Iraq would have nothing to do with the attack.

    Tierney says, however, that what Saddam actually said was much more sinister. "He was discussing his intent to use chemical weapons against the United States and use proxies so it could not be traced back to Iraq," he told Hannity.

    In a passage not used by "Nightline," Tierney says Saddam declares: "Terrorism is coming . . . . In the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What if we consider this technique, with smuggling?"

    Tierney's full translations are set for release this weekend by The Intelligence Group in Washington, D.C.
  9. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    296
    Answers
    0

    Sean Hannity, newsmax.com?

    Way to post sources with damn near zero credibility.
  10. Registered User
    rrgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,028
    Answers
    0

    I agree with Experiment. There's an argument to be made from the right, but writing things like "Expect this story to break soon" is not one of them.
  11. Registered User
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,110
    Answers
    0

    Even if what is written is true.. and i hold the new york times and other such papers with the same salt as i do with news max etc.. it will never be picked up by the main stream media.. The democratic parties only way to get power in the next ellection is by following the same action line that is under ever last report on iraq. "Bush lied, Bush mislead, ETC ETC... to go away from that would be the death of the deomocratic party....
  12. Registered User
    mtruther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    218
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by The Experiment
    Sean Hannity, newsmax.com?

    Way to post sources with damn near zero credibility.
    Are you serious? That's a laugh. If Invester's Daily is a source of zero credibility, we don't have many sources with any credibility. Yeah, that's what you called "Sean Hannity." Not that I see him as a source of zero credibility. NewsMax, maybe.

    I find it humerous that you'd criticize my sources as opposed to actually doing a very simple google search. And as for the buffoon who gave me negative rep points, keep them coming. The truth will come out soon enough, no matter how hard the moonbats try to hide it.

    Well, here's another from The Times (hardly a non-credible source):

    Released Saddam Documents Hint at Ties to al-Quaida




    Sarah Baxter
    NEWLY released documents seized in Iraq immediately after the American invasion in 2003 point to the presence of Al-Qaeda members in the country before the war and moves to hide traces of “chemical or biological materials” from United Nations weapons inspectors.
    The documents were posted on the internet as part of a rolling programme by the US government to make public the contents of 48,000 boxes of untranslated papers and tapes relating to the workings of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Saddam is said to have routinely taped talks with cabinet members and intelligence chiefs.
    NI_MPU('middle');John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, was ordered by President George W Bush to release the material. Hundreds of thousands of previously unseen documents and hundreds of hours of tapes will be placed on the web in the coming weeks.
    The first documents to be released offer tantalising clues to possible Iraqi contacts with Al-Qaeda. An Iraqi intelligence report dated September 15, 2001 — four days after the attacks on America — says Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban were in contact with Iraq and Al-Qaeda members had visited the country.
    It claims America had proof that the Iraqi government and “Bin Laden’s group” had agreed to co-operate to attack targets in America and that the US might strike Iraq and Afghanistan in retaliation.
    However, the information comes from an unidentified Afghan informant who states merely that he heard it from an Afghan consul, also unnamed. According to ABC News, which translated the tapes, the claims are “sensational” but the sourcing is “questionable”.
    Another document from a “trustworthy” source and dated August 2002 claims people with links to Al-Qaeda were in Iraq. There is a picture a few pages later of the Jordanian terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But the papers suggest Saddam’s agents were trying to verify the presence of Al-Qaeda rather than colluding with it.
    Documents from 1997 confirm that Saddam was giving UN weapons inspectors the runaround by removing correspondence concerned with “prohibited weapons” and clearing “labs and storages of any traces of chemical or biological materials”.
    The transcript of one tape recording shows an official named as Comrade Husayn expressing concern to Saddam that outsiders would find out about imported material, including some from America, apparently for chemical weapons.
    “They have a bigger problem with the chemical programme than the biological programme,” he tells Saddam. “We have not told them that we used it on Iran, nor have we told them about the size or kind of chemical weapons that we produced and we have not told them the truth about the imported material.”
    In another taped conversation from the mid-1990s, a man called al-Sahhaf — possibly a former information minister — says: “On the nuclear file, sir, are we saying we disclosed everything? No, we have uncleared problems in the nuclear field.”
    Apparently confirming that the nuclear programme had been abandoned, he adds: “Everything is over, but did they know? No, sir, they did not know, not all the methods, not all the means, not all the scientists and not all the places.”
    Saddam expelled the UN inspectors from Iraq in 1998.
    Bush intervened personally to secure the release of the documents after Bill Tierney, an Arabic-speaking former UN weapons inspector hired by the government to translate 12 hours of Saddam’s tapes, revealed their contents at a private intelligence conference near Washington last month. On one tape, recorded in the mid-1990s, the Iraqi dictator is heard to say: “Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans . . . and told the British as well . . . that in future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.”


    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...092460,00.html


    See also Saddam Husseing giving to al-Quaida in the Phillipines:

    http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Pu...1/990ieqmb.asp

    A yes, right wing source. But these documents are going to keep flowing, and the truth is going to come out, one way or the other.
  13. Board Supporter
    The Experiment's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    29
    Posts
    296
    Answers
    0

    Sean Hannity is entertainment and not a source of news.

    Newsmax.com is the Moveon.org/Fair.org of the Republicans. News that appeals to their base and makes the other side into the boogeyman. I suppose I should start posting up stories from The Guardian now that newsmax.com is acceptable.

    The truth will come out soon enough, no matter how hard the moonbats try to hide it.


    Is it cold up in your Montana cabin? I hope you were joking but you probably weren't. Plus you can find out who negged you also.
  14. Registered User
    MaynardMeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    34
    Posts
    1,110
    Answers
    0

    i would trust a reporter who actually did shows from iraq.. not from a hotel.. but with the troops over anyone like Murtha any day.


    doesn't have to do with anything but just wanted to say that
  15. Registered User
    ArnoldIsMyIdol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    367
    Answers
    0

    I think what alot of people don't realize is that from a historical perspective the Iraq and Afgan wars have been enormously successful. We have liberated 2 countries with less than 3000 casualties. Not to make light of their sacrifices, but you have to look at the numbers. In Vietnam we lost 58,000 and did not even win. 3000 is very small compared to what we have acheived. Its awful when anyone dies in a war. It is also terrible when policemen die in the line of duty, but no one is suggesting we disband the police departments.

    And if you don't agree with the premise of the war, look at Libya. Since Reagan kicked Qaddaffi's ass in the 80's we have not heard a peep from them, Libya is voluntarily disarming and today we normalized relations with them.
  16. Registered User
    gearvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1
    Answers
    0

    Exactly, Libya is the best example. Wish we could do same with Syrians now.
  17. Registered User
    Rufio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    138
    Answers
    0

    I covered this in the other thread. Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda are based on the belief that they were in the same place at different times (which most people who read the documents dispute) and quotes of them wanting to be "closer." However, there are also verified quotes of Saddam denying any ties to Osama while saying that he wouldn't be ashamed if the ties DID exist, a reported claim that Saddam considered ties to Osama and decided against it, and of course Osama' claim that Saddam is an "infidel." We do know, however, that the people in Bush's administration trained the Al Qaeda operatives and allied with them during the Cold War, as well as helping Saddam gain power.


    As for the war's death toll, this is not taking into account the number of Iraqi civilians dead, especially when you consider the embargo that killed over a million civilians which helped make Iraq so defenseless. And a comparison to Vietnam is ridiculous, considering that the Vietnam war was pretty much textbook terrorism. Vietnam was supposed to be united by elections, but that went out the window when it became apparent that Ho Chi Minh would've won over Diem. I don't see how anyone who's studied the history of Vietnam could support that.


    Regarding Libya, I still do not accept the premise. Qaddafi was a supporter of terrorism and an evil human being, but the majority of charges behind the invasion have been by and large written off as lacking in evidence by the international community:


    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...v24/ai_4776473

    And for a more detailed report of the real reasoning behind the attack on Libya, and just what the UN meant by the "lack of evidence" of Libyan involvement in most of the actions they were charged as participating in:


    http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomLyb2.html



    I'm not saying that it doesn't make me happy that Qadaffi and Saddam were deposed. However, you have to weigh that against the civilian casualties and look at the guilt of the people who are ordering these invasions.


    I don't really get this argument anyway. Our own country and our allies have DOCUMENTED cases of allying with terrorists. If this is about aiding terrorists, then why aren't Cheney and Rumsfeld being executed? If it's about "freedom" then why do we ally with Saudi Arabia? The truth is that it's about securing power and doing so against enemies that have pitiful armies and pitiful economies, so that they can be easily crushed.


    As far as Syria, that's a good example of my point. We allied with them when they were massacaring Palestinians, but turned on them when they refused to integrate into the market system. Bush Sr. even supported their occupation of Lebanon. Just like with Saddam, our leaders turned against Syria when they threatened US economic/power interest internationally.


    Of course politics are about prudence rather than what's right and wrong. Personally, I'm against the Iraq war because it's another example of the US trying to horde world power instead of preparing for the eventuality of new superpowers. They're trying to prevent other countries becoming *****s by maintaining sole puppet control of the oil. IMO it's a big waste and in the long run actions like this are not going to endear the international community to us. This openly imperialistic and anti-diplomatic approach could lead to another Cold War when the next superpower emerges.
  18. Registered User
    Rufio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    138
    Answers
    0

    One other thing ...

    Quote Originally Posted by ArnoldIsMyIdol View Post
    I think what alot of people don't realize is that from a historical perspective the Iraq and Afgan wars have been enormously successful. We have liberated 2 countries with less than 3000 casualties.


    In what way was Afghanistan liberated? The US actions ended up putting control of the country back in the hands of the warlords whose presence lead to the rise of the Taliban in the first place. This was a massive setback to any kind of real long-term liberation. Afghanistan is a mess.
  19. Registered User
    somewhatgifted's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  210 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    4,392
    Answers
    0

    So bin laden is still free....
    there are or were no WMD's.....
    iraqui oil is in us hands.....
    750,000 dead iraqui civilians....

    RE -vote, should the us have invaded iraq?
  20. Registered User
    Rufio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    138
    Answers
    0

    That's generally the biggest problem with these invasions: they can end up killing more civilians than the dictator ever did. Iraq should've been an easy case given how pitiful their economy was, but what wasn't accounted for was the extremely factional nature of the region. Saddam's iron fist more or less kept them in line.

    Of course I highly doubt that Bush and co. are that concerned with civilian casualties on the scale of things. The real issue is how realistic it is at this point to create a stable puppet government and thus stabilize the oil reserves.


    As for Osama Bin Laden, don't you know that terror is bigger than one person and so his whereabouts don't matter that much?


    YouTube - Bush-Truly not concerned about bin Laden
  21. Registered User
    semper60003's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    23
    Answers
    0

    seems that support for the war as its all-time low... we'll see how this'll play out
  22. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,361
    Answers
    0

    interesting to see this out and about. I was against the war from the beginning as it had no relation to 9-11. It was a mistake then and it is now
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  23. Registered User
    AM07's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,155
    Answers
    0

    I couldn't care less what other countries view of the U.S. is.

    But the Iraq War was a mistake from the beginning. Anyone who could support this piece of **** war from the beginning is retarded, and I'd like to hear their reasoning.
  24. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,361
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by AM07 View Post

    But the Iraq War was a mistake from the beginning. Anyone who could support this piece of **** war from the beginning is retarded, and I'd like to hear their reasoning.
    I am glad to hear others say this, as this is my sentiment as well. It truly was a situtation where it seems the administration was dead set on going there for one reason or another, and this gave them the opportunity to fleece an already semi-retarded american public.

    I am still amazed as a HS teacher, hearing my students say that Iraq flew the plans on 9-11. Very sad
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  25. Registered User
    CryingEmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,081
    Answers
    0

    What a tangled thread we weave...
  26. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,361
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by CryingEmo View Post
    What a tangled thread we weave...
    and weave and weave and weave, wait till we get to Iran and then more. Should be entertaining to watch
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  27. Registered User
    Bravoboy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  218 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,145
    Answers
    0

    I use to say yeah, but as the US keeps getting ****tier and ****tier. and we keep getting no results. I mean. If our govenment is so good at putting a ban on supplements and finding people that are selling **** all around the world hiding in chili or mexico or peru. And we can't find OSAMA or fix IRAQ's stupid **** then we need to do one of the following.

    KILL EM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT........BOMB BY BOMB


    OR GET THE **** OUT!

    I SAY NAY. WE NEED JUST AS MUCH WORK IN THE U.S. OF A.
  28. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,361
    Answers
    0

    I think at this point, we really need to be focused on what is financially responsible, espcially considering there is such a domestic need
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  29. Gold Member
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,291
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by AM07 View Post
    I couldn't care less what other countries view of the U.S. is.

    But the Iraq War was a mistake from the beginning. Anyone who could support this piece of **** war from the beginning is retarded, and I'd like to hear their reasoning.
    I was against it in 2003, however, once we went in I reexamined things and decided its best for us to take this thing from to a logical conclusion. At this point tucking tail and running would send the region into chaos and make the US look like some bitc.hes.

    It's easy to be against Iraq, Vietnam, or any war that didn't turn out the way you wanted it to, when looking at it in hindsight.
  30. Registered User
    Rugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,062
    Answers
    0

    We've actually found WMD in Iraq since the invasion. Curious as to how the media fails to report such findings (outside of Fox)
  31. Gold Member
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,291
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by Rugger View Post
    We've actually found WMD in Iraq since the invasion. Curious as to how the media fails to report such findings (outside of Fox)
    The Defense Department wrote a report to congress on it.
  32. Gold Member
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,378
    Answers
    0

    As I recall from the broadcast at the time, what they found was Iran-Iraq war vintage - dangerous, certainly...but not particularly effective or useful as deliverable weapons. IIRC, most of the WMD found since the invasion fell into the same category: ie, no new-production CBN weaponry or programs.

    Which would of course mean that in 2003 we were NOT in danger of a WMD attack by Iraq. Those old chemical shells were unsafe to handle, much less lob at an opponent.

    I suppose news about captured Bio & nuclear programs and/or new weapons production facilities could have escaped me, but that would be the kind of thing I think I'd notice - and I've heard nothing.

    'Course, I saw that on Fox. It was my main news source 2003-2004.

    As far as "as smoking gun that comes as a mushroom cloud," I think we're still looking, aren't we?
  33. Gold Member
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,291
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    As I recall from the broadcast at the time, what they found was Iran-Iraq war vintage - dangerous, certainly...but not particularly effective or useful as deliverable weapons. IIRC, most of the WMD found since the invasion fell into the same category: ie, no new-production CBN weaponry or programs.

    Which would of course mean that in 2003 we were NOT in danger of a WMD attack by Iraq. Those old chemical shells were unsafe to handle, much less lob at an opponent.

    I suppose news about captured Bio & nuclear programs and/or new weapons production facilities could have escaped me, but that would be the kind of thing I think I'd notice - and I've heard nothing.

    'Course, I saw that on Fox. It was my main news source 2003-2004.

    As far as "as smoking gun that comes as a mushroom cloud," I think we're still looking, aren't we?
    Look at Adam's post on page 7 of the Bailout thread. He posted pictures of WMDs he saw while in Iraq. It anecdotal, but my buddy who was on the initial invasion said they found a shi.tton of WMDs, but I can't validate his claim.

    My feelings at this point is that the initial reason for invasion is irrelevant. We have to take a fresh look at the situation and weigh our options based upon those current facts. I personally think we lose more than we gain by pulling out now. We're making very good progress and I don't think we will have a strong presence there forever.
  34. Gold Member
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,378
    Answers
    0

    I agree: the situation of the moment is the situation we have to deal with, and historical analysis only helps if it helps us respond more effectively *now*.

    Given that, I think we have to honor the repeated Iraqi requests that we withdraw ASARP - otherwise, we have to completely restructure our presence there, *without* taking the Iraqi govt into account as a functional partner. THAT it seems would have devastating effect on our ability to do anything anywhere.

    We may well lose more than we gain by agreeing to leave at this time, but it's a situation of our own making. That limits our credibility when we try to impose a SOFA that suits the outcome we had in mind going in, more than the situation we've ended up creating (in concert with the other players, of course).

    So really: is the question at this point 'do we lose more than we gain by beginning our pull-out now?' Or is it 'how will it damage our ability to gain support & influence events going forward, if we refuse to co-operate w/ the Iraqi government *now*?'
  35. Gold Member
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,291
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    I agree: the situation of the moment is the situation we have to deal with, and historical analysis only helps if it helps us respond more effectively *now*.

    Given that, I think we have to honor the repeated Iraqi requests that we withdraw ASARP - otherwise, we have to completely restructure our presence there, *without* taking the Iraqi govt into account as a functional partner. THAT it seems would have devastating effect on our ability to do anything anywhere.

    We may well lose more than we gain by agreeing to leave at this time, but it's a situation of our own making. That limits our credibility when we try to impose a SOFA that suits the outcome we had in mind going in, more than the situation we've ended up creating (in concert with the other players, of course).

    So really: is the question at this point 'do we lose more than we gain by beginning our pull-out now?' Or is it 'how will it damage our ability to gain support & influence events going forward, if we refuse to co-operate w/ the Iraqi government *now*?'

    Iraq's ruling bloc raises concerns about U.S. troop deal - CNN.com

    I don't see where the Iraqi government wanted us out ASAP. It looks like the big stumbling block is about Soldier prosecutorial immunity in Iraq. If you have an article that says that, I'd love to see it.

    Obviously politicians are politicians, whether in Iraq or the United States. They have to appear to not be puppets to America to their constituents, while at the same time catering to the Americans who they need for the stability of their country and more importantly their positions.

    The key thing to remember is that people in Iraq are not living in fear anymore. Most people can go out without living in fear of terrorists or a vindictive autocrat. The Iraq police forces and army is becoming effective at keeping the peace and doing their job.

    My parents (democrats) came to my house and told me about how all of Sadr's followers were protesting because they wanted us to leave. I told them, the US is a free society and look how many points of view are represented on basic political issues. People can't use a protest as a condemnation of US presence by all 24 million Iraqis in their country.
  36. Registered User
    Rugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    4,062
    Answers
    0

    Why was Bush so sure that Iraq had WMD?

    Because he still got the receipts nukka!
  37. Gold Member
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,378
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Iraq's ruling bloc raises concerns about U.S. troop deal - CNN.com

    I don't see where the Iraqi government wanted us out ASAP.
    ASARP - As Soon As Realistically Possible

    Sorry: sometimes I make this sort of thing up on the fly.
    (acronyms, I mean, and neologisms).

    Either way, the Iraqi government has pointedly asked us to set a withdrawal date/timeline/pick-your-term. Not once but several times, over the last what, 4 months?
  38. Running with the Big Boys
    Board Sponsor
    AE14's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  200 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    12,361
    Answers
    0

    indeed they have BW, now it is just our time to officially set it up. According to most reports it is by the end of 2011, however there have been calls for the end of 2010
    Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
    adam @ ControlledLabs.com
    CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
  39. Gold Member
    BodyWizard's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  195 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,378
    Answers
    0

    FTR I'm not some teary-eyed hand-wringer where this is concerned: we need to walk our talk, right out in the open where everyone can see us. Only then will we regain the trust & credibility we've lost.

    That is all.
  40. Gold Member
    RobInKuwait's Avatar
    Stats
    6'4"  269 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Age
    35
    Posts
    2,291
    Answers
    0

    Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    FTR I'm not some teary-eyed hand-wringer where this is concerned: we need to walk our talk, right out in the open where everyone can see us. Only then will we regain the trust & credibility we've lost.

    That is all.
    Wow, this is the closest I've ever come to agreeing with you BW!

    I could agree with time goals, but not a hard time line. If sh.it over there goes to hell in a handbasket the goals may always have go out the window.
  •   

      
     

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Sleep supp while on Epi - yay or nay?
    By StangBanger in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-25-2011, 09:05 AM
  2. TestForce2, on cycle libido boost? yay or nay?
    By mark118 in forum E-Pharm Nutrition
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-14-2011, 02:37 PM
  3. Superman Returns 2006 - Suit: yay or nay?
    By Y2Jversion1 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 02:55 PM
  4. War On Iraq Part 2
    By Zen_69 in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2003, 11:36 AM
  5. Hot Sauce Yay or Nay?
    By ex_banana-eater in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-03-2003, 09:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in