In 3 points, why you R against the war N Iraq

[fedoedo]

First of all I'd like to express my pleasure to be in such a forum.

I kindly request every one of you to briefly mention whether he agrees or disagree the current war in Iraq, in three points only.

Awaiting your active participation.

Then my comments will follow.

Thanks

Fedo Edo

EDIT: Do not type your posts in large type or colors. We are not a discussion board that is trying to look like it's illustrated by Crayola.

[Cobra]

Three points okay.

I don't believe the Iraq war is Illegal or that we don't have a right to be there.

I supported the war when we invaded based on the information I was given/had at the time.

I no longer support continuing this war because I don't believe it is in the best interests of the US to continue it. We have little to gain from staying there and have achieved very little from starting it in the first place. Of course there will be some serious consequences from leaving but staying is no better an option considering how this war had been going since the end of major combat operation and the beginning of the occupation/re-building proocess.

[Mayberry]

1. I'm not against the war in Iraq.

2. I'm not against the war in Iraq.

3. I'm not against the war in Iraq.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But this War in Iraq is a sissy war.
2. We should still be leveling Iraq.
3. Take over all the oil wells.
4. Start blasting other Islamic Countries.
5. Get their oil.
6. Send them all to areas we don't want to be in.
7. Far away from the oil.
8. If they complain, bomb them some more.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Churchel]

against.

1 No WMD's

2 Saddam was better at combating fundamental islam.

3 We have put out close to a trillion dollars, and still are paying 3 dollars a gallon for gas.

[Cobra]

1. But this War in Iraq is a sissy war.
2. We should still be leveling Iraq.
3. Take over all the oil wells.
That actually might be more serving to our interests than what we're doing. Even if by some miracle Iraq achieves that functioning democracy we promised them it wont mean they will like us and not support terrorists. I see them forming a more radical Islamic stat then they had before we invaded.

[Rider]

OK, here are my three points:

1. To defeat the terrorists, ie. Islamists we must deny them the support of middle eastern governments. Iraq was a good place to start for many reasons.

2. Iraq's location sets us up in an excellent position to attack Iran.

3. Although it looks less likely every day, it's possible that democracy could take root in the middle east. If it fails, Islam must take the blame.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I think your 3rd point is excellent, and verging on GENIUS!

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Rider]

Chesswarnow- who's third point?

[Mayberry]

Chesswarnow- who's third point?
I'm pretty sure he meant yours Rider, and I wholeheartedly agree. Well said.

[Rider]

Well, if he meant me, then thanks to the both of you. I sorta thought that I was stating the obvious. Trying to start a democracy in Iraq was a big gamble and I was shocked that the President was going to try it. I have since come to believe that it just might work, as Iraq was one of the most secular countries over there. It certainly won't work if we don't stop Iran, though.

[Mayberry]

It certainly won't work if we don't stop Iran, though. True enough. The problem is, that "we" can't do it all. The UN is going to have to get off their duffs and step in here to stabalize the region. Like it or not, those whack jobs are sitting on over 1/3 of the worlds oil supply. Better to take care of them now while there are still other sources of oil. If we wait, it might be too late. In 20-30 years, whoever controls the oil will control the planet. Do we want that to be Iran? I think not.

[Cobra]

In 20-30 years, whoever controls the oil will control the planet. Do we want that to be Iran? I think not.
In 30 years there will be viable alternatives IMO for many of the uses that now require oil, and Iran will lose it's big ace on the world stage of politics. We are a very innovated people, once the oil run low there will be new products invented to replace it. Iran will not be allowed that much power either way.

[Mayberry]

In 30 years there will be viable alternatives IMO for many of the uses that now require oil, and Iran will lose it's big ace on the world stage of politics. We are a very innovated people, once the oil run low there will be new products invented to replace it. Iran will not be allowed that much power either way. I hope you are right Cobra. I'm still on the fence. Most "alternatives" they've come up with so far aren't really viable. But as you stated, Americans are innovative and resilient, and if there is a viable alternative, we'll find it. Personally, I think if nuclear cold fusion ever becomes a reality, that'll be the ticket. Warp speed Scotty.

[Rider]

I think Cobra has it right. As gas hits 4-5 dollars a gallon and war seems endless the American people are going to demand alternatives. A lot can happen in 20 or 30 years. Oil will still be the biggest source of energy, but reduced demand will lower prices.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I happen to think that The President is doing the best he can in a very bad situation.
2. Removing Saddam was the easy part.
3. Dealing with millions of conflicted Muslims is monumental.
4. If The President can bring a viable Democracy to the Muslims in any area of the Planet, he has done something no other has attempted or gotten done.
5. I think The President is very optimistic to even try, I of-course never would of even tried it.
6. I would of segregated them all to far away places, then took over the oil reserves, and given them all reservations on the reservations.
7. I would have basically treated them like the Europeans treated the American Indians when America was discovered.
8. Rider I was referring to your third point, just that you know: Excellent.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Rider]

Thanks Chess
I agree that Bush has taken a huge risk trying to build democracy in the middle east. Even limited success will have positive repercussions into the future. Even if it fails we are still in a good position to push into Iran and Syria. Effectively eliminating them as threats could bring this war a lot closer to resolution. The cretins ruling the middle east (and N Korea) will only support terrorists as long as it does not threaten their survival. Remember Khadafi?

[Old Corps Gunny]

When you consider that every country in the Middle East, except Israel, is either a monarchy, a dictatorship ("president for life), or theocracy, it stands to reason they have good reason to fear honest elections for a government representative of and answerable to the citizens. I don't even know if this is possible in a culture whose law is inseparable from its religion, and therefore, from the fatwas issued by religious leaders.

About the only importance the Muslim countries actually have in the international community is their oil reserves, and it definitely carries weight. This was demonstrated in 1973 when the Organization of Arab Exporting Countries decided to impose a selective embargo against the US, Japan and certain Western European countries for supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War against Egypt and Syria (both non-oil producing countries). This caused a sudden inflation and economic recession, with the hardship borne mainly by the unemployed, marginalized social groups, retirees subsisting on Social Security, and younger workers at lower income levels. In 2003, documents were declassified that showed we were seriously considering taking over Saudi oil fields (after Sauidi Arabia had nationalized ARAMCO), but the Nixon administration decided that was not a viable option.

chesswarsnow proposes that we do the same now. I doubt that even if we could take the oil fields and production facilities we could hold them; the Arabs from all over the Middle East would be united against us, the pipelines would be extremely vulnerable to attack, and the resultant upheavel in oil supply would ultimately turn the rest of the international community against us as well.

Mayberry states we have no "viable" energy alternatives; I guess that depends on what he means by viable. During the second oil "crisis" of 1979, a gasoline/grain alcohol blend was introduced with no harmful effect on car engines, and currently there are hybrid cars being produced and operating on the highways now. We also have the capability to build "wind farms" to produce electricity, and to incorporate solar panels in home construction as well as retrofit existing homes. This may not render the US completely independent from oil imports, but it will reduce the dependence and lead the way for improvement and encourage research for additional alternatives. Since oil is a finite resource, this will have to be done anyway; we might as well be in the lead. My concern on this is that the oil "konzerns" will find a way to monopolize alternative energy production as well.

[Mayberry]

During the second oil "crisis" of 1979, a gasoline/grain alcohol blend was introduced with no harmful effect on car engines, and currently there are hybrid cars being produced and operating on the highways now Grain alcohol is fine, but if you planted grain on every square inch of land that would support it, you would not even begin to meet the demand. Hybrid cars are o.k., but haven't been around long enough to prove their long term reliability, and their lead acid batteries are heavy, expensive, and short lived. Also hybrids are much more expensive than standard cars. We also have the capability to build "wind farms" to produce electricity, and to incorporate solar panels in home construction as well as retrofit existing homes. Windfarms are great, but not a real alternative. You need several hundred acres of wind turbines to generate a paltry 400 MW, which a conventional plant can do using less than 20 acres. Like Will Rogers said, "Buy land, they ain't making any more of it." Also, the wind is not reliable, making some sort of energy storage necessary (batteries). As for solar panels, who's going to pay to retrofit all those homes? Perhaps some sort of tax incentive. But as of now, solar power is expensive, and inefficient, and also requires storage batteries. If you covered the entire state of New Mexico in solar panels it would generate enough power to light up Los Angeles for 10 hours a day. I can't find the source, but I read that in a trade journal from the power industry (I used to be a control room operator at a power plant). My concern on this is that the oil "konzerns" will find a way to monopolize alternative energy production as well. Sure they will, they're working on it as we speak, they're not so arrogant as not to realize that oil is going to run out.

[fedoedo]

Thank you every body for your replies, but excuse me your all comments are not correct because:

1- The war on Iraq was ILLIGAL (The whole world was against the war even in USA itself there was millions of people against the war and the stats proofs this)
2- US troop’s targets are not clear (First of all the reason was Saddam regime then the Nukes, and at last Terrorism)
3- US troops will never ever win this war since they don't hold the belief & faith the resistance has and many of the solders escaped from Iraq, others committed suicide and the rest cannot sleep without drugs.

On request I have the proof for the above in the language you understand.

The above and more happened and still some people support the illegal war on Iraq and pushing their Bush to another war in Syria, Iran, and may be Korea.

I request you to be fair enough and honest with your selves and face the facts instead of just showing arrogance towards your opposition.

Await your positive participation.

Fedo Edo

[Mayberry]

The war on Iraq was ILLIGAL So you say. We did the world a favor getting rid of Saddam weather you like it or not. whole world was against the war Uh, no. Great Britain, among others, are on our side. US troop’s targets are not clear Really? Seems to me the targets are pretty clear. Shoot back at those who shoot at us. Initially, the targets were predetermined well in advance of our actual invasion. We bombed with surgical precision.Â*Â*US troops will never ever win this war since they don't hold the belief & faith So, you're an Islamic radical are you? The only thing stopping us from winning this war is the fact that we aren't allowed to fight. Had this been an all-out war, it would have been over in 6 months or less. With massive civilian casualties. We will eventually win this war, unless some slack jawed liberal gets elected in '08 and pulls out the troops, which will be the biggest mistake in history. Await your positive participation So you only want participation if it is in agreement with you? Perhaps you don't quite grasp the concept of a debate.

[Rider]

Fedoedo- The reply you requested-

1. The war was not illegal. Wanting it to be illegal doesn't make it so. Why is it illegal? What law or laws are you refering to?

2. The reason the targets are not clear is because our enemies refuse to wear uniforms and hide amongst civilians. That's not our fault.

3. Yeah, thousands of our troops are so dispirited and depressed that they've volunteered for their third tour. Self destructive, I guess.

The only force that can possibly defeat us is the antiwar left in this country, as once before in the Vietnam war. The real war is here at home.

[fedoedo]

Mayberry & Rider

Thanks for your psots,,,

I kindly request you to watch the below English film about the US war on Iraq then you will come to know some of the truth, then I'll do my best to show you more and more as enough as I can since I'm shure that most of the truth is hidden and covered from the US citizens.

Iraq Freedom

http://www.sendspace.com/file/s90wty

Anyway I appreciate your way of discussion and will continue later.

Thanks

Fedo Edo

[Mayberry]

So now you want us to download a file from an unknown source. How do I know it isn't a virus?

[Rider]

Fedo edo-
No English film or any other film for that matter is going to change the situation in the middle east. I suspect it's just another slick conspiracy theory flick that has impressed you. Like Mayberry, I hesitate to download a file from a source I don't recognize.

[fedoedo]

Heeee guys,,,
You dont have anti virus???

OR

you just want to escape form the truth and the reality world.
We are in a democratic debate, and you should cotinue the discussion untill the end.

However, I assure you that the file is free of any harmful thins. its size is 25 MB only, and it is just a documentary film fairly showing the other face of the war which you may can't see through your common TV stations.

Anyway it is up to you,

Thanks

Fedo Edo

To be Continued...

[Drocket]

3. Yeah, thousands of our troops are so dispirited and depressed that they've volunteered for their third tour. Self destructive, I guess.
Ever hear of stop-loss? A LOT of the troops in Iraq would come home in an instant if they could, but the military continues to extend their contract, leaving the soldiers little choice but to hope that they'll manage to continue avoid being blown up.

Anyway, back to the original question - I only need one point, at least regarding the situation as it stands now (there's a lot more to be said about how we got into this war in the first place, but lets put that aside for now...):
-America's continued presence in Iraq is only making the situation worse. Every action we take to 'crack down' on 'insurgents' does little but make us look worse to the Iraqi population and makes the insurgency even larger. This is a downward spiral that we've been in for at least 2 years now, and our continued presence only keeps it going. As long as we keep 'staying the course' in Iraq, the situation in the Middle East is only going to get worse, and anti-American sentiment is only going to grow.

[fedoedo]

-America's continued presence in Iraq is only making the situation worse. Every action we take to 'crack down' on 'insurgents' does little but make us look worse to the Iraqi population and makes the insurgency even larger. This is a downward spiral that we've been in for at least 2 years now, and our continued presence only keeps it going. As long as we keep 'staying the course' in Iraq, the situation in the Middle East is only going to get worse, and anti-American sentiment is only going to grow.


Drocket, i agree with you and the evidence on the above is many calls from the American experienced politics to retrieve the US troops back, not only that but also many of the military leaders like Rumsfild and others who discovered after all that they have to take this decision at the earliest in order to avoid more loses (Lives & Money).

Also many of the killed solders families are calling to retrieve the troops back and asking the President what we gained from this war till now???

Fedo Edo

[fedoedo]

So you only want participation if it is in agreement with you? Perhaps you don't quite grasp the concept of a debate.

I meant by this that I appreciate the fruitful discussion and the logical points of view instead of tension responds.

Regards,

Fedo Edo

[Rider]

Fedoedo-
I just submitted a post on this subject on another thread. I'll paste it here, too.

"Our media, dancing to the tune played bythe terrorist media masters has just about convinced people that the war is a quagmire, too costly in money and lives and that if we just pulled out it would all go away.
Well, that's not true.
We don't have to go all the way back to Vietnam or the First Gulf War; just look at how our immediate retreat from Somalia turned out. We lost less than 20 soldiers; a sad loss, but hardly unexpected when applying military force. Now Al Qaida has wrested control of that country from the other warlords and will probably consolidate that hold and turn the country into a giant terrorist wonderland. How many GI's will we lose taking it back? Do you think that we should use the same strategy in Iraq?"

My point is that Iraq is a campaign in a larger war. We didn't pull out of the Italian campaign during WWII simply because it was bloody. The overall war effort made it worthwhile. If we pull out of Iraq we will end up either going back later or suffering repeated attacks on our country.

But tell us, how would you have responded to the attacks on 9/11?

[fedoedo]

But tell us, how would you have responded to the attacks on 9/11?


Actually once I hared the 9/11 attacks I got shocked.
Who can do this???
Why???
How???

And many more questions came to my mind by that time.

Fedo Edo

[Rider]

Sorry, I did not state my question adequately.
If you had been a close advisor to the President after 9/11, what action would you have proposed that the United States take in response to the attacks?

[Drocket]

If you had been a close advisor to the President after 9/11, what action would you have proposed that the United States take in response to the attacks?

I can rather easily tell you what I WOULDN'T have done: I wouldn't have proposed invading a country that was completely uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks, and then justified that invasion by making false claims about WMDs and Al Qaeda connections. And if I was enough of an immoral asshole as to even *consider* that sort of abomininable behavior, I would have at least been bright enough to listen to the advice of my military commanders and have used enough troops to have prevented the lawlessness that started Iraq's slide into civil war. I also would have spent the reconstruction money by hiring local Iraqi workers to rebuild (which would have helped the Iraqi economy and gained us allies) instead of spending it all on overpriced US firms who have produced almost nothing despite having been paid billions (the fact that those companies are either associated with members of the Bush administration or major Republican contributors are pure coincidence, I'm sure.)

The decision to invade Iraq was both criminal and incompetent, and every decision the Bush administration has made since then has come from the same resevoir of corruption and idiocy.

[fedoedo]

I can rather easily tell you what I WOULDN'T have done: I wouldn't have proposed invading a country that was completely uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks, and then justified that invasion by making false claims about WMDs and Al Qaeda connections. And if I was enough of an immoral asshole as to even *consider* that sort of abomininable behavior, I would have at least been bright enough to listen to the advice of my military commanders and have used enough troops to have prevented the lawlessness that started Iraq's slide into civil war. I also would have spent the reconstruction money by hiring local Iraqi workers to rebuild (which would have helped the Iraqi economy and gained us allies) instead of spending it all on overpriced US firms who have produced almost nothing despite having been paid billions (the fact that those companies are either associated with members of the Bush administration or major Republican contributors are pure coincidence, I'm sure.)

The decision to invade Iraq was both criminal and incompetent, and every decision the Bush administration has made since then has come from the same resevoir of corruption and idiocy.

I agree with Drocket, and i add that when the President tried to link between Al Qaeda and Saddam (As a reason for the war) that time there was no relations between them at all, because they are 100% different ideologies and every one of them considers the other one as an enemy (Bin Laden is a Fundamentalist by contrary Saddam is Socialist not committed to the Islam rules).

No body denies that Saddam was bad person even Muslims & Arabs admits that, but that doesn’t mean to destroy the whole country for one person even if he is a dictatorial leader. US troops killed until now around 100,000 Iraqis last three years, and from the other hand the Sheit (Non-Sunnah) people who work in the Iraqi Army, Police, and Security they killed also about 100,000 (this is through Iraqi Stats not from my mind)

Thanks,

Fedo Edo

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But I see what GW Bush did after 911 was right on par with what I would have done.
2. After the dust settled in New York.
3. Bush and his cabinet had to resolve who were the bad guys in the middle east that needed to be dealt with.
4. It didn't take long for Iraq to be mentioned.
5. Of-course Afghanistan had to be brought up, seeing Bin Laden was there.
6. I think Saudi Arabia should of been on this list, because they are the ones fomenting all this cr@p, with their religious schools, that send this cr@p out to all points of the globe.
7. This isn't a secret either.
8. We really need to lean on the GD Saudis.
9. Yes I know they all wear sheets for cloths, but still these GD Bastards, are the ones behind all this cr@p Islam is doing.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Athena]

But tell us, how would you have responded to the attacks on 9/11?


Actually once I hared the 9/11 attacks I got shocked.
Who can do this???
Why???
How???

And many more questions came to my mind by that time.

Fedo Edo



Good grief, is someone arguing the US invasion of Iraq is justified by 9/11? Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and its people were not our enemy. The invasion of this region was desired long before 9/11, and not for the reasons given for invading Iraq, but simply to gain control over this area.

Project for the New American CenturyA neoconservative organization supporting greater American militarization, challenging hostile government...
www.newamericancentury.org/ - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

I think the Bush dream of leading the New World Order is the result of imitating our WWII enemy in every way, including adopting German philosophy, and model for education, and German model for bureacracy. I think the US democracy is as perverted as Germany was when the Prussians took control of Germany. This change in the US was desired by military men at since the US mobilized for WWI. This is documented in the thread about education, in political philosophy.

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry, I did not state my question adequately.
If you had been a close advisor to the President after 9/11, what action would you have proposed that the United States take in response to the attacks?


Nuke Mecca NOW!

Then do it again on Tuesday.

[Nathan Brazil]

I would have at least been bright enough to listen to the advice of my military commanders and have used enough troops to have prevented the lawlessness that started Iraq's slide into civil war.

Really? Explain why the US Civil War lasted mroe than four years and killed more than 600,000 Americans.

That's right, the generals in charge of the Northern armies kept compaining they didn't have enough troops to get the job done.

The problem wasn't lack of troops, the problem lack of planning and subsequent failure to secure critical government buildings. While the stupid whiny surrender monkeys in the media were crying about a stupid museum getting ransacked, vital intelligence was being burned in the streets by former Hussein employees and informants.

Strategically, the move to invade Iraq was a sound move. That's still true today. Only short-sighted fools can imagine the world would be better with Hussein still in power to pick his nose and flick boogers our way.

The sound reasons behind the invasion were not the reasons the Bush people aired, though. They knew how stupid the courts of public opinion are. The US branch of that court still thinks Al Gore won the election in 2000, for example. They most definitely don't have the maturity needed to be told the truth.

[Drocket]

Sorry, but you're the one who can't seem to handle the truth. You plug your ears and pretend you can't see obvious evidence that's sitting right in front of you. You come up with vague, convoluted explainations about how brilliantly the Bush administration is planning some unknown long-term plan, despite the fact that every single step along the way has been an utter disaster, pretending that 10,000 missteps and errors are somehow part of a grand vision that's somehow magically going to work out someday.

You do this because you're too afraid to admit, even to yourself, the obvious truth: our country is in the control of criminals and madmen, and even more than that, that you've supported them in this insane plans for world domination. And so you grow ever more shrill and nonsensical in your defenses as the house of cards they've constructed keep tumbling down, layer by layer. Sooner or later you're going to have to admit the truth, though - and the longer you avoid doing so, the worse its going to hurt when you do so.

[Nathan Brazil]

Sorry, but you're the one who can't seem to handle the truth.Â*Â*You plug your ears and pretend you can't see obvious evidence that's sitting right in front of you.Â*Â*You come up with vague, convoluted explainations about how brilliantly the Bush administration is planning some unknown long-term plan, despite the fact that every single step along the way has been an utter disaster, pretending that 10,000 missteps and errors are somehow part of a grand vision that's somehow magically going to work out someday.

You do this because you're too afraid to admit, even to yourself, the obvious truth:Â*Â*our country is in the control of criminals and madmen, and even more than that, that you've supported them in this insane plans for world domination.Â*Â*And so you grow ever more shrill and nonsensical in your defenses as the house of cards they've constructed keep tumbling down, layer by layer.Â*Â*Sooner or later you're going to have to admit the truth, though - and the longer you avoid doing so, the worse its going to hurt when you do so.



Did I use the word "brilliant" in my post? No. However, only the truly stupid or the dishonestly ideological will refuse to admit the strategic importance of Iraq in any anti-terrorist policy. Can you explain your failure to admit the strategic importance of Iraq in another way?

And, no, I didn't support this administration on the invasion of Iraq, I was fully aware of the costs involved and I've also noted the lack of a formal declaration of war from Congress. IMO the congress bills authorizing the use of whatever force is necessary to remove Hussein (passed under our Pro-Terrorist Rapist President) isn't the same thing as a consitutionally mandated war declaration.

And you seem to be the shrill one here.

[Athena]

Nathan Brazil and Drocket, are you two deliberately ignoring the fact that Bush and Cheney wanted to militarily dominate the mid east before 9/11? Have you looked at the site for the Projection for the New American Century?

And why would anyone think we have any right to nuke anyone?

[Nathan Brazil]

Nathan Brazil and Drocket, are you two deliberately ignoring the fact that Bush and Cheney wanted to militarily dominate the mid east before 9/11?Â*Â*Have you looked at the site for the Projection for the New American Century?

No, I don't ignore things that don't exist.

And why would anyone think we have any right to nuke anyone?

Because rights are a legal fiction without objective reality, nuclear weapons are real. Therefore, no one has any rights at all, but if we get really really pissed off at the Muslims, say like if they murdered several thousand of our civillians in a single hour, then maybe we'd want to send the magic rock back to Allah-In-The-Sky as a warning.

If Allah doesn't want his magic rock back, he can protect it, can't he?

[Rider]

Nathan wrote-The sound reasons behind the invasion were not the reasons the Bush people aired, though. They knew how stupid the courts of public opinion are. The US branch of that court still thinks Al Gore won the election in 2000, for example. They most definitely don't have the maturity needed to be told the truth.
While I might have put it differently Nathan has hit the nail on the head. It's sad, but the typical American is so ignorant of current events, history and the existing world situation that were we a literal democracy we would have perished long ago. Fortunately the founders realized this and created a representative form of democracy that allowed the people to elect leaders they had confidence in to make decisions in cases just like this.

Drocket wrote- ...despite the fact that every single step along the way has been an utter disaster...
While we haven't achieved everything we have attempted, "utter disaster" is hyperventilation at its best. The Russians tried unsuccessfully to conquer Afghanistan for almost 10 years. I don't think it took us 10 months. The only thing stopping us from crushing the insurgency in Iraq is ourselves. Once again, the people, led around by the media have been convinced that we are in a quagmire and that our opponents cannot be defeated. If we were to unleash the full might of our air forces against Iran and Syria the situation in Iraq would improve immediately.

[Nathan Brazil]

While I might have put it differently Nathan has hit the nail on the head. It's sad, but the typical American is so ignorant of current events, history and the existing world situation that were we a literal democracy we would have perished long ago. Fortunately the founders realized this and created a representative form of democracy that allowed the people to elect leaders they had confidence in to make decisions in cases just like this.

Oh, don't limit it to Americans. I figure the US avoided mentioning anything about grand strategy was that the truly Idiot Nations, like France, Germany, and Russia, who were busy selling the West out to Iran, or the puppet nations like most of the Turd World, would have an unending spasm of delight chanting against US "imperialism" if we'd announced that we were going into Iraq to change the political control of the entire region.

Frankly, the US is the only nation that could be trusted with that mission. I'm pretty sure no other country would be willing to turn the spoils of victory over to the natives so quickly. Would anyone trust France? No. Germany? Ha ha. What about Russia? Yeah, right. Sure.

In fact, the US never did get any spoils.


The Russians tried unsuccessfully to conquer Afghanistan for almost 10 years.

Try more like a hundred. Russian attempts at influence and control of Afghanistan date back to the 18th century.

If we were to unleash the full might of our air forces against Iran and Syria the situation in Iraq would improve immediately.

Sounds good to me. When we're done we'll tell them to elect better presidents.

[Mayberry]

The important fact that the bleeding hearts here seem to miss is that the very stability of our own country is critically dependent on the stability of the middle east. Our energy, our way of life, comes in bulk from the middle eastern oil fields. Plain simple fact. Saddam was a loose cannon that had to be dealt with to stabalize the region and secure our energy supply. For the same reason, we need to let Israel go about their business. Pulling out of iraq today would mean Syrian/ Iranian invasion tomorrow. Do you want to see $100 a barrel oil (shut up 'zo)? I sure as hell don't. Public transportation is unsafe (target for terrorists), inefficient, and just plain sucks, and the left wing socialist freaks that want me and others like me to be forced to use it can kiss my a$$. So let's finish the job in Iraq, support our Israeli allies, and quit all the bitching about why we're in Iraq. It was plain as day to me from the beginning, and anyone who thinks we're there for any other reason is a bleeding idiot. The original cover story was for the sake of the media twits that can't handle the truth. I'm cool with that. Blow the Islamic radicals back to hell where they belong, it's an added benefit to securing our oil supply.

[Cobra]

Public transportation is unsafe (target for terrorists), inefficient, and just plain sucks, and the left wing socialist freaks that want me and others like me to be forced to use it can kiss my a$$.

Totally agree on that point actually, the rest not so sure but will see.

[Mayberry]

Totally agree on that point actually Well wonders never cease. Maybe there's a glimmer of hope for you yet:D

[Little Iraqi]

Mayberry wrote:
The important fact that the bleeding hearts here seem to miss is that the very stability of our own country is critically dependent on the stability of the middle east. Our energy, our way of life, comes in bulk from the middle eastern oil fields. Plain simple fact. Saddam was a loose cannon that had to be dealt with to stabalize the region and secure our energy supply. For the same reason, we need to let Israel go about their business. Pulling out of iraq today would mean Syrian/ Iranian invasion tomorrow. Do you want to see $100 a barrel oil (shut up 'zo)? I sure as hell don't. Public transportation is unsafe (target for terrorists), inefficient, and just plain sucks, and the left wing socialist freaks that want me and others like me to be forced to use it can kiss my a$$. So let's finish the job in Iraq, support our Israeli allies, and quit all the bitching about why we're in Iraq. It was plain as day to me from the beginning, and anyone who thinks we're there for any other reason is a bleeding idiot. The original cover story was for the sake of the media twits that can't handle the truth. I'm cool with that. Blow the Islamic radicals back to hell where they belong, it's an added benefit to securing our oil supply

Mr. Lier
We Iraqis don’t like Saddam at all, however when Saddam was there it was 100 times secure than it is now.
Your scared solders are killing any moving object on the land, they have raped tens of Iraqi virgins, they have killed hundreds of old men & women, they have destroyed the infrastructure of the country, they have burned the Museums and all cultural sights, they have allocated the Iraqi Ministries to thieves and robbers (Like Ahmed Al Jalabi who was in charge for the Ministry of Oil although USA know very well that he was accused for many robbery cases).

Your troops pretend that they came for the democracy during having Abu Gharib prison and other many underground persons.

Listen to what our Iraqi people say to the US troops:

“Your troops came to make the region more secure while we swear it will trigger the World War III in which we will not only defeat your troops but also will remove them from the history and will make shift + delete for your troops to the recycle pen. Put in your mind that we are not an easy people and all the world know this, but if you have doubts you can ask the Russian old solders, or ask your solders in Afghanistan, or even ask you solders here in Iraq and they will feed you with the truth that “When some body tries to fight and destroy us, then we will fly to the battle, attack our enemies, eat them with our teeth and some times drink their blood it is tasty� end.


Mr. Lier put in your mind that we have not began the war with you, but you are the beginners since you have supported Israel against Palestine, and killed many of our innocent Muslims under the cover of antiterrorism war.

At the end, I wish in future you will be democratic enough and will not use rude words in your posts.

Little Son of Iraq

[Churchel]

Wow I can see you clutching your saber and waving your finger at the monitor as you typed that!

You have some correct points, but others are what I consider 180 wrong.

Saddam kept things orderly by supression.Â*Â*I already stated that on the first page.Â*Â*We all know that.

As far as our troops raping 10s of virgins why differentiate that from women?Â*Â*A rape is a rape.

As far as abu ghraib, its unfortanute we have a military that is run by politicians purposefully not asking questions.Â*Â*I look at the panties on the head thing as stupid and humiliating, but other than that it seems a world better than our prisons, were gangrapes and murder are normal.

And why are you as a religios group killing each other? You all are muslim.Â*Â*Us as christians got past that once we figured out the world was round.Â*Â*Suicide bombings?Â*Â*And we are supposed to trust you as a region with nukes?Â*Â*People have gotten death threats and even worse for talking about your religion here, and people flip out over cartoons that depict our thoughts.

You guys have not learned how to play the game, and that is too bad. We are going to all live with this until there is some central understanding of how we all are going to find a way to get along.

[Rider]

Mayberry said- The important fact that the bleeding hearts here seem to miss is that the very stability of our own country is critically dependent on the stability of the middle east.
I would ammend that to include the entire western world upon which the entire third world depends for survival.

[Rider]

Oh, and little Iraqi; it seems that our troops missed one.

[Athena]

Public transportation is unsafe (target for terrorists), inefficient, and just plain sucks, and the left wing socialist freaks that want me and others like me to be forced to use it can kiss my a$$.

Totally agree on that point actually, the rest not so sure but will see.


I am beginning to wonder if anyone with intelligence post on these forums.Â*Â* However, when it comes to not wanting some people to haveÂ*Â*political power, I can certianly sympathize with wishing some people had none.Â*Â*I think all that many people know about life is their own personal experience of it, and all they are interested in is their limited self interest, therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to be self governing, and it is a good thing there are wars that can use them as extensions of weapons.Â*Â*It is very nice to have agreement on something.Â*Â*

[Rider]

Athena said- I am beginning to wonder if anyone with intelligence post on these forums.Â*Â* However, when it comes to not wanting some people to haveÂ*Â*political power, I can certianly sympathize with wishing some people had none.Â*Â*I think all that many people know about life is their own personal experience of it, and all they are interested in is their limited self interest, therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to be self governing, and it is a good thing there are wars that can use them as extensions of weapons.Â*Â*It is very nice to have agreement on something.

Huh?

[Cobra]

Athena said- I am beginning to wonder if anyone with intelligence post on these forums.Â*Â* However, when it comes to not wanting some people to haveÂ*Â*political power, I can certianly sympathize with wishing some people had none.Â*Â*I think all that many people know about life is their own personal experience of it, and all they are interested in is their limited self interest, therefore, they shouldn't be allowed to be self governing, and it is a good thing there are wars that can use them as extensions of weapons.Â*Â*It is very nice to have agreement on something.
Huh?

I’ll second that.

Lets see if I get this, I assume I'm one of the people your talking about because you quoted me. Now because I am interested in my own self interests you believe or understand why some people believe I should not be self governing/vote/have political power and war is a good thing sometimes because it uses such people, right. Now WTF does that have to do with anything being discussed on this thread.

[Little Iraqi]

Rider wrote:
Oh, and little Iraqi; it seems that our troops missed one

can you please clarify what do you mean by your above words.

Awaiting your comment.

Son of Iraq

[ECW]

Welcome, Little Iraqi.

[Little Iraqi]

ECW wrote:
Welcome, Little Iraqi.

Thanks ECW...
Actually no one can deny that there are so many of Americans deserve respect and appreciation.

That's what I'm expecting from a real Democratic Forum.

Thanks agian for welcoming me in your forum.

Little Iraqi

[Labrocca]

Oh, and little Iraqi; it seems that our troops missed one.


I consider that a personal attack. Please read our forum rules. One would think that having an actual Iraqi here to debate would be important.

Welcome Little Iraqi and simply report posts if you feel they are breaking any site rules.

[Little Iraqi]

Mr. Labrocca wrote:

I consider that a personal attack. Please read our forum rules. One would think that having an actual Iraqi here to debate would be important.


It gives me great pleasure that the site owner himself is following each and every post and commenting if mistakes or misunderstanding is there.

I really have to thank you Labrocca because we Iraqis lost the hope to be in touch with fair and honest Americans with whom we can debate & discuss the mutual critical points.

Once again, I would like to express my happiness for being here and having these open debates with all of you.

All my best regards,

Little Iraqi

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. But Little Iraqi's first post where he states he's willing to murder and drink the blood of Americans, really says it all.
2. Explaining thats how his people dealt with the Russians, and how America is next is abhorrent to us, and why should Americans want to pay to secure their land, with our Mens Lives, and our American Money, when we can see this is how they feel, or atleast this one feels.
3. And seeing that they will suicide bomb each other, why would we extend normal relations to them, they are not normal by any human means.
4. And welcome to the debate, Little Iraqi, New Blood is always appreciated.
5. This should be very educational to all the folks here, and those who read your words, please feel free to express your views, in an open and revealing way, include all the gory details.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[ECW]

1. But Little Iraqi's first post where he states he's willing to murder and drink the blood of Americans, really says it all.

You are so clueless. Go back and read the post again. He is referring to the response of the Iraqi people to the troops who were rapists and murderers of innocent Iraqis. He did NOT say that he was willing to do those things. It's very typical of you to extrapolate to the ridiculous extreme something that is not there. Are you excusing the rapists and the murderers and taking their side against the Iraqi people that you claim you want to set free?

2. Explaining thats how his people dealt with the Russians, and how America is next is abhorrent to us, and why should Americans want to pay to secure their land, with our Mens Lives, and our American Money, when we can see this is how they feel, or atleast this one feels.

First of all, there are women in the military and they are over there fighting as well and for you to ignore that very salient fact is disrespectful to the military and the sacrifices they make on your behalf. You should be ashamed of yourself but you are not and will come up with some lame half-assed reason to explain your insult to our troops. And you were pissing and moaning about Little Iraqi's complaint about the troops who murder and rape innocent Iraqis?

Secondly, ask your illustrious WAR president why should Americans want to pay to secure their land with AMERICAN lives. He's the one who blindly got us into this quagmire. You know, the head neo-con, George Chimpy McFlightpants.

3. And seeing that they will suicide bomb each other, why would we extend normal relations to them, they are not normal by any human means.

Timothy McVey blows a huge hole in your "normal" theory there, genius. It appears that you are now a racist on top of being a mysoginist and clueless.

4. And welcome to the debate, Little Iraqi, New Blood is always appreciated.

Yeah. Like I believe that, coming from you.

5. This should be very educational to all the folks here, and those who read your words, please feel free to express your views, in an open and revealing way, include all the gory details.

This almost seems like an invitation to others to "pile on." Man, if I ever had reservations about whether or not you were a full-blown neo-con, you sure crushed them with this post. (Try and damning me to hell for that comment, boy. See how far it gets ya.) And I hope that Little Iraqi does just what Labrocca told him to and reports each and every time one of you makes it into a personal attack. This post was shameful and certainly not representative of how the MAJORITY of Americans feel about Iraq and the quagmire we are in.

[Rider]

Labrocca wrote- I consider that a personal attack. Please read our forum rules. One would think that having an actual Iraqi here to debate would be important.
Let me see if I've got this right. He delivers a post where he threatens to kill our troops viciously and drink their blood, but I'm guilty of a "personal" attack? I am by nature a friendly and easy going guy, but I can get riled, too. My son happens to be named after a fellow Marine who was killed by another "little Iraqi".
But, you're right. It doesn't excuse me. BTW, what makes you think he's really from Iraq? Can you tell by the IP addressing?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Little Iraqi's IP address comes from Oman.Â*Â*Muscat, Masqat is the city and province. It's also the national capital.

He may be Iraqi but he's not in country.

[Labrocca]

Mr. Labrocca wrote:

I consider that a personal attack. Please read our forum rules. One would think that having an actual Iraqi here to debate would be important.


It gives me great pleasure that the site owner himself is following each and every post and commenting if mistakes or misunderstanding is there.

I really have to thank you Labrocca because we Iraqis lost the hope to be in touch with fair and honest Americans with whom we can debate & discuss the mutual critical points.

Once again, I would like to express my happiness for being here and having these open debates with all of you.

All my best regards,

Little Iraqi


Not all Americans are in a crusade against the Muslims. The same as how all Muslims are not jihad extremists. I would love to get a better idea of how someone like you thinks and this interests me greatly. How often can an American safely speak to an extremist muslim safely (unless your CNN)? :-)

Now to add my view on Iraq and my reason why I think we are there.

1. To rid the area of political tyrants (includes muslim extremists)
2. To install a free and open democracy in the region
3. To attempt to ensure a stable region with a US friendly government so that oil can continue to flow

Now all these can be combined and pretty much summed up as
'protect oil' as the end goal. I know that the anti-bush crowd loves to call this an 'oil war' and I kind of agree. I have decided that if there wasn't oil in the region absolutely no one would give a shit. Also if there wasn't oil these countries would be so damn poor they would make Africa look well off. Terrorists wouldn't exist simply because they wouldn't have the monetary means to buy even a bullet.

OH JEEZ...I just read this thread title wrong. Hmm...

Well I am against the iraq war for these reason.

1. Fuck the middle east and their oil
2. Israel should take care of itself (and it can)
3. A nuke or two would end the whole damn thing so why start a war?

w00t

[ECW]

Labrocca wrote- I consider that a personal attack. Please read our forum rules. One would think that having an actual Iraqi here to debate would be important.
Let me see if I've got this right. He delivers a post where he threatens to kill our troops viciously and drink their blood, but I'm guilty of a "personal" attack?

You misread it as well. He clearly stated "the Iraqi people" not himself personally. Your attack was personal as was Chess's.

But, you're right. It doesn't excuse me. BTW, what makes you think he's really from Iraq? Can you tell by the IP addressing?

And I can vouch for the fact he is Iraqi because I knew him at another board where the neo-cons had a similar reading comprehension problem.

[lily]

I'll vouch for him too. If you actually listen to what he has to say, you might learn something.

[dsanthony]

First of all I'd like to express my pleasure to be in such a forum.

I kindly request every one of you to briefly mention whether he agrees or disagree the current war in Iraq, in three points only.

Awaiting your active participation.

Then my comments will follow.

Thanks

Fedo Edo

EDIT: Do not type your posts in large type or colors.Â*Â*We are not a discussion board that is trying to look like it's illustrated by Crayola.


Three reasons why I support the war in Iraq.

1) Hussein. The first gulf war, which drove Hussein from Kuwait, never actually ended. A UN mandate was passed which ended the hostilities, provided that Hussein cooperate with all UN forces and UN weapons inspectors. Throughout Clinton's presidency, Hussein played cat and mouse with the "no-fly zone" and the weapons inspectors. Like UN "observers" in Lebanon, the UN is ineffectual to enforce any country to follow the terms of UN mandates. Hussein repeatedly broke the terms of the UN ceasefire, right up until the day Bush 2 invaded.

2) MWD. Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iranians. He made a bid to attain nuclear weapons in the 80's, and only a preemptive strike by Israel against his reactor kept him from acheiving nuclear status. Personally, I believe Hussein had WMD's and moved them out of the country, probably to Syria, before the 2nd invasion. Either way, he used WMD's in the past and would have resumed his development and production of WMD's immediately after the UN inspectors left his country.

3) Terrorism. IF he was not an enemy of the US before the first gulf war, he was a deadly enemy afterward. Even during the UN inspector's presence, Hussein offered a "reward" to the family of any suicide bomber who committed terrorism in Israel. Some of us (not the libs or UN) have learned that terrorism against one country will someday become terrorism against another.

BUT, to balance things out... Here are 3 things I think Bush did wrong during the war and subsequent insurrection.

1) He kept a strong US presence in Iraq after the war, and delayed too long in forming an Iraqi govt.

2) IF he decided to keep US troops in Iraq, he should have stationed enough troops there to maintain the peace. When the insurgency first began, Bush should have moved massive number of troops to Iraq to quell the violence.

3) Bush should not have disbanded the Iraqi military. He should have kept them in their ranks--either in a prisoner state, or as a work force to rebuild Iraqi infrastructure.

[fedoedo]

Thanks every body for your active participations.

Fedo Edo

[Rider]

Lily and ECW-
You can vouch for him because you've read his posts elsewhere? Well, I can't argue with logic like that.

[lily]

After reading him for 6 months, I guess I can. But hey......don't take my word for it. Labrocca did an IP check. Do you trust the site owner?

[Rider]

Lily, the IP address came from Oman. He may or may not be Iraqi.

[lily]

Rider...........I'm not going to argue this point. You don't have to believe he's the real deal. I happen to. I've been reading his posts for a number of months on another site. He's proven himself to me.

[Rider]

I'm good with that, Lily.

[lily]

;)

[ECW]

I'm good with that, Lily.


Give him a while and he will piss you off but good. He is a Sunni in a country where many Sunnis are identified with Saddam. He is not a Saddam loyalist. He is not a Baathist but he is no lackey to what you and I think an Iraqi ought to feel or think like. He holds opinions that you and I have not heard before and it will challenge your thoughts on the war, the troops there, and how the peace is being waged. This is stuff you cannot fake. Trust me, he's the real deal.

I do not agree with him on many things but I always want to hear his side of things. I hope you will accord him that right to be heard and if you choose to disagree that you are not disagreeable when you do so.

[Rider]

I'm good with that, too.