I am an uneducated American who supports the war for no good reason (covers, quote)

TheBig3 · 04-15-2008, 09:14 PM

i hope america bombs your children.

tkpb938 · 04-15-2008, 10:02 PM

Wow thats harsh and rather against a spirit of healthy debate.^ I think he brings up some solid points myself.

TheBig3 · 04-15-2008, 10:11 PM

Who does?

tkpb938 · 04-15-2008, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Who does?

Predator...

My bro is in Afghanistan, and he says the same things basically about afghani's and iraqi's being mostly greatful people.

Zombeels · 04-17-2008, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator

Let me share a story told to me by a friend. About 3 months into his first deployment he was hit by a roadside bomb. He took a lot of shrapnel to his face, neck and arms, his torso was protected. He was evacuated for treatment and returned to his unit 2 weeks later. He was of course angry about what happened, but not in the way you might think. He was talking to another soldier saying that it was bull**** that they were even there. If Iraqi's wanted us gone bad enough to attempt killing them, maybe they should just throw in the towel leave. He was approached by a civilian that was hired to work in the dining hall and told that he was wrong. He and most of the people he knew were thankful that we were there. He came to them to say thank you, he was being ignored while they were talking. He approached unarmed soldiers when he could have ignored them. But one person doesn't represent an entire country. He is simply a voice with a face, not a number on a poll.

And one person does not represent the majority. Can you show one poll that favours the US occupation?

Quote:

When you read further into some of these polls, you get a different picture than the quick description. They didn't change any information, only show what would support the point they want seen. A few examples.

We are talking about what Iraqis think, not the US servicemen.

Quote:

With as religiously divided as Iraq is, they would need to ensure that a true cross section is taken. 93% of Sunni Muslims agreeing with attacks on troops is not a shocking number. Of course you know that Saddam was a Sunni Muslim. Sunni's were living the good life with Saddam in charge. Shi'a of course don't see things the same. What about the results from the Kurdish population polled? They also didn't bother to show the trend of improved quality of life. In 3 years, the polls show mobile phone ownership increasing 14 times over. Of course why bother showing that.

Who's picking and choosing now. There are plenty of polls listed outside of Baghdad that represent the Shia and Kurd populations. Are you kidding me,the quality of life has fallen so much. Have you seen the unemployment rates, the level of poverty. Mobile phones over 3 years. Why not show over 6 years.

Quote:

Nazi Germany was not a world power until they had already murdered at least 2 million Jews. Not until they had already invaded and secured other nations were they considered a threat.

Wrong again. Germany became a world power in the early 30's. Any comparison to the strength and power of pre-war Iraq to Nazi era Germany is ridiculous.

Quote:

Iraq was a threat to neighboring nations.

No they weren't. Show me one neighbor that felt Iraq was a threat.

Quote:

Iraq was guilty of genocide.

Now you are getting yourself into a grey area. The UN led sanctions against Iraq killed more and are also considered genocide. Bush's war on Iraq can also be considered genocide. Even the Gulf Invasion can be considered genocide. If you are going to look at the situation by the amount of numbers lost then the US takes most of th responsibility. Don't forget Saddam had the charges dropped against him for the Anfal Campaign.

Quote:

Iraq was attempting to secure nuclear weapons

No they weren't

Quote:

and had, at different points, chemical weapons.

Not prior to the invasion.

Quote:

They had them in the past and would not allow inspectors to verify that they did not have them prior to the invasion.

The inspectors were on the ground when the US officially called for a war.

Quote:

These made them a threat to the entire world.

They were simply not a threat to anyone.

Quote:

I am bringing up points from past wars to show the similarities. I'll say it again; history repeats itself.

But there are no similarities or no correlation. History means nothing if you've been lied to about the present.

Miltamec Soundsquinaez · 04-18-2008, 03:26 PM

Here's the thing:

Bush and his cronies wanted revenge for 9/11 and rightfully so. We allegedly searched for Osama bin Laden in the ensuing year. Then, when the search for Osama began looking dire in the summer of 2002, he and his staff began kicking around the idea of going after Saddam.
1. He was one of the world's most brutal and fascist leaders.
2. He wanted to kill Bush Sr., and Bush Sr. was too lax in catching him during the first Iraq invasion in '91. Bush Jr. was hellbent on being more of a Reagan style conservative than a Bush Sr. moderate, so he wanted to look tough and in charge, by getting the job done this time.
3. They believed Saddam was an easier target to catch than Osama.
So, what it comes down to is: The U.S. doesn't want to get pushed around, and wanted to send the world a message after 9/11: You can't come into our country and commit acts of terror without there being hell to pay. Osama wasn't readily available to be made the target of our frustrations, so we go after another brutal dictator who we know our country can rally behind the ousting of.

The fact that Saddam made it look like Iraq might have nuclear weapons doesn't give Donald Rumsfeld the right to go in, and falsify the documents, saying "We will definitely find nuclear weapons." Granted, it looked like they did, but as it turned out, they didn't have them, and that doesn't detract from the fact that Rumsfeld is a big fat liar. Also, Rumsfeld and Perle, along with **** Cheney went to great lengths to create a tie between Saddam and 9/11. Granted, Saddam was a terrible leader, who deserved to be prosecuted to the fullest extent, and doesn't detract from the fact that **** Cheney, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld are big, fat liars.

Bush, he's just off in another world, he's off in dream world. I don't even think he's really been present during his tenure. He justs loves sitting over this land with his executive gavel. He probably sits around all day playing G.I. Joes, not even fully realizing the power he wields. He's just on one big ego trip, he and his father. This is a family that is so worried about what other people think of them, that when Bush Sr. was in office, Newsweek wrote an article about him and called him a 'wimp' repeatedly and Bush described it as one of the worst moments in his life. These are people want to do all of the pushing, and never receive any resistance, and to most Americans that's 'strength' LOL.

We deserve whatever we've got coming to us. We allowed a criminal into the White House by almost electing him to back to back terms, and that ought to tell you that almost the majority of voters have such a screwed up moral compass that we don't even know when we're voting for a complete fraud with an I.Q. lower than most of the people on this website. Neocons want to sit around all day bashing Barack Obama because of who his pasteur was, and some guy he sat on a board with, but can't have one bad thing said about them, without getting all up in arms, meanwhile doomglooming over the apocalypse. We'll all sit around and believe their hype and all their little tidbits, because it's convenient. Obama says Americans cling to guns, and by November that will have turned into Democrats will take our guns away, and we're too godd*mned ignorant to investigate for ourselves.

Predator · 04-19-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zombeels

And one person does not represent the majority. Can you show one poll that favours the US occupation?

You are right just as I said, one person does not reflect the population. No I can't find one that favors the occupation. The majority seem to show that the invasion was a good thing but they want to rebuild their own country.

Quote:

We are talking about what Iraqis think, not the US servicemen.

Wrong, if you read the original post, you will see that this is now way off topic and we are discussing the genocidal acts of the Baath Party.

Quote:

Who's picking and choosing now. There are plenty of polls listed outside of Baghdad that represent the Shia and Kurd populations.

Do you understand why I posted what I did? It was not to say that the polls were wrong. If you read the polls, the answers are not as simple as the front page of the link you posted. The quick blurb as the introduction to the polls, which most people are not going to make it past, do not show the depth of the poll. They only show the answers that can slew to the opinion of the site. If you read the entire poll, you get the full picture. If you read the entire poll you see the demographic of those participating. If you have a general knowledge of Iraq you tell based on the demographic polled how accurately the poll represents the country.

Quote:

Mobile phones over 3 years. Why not show over 6 years.

Sorry, I couldn't find any statistics that cover mobile phones over 6 years. The numbers were pretty damn low at the start of this 3 year period so I'm not sure how much difference it would make.

Quote:

Wrong again. Germany became a world power in the early 30's.

No, we are both right. When the National Socialist German Workers Party, also known as the Nazi party, took control of Germany in 1933, the country began to rebuild its military. This signaled the beginning of the German rise as a world power after the end of WW1. At the same time the Third Reich began its campaign against Jews. Therefore, by the time the world realized that Germany was a major military power, it was to late and millions of Jews had already been murdered.

Quote:

Any comparison to the strength and power of pre-war Iraq to Nazi era Germany is ridiculous.

I'm sure that you know that the end of WW1, Germany was extremely limited in its in the ability to maintain a military. Of course they chose to violate the Treaty of Versailles and sneak around creating a military powerhouse. Had the world chose to ignore this, I'm sure that Iraq would have been ignored after Desert Storm and followed a similar path.

Quote:

No they weren't. Show me one neighbor that felt Iraq was a threat.

Kuwait. Why do you think they purchased Abrams tanks and maintained a U.S. presence after Desert Storm? Why did they allow the U.S. to stage the invasion from their soil?

Quote:

Now you are getting yourself into a grey area. The UN led sanctions against Iraq killed more and are also considered genocide. Bush's war on Iraq can also be considered genocide. Even the Gulf Invasion can be considered genocide. If you are going to look at the situation by the amount of numbers lost then the US takes most of th responsibility. Don't forget Saddam had the charges dropped against him for the Anfal Campaign.

There is no gray, genocide is genocide regardless of scale. Using your logic, any war would be considered genocide.
Having the charges dropped, which I will admit, I did not know about and have not followed up to determine the accuracy of, does not change the fact that it happened under the orders of the Baath Party.

Quote:

No they weren't

Can you prove this? Intelligence documents tell another story.

Quote:

Not prior to the invasion.

See above.
I'm guessing that you see no way that anything could have left the country to a neighboring nation?

Quote:

They were simply not a threat to anyone.

They were a threat or they would not have been invaded.

Quote:

But there are no similarities or no correlation. History means nothing if you've been lied to about the present.

There are plenty of similarities. If you choose to not see them, that is your choice.

now to look over my original post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Predator

To bad that as true as most people who oppose the war. I support the war and I am educated on the reasons why. I could of course go on and on about weapons of mass destruction and why we never found them even though they were in Iraq prior to the war. I could talk about the resistance the U.N. inspectors faced that is the common reason for the start of the war. I could go in to the ties with terrorist organizations. I'm not going to do that and I would appreciate if others could abstain from bringing these up in this discussion. If you would like make a new thread and we can discuss it there.
As a disclaimer and to protect those who do not want to see the disturbing images, please do not click the links.
I am going to talk about Halabja and the events that took place there in 1988. There were similar attacks, but I am focusing on Halabja because this was the worst attack. This discussion is to hopefully educate some members of this board of the reasons that the Baath party needed to be taken out of power in Iraq.
Most people have heard how the Iraqi government launched chemical weapons against their own people, but how many know more than that? Did you know that Iraq signed the 1925 prohibition of the use of chemical weapons? Did you know that Iraq used various chemical weapons in a civil war in 1988? Did you know that 75% of those killed were unarmed women and children? Ali Hassan Al Majid, the man appointed as governor of northern Iraq by Saddam Hussein, stated "I will strike with chemical weapons and kill them all. What is the international community going to say? The hell with them and the hell with any other country...". Words spoken by a mad man. A mad man appointed by a mad man. 5000 lives lost in less than an hour. 75% were women and children. Mustard, cyanide and nerve gas used against 70,000 civilians. Bombs dropped for an hour in an act of genocide. They were targeted for extermination because they were Kurdish. Does this sound familiar? Would you have been willing to turn your back on the acts of the Nazi party? Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and their own Kurdish population in 1984, 1986 and 1987. These times were verified, there are more times suspected. A government that has already shown that they would use chemical weapons in war time as well as against unarmed civilians would no doubt use them against against others. Back to the subject. When I joined the Army in 1997, I had to attend NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) weapons training. At this time, I was introduced the first time to the events in Halabja. As time went on, I researched further. The thing that turned me to the point of supporting any invasion of Iraq was the images.
Again, do not click the links if you are easily disturbed by death.
halabja,halabjah, iraq, north iraq, kurdistan, kurdland, kurd,bloody friday

So in the war on terror, the Baath party had to be eliminated. They were a terrorist government. They supported terrorism. They developed their attacks to cause the most civilian deaths possible. So now that the Baath party is out of power, should we leave? No, we started a job and now its time to finish it. I hear that we went into Iraq with no exit strategy. We have an exit strategy. Victory. The total liberation of the Iraqi people. Their ability to live without fear of genocidal attacks from their own government. Was the war about weapons of mass destruction? Partially, but remember the name of the operation. Iraqi Freedom.

I find it disturbing that the bulk of this thread has veered so far from the reason that I posted it. I understand that the subject matter is disturbing, but I don't find that as a valid excuse to ignore it.
To the ones that actually did address the original post, (Voice_of_the_Soul12,13,01 and The Unfan mainly) I can surely see your point. It is not the responsibility of the United States to police the entire world. Maybe we should have stayed out. I don't believe that, but I can see the point.

EDIT:
At this point, I choose to bow out of the argument unless someone sees a reason for me to continue. I never started this to convince anyone to agree with me. I started it to show the main reason that I support the invasion of Iraq. Most people have heard of the incident but did not know very much about it. I simply wanted to show another side that people may have not known. I chose to continue arguing even though I requested it to stay on topic and it did not. At this point, I think I have shown that I support the invasion and will continue to support it until such point as facts convince me otherwise. Thanks for a good argument.

~~CAPTAIN CAVEMAN~~ · 04-20-2008, 03:36 AM

lol^

Zombeels · 04-20-2008, 10:47 AM

So would you like to talk about Halabja? You did know Iran was first blamed for the massacre and the US even agreed with this. Then sometime later the blame shifted to Saddam. I don't know about you but when the US finally caught Saddam I was really hoping this event would come to trial. Guess what, it didn't. This was supposed to be Saddam's worst atrocity. Why wasn't he tried for this? Was somebody hiding something or protecting their own hide. Some don't even believe Saddam was responsible for the deaths at Halabja.
A War Crime Or an Act of War? - New York Times
Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defense
The Hallabja Massacre

Predator · 04-20-2008, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zombeels

A War Crime Or an Act of War? - New York Times

An editorial with no citations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zombeels

Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defense

An article written about the first article.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zombeels

The Hallabja Massacre

WTF? Its the same thing again. It has a different font size and background color but is the exact same article.

04-15-2008, 09:14 PM	#71 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	i hope america bombs your children. __________________ I've moved to a new address

04-15-2008, 10:11 PM	#73 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	Who does? __________________ I've moved to a new address

04-20-2008, 10:47 AM	#79 (permalink)
Zombeels Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 339	So would you like to talk about Halabja? You did know Iran was first blamed for the massacre and the US even agreed with this. Then sometime later the blame shifted to Saddam. I don't know about you but when the US finally caught Saddam I was really hoping this event would come to trial. Guess what, it didn't. This was supposed to be Saddam's worst atrocity. Why wasn't he tried for this? Was somebody hiding something or protecting their own hide. Some don't even believe Saddam was responsible for the deaths at Halabja. A War Crime Or an Act of War? - New York Times Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defense The Hallabja Massacre __________________ What It Is

04-15-2008, 10:02 PM	#72 (permalink)
tkpb938 Lvl 70 Troll Hunter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sunny Phoenix Posts: 482	Wow thats harsh and rather against a spirit of healthy debate.^ I think he brings up some solid points myself.

04-18-2008, 03:26 PM	#76 (permalink)
Miltamec Soundsquinaez Aural melody discerner Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: in a truck down by the interstate Posts: 347	Here's the thing: Bush and his cronies wanted revenge for 9/11 and rightfully so. We allegedly searched for Osama bin Laden in the ensuing year. Then, when the search for Osama began looking dire in the summer of 2002, he and his staff began kicking around the idea of going after Saddam. 1. He was one of the world's most brutal and fascist leaders. 2. He wanted to kill Bush Sr., and Bush Sr. was too lax in catching him during the first Iraq invasion in '91. Bush Jr. was hellbent on being more of a Reagan style conservative than a Bush Sr. moderate, so he wanted to look tough and in charge, by getting the job done this time. 3. They believed Saddam was an easier target to catch than Osama. So, what it comes down to is: The U.S. doesn't want to get pushed around, and wanted to send the world a message after 9/11: You can't come into our country and commit acts of terror without there being hell to pay. Osama wasn't readily available to be made the target of our frustrations, so we go after another brutal dictator who we know our country can rally behind the ousting of. The fact that Saddam made it look like Iraq might have nuclear weapons doesn't give Donald Rumsfeld the right to go in, and falsify the documents, saying "We will definitely find nuclear weapons." Granted, it looked like they did, but as it turned out, they didn't have them, and that doesn't detract from the fact that Rumsfeld is a big fat liar. Also, Rumsfeld and Perle, along with ** Cheney went to great lengths to create a tie between Saddam and 9/11. Granted, Saddam was a terrible leader, who deserved to be prosecuted to the fullest extent, and doesn't detract from the fact that ** Cheney, Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld are big, fat liars. Bush, he's just off in another world, he's off in dream world. I don't even think he's really been present during his tenure. He justs loves sitting over this land with his executive gavel. He probably sits around all day playing G.I. Joes, not even fully realizing the power he wields. He's just on one big ego trip, he and his father. This is a family that is so worried about what other people think of them, that when Bush Sr. was in office, Newsweek wrote an article about him and called him a 'wimp' repeatedly and Bush described it as one of the worst moments in his life. These are people want to do all of the pushing, and never receive any resistance, and to most Americans that's 'strength' LOL. We deserve whatever we've got coming to us. We allowed a criminal into the White House by almost electing him to back to back terms, and that ought to tell you that almost the majority of voters have such a screwed up moral compass that we don't even know when we're voting for a complete fraud with an I.Q. lower than most of the people on this website. Neocons want to sit around all day bashing Barack Obama because of who his pasteur was, and some guy he sat on a board with, but can't have one bad thing said about them, without getting all up in arms, meanwhile doomglooming over the apocalypse. We'll all sit around and believe their hype and all their little tidbits, because it's convenient. Obama says Americans cling to guns, and by November that will have turned into Democrats will take our guns away, and we're too godd*mned ignorant to investigate for ourselves.

04-20-2008, 03:36 AM	#78 (permalink)
~~CAPTAIN CAVEMAN~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: VAN Posts: 2,530	lol^