Is leaveing human beings to be slautered by the hundreds the right thing? Well wait here, who was the one who supported the slaughter of millions in Iraq prior to the Gulf War? It was the US and her Western allies, who was it who defended Saddam in 1988 saying the chemical attack on Kurds was an action of the Iranians that was the US. So it is completely irrelevant what an American thinks about right/wrong because you have done the latter much more then the former. Also you as a American should not even discuss the disgusting attack on Kurds, you defended Saddam in those attacks. Is letting a CLEARLY insane leader maintane power the right thing? Then why buy over 600,000 bpd per day from him prior to the war? You do know that the US’ second largest exporter of oil from the ME was Iraq in 2002! Saddam didn’t present a threat to anyone; if he really did then at least her neighbors would have helped out. This Saddam threat scenario is merely a machination of imaginations, not based on fact. Letting him seek ways such as WMD, massive convencinal weapon stockpiles, and HUGE armys to increase his influence the right thing? He had no WMD, secondly he has a right to develop his military as he likes. If you are going to use this argument then the US should have been invaded long ago. The reality is that Saddam by 2003 was meek and some believe so weak that his regime was on the verge of collapse. Raw HARD facts. Raw hard facts really don’t exist in this context, raw opinions do. Saddam killed his OWN ppl in mass. We have found the graves. There is ZERO doubt. Saddam is the only one who does this? Rightttt… the US has supported murders of millions through their installation of puppet dictatorships from Latin America to the Middle East. No one has doubted that Saddam killed people, but the US didn’t seem to mind in the 80’s. But invading a nation to stop human rights abuses is contradictory, and idiotic. The US did not invade Iraq for this reason, that’s for the intellectually weak to actually believe that BS. Make no illusions this is not a “moral crusade” here, this is one of power and geopolitics. Saddam was agressive his neighbors by attacking (HE started BOTH wars) iran and kewait(sp). He also atempted to attack the Saudi's and if the US and UN allies hadn't been there he WOULD have won. Did he threaten any of them today? No, he didn’t even control all of Iraq. If we are to base threats based on actions of a different era then I have a list for you. The reality is quite simple, Iraq under Saddam was a dismal mess, and his military would not have been able to seriously threaten anyone. If the recent invasion of Iraq is anything to go by, Saddam is lucky that people actually believed he still had so much power. Don’t you find it the least bit odd that only Kuwait supported an invasion of Iraq, all other neighbors didn’t? Saddam had chem weapons. We KNOW he used them. We KNOW he wanted biological and nuclear Your choice of words is correct..had. He didn’t have anything left, he got rid of them. Yes he got chem.. weapons, he had Bio weapons, he was about one year from having the bomb... in 1991! But lately he had nothing; the UN had destroyed about 98% of his weapon systems, from the recent lack of any cache of WMD in Iraq the reality is that the US invaded on faulty intel. and lying about those WMD even. This isn't propoganda. Its cold hard absolute irafutable facts. The only thing we got wrong was we believed his WMD capacity was MUCH largerFact is if he'd have just come clean we might not have attacked. False Saddam did state that he didn’t have any WMD, and the UNSCOM hadn’t found any WMD within the country. Remember prior to the beginning of the war, the UN was in Iraq. It wasn’t Saddam who kicked out the inspectors; he knew they wouldn’t find anything. It was the administration saying that the inspections weren’t finding anything and thus a failure. The reality was that there wasn’t anything to be found, Saddam was doing what he told to do by 1441. It was Bush who kicked the inspectors out and started the illegal war. If the US really did care about WMD in Iraq they would have let the inspections run their course, and would have given the inspectors the intel. they were using to make those grand assumptions, and lies. Ether way hell ANY way you look at it he was not cooperating. He still wanted to attack ppl. That makes him a threat reguardless of his true ability to do it. Not only is what you are saying pure propaganda they are unsubstantiated. He was co-operating, as aforementioned, and he had no intention of attacking anyone. Unless you can show me a plan showing Saddam wanting to attack anyone in 2002-03 then we have something to talk about. Saddam was barely holding on to power in Iraq proper, he wouldn’t have been able to start a new war. The country was in shambles after 10 years of sanctions, he presented no such threat. All this crap about Bushs polocys making things worse is just non sense. What you think they will kill us deader? or that they will hate us so much more that they will do WORSE things to us than kill us? I mean common they have already proven they will take it to futhest extreems posable. Maybe you can think in a larger scope? You are assuming that the entire Middle East is out to kill you. The reality is that the more you humiliate, alienate, and kill innocents in the Muslim world you create more enemies. These organizations are not countries; they depend on your actions to dictate their popularity. It’s very simple logic here that is presiding over all this. If you support the Bush doctrine, you indirectly support the growth of the same hatred you are trying to stop. This war cannot be fought like those of yesteryear, if you kill them (whoever them is, because you surely don’t know) you will only more of “them”. Didn’t your mother ever tell you “not to play with scabs?” The more you pick at it, the risk of infection and gangrene only increase. As far as the idea that it creates MORE terrorists. I just don't see it. I mean we are over there biulding schools restoring power and water food etc. For every 1 person that it pisses off there is probibly 10 that in the end it will turn to our side. Well facts say quite differently, in Iraq 9/10 Iraqi’s see the US as occupiers not liberators. The US can build all she wants, the fact that an illegal occupation on people’s land is going to create hatred. Of course killing one makes more terrorists, because in the Middle East the idea of death is not something that people fear. If they die for a cause, they will become heroes, same situation with that Tillman character. If we have learned anything from the Israeli/Pal conflict you are creating a cycle of violence that just won’t end. Welcome to human psychology, so build your schools they change nothing. I'll tell you what I DO see. I see a small group of ppl. 10-20k out of 25 million ppl tops You understand that their popularity with the counties population is rather large. Of course their numbers are small, but they are growing. A successful insurgency cannot win without popular support, which this insurgency has it. It is the US who is being the bully here; you are the ones who are forcibly dictating the lives of millions of ppl who never asked for your assistance. You bring foreign ideas, and culture to a people who don’t want it. You are bound to fail in Iraq if you continue this path of destruction, and cultural alienation. Its up to EVERYONE Iraqs US UK hell even france russia etc to stand up to these power mad bullies yes I siad bullies and put them down like the dogs that they are. That is exactly the mentality that makes Americans look so simpleminded, and ignorant. These people are not dogs, you may wish they were. The reality is that the US is illegally occupying a country, those human beings are fighting for human dignity. You may not like the fact that the whole world isn’t the US, but the reality is that Iraq doesn’t want you anymore. Lets look at this a differnet way. If you were a teenager and you had a rivalry going with another teenager in your nieghborhood.Accept after a few minor fist fights this kid goes out gets a gun and takes a pop shot at you but misses. What happens? The police arrest him and he goes to jial for a VERY long time. Same diff. Saddam had and used chem weapon. I mean hell he did the equivlent of literly killing his own cousin that lived in the SAME house with him. Tried to kill 2 of his own neighbors. I mean common. But the difference is that the “Teen” has his guns taken away, he is not allowed to “talk to others” freely, and he has been forced to change. He now exists merely to exist he has no power. I’ve always maintained, this war in Iraq would have been totally justified back in 1989, not 2003. You are 14 years too late America, and now you pay the price. Next you will telling me we should have left Hilter alone. there is noly ONE differnace between Hilter and Saddam and that idiot in N korea (Kim) the differance is Hilter succeeded. In success everyone realized exactly how dangerious he realy was. Yet Saddam was every bit as dangerious as Hilter, and Kim is STILL as dangerious and you refuse to see it. When will you see it? I mean when he's blowing up your house its a bit late to say owe gee this guy sux. While I was struggling to read that passage, I think I got what you were trying to say. See what you fail to mention was the more accurate comparison btwn Hitler and Saddam with the invasion of Kuwait and Poland. The West in the 30’s allowed Hitler not only to re-arm but to also reconquer land that was Germany’s pre-WWI. Saddam in the 80’s was allowed to arm to the teeth, and allowed to attack Iran for land. No one in the US or Europe cared for either just as long as they were happy. But they went too far, Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 and the allies couldn’t sit by and let it happen, thus they declared war on Hitler, it took 6 years but Hitler was finally defeated. In 1990 Saddam invaded Kuwait, and gave a clear message to Saddam that his belligerent actions would be dealt with swiftly and with force. Unlike Hitler, Saddam after his beating understood just what that meant. He did not threaten anyone especially after the mid-90’s. His army has always been “paper tiger”, nothing more nothing less. Impressive on paper, but nothing much on the ground. They want to kill us. There is only one responce. Kill them. The REAL problem here is not OUR polocy's. Its the fucking moderate Islamics. No it is your policy that is the problem. The moderates in the Middle East can’t be moderates anymore when you are destroying their efforts by strengthening the poorer classes into fighting against you. Some people in the Middle East want to kill you, and some people in the US want to kill them (like you). I really don’t see the difference in mentality btwn you and an Islamist. If you kill innocents no one will care to bother with the US anymore, and more hatred will happen. The US should be attacking the terrorists but they shouldn’t be invading nations that had nothing to do with that war. You are only creating more problems then you are solving. If we were not attacking Iraq and Afganistan/hunting down terrorists. What should we do? … I mean REALY works. Then we will go with that. So lets hear it whats your solution? Good question and I want to you too read very carefully. The US imo was justified for attacking Afghanistan; the US had a reason to get Al Q in Afghanistan. The problem is how the US went about with the Afghan operation. The US transformed the war on terrorism into a war of the worlds. The US should have gone about the situation in Afghanistan in a much more supportive and covert operations. Iraq was totally not necessary you shouldn’t even be there. If you really want to “stop the terrorists” you have to fight their war. The US invading a nation with a huge army, with a huge kick me sign on its back isn’t working, nor is it going to. What the US should have done is work with states in Europe, and the Middle East to get an effective front against “terrorists”. The US should be attacking “terrorists” in states were they exist, not where they don’t. We shouldn’t know about it though. If we know it as does the majority of the Islamic world, and then you get issues like that of Iraq. For instance I don’t think the US should let anyone know that they killed or captured OBL. The US shouldn’t be so obvious in her attempts to get rid of her enemies. The US invasion of Iraq was a perfect example of a propaganda coup for the “terrorists”. The invasion of Iraq proved them right, do you realize this? You proved that not only that you don’t care for innocent Muslim life, you humiliate the Arab world, especially after Abu Gharib, and you don’t care for the people of Iraq, no you care about their oil. If the US really wanted to fight against these people they should fight then on a small basis, with special ops operating at a moments notice around the world to fight these men. The US should begin to look at immigration reform, the US has to increase its co-operation with international intelligence agencies and she has to prop up the police, and FBI. The US should be more wiling to share intelligence with other states, so there is a more efficient war on terror. Wars like Iraq belong in the history books, not in the 21st century.
Well, I'm not voting for Bush because he is being an idiot with his financial policy, and is endorcing blatant discrimnation in his social policy. And since I don't want to throw my vote away, I'll be voting for Kerry. Honestly, I would have rwally preferred it if Clark was the Dem. candidate.
btw I'm dyslexic so don't expect good spelling or grammer. Undecided I read pretty carefully what you wrote. On some lvls I see what your saying and it sortof makes sense. Accept it doesn't. I mean you say we should work with the EU country's and mid eat country's to fight terrorism but yet in fact that is totaly imposalbe even today. I can anme 20 different examples. Pakastan... They think they have a "high value target" cornered yet the guy gets away. If they had allowed american special forces to come in and help them boots on the ground. I'd bet they could have captured whoever that was. Syria and Lebanon... haha plz like they are realy going to help us hell hammas has an office there. Iran... heh I'm not even going to go here. Frankly I think attacking and deposing the Iranian goverment is FAR more important than Iraq. You and I both know they (the goverment) themselves ARE radicals. they just carefully hide it. I see a common thread here though. You talk about that we have hurt there pride. Which is probibly true. no I know its true. You know what though. I just can't seem to care. I mean common these guys are literaly killing us and we are supposed to worry about there pride? Lets go back even further though. When did we "start" this whole deal? I mean I hear you talk about how all we are doing is making it "worse" and that our polocys are what started all this. I know some mistakes were made. Us supporting ether iraq or Iran when they were fighting was just silly. I mean everything I see always comes back to the US supported isreal. Therefor all islamic ppl should hate to US. At least that is the radical UBL version. Its a classic what came first the chicken or the egg. You can never win that argument. It comes down to one simple thing. Right here right now they are trying to kill us. So we fight. the other islamic ppl aren't stoping them. Don't try to say they are cause they aren't. If the terrorist purely attacked nothing but westerners then no1 over there would care. I keep coming back around to its a big circle and there is no logical solution. We lose if we attack we lose if we don't attack. By lose I mean we don't "win". The fighting just goes on forever. IMHO I default to attacking. Attacking means balls to walls. If that means nation biulding so be it. So I agree with Bush still. Sitting around wiating on someone else to solve the problem isn't going to work. That is bascialy what your solution is, and its not going to happen. In the end the real problem is all these stupid moronic religions. A bunch of idiots on both side believeing in some invisable man. Sigh the world is a sad place. Owe well screw this. I have work to do. Been fun.
Undecided I read pretty carefully what you wrote. On some lvls I see what your saying and it sortof makes sense. Accept it doesn't. :bugeye: I mean you say we should work with the EU country's and mid eat country's to fight terrorism but yet in fact that is totaly imposalbe even today. Working with the EU is not impossible at all, if the US is able to work with Russia nothing it impossible. The Europeans have been fighting terrorism since the 70's and they have been doing a relatively good job. They know the tricks of the trade; the US is simply over-reacting to terrorism. You invading Iraq is a blatant example of that over-reaction. The Europeans (and I) objected to the invasion because there was no causis belli for it, and we both realized that this was going to create more terrorism and hatred then it solved. You must remember Europe has been imperial for about 500 years or so, and they know how to do with their colonies, the US doesn’t. Pakastan... They think they have a "high value target" cornered yet the guy gets away. If they had allowed american special forces to come in and help them boots on the ground. I'd bet they could have captured whoever that was. That is something that would have only created more trouble for the US. If the US went into tribal Pakistan (the central gov’t has no control of that land) the tribes would have killed the Americans. Those people are armed to the teeth, and as a result it was smart for the US to stay out. Now that “high value target” was not a high value target they found out that no one important was there. Syria and Lebanon... haha plz like they are realy going to help us hell hammas has an office there. Syria like Iran has helped out the US, do you understand that the same people you hate they hate? Al Q wants to overthrow all these gov’t so they can establish their Ummah. I strongly suggest you read their manifesto, you will be shocked. Iran... heh I'm not even going to go here. Frankly I think attacking and deposing the Iranian goverment is FAR more important than Iraq. You and I both know they (the goverment) themselves ARE radicals. they just carefully hide it. You invade Iran, you will fail it is really that simple. Unlike Iraq, Iranians are nationalists and they have 65 million people, in a country larger then Texas, around 1 million km2. The US is unable to invade Iran, that would involve a draft, and Iran might even have the bomb. Iran could become a very important partner, not an enemy. The Iranians almost went to war with the Taliban in 1998, they hate what you hate. You talk about that we have hurt there pride. Which is probibly true. no I know its true. You know what though. I just can't seem to care. I mean common these guys are literaly killing us and we are supposed to worry about there pride? In this war yes you have to care, because Pride is how these people get their fighters. Terrorism is a thing that psychological more then physical. If you kill members of their family, if you shame their country, if you shame their religion, and if you force them to do things that they consider wrong like this You are setting yourself up for failure. This is a war of ideas, not of guns. You have to get away from that logic; it doesn’t fit in this context. The more invasions, the more attacks you do that kill people. The less and less secure you are as a result. Lets go back even further though. When did we "start" this whole deal? I mean I hear you talk about how all we are doing is making it "worse" and that our polocys are what started all this. I know some mistakes were made. Us supporting ether iraq or Iran when they were fighting was just silly. I mean everything I see always comes back to the US supported isreal. Much of the hatred does come to this central issue; because the US supports Israel and her actions the US pays the price. Most Americans don’t know this, and they simply believe that 9/11 happened for no reason. Wake up America the reality is scary, and it’s in your face. Therefor all islamic ppl should hate to US. At least that is the radical UBL version. That is not true, most Islamic people are being radicalized by these elements, you are helping things by proving UBL right by killing innocent Muslims worldwide. It is like me saying that all Americans hate Muslims, that’s not true. You are making them hate you by doing idiotic things like Iraq. Right here right now they are trying to kill us. So we fight. the other islamic ppl aren't stoping them. Don't try to say they are cause they aren't. If the terrorist purely attacked nothing but westerners then no1 over there would care. This is the problem with your logic; you attack them disproportionably to their size. They number in the thousands, yet you invade a nation of over 26 million who had no terror connections? That’s illogical and irrational at best; you have to fight at scale. They are individuals and thus you should fight back with firepower, but within small special ops operations. You don’t invade a nation to get one person. So I agree with Bush still. Sitting around wiating on someone else to solve the problem isn't going to work. That is bascialy what your solution is, and its not going to happen. Sorry but don’t mischaracterize my position, I never even alluded to that. What I am saying to you is that the world community will help you out more if you understand how to fight this war like you should. Bush is being an idiot, and even top American generals agree with me on that one. The war you are creating are giving the “Terrorists” new havens. Al Q had to install itself in Iraq after your invasion. Think about that will you…
Dark_man educate yourself here you go: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/0,6961,,00.html http://www.independent.co.uk/ http://www.commondreams.org/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/ Step one quit looking at US bias media, well, it's changing a bit the lies are just too many to keep them going and the bloody truth is slowly spreading through the networks. You have a computer look for independent news, not cnn,abc,cbs or the worst FOX, hell try reading the BBC, it's not as vias as the us media outlets, the bombardment of propaganda has defenetly warped your perception on this get it cleared. Godless.
wow you are misguided. fox is half liberal? that is absurd. you must be really conservative to think that conservative biased fox is even partially liberal. just listen npr
US bashing, guess you don't like hearing the truth?. We've screwed up man, we've screwed up letting this jackass of president lead us into war with false pretence, and we screwing up again to re-elect the sob. Fact is if you were to listen to news from around the world, or look it up on the net, you'll notice not only the bbc is "us bashing" but the whole fucking world is US bashing!!!. Godless.
Let me demonstrate the world's reaction to bush's visits; http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentS...StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1085944467743 http://www.guardian.co.uk/secondworldwar/story/0,14058,12292 http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4155964,00.html And just in case you've missed it, Fmr.vice Pres. Al Gore speech may 26th, not us bashing. However the speech is late in the coming "imo" but it shows that the dems, are not going to go without a fight. Godless.
