“War on Terror“? Or “Terror at War“?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hh_fanny, Jan 21, 2007.

  1. hh_fanny Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    December, 14 2003 Saddam Hussein was caught, literally. With the capture of Saddam Hussein, the war changed from finding biological warfare, to incorporating Iraq. How Saddam Hussein fits into the picture, I do not know. Unless Saddam had an epidemic thrust into his blood, and would blow up any moment Saddam had nothing to do with the war. Finding no Biological warfare the war slowly but surely turned into liberating Iraq, after Saddam was caught. Now, do not get me wrong, I do not like or even know Saddam, however I know after Saddam was caught, thousands of civilians were killed in violent protest. During the period of a year Iraq split into two groups, Shiites and Sunnis. With Shiites occupying more than 70% of Iraq the Sunnis are out numbered. However U.S. soldiers are occupying Sunni land, and in some sort standing as a border, protecting Sunnis from Shiites. However, with the hanging of Saddam, Shiites are no longer a silent threat, but an awaken beast, and Iraq is once more at the brink of civil war. America stands as the last thin, thinning line. The question stands, what can the U.S. do? Too many soldiers have already been killed in war, and sending more soldiers will do nothing. The Sunnis are in a tight situation, because once the U.S. leaves, they are done for. Civil war is no longer being predicted, but occurring.

    The U.S. is suffering from inner problems, warfare cost is at a high point. The U.S. is also suffering from economic problems. The patriotic civilians in the U.S. do not want to go to war anymore. Soldiers already at war want to come home, however cant. Iraq has become another Vietnam, there is nothing America can do, it already has made enough mistakes. If Iraq was bad during Saddam rein its intolerable now.

    The U.S. is doing a great job protecting oil, but can we really stand and protect a country, while ours is dying? The Iraq war was doomed from the start, too many lives have been wasted, and too many lies have been told.
    The “War on terror” is “terror at war
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,205
    You have an amazing grasp of the situation. "terror at war" indeed.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. I.D. Registered Member

    Messages:
    22
    Rather accurate. We have been led into a catch 22 situation.
     
  8. hh_fanny Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    Thanks Dragon, but you see I’m not in the white house, and I’m not signing bills.

    Lol ID make me laugh…I know I’m not the only one, however there are not enough speaking out.
     
  9. hh_fanny Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    I’m sorry we were not “Led” we chose. A great example of catch 22 would be Global Warming, now becoming Global Dimming. American’s were not forced into war, we went into war, and we are still in war. Call me a patriot but I believe in “A country made for the people, by the people” . So I’m more than sure if Americans would get their lazy asses off the couch, and actually know what they are voting for and passing, this war would have been avoided, and still can be stopped. Now please do not vote for the Patriotic Act ….opps to late.
     
  10. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    In an age when a formal education is a major financial future liability, one would think folks would have gotten/demanded their money's worth.

    Dude(tte), you are so screwed. You got debt and way too little to show for it in return.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You can around here get the very same education -- for free.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Senility can be hard on some people.:m:
     
  12. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    I think many people said the same things during World War II. Would you have wanted them to stop in the middle of World War II?

    Baron Max
     
  13. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Dude,

    You only started in the middle of WWII.

    regards,

    da monkey.
     
  14. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    HH_Fanny:

    The US' economy is booming and war costs are neglible in the long run.

    Moreover, Iraq has not become "another Vietnam" as Vietnam was pulled out not because it was hopeless, but because of communists like Walter Kronkite and the unwillingness of America to sacrifice more than the 50,000 Americans who died. Apparently, they wanted those to die in vain, the survivors to be spat on, and for us to kow-tow to Communism...

    The war cannot be about oil as we have gotten NOTHING out of this war in regards to oil. Not a thing.

    And too many lives? 3,000 American soldiers dying in 4 years? It is a victory of unprecedented proportions. It'd take -700 years- to reach WWII level deaths.
     
  15. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    Except the oil is now being sold in dollars, and not Euros.

    Not to mention US companies winning lucrative oil contracts
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2007
  16. Lord Hillyer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,777
    Why should have America have been prepared to sacrifice the lives of any of its soldiers...much less 58,000 fathers, sons, and brothers...just to keep South Vietnam a capitalist republic (a republic which was, incidentally, only established in 1955)? Would you be willing to die right now (or become paralyzed or severely maimed) so that South Vietnam would become a capitalist republic again? Would you be willing for the same to happen to your best friends and close relatives? Why or why not?
     
  17. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Lord Hillyer:

    The fight against Communism was, during the Vietnam war, of paramount importance. At this point, not so much. Communism has all but died the world over and even Vietnam is hardly Communistic anymore. There are only three states that are truly Communist at this point and even then, in varying extents. Cuba, China, and North Korea (from the least odious to most odious) are these nations and in all but the latter do I foresee a shift in policy, with the second all ready showing much in the way of removing herself from Communism.

    Accordingly, I would have gladly fought in Vietnam to stop the Communists, but I would not be willing to return to Vietnam in order to fight a war that needn't be fought, as said Communists no longer truly exist, or at the very least, are inconsequential.
     
  18. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Does that strengthen the dollar?
     
  19. Lord Hillyer Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,777
    Then would you say that the Vietnam war was a tragic mistake? Would you be willing to die in a war that was attempting to make Iraq a capitalist republic? (I myself would not, to be honest).
     
  20. hh_fanny Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    (Yet again I find myself on this site, drudge by boredom)

    "The US' economy is booming and war costs are neglible in the long run."


    Can I laugh at this, unless you have been asleep for the last 5 years you would not say this.

    Japan $635.3 Bn
    China $327.7 Bn
    United Kingdom $201.4 Bn
    Oil Exporters $101.5 Bn
    Korea $68.9 Bn
    This is the cost of the war, America can not pay off.

    And the economy? America is a capitalist state, what private business make will not help you, period.

    Foreign Ownership of U.S. Industries (the riches which make America, are not even made by Americans).

    1. Sound recording Industries 97%
    2.Commodity Contracts dealings 79%
    3. Motion picture and sound recording industries 75%
    4. Metal ore mining 65%
    5. Motion picture and video industries 64%

    Now did we forget labor? Something America lives on, where would Wal-Mart be??

    “Moreover, Iraq has not become "another Vietnam"

    Yes I have to agree indeed Iraq did not become another Vietnam, it became worse.

    “The war cannot be about oil as we have gotten NOTHING out of this war in regards to oil. Not a thing.”

    And this is why oil wells are protected more severely than humans? And this is not why Bush, had this war in his agenda from the start?, come on where does Bush’s family money come from? Oil idiot.

    Visit this site if you want

    (damn no one told me I couldn't post links...)


    “And too many lives? 3,000 American soldiers dying in 4 years? It is a victory of unprecedented proportions. It'd take -700 years- to reach WWII level deaths.[/QUOTE]

    Last but not least the soldiers, the poor soldiers suffering from PTSD, 18 year olds literally put into war with little physical and mental training, brainwashed, and dying. You are right merely 3,028 soldiers have died so far, however these soldiers were young, very young. Oh and did I mention 22,951 U.S. soldiers have been severely wounded in battle, literally on their death beds? And our great president is sending 20,000 more soldiers! To do what die?? And this war will evidently lead to WW3 , now lets see the real damage.
     
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    You can post links... just click the icon.

    The 22,951 wounded is a valid point - during Vietnam many of those would have died.
     
  22. hh_fanny Registered Member

    Messages:
    21
    lol "they" told me i had to post 20-comments before i can hyperlink?? weird??
     
  23. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Lord Hillyer:

    I would say it was a tragic mistake for how it was dealt with in the end. That America essentially wasted 7 years and 50,000 men in a war that greatly demoralized our nation and produced a generation of Vets that were spat on and left to rot in veteren's hospitals and/or the street.

    This was never necessitated by participating in the war. It was essentially the cowardice of people such as Walter Cronkite, and the general weakness of the will of the American people.

    But as to your other question, it depends on whether or not Iraq was a Capitalist Republic facing a severe Communist threat before we got involved. If it was, then I would support a war in Iraq to assure the Communists did not get in, if this was a Cold-War situation still.
     

Share This Page