War against Terrorism: Are we doing wrong?

[Verticaldmg]

I am pretty sure that all of you watch news, and I am also assured that you are fairly awared that the U.S. isn't exactly the "hero" in this campaign "War against Terrorism" because of many incidents, such as the exploitative vidoes of "the U.S. soldiers deliberately making fun of war prisoners".

So let me ask this: Are we doing something wrong here? The war isn't exactly doing what it's supposed to do: Purging out terrorism, building an innovative image for the US, reminding the world of our glory and crap, etc. In fact, this war has been the downfall of US in almost everything, such as economics, technological advancement, etc. Are we walking on a straight line 20,000 feet in the air with no support, or are we walking on it with a balancing pole?

[Jinchuu]

Well I study in United States, however I am not an American citizen and probably I don't have the right to make political comments so I'll tell you my point of view about the war on Iraq, mostly known as war against terrorism.
It is an ambiguity, wheter America is still trying to fight terrorism or is it just for their political&economical sake. I think that the war on Iraq has no relation with terrorism, no matter what newspapers, politicans or even the people on street say I still think that America has invaded Iraq w/o reason, I mean, they had a reason but it was really lame, saying that Iraq had nuclear facilities and weapons, and they couldn't find any so they changed the reason to fighting with terrorism. Again In my opinion, what America has done is kind of a genocide, thousands of innocent lives were lost as well during the bombings and stuff, what kind of a civilized country claiming that they are fighting terrorism kills innocent people and does not take responsibilty, the innocent lives that were lost are not mere sacrifices, I think that they were not sacrificed, they were actually murdered.
Well personally, I think that the American leader is a total moron and I mean it in a serious way, he is an unsuccessful leader, who even cannot speak his own language well. In short, I recommend people watching the documentary of Michael Moore, it really reflects the things that are happening.

Feel free to criticize.

[Sahiden]

The whole concept is absurd... You can't fight Terrorism as it isn't a solid thing, since terrorism is usually performed by: a) the mentally deranged,
b) The ones who want to strike fear into common people.

Terrorism, in the first place is meant to make people afraid, so terrorism itself, would be the urge to make others afraid. This urge, is a feeling. As commonly known in human psychology: a feeling cannot be fought against, only the person himself can end the feeling. With or without help.
It's like trying to fight love...

But on the other hand: in order to perform terrorism as an idea, terrorist acts are needed. These can be stopped with a little luck.
Still waging war against an idea, or the acts following from an idea is absurd.
It's chasing ghosts.

[sinkinswimmer]

I recommend people watching the documentary of Michael Moore, it really reflects the things that are happening.

Feel free to criticize.

If you mean Fahrenheit 9/11, it's not a documentary. I thought that film had already been discredited as fastidious lies. Michael Moore is Hollywood filmmaker. He made that movie to sell movies, not necessarily to be truthful.

As for what the media shows you in the news, you can't take it very seriously. The media is almost entirely against the American President. It's true. They show all the negative things that go on in Iraq and even now, they still can't shut the **** up about our occupation there. What the hell's the matter with them? Seriously.

We're not committing genocide, we're not banging down doors killing innocent people. We don't bomb random houses cause we *think* terrorists might be there. We've been using laser guided missiles that hit their mark repeatedly. They are very isolated in their areas of affect and there are very rarely innocent casualties that result from our strikes. Most of the deaths and casualties you hear about are results from rebel attacks on U.S. forces. Not U.S. forces attacking rebels.

Our military force is there as a means to help keep the peace and to weed out the last of the insurgents from Saddam's regime. My cousin is overseas in the military as I write this, so go ahead and try to attack my credibility. I have a first hand account of what really goes on there.

Most of the Iraqi people are glad to see our troops there. The ones that get all the news coverage are the moaners and protestors. I know people from Iraq, and who have family members in Iraq. They are happy for what we've done for their country. Will you ever hear this on the news? Hell no. The media is so damn biased that if you want the real truth you have look for it on your own.

As a prisoner of war, you are alive on your captor's good graces. So how dare anyone complain that they're being mistreated, mocked, or ridiculed? Would you rather we just killed them? Grow up. Seriously. We're not there for political and economical gain. Many other countries disapprove of our continued occupation. So mark off political gain. We're there regardless of what other countries think. It's costing us far more money to stay over there than we could possibly stand to benefit from it. Really. That takes care of any economical gain we might be after.

Any other theories? I mean it. I'm quite serious about this issue. I have many friends and family members overseas or who have been overseas. I hear the real accounts from the people who were there first hand. I hear the good and the bad. What resources do you have? The media that only cares about revealing the bad? Don't even talk to me if that's your best resource.

[Jinchuu]

So you mean that all that is on that so called film are lies? That's a nice point of view, I think you are far too obsessed with America being right, I'm not saying that you are sprouting nonsense or bullshiting but still trying to convince people to believe what is actually happening out there to be true is far from being possible. Moreover, I'm not based on intel that I gathered on media and stuff, I know that they love to exaggerate sometimes and I know that they are biased, but not all the time.

My country is neighbours with Iraq, and had lots of conflicts with Iraq and Saddam regieme. I'm actually from Turkey and there has been hell of a political problems regarding this issue and it is a fact that America demanded back up troops from Turkey, where we declined several times, probably Turkey is one of the countries that suffered from the terrorism mostly, however we never attacked Iraq or Syria even tough we knew that they had a hand on it. So why all of a sudden, America decided on attacking Iraq and giving a lame reason like fighting terrorism and you admitt that lots of innocent lives were lost, moreover I believe the videos and photos that were taken while American soldiers killing several war prisoners who surrendered or torturing are real, and probably you might remember the trial of a woman soldier who wasn't charged with anyshit eventough they had evidence. I'm not trying to say that American politics is corrupted or making wrong decisions all the time, and I'm not trying to support at all but still in my opinion the decision to go to Iraq was still wrong.

Well, probably I'm not going to talk about this anymore cuz as I stated no matter what happens or what people say, I still believe in my decisions.

[Verticaldmg]

The media that only cares about revealing the bad? Don't even talk to me if that's your best resource.

Actually, the media shows you the filtered truth. In fact, I think about up to 50% of all the news reported are modified for the political reason; the US is definitely taking the twisted path now.

The whole concept is absurd... You can't fight Terrorism as it isn't a solid thing, since terrorism is usually performed by: a) the mentally deranged,
b) The ones who want to strike fear into common people.

Rather vague, you are literally saying that this type of act should be overlooked just because it's "intangible"? The truth is, terrorism has been the political tool to suppress, eliminate dissidents, and other political means in modern days. Maybe targeting terrorism without any sort of effective plans can be comprehended as a wild goose chasing, but it's no matter that can be condoned.

Invasion could be another way to describe what we do today, but that's if we don't include "capturing and putting Saddam Hussein (sorry..I don't know how to spell his name)" and other numerous righteous acts; otherwise, we are actually doing Iraq a favor. While it may be illogical to skip all the wrongs we have done in the past year, it'd be logical if we can call this "a struggle between committing a crime and saving the world."

[Sahiden]

I never said it should be overlooked. You won't see me saying that.
My reasons behind that post lie deeper than that.
It's you who made that conclusion out of my post.

[Tokoyami]

Well, probably I'm not going to talk about this anymore cuz as I stated no matter what happens or what people say, I still believe in my decisions.

That is the ignorance that got America in the debt and trouble we are in today.

*sigh* i hope one day, mankind will reach a point where people do not purposely keep themselves ignorant.

[sinkinswimmer]

So you mean that all that is on that so called film are lies? That's a nice point of view, I think you are far too obsessed with America being right, I'm not saying that you are sprouting nonsense or bullshiting but still trying to convince people to believe what is actually happening out there to be true is far from being possible.

That film has taken what was once truthful and twisted it around for the purpose of selling movies and making money. Michael Moore is very openly anti - Bush, which is his right. But Hollywood shouldn't be his personal microphone for expressing his beliefs and calling it the "truth". Same thing goes for all celebrities, whether they support our President or not.

I'm not obsessed with America being right. This country does things I do not approve of. Politically speaking, I am very independant. I don't lean right or left, I make up my mind for myself, and I'm not blindly patriotic. I have friends and family members who have served and died in past wars, and I have friends and family members who are serving right now. Now when someone decides to consider them party to some form of Genocide, it's bound to hit a hotspot. Especially when the major source of information does have a bias (to whatever degree you may acknowledge).

I will say one last thing and leave it as it is. We did help liberate that country and help them setup their own government. Why then are we *still* there? The new government, is still in its infancy and does not have the power or the means to fight the mercenaries and terrorists on its own. That is why the bulk of our troops are there, to train and help support the army of the still fragile, new government.

[Sahiden]

It only sounds good in theory... But did you check what the opposing parties see for a kind of signal America is giving.

[sinkinswimmer]

Well, I do know it looks bad to people who are against the war. I realize this, and it's unavoidable. But the Iraqi public has an 85% approval rating of our occupation. I don't have the name of the poll handy, but if I run across it I'll post it.

[Verticaldmg]

I never said it should be overlooked. You won't see me saying that.
My reasons behind that post lie deeper than that.
It's you who made that conclusion out of my post.
__________________

Looks to me you're almost saying that we should just pretend that we don't see terrorism since it's an absurd idea to wage a war against terrorism anyway.

[omfgman]

meh.... is because bush was elected that bin laden decided to bomb the us. if clinton was still prez then it wouldnt be so bad.... anyway if bush gets off then i hope everything will be fine

[crazy_shinigami v2]

even if he gets off ,
some people still hate america

[Sahiden]

Looks to me you're almost saying that we should just pretend that we don't see terrorism since it's an absurd idea to wage a war against terrorism anyway.

Wrong again... Think harder on my words.
(Hehe, I'm making this hard again aren't I.)

[ssmercurys]

even if he gets off ,
some people still hate america

lol some people? just about the whole world hates us now because of Bush...if people would have voted Kerry (although yes he wasnt much better, but its not bush) this wouldnt have happened....clinton was a great president ...so the man got some action in the office oh well leave him alone he got pleasure? lol now were fighting a war which is pointless because all its doing is making people mad and causing deaths that could have been avoided had we just not of destroyed there towns think of that bush...

[Tokoyami]

Clinton got impeached because the "good all american" housewives of america didnt want a leader with a sex life to influence there children.

[Sahiden]

That's just a stupid idea.... The Belgian king has a daughter outside his marriage. There was a lot of commotion here too. But as an 18-year old i can say this: I damn don't care about his sex life, it's not like I want to be like him, I want to be myself, and I'm not like that.

Influencing kids... yeah right... That's the same story as with the gaming industry. (Oh no, the children will get more violent because of games...)
That's just a load of crap, as if they want their own children to be like someone else. Can't they get this: everyone is unique, if you keep clinging to an image of someone else, then you aren't yourself.

It's not that America got a bad reputation just from Bush, America had a bad reputation in Belgium like forever. Bush is just a confirmation of our thoughts.

Not that we hate Americans... it's just that we don't have the impression there are a lot of smart people there.

[General Cox]

meh.... is because bush was elected that bin laden decided to bomb the us. if clinton was still prez then it wouldnt be so bad.... anyway if bush gets off then i hope everything will be fine

lol, thats just silly :P

remember the american ship that got bombed or an anit ship rocket fired at it??

that was al Queda, it just happend that George Bush was the president at the time 9/11 happend, it would have heppend if anyone else had been president. The opperation had been planned for months beforehand.

tbh, i think we are winning, but we need to get the iraqi's up on their own feet soon, afganistan is actually looking quite good now

[Tokoyami]

That's just a stupid idea.... The Belgian king has a daughter outside his marriage. There was a lot of commotion here too. But as an 18-year old i can say this: I damn don't care about his sex life, it's not like I want to be like him, I want to be myself, and I'm not like that.

Influencing kids... yeah right... That's the same story as with the gaming industry. (Oh no, the children will get more violent because of games...)
That's just a load of crap, as if they want their own children to be like someone else. Can't they get this: everyone is unique, if you keep clinging to an image of someone else, then you aren't yourself.

It's not that America got a bad reputation just from Bush, America had a bad reputation in Belgium like forever. Bush is just a confirmation of our thoughts.

Not that we hate Americans... it's just that we don't have the impression there are a lot of smart people there.


It is just stupid, but tell that to the ignorant sissy mothers of America, sorry for being mean but many parents in this country seem to want to not expose there "innocent" children to anything unpure.

haha, most of the "innocent" children see it anyway and find ways around there parents.

[crazy_shinigami v2]

lol some people? just about the whole world hates us now because of Bush...if people would have voted Kerry (although yes he wasnt much better, but its not bush) this wouldnt have happened....clinton was a great president ...so the man got some action in the office oh well leave him alone he got pleasure? lol now were fighting a war which is pointless because all its doing is making people mad and causing deaths that could have been avoided had we just not of destroyed there towns think of that bush...

ok, i know now 3/4 of the world hates america because of bush
really hopes that there would be an assasin gang killed him

[Tokoyami]

ok, i know now 3/4 of the world hates america because of bush
really hopes that there would be an assasin gang killed him

lol hey man, i wouldnt say that, if anyone sees that they can arrest you. It can be considered a threat to the president's life.

Not that i really care around Bush
:doindadom <----------------neither does he.....watch him dance

[crazy_shinigami v2]

well, im just saying the true things[not about that assasins]

[svliew3]

We're not committing genocide, we're not banging down doors killing innocent people. We don't bomb random houses cause we *think* terrorists might be there. We've been using laser guided missiles that hit their mark repeatedly. They are very isolated in their areas of affect and there are very rarely innocent casualties that result from our strikes. Most of the deaths and casualties you hear about are results from rebel attacks on U.S. forces. Not U.S. forces attacking rebels.

Our military force is there as a means to help keep the peace and to weed out the last of the insurgents from Saddam's regime. My cousin is overseas in the military as I write this, so go ahead and try to attack my credibility. I have a first hand account of what really goes on there.



damn i'm gonna be critisized for my argument AND my long quote >.<

You've forgotten that George Bush (by sending in troops using his commander and cheif clause) had committed what has been officially justified as an illegal act by the UN Sercurity Council. The US had no right to invade a country without official consent from the UN, of whom was still searching for a peaceful resolution towards the conflict. Through further economic sanctions applied towards Iraq to create pressure, a peaceful resolution WOULD have been possible, as, once again, the US had no right to invade a nation without throughly seeking a resolution through proper diplomacy.

Furthermore, the purpose of the war was NOT to end thr regime of Suddam Hussein and "liberate the people," but simply to eliminate the apparent nuclear threat that could endanger millions of US citizens. If they have failed to find these weapons, but,if as you say, that they are "freeing" the citizens from Suddam, the US, once again and for the third time >.<, has no right to relieve a country from a government sole because it believes it is inadequate.

wow, no organization whatsoever on this post >.<

[Jinchuu]

You've forgotten that George Bush (by sending in troops using his commander and cheif clause) had committed what has been officially justified as an illegal act by the UN Sercurity Council. The US had no right to invade a country without official consent from the UN, of whom was still searching for a peaceful resolution towards the conflict. Through further economic sanctions applied towards Iraq to create pressure, a peaceful resolution WOULD have been possible, as, once again, the US had no right to invade a nation without throughly seeking a resolution through proper diplomacy.

Thanks for the information.

Furthermore, the purpose of the war was NOT to end thr regime of Suddam Hussein and "liberate the people," but simply to eliminate the apparent nuclear threat that could endanger millions of US citizens. If they have failed to find these weapons, but,if as you say, that they are "freeing" the citizens from Suddam, the US, once again and for the third time >.<, has no right to relieve a country from a government sole because it believes it is inadequate.


This is what I exactly tried to say, however I think I could not make my self clear enough so I was flamed a lil' bit. The reason and conclusion does not match, and it is a serious problem in serious issues like this.

[Tokoyami]

damn i'm gonna be critisized for my argument AND my long quote >.<

You've forgotten that George Bush (by sending in troops using his commander and cheif clause) had committed what has been officially justified as an illegal act by the UN Sercurity Council. The US had no right to invade a country without official consent from the UN, of whom was still searching for a peaceful resolution towards the conflict. Through further economic sanctions applied towards Iraq to create pressure, a peaceful resolution WOULD have been possible, as, once again, the US had no right to invade a nation without throughly seeking a resolution through proper diplomacy.

Furthermore, the purpose of the war was NOT to end thr regime of Suddam Hussein and "liberate the people," but simply to eliminate the apparent nuclear threat that could endanger millions of US citizens. If they have failed to find these weapons, but,if as you say, that they are "freeing" the citizens from Suddam, the US, once again and for the third time >.<, has no right to relieve a country from a government sole because it believes it is inadequate.

wow, no organization whatsoever on this post >.<


I forgot about the UN thing. That explains alot.

The U.S. just kinda went over to finish what Bush's Dad started. Thats the only reason i see.

[RadikaL]

Sorry but had to put in my opinion:

Well personally, I think that the American leader is a total moron and I mean it in a serious way, he is an unsuccessful leader, who even cannot speak his own language well. In short, I recommend people watching the documentary of Michael Moore, it really reflects the things that are happening.

Feel free to criticize.

I agree with you, Bush is a moron and it is true, he cannot speak the english language correctly. I also have to say that it is truely an absurd idea to wage war against terrorism, because terrorism will never stop.

Clinton got impeached because the "good all american" housewives of america didnt want a leader with a sex life to influence there children.

Clinton was never impeached from office, he was found not guilty by the Senate.

[hakuhouin]

Sorry, but it seems to me that people here are debating the "right & wrong" of the war against terrorism(Iraq). Personally, I don't think putting the blame on the U.S. solves anything. The war ended years ago, but terrorism 's still around. Bombing, kidnapping, killing of innocent people by terrorists still happening. Iraq is still in a mess despite the "help" of the U.S. Countries that somewhat approved/helped/supported the war are being bombed or their citizens being kidnapped. To me, the war ends nothing, but starts every terrorism moves around the world.

I'm getting tired of the everyday news about terrorism on the tv.

[Pharcyde]

im kind of curious how the U.S. offended belgium, I went to Belgium as a US citizen and everyone was very warm and friendly.

[ssjharsh]

hey, good topic... no answer to it, but good anyway...
I just wanted to post a little "fyi"... Clinton was impeached from office, he was not removed from office. Impeachment just means that he was put up to trial if he should be impeached.

[Digital Dreamer]

In short, I recommend people watching the documentary of Michael Moore, it really reflects the things that are happening.

Feel free to criticize..
Firstly before I continue, do not take what I told you personally. It more of my view of Michael More.

Michael Moore is good as exposing that side of the truth. However I do feel that he stretches the truth a bit. And i really hate the people that thing that Michael Moore is THE TRUTH when it comes down to America.

There is 3 parts to every story. My Side. Their Side. And The Truth.
It one of the reasons why I watch 3 different news networks and come up with my own conclusion instead.

Michael Moore might be exposing some things about the War On Terror. However he's is just exposing and high lighting what he wants to show.

[_Ink]

Is That So....
I Think On General, From My Hearing Of News, Articles, Books, There Is Simply Each And Every Finger Pointing At Bush That It Is The Wrong Move.
It Is Wasting Funds On Unnecessary Procedures (in Which Cause The Katrina Incident Where Less That Help Have Been Given Until Its Too Late),
We See That In That Case, He Has No Real Feeling For Protecting His Country, Its Like Watching Birds In A Cage, But He Doesn't Feed Them...

I Think In Regards To M.moore, His Words Are True As They Be, Though He Does Not Describe The Points Behind The Scenes Too Well, But I Say He Is Right, It Is The Wrong Move, By The Way The World Economy Is Heading Now, It Is Showing Every Possible Result That It Is Wrong, Fuel Price Is Rising, Dropping Of Currency, Followed By Their Own Mishaps.....(hurricanes Has Been Banging Their Country A Lot This Year, And So Far, I Think They Lack Funds To Truly Rebuilt The Damage)

[dare2move]

well.. the U.S is losing on the economical front because war is expensive. i mean, the second world war caused the great depression. it's understandable that the U.S lose some amount of money over the war against terrorism.

[Fariswheel]

THe war on terror was doomed from the onset.

1st - terrorism is not something that can be fought against, like the war on drugs fails too.

2nd - The US did not get enough allies with them, even though other countries offered.

3rd - Prison Scandles...

4th - Our history of relations with the middle east.

5th - The war in Iraq

Fell free to attempt to explain why i am wrong. ( I am not, believe me on this one.)

[Sahiden]

Well, the prison thingies always happen in every war... It just got blown out of proportion by the media this time... Only to make the war fail even more. It's not a direct cause for the failure. The leakage of that material was.

[dare2move]

so technically the media is a big part of why the war is becoming such a failure? i mean, lots of people believe what they see. if the media chooses to convey a certain aspect of the war and emphasize on it, that would be the aspect that is most well-known to the public. i mean, how else are we supposed to know? it's not as if we are actually frontlines, over there in the center of the war, observing keenly what is going on from the sidelines. we have no way of knowing what is actually happening so we rely on the media.

personally, i think it's because of George Bush. i'm not saying this because i don't like the guy. it's because of his unpopularity that people refuse to ally with him and his panicked decisions that his people don't trust him. you can tell that most americans do not like their own president and somehow finds a way to blame everything on him (rising costs of education, gas and health). the way he presents himself and his speeches are not very convincing and he is not a very charismatic man. he is also very hypocritical, sometimes he would contradict one of his earlier points in his speeches with a later one. if his popularity was high in the u.s, i'm sure that there will be alot more people who would support the war because of the trust they have in their leader. i'm not a george bush hater. i'm actually indifferent to what he does. but maybe his unpopularity is one of the main reasons that the war isn't going as well. i can't help but think what would happen if another president was in power and decided to go to war with terrorism. would the reaction of the people be different? or will they still be the same?

[Fariswheel]

I would say that torcher has a lot to do with the war failing, torcher is unpopular on the international level.

This is emperically proven by

A. the Holocaust

B. WWII japanese water torcher

C. Vietnam

[KyoRensanu]

This is really out of character for me because i find these things just troublesome and annoying. Please remember that this is just opinion and not me preaching to everyone of "truth" like so many others seem to be doing. Yeah yeah... i know... im gonna get flamed and crud for this. Technically, im wondering why im actually doing this...

If i remember right, back when this all started, didn't most of America demand "justice" and wanted to start this "war on terrorism?" Over the years, did the people of America lose sight of their goals, find new threats that threatened them in the future, or did they just get bored and decide this war was too troublesome so they wanted to quit?

If America lost sight of their goal, what should they do then? Should we stop right in our tracks and pull out no matter the situation? I dont believe just pulling out of anything once you start it is ever the smart thing to do. After all, wasnt there and incident in the past where the U.S. pulled out and ended up causing problems in the future. I believe it had something to do with Afghanistan, but i can't remember. If we should pull out, we probably should make sure that things are at least in decent conditions so that we do not cause ourselves problems in the future.

What is the proper thing to do when you find a future threat to yourself? If you know that this new threat does want to destroy you and is trying to find ways to destroy you, what do you do? Would it be better to destroy them before they can destroy you? Or would it be better to wait things out and maybe they wont do anything to you? In this case, the US seemed to choose the first choice. Due to this, we will never know if Iraq actually was going to attack us directly or indirectly one day. The one thing i wonder, if Sadam was cruel enough to do all those things to his people (torturing his own people, testing weapons on his people, etc...), what would he have tried to do to his enemies? (Neighboring countries or the U.S.)

In my opinion, i think this is what happened in this "war." Did the people of the U.S. get bored of the war and wanted to move on? All these people use to cry for "justice" for those killed in the 9/11 tragedy. For a long time, you could not go a week without hearing a mention of 9/11. Now adays, the 9/11 tragedy rarely seems to be mentioned. What happened to all those people crying for "justice?" Did the lives lost in 9/11 lose value as time passed and other lives were lost? I believe every life is just as important as every other life, but why does it seem like only the most recent lives lost matter to people now adays?

About the movie, Farenhiet 9/11. Please let me get this off of my chest by saying that the title was pretty stupid. It had no similarities what-so-ever to the book Farenhiet 451. Two completely different subject/situations. I think he just wanted a catchy title for the public to remember... If someone could please tell me why the heck he choose to name the movie Farenhiet 9/11 (Mainly the reason for "Farenhiet" being in the title), that would be very helpful and much appreciated. Now, the movie was fact and opinion mixed. Since the information shown was very biased, it was mainly propaganda. (information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause) Whether it was to actually convince people that the war is "bad," or the movie was only made to make money, it was just biased propaganda. If you dont believe that the media uses propaganda, go take U.S. history and see for yourself... In order to see the whole story about the war, do not rely on one source of information. If you do, it will just hinder your understanding of the full picture.

I posted my opinion and now im gonna probably get incinerated by all the flames now... I wont take offence to what you all have to say. everyone has an opinion and it would be wrong of me to find someone else's opinion as "lower than mine." I dont think others belive that though. Thats why i find these things so troublesome. Well, im bored of doing this so im gonna find something else to do now...

[dare2move]

This is really out of character for me because i find these things just troublesome and annoying. Please remember that this is just opinion and not me preaching to everyone of "truth" like so many others seem to be doing. Yeah yeah... i know... im gonna get flamed and crud for this. Technically, im wondering why im actually doing this...

If i remember right, back when this all started, didn't most of America demand "justice" and wanted to start this "war on terrorism?" Over the years, did the people of America lose sight of their goals, find new threats that threatened them in the future, or did they just get bored and decide this war was too troublesome so they wanted to quit?

If America lost sight of their goal, what should they do then? Should we stop right in our tracks and pull out no matter the situation? I dont believe just pulling out of anything once you start it is ever the smart thing to do. After all, wasnt there and incident in the past where the U.S. pulled out and ended up causing problems in the future. I believe it had something to do with Afghanistan, but i can't remember. If we should pull out, we probably should make sure that things are at least in decent conditions so that we do not cause ourselves problems in the future.

What is the proper thing to do when you find a future threat to yourself? If you know that this new threat does want to destroy you and is trying to find ways to destroy you, what do you do? Would it be better to destroy them before they can destroy you? Or would it be better to wait things out and maybe they wont do anything to you? In this case, the US seemed to choose the first choice. Due to this, we will never know if Iraq actually was going to attack us directly or indirectly one day. The one thing i wonder, if Sadam was cruel enough to do all those things to his people (torturing his own people, testing weapons on his people, etc...), what would he have tried to do to his enemies? (Neighboring countries or the U.S.)

In my opinion, i think this is what happened in this "war." Did the people of the U.S. get bored of the war and wanted to move on? All these people use to cry for "justice" for those killed in the 9/11 tragedy. For a long time, you could not go a week without hearing a mention of 9/11. Now adays, the 9/11 tragedy rarely seems to be mentioned. What happened to all those people crying for "justice?" Did the lives lost in 9/11 lose value as time passed and other lives were lost? I believe every life is just as important as every other life, but why does it seem like only the most recent lives lost matter to people now adays?

About the movie, Farenhiet 9/11. Please let me get this off of my chest by saying that the title was pretty stupid. It had no similarities what-so-ever to the book Farenhiet 451. Two completely different subject/situations. I think he just wanted a catchy title for the public to remember... If someone could please tell me why the heck he choose to name the movie Farenhiet 9/11 (Mainly the reason for "Farenhiet" being in the title), that would be very helpful and much appreciated. Now, the movie was fact and opinion mixed. Since the information shown was very biased, it was mainly propaganda. (information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause) Whether it was to actually convince people that the war is "bad," or the movie was only made to make money, it was just biased propaganda. If you dont believe that the media uses propaganda, go take U.S. history and see for yourself... In order to see the whole story about the war, do not rely on one source of information. If you do, it will just hinder your understanding of the full picture.

I posted my opinion and now im gonna probably get incinerated by all the flames now... I wont take offence to what you all have to say. everyone has an opinion and it would be wrong of me to find someone else's opinion as "lower than mine." I dont think others belive that though. Thats why i find these things so troublesome. Well, im bored of doing this so im gonna find something else to do now...

you've raised some good points and nobody will flame you for voicing your own opinions. ^^' well.. at least i hope not. hmm.. i may be wrong on this one (since i'm not american, myself) but i kind of feel that 9/11 is taboo. nobody talks about it because nobody wants to remember what happened. like you don't see people talking about the twin towers or anything related to the subject. i, myself, avoid talking about 9/11 because it somehow makes me uncomfortable? like, i can't really explain it but i don't like talking about it. you know what i mean? or i am just being confusing as usual? =.='

i've never seen the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 so i have no idea what you're talking about. :D

[Fect]

Torture is very unpopular, and due to an uprecidented move - Amnesty Int'l took back it's comments about Guantanimo Bay being a torture facility and gave evidence of several happy Muslims leaving having learned English.


Hm, I wonder:

Who has been pulling the strings behind everyone's back and makes these "happy stories" get sent to the media when most are still suffering?

Bush

[palmerrr]

I think that all this going on will all be good in the end. It may not look like it now but once this war ends the US will be in great shape. But this is only my opinion , so dont hate on me <3

[FascionViktem5k]

i'm just wondering how one can wage war on terrorism... when you don't even know who the terrorists are? ... it's not like people go around saying "i'm a terrorist!!" ... um.. yeah.. but whatever.... and the actual war that is happening is wrong yes... america went to war under false pretenses and the wrong person waged war.. in america only congress is allowed to declare war... it has declared war i think... twice? or maybe three times? in american history... they did not declare war this time... Bush did... cuz he's the president and he don't give a rats @$$ about no congress! i mean it is opinion based... whether it's wrong or not.. but the reasons they were saying in the beginning didn't make sense.. like the "weapons of mass destruction" ... that dude had those weapons for like 20 years.. and all of a sudden they were a problem? wat the hell?!?! ... in conclusion! in my OPINION .... i think there's no point... hence why i feel so bad for the soldiers who are there now... they shouldn't be there.. and they shouldn't be fighting... (why doesn't Bush go over there?!?!)

[Fect]

There is no victory over dissent between people: whether it be terrorism, discrimination, or War.

[lmegera]

Arrgh. Some people see this conflict not as a war on terrorism, but as a spreading of democracy, if you will. And I really have to ask, Why does America think it hold the Holy Grail for how a democracy should be?
In Iraq, we are attempting to force our American values upon a governmental system that is founded on religious principles that correspond to our economic values. We do not know what democracy is, we know ONE form of it in America. Look at France, they change their constitution every 20 seconds, England still has their Queen, hell Japan still has their Emperor. We cannot purge traditional values and cultural ideas out of a system that has stood longer than the United States of America was founded. We need to pull our troops out of Iraq, and we need to keep advisors out of Iraq as little as possible in order to let them develop their own concept of democracy. Now, I know thats idealistic and completely wishful thinking to immediately pull our troops out, but, the Americans cannot choose what democracy is for Iraq. Iraq must choose for themselves.

[FascionViktem5k]

THANK YOU!!!!!! finally.... someone used the beauty of the english language in a way i never truly could.... yay for know all the words!!!

[ProtoFunc]

i just think that reason why it looks like we are doing wrong, is because that is what the media is telling us....i commend the military, and rather than fighting against what they are doing in iraq, why not just support them entirely? if we are going to lose this war, its we killed ourselves from the inside, not iraq or the terrorists....

[lmegera]

Support the military and the army all you want.. my dad is employed by the Department of the Defense... but don't support the "reasons" perhaps more truthfully the lies, for why we are in a war in the first place...
there is a reason why we have not attempted a ground assault on Iraq in the first place, there is a reason why the Russians lost in Afghanistan... know your history before you start saying that we destroyed ourselves because of lack of support...
We got into Iraq, the reason why we will be destroyed from the inside is because we dont have a plan to get out of Iraq and we had the bare minimum allocation for the protection and well-being of our troops.
The lack of planning and the lack of understanding of the situation is what is going to destroy our opposition to terrorism and our presence in Iraq, not because the media said so and not because there is dissent among the American populace.

[FascionViktem5k]

Imegera i totally agree with you... i have nothing against the troops i commend them for what they are doing and i respect them on a very high level... but the reasons for it and the lies behind it is just like the war in vietnam... they shouldn't be there... but i still respect what they are doing! and it's true that some people don't support the troops.. well those are the ones that are pretending to go with the flow and are blaming the wrong people... they blame the soldiers when they should be blaming the people who declared war *coughBushcough* ....

[lmegera]

::pats back::
I think those people that hate the troops have come down with some stupidity disease. Sad to think that those same hated troops are protecting their asses...

[zembu]

you shouldnt hate the troops theyre only doing what theyre told. if you want somebody to hate hate bush who sent them there in the first place even when we never found any of his nonexistant weapons of mass destruction. techincaly this isnt even a war against terrorism its just a war started by our idiot president based on his idiotic agenda.

[lmegera]

Not actually, its a war to prove that he could do what daddy couldn't.

[Fect]

If this really is a war, then we cannot win. We would first have to eliminate discrimination, then anger - and we're left with a bunch of meat sacks that have no passion for anything.

Terror is only given to those who do not see truth.

[FascionViktem5k]

like that evil monkey in peter's son's closet...

[Shinraco]

war on Terrorism was the right move just the bad timing since well i guess where using the Muslims religion as a black sheep to even go to war in the first place but eliminate the threat now or be weaken an then end up some ones else pray. next ill be North Korea or was it South either way Communism well be eliminated because its a threat.

[Fect]

There is no way to kill terror without killing emotion!

[lmegera]

Calm down Fect.. youre showing emotion!

Communism will be eliminated because its a threat... what??? Communism isnt terrorism, and it will be eliminated due to economic restraints upon that system of government not because we will invade NORTH Korea... my god, dont you kids keep up on current issues?

[zembu]

Not actually, its a war to prove that he could do what daddy couldn't.
haha thats exactly what my parents say

[FascionViktem5k]

well when you look at whose in office.. it's not all that different from when his father was in office.. the only difference is that half of the people now have receding hairlines.... that's about it.. their talkin the same crap though..

[SmallKid57]

if u ask me, i think we (U.S. and other allies) should pull out now. The Iraqi ppl clearly dont like us being there and the hatrad is gonna increase, putting our soldiers at risk...

also, if u've noticed, the U.S. is making Iraq exactly like us, not really giving them a choice of government. This is close to wut happened when Britain controlled the 13 colonies way back, Britain was in sense the "mother" country and the colonies were the "sons". and if u think about it we're really controlling Iraq now. well we're not controlling it but we're influencing the government and economy so much we're basically making a second U.S. (not saying its a bad thing) instead of giving them a choice. So i say we pull out now.

All in all, Once the hatrad is there... its there to stay. unless we do some incredibly generous thing like stop Iraq from blowing up, the Iraqi ppl want us out. just take away the deadly weapons they have, stop the nuclear weapon activity, then withdraw.

im just speaking my mind and wut i think is best, im sry if this offended anyone.

[Fect]

Imperialism showing it's big ugly head again.

Sorry, but I just hate having people that don't know what terror is...

Terror is an intangible thing, always changing, whether it be for the good or ill,
And no matter what we do to stop it, we can never cease the will.

[General Cox]

Britain did that in a different time, dont be jealous coz we were the best ever at it :p

i think we are doing right, though im not sure going to war was the right idea, it does seem like imposing our laws on someone else. I think though that most people in iraq did want saddam out, but were too scared to do anything.

WE probably have overstepped the bounds on this one, we need to sit back and uncover the evidence properly before we do this again.

[FascionViktem5k]

well he did have weapons... (of mass destruction... but it wasn't really that massive..) but he had those weapons for like wat.. 20 years? and America was all like "hey... we should take them away before he does some sh*t..." ... but he hadn't done anything for all that time... what made them think he would after all that? .... watever... i agree with all y'all though.. i think the soldiers should leave.. they're like uber tired and don't wanna fight anyway...

[zembu]

i just heard that the iraqi president charged bush of war crimes...aint that just hilarious

[FascionViktem5k]

where did that come from?!?! lol! and i'd believe it!!!

[Fect]

The thing about nuclear weapons is that they aren't for the using but for the having. All countries that have nuclear weapons will not attack another nuclear country, regardless of any ideals. This means you never go to war with another nuclear country (unless you want WW3).

The above ideal is Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). If you attack a nuclear capable country, then you have a death wish. This "rule set" was implimented by the U.S. during the Cold War- to prevent the destruction of the two great powers of the time, the US and the USSR.

With MAD in place, the government knew that they would not have to worry about nuclear war.

During the 90s, the Pentagon was waiting for the next "Cold War," in which the same rule set would be used. They knew it would be some unseen Eastern Asian state, but they just wanted to know which one.

Thus, during 9/11, there was no "intelligence failure." We were focused on the wrong thing at the wrong time.

The world is in such turmoil only because we are still searching for that new "rule set." Regardless of the whole War on Terror (WOT), the US military is in chaos trying to discover and impliment the new "rule set" into the world and the only way to discover it is to be in war.

[maximoose666]

or alternatively to avoid war altogether, no? Then they wouldn't need a ruleset for it. I don't think there's much justification for terrorist attacks, but going to war with a specific country won't help anything. The reason terrorist groups are powerful is because they don't have a single large 'base' that can be easily destroyed. The way to counter terrorism is to try and win the hearts and minds of would-be terrorists, not to attack the countries their families come from - which just gives them excuses to kill more innocent people.

[FascionViktem5k]

right on moose! (is it alright to call you that?) i agree with you!!

[Zephyrite]

I think that not only is it time to pull out, I think the army should never have been ther in the first place. Now it is just serving as a recruitment tool for terrorists. I am doing a research paper on this topic and some of my evidence says that now, most of the terrorists attacking U.S. soldiers are NOT Iraqi. My evidence also says that most of the recruitment is done over the internet!! The terrorists have websites that show beheadings and how-to guides on how to build explosives and carry out assassinations. Where am i going with this chain of thought? I don't know but just consider what I said.

[Fect]

In response,

Terrorism can only succeed if they can penetrate the US system, and causing widespread chaos if they attack a part of our wealth: The Internet, Stocks, or the military's system itself.

Globalization is the effort of the functioning core (EU, US, Canada, Mexico, India, and most of the Eastern Asian States) to make everyone into an economically and politically independant state. We are doing this to prevent other countries from causing their own demise and further advance them.

The non-functioning Gap (Middle East, Carribean, Southeast Asia, Africa) is disconnected from the world. The king of this disconnectedness was Saddam Hussein. We had to take him out. If Iraq does become a functioning member of the world, then many countries near it will also become more connected, and more next to those. The chain effect will globalize the world.

However, if Iraq does not succeed, the Globalization work that the US has done so far will be set back 50 years.

I do agree that we shouldn't have gambled with lives here. We overstayed our welcome and caused many to become terrorists. We should have pulled out months ago, before the 500 death increase.

But, if Iraq stabilizes, we will have a connected world in the long run, one that we can be proud of.

[Zephyrite]

I agree that we should have taken saddam ou but not with an army.(drop the spec.ops.) or infiltrated the regime with Iraqis on our side trained to assassinate him once he is in good graces with saddam. we didn't have to take him out immediately! Fect, you said that we knew he had "weapons" for 20 years! we could have waited a couple more for the big prize.

[FascionViktem5k]

Fect, you said that we knew he had "weapons" for 20 years! we could have waited a couple more for the big prize.

actually it was me who said the 20 year thing... but he had some good points as well... just.. you quoted the wrong ones... but i know wat you meant!!!

[akin_t]

I don't like debating this topic but here it goes...

First off, I don't think Saddam was gonna attack anyone with his nukes (I could be wrong but I don't have any reason to believe otherwise), sure there were terrorists in Iraq before the army got there, but the terrorism was going on between the shiites and the sunnis it didn't include any Americans at all; However, now that we have gone to Iraq we've just setup ourselves as thier enemies, before the Iraq war the only problem America had was the score to settle with Bin laden, This war however has nothing to do with Bin laden, by going to Iraq we didn't succeed at anything, we just made enemies.

It may sound selfish of me, but in all honesty it's better to leave the shiites and sunnis to kill themselves as they please than go to War with Iraq and end 2000+ lives

[Fect]

I didn't say that we thought he had "wmds" for 20 years.

And besides, whenever power shifts from a dictator, an absence of authority leads to civil war. If we had dropped in the spec ops, then we would just have another dictator rise to power. Just look at Germany after WWI. They had had a king for 200 years and were violently shifted to a democracy. We left soon after, and Hitler rose to power.

We can nearly apply the same thing to Iraq. If we left an absence of power, or a democracy without firm ground, then another dictator would have risen. We have yet to see if the democracy succeeds or not.

We had to make a military presence, hold the peace for some time, and then leave. We have yet to accomplish the 3rd part. We should have done it 12 months ago, before we had lost even more soldiers (about 1000).

[kazekagekunai]

do you think it's necessary or not?

[Draffut]

Ummm.... what war? the war on terrorism? as far as i know, America has not been in a "war" since the 1940's. atleast that was the last time we declared it.

Please explain more, and give your own opinion first.

[Shinomori]

He means the "police action" against "terrorists". :)

See how you can make anything funnier with quotation marks?

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

If you're talking about the war against terrorism, then I think it's necessary......only to a certain extent. I think we should go after those who attack us and groups who have declaired they're going to attack us. The former just makes perfect sense and the latter, well, terrorists usually keep their promises. I feel it's a mistake to go after everyone who could be a threat though. America's government is just fueling the fire of hate against us.

[akin_t]

If you're talking about the war against terrorism, then I think it's necessary......only to a certain extent. I think we should go after those who attack us and groups who have declaired they're going to attack us. The former just makes perfect sense and the latter, well, terrorists usually keep their promises. I feel it's a mistake to go after everyone who could be a threat though. America's government is just fueling the fire of hate against us.

That War in Iraq is not a War against terrorism, we went there to put an end to the production of nuclear weapons that weren't being produced in the first place.

We're in so deep that we'll have to stay there till Iraq is stable, and everyday until then, you'll keep hearing on the news how 2 or 3 marines got killed in a blast ... George should let those men come home soon, it's not worth it anymore.

[prime91]

Ummm.... what war? the war on terrorism? as far as i know, America has not been in a "war" since the 1940's. atleast that was the last time we declared it.
ever heared of Iraq? Afghanistan?

I think kazekagekunai means war in general. Or not.. he does say 'the' war..
0_0.
War is stupid, it sucks, but there is just no way around it.. No matter how hard you try, there will always be people fighting others, country against country, clan against clan, man against man. It's the way things go.

[Tokoyami]

ever heared of Iraq? Afghanistan?
I think kazekagekunai means war in general. Or not.. he does say 'the' war..
0_0.
War is stupid, it sucks, but there is just no way around it.. No matter how hard you try, there will always be people fighting others, country against country, clan against clan, man against man. It's the way things go.
"The War", THE war. Most people in the U.S. when they say "the war" usually mean the war on terroism, or more popular, the war in iraq. "The war" in iraq was a campaign based on no facts whatsoever. The main push for the war was that there were WMD's in Iraq, which U.N. while scouting the entire country, never found. But Bush, i mean the president, sent our forces in anyway, under the idea that he was "protecting america". Saddam didnt give a shit about the U.S. and had no intention of attacking us. If anyone nuked us, there country could potentially be blown/nuked/burned off the map by the time we were done. "The War" in iraq, tho it freed the people from saddam's rule, should not have started in the first place, and should be over now that the elections have taken place.

"The war" on terrorism. An impossible to win war, there is no direct enemy to attack, when the enemy does appear, its so sudden there is no time to react. The enemy isnt just a muslim with a turban riding a donkey in the middle east. A terrorist could be your next door neighbor, when he blows up the walmart for not giving him exact change.

[Apocalypse]

"War on Terror", though very difficult to win, is a definite yes. "War on Iraq", on the other hand, is a definite no. We got put in there for no good reason, other than the whim of the President. There was no definite proof, and the government used the "war on terror" as the original basis for going. All we got out of it is wasted American lives, wasted American dollars, and a country even less stable than it was under a dictatorship. If anything, it made the situation in the Middle East worse.

Perhaps if our current administration didn't go off on a side-mission with no relevant purpose, we'd be better off on the "War on Terror". Unfortunately, we have, and thus time, money, and lives are lost in the outcome. :cussing:

[Darts15]

u mean the war in iraq? well i think that i doesn't need to go this long.... America is in need of help and it still wants to stay in Iraq? well I think this war needs to end. XP If U.S doesn't get out then wouldn't there just be more resistance from the people?

[Tanya]

War has never been necessary. Stupid government officials, like Bush, just meddle into things that neednt to be meddled in.

[kazekagekunai]

even though it's kinda late, yes. i do mean the war on terror, afghan, iraq, etc.

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

Maybe I should've been more specific. The conflict I was talking about is the war on terror. The Iraq War is an incredible waste of resources and lives in my opinion. The only good thing is that Saddam has been taken off his throne. It's about the only good thing, which has come of a result of this farce.

[Tokoyami]

Maybe I should've been more specific. The conflict I was talking about is the war on terror. The Iraq War is an incredible waste of resources and lives in my opinion. The only good thing is that Saddam has been taken off his throne. It's about the only good thing, which has come of a result of this farce.

The War on Terror, we've been fighting it for years now, Bush just decided to give it a name. Its impossible to win because anyone can become a terroist in an instant. You could build a bomb and blow up a K-Mart or target, and the police wouldnt realize what u are doing untill its to late. A war on Terror, a good, just cause, but impossible to win.

[Purokku-kun]

The campaign in Iraq was never about "Terror" - it's purely and simply about oil, and about getting millions of dollars for US companies to aid in the "reconstruction".

Yes, by all means, go after those who have attacked you, but make sure it's the right people you're going for in the first place.

[saycheese]

ya kno, if saddam could run presidential election, he might win. for eg the blacked out electricity took 2 years to rebuild just in major cities, the iraqies had better comfort be4 the invasion. other than that, the civillan casulty should get some proper reconition.

The War on Terror, we've been fighting it for years now, Bush just decided to give it a name. Its impossible to win because anyone can become a terroist in an instant. You could build a bomb and blow up a K-Mart or target, and the police wouldnt realize what u are doing untill its to late. A war on Terror, a good, just cause, but impossible to win.

there will always be people in middle east hating western infidels. there will always be freaks doing things that are out of ordinary. but fueling their anger only increases their number, not reducing it.

[StarFlux]

So yeah do i need say more. I mean almost everyone seems to have an opinion.

[Random Havoc]

I'd really like to warn people because this is a very serious debate that can be quick to bashing.

Try and respect others opinions even if you do not share them. Instead push your arguments forward and put down theirs! That's the true way to debate. Caution as you proceed!

[StarFlux]

yeah no kidding. these threads can be interesting and fun as long as we all remember that everyone has a right their opinion and that everyone has a different perspective.

[captain krunch]

i think iraq was a bad idea and afganistan was a good idea. the ties were proven w/ afganistan, but the terrorism ties w/ iraq were loose at best. and now, although they are out of the hands of a tyrannical dictator, there are much worse offenses being commited in the streets, as there is nearly a civil war about to break out
i think comedian dave chapelle did it best in his skit, when he was pretending to be president bush
"reporter:why are u going for saddam?"
''dave chapelle: u want me to be real? that #$%^ tried to kill my fatha"

[Vampyrelord]

Well, Afghanistan was a good idea I suppose because there was already a rebellion going on there, and all the U.S. did was supply them and bomb Taliban forces, all the ground fighting was done by Afghans.

Iraq was a bad idea because there were obviously no weapons of mass destruction, and since the invasion has caused ridiculous amounts of damage and has sparked off more Sunni/Shiite conflict which is tearing the country apart.

[Shaz.]

has sparked off more Sunni/Shiite conflict
Iraq isnt full of sunni's it full of a diffrent group.
Iraq was a bad idea it would have been better if they left it with sadam and Bush should have thought of a better excuse than weapons of mass destruction, he only went their cause of the money he can make

[dragoneyes001]

So yeah do i need say more. I mean almost everyone seems to have an opinion.

OK well you really opened a huge can of worms with this debate!

part1) the war on terrorism:

its not really debatable since the only people for terrorism happen to be the very people using it!
the war in Afghanistan was not only just it was necessary and there's no countries that seem against it!

part2) war in Iraq:

this is a huge point of contention for several reasons:
A) Bush dismissed the UN and in no uncertain terms said" We'll go it alone"
only to months later come back to the UN hat in hand saying" why wont you support us?"

B)the reasons for entering Iraq (as stated to the public):

1)Saddam Hussein would not comply with weapons inspections stating that the US was spying on Iraq through the inspections, all evidence points to this actually being true the substitutions of inspection personnel for American members is well documented!

2) Iraq has weapons of mass destruction:
this point was the base for the UN wanting at the very least some confirmation of the alleged weapons before voting on Saddam's removal since the start of the war there has been no evidence beyond the WW1 style chemical weapons(mustard gas) and a few other low yield type compounds having ever been produced in Iraq. a few labs with some more advanced experiments were found but these showed years of development needed to be of any military use!

3) ties to Al-Qaeda by Iraq:
the Iraqi regime and the Al-Qaeda are diametrically opposed in their beliefs of the Muslim religion also the fact Osama Bin Laden actually offered to Bush senior to depose of Saddam for the US during the first war kind of negates good relations between these two groups!

4) Oil:
this has been bandied around by many people who feel Iraq would not have been invaded if there was no Oil there. this was never presented as having any importance to why the US was going to enter Iraq but it did have several effects on world opinion and countries like France which are highly dependant on the Oil contracts they had with Iraq objected to having their supply cut off by a war!

so to sum up after Bush dissed the UN tried to force American eyes into Iraq and would not produce any proof of WMD's he decided to invade Iraq with most of the world at Odds over this decision he also jumped into this with no long term plan whatsoever and because of this the US and few allied countries troops find themselves in a quagmire poorly headed by the US administration slowly getting pecked off by non national insurgent forces.

all these reasons show Bush for the idiot he is! and do not reflect upon the US troops who were dropped once again into a mess created by stupidity at the top!

does Saddam deserve to be deposed? emphatic YES he was a tyrant of the worst sort and was guilty of crimes against humanity when he gassed the Kurds in his own country!

was it necessary to go into Iraq in such a hurry? NO Bush made mistake after mistake eroding world support which could have guaranteed a much less bleak outcome!

is the fact that terrorists are currently in Iraq any indication that Iraq was complicitous to terrorism? NO the great majority of attacks vs the troops and populous are by non nationals and groups of nationals opposed to the invading army!

I wont go on this post could become pages long if I start quoting references.

[M-50]

as there is nearly a civil war about to break out

NEARLY!!!!!!! The freaking civil war has started! What do you think the bombing of the two mosques were about? The start of a civil war. Now becuase English and US troops can not come out and more are going in, our soilders will be in there for ages yet. Also because of this WWIII will start. As all of our soilders are being posted in there and none are coming out there will be a point when the UK and the US will have the bare protection by the army and then Osama Bin LAden will try to attack once again bu this time with more damage and ferocity. :headbang:

[Random Havoc]

What makes me think however is that the US basically became the world police. Agreed that Saddam is a dictator and definately not a good one at that x.x but what right does Geowrge Bush have as the president of the United States of America to do something about it? Agreed that the UN despite it's "good" intentions (I don't entirely believe that but that's another debate), it was a slow procedure to come to a democratic solution to everything and that all Bush did was take initiative, but through what right?

The thing that concernsme the most is that I believe that the fact that the US wasn't punished for this act, it's creates and atmosphere which allows this type of acts to become just more and more acceptable in society (Unless the US crumbles on itself because of this decision). I can't help but get the image that our future is leading closer and closer to something closer to a world dictorship... a emperor of sorts, who can ssume his power through power and money. I don't think my worry that farfetched either. It all starts by one act, and it's quite possible that the US wasn't teh first to start something like this (eg Hitler), the difference is US hasn't been punished so far...

[Byakuya7]

What makes me think however is that the US basically became the world police. Agreed that Saddam is a dictator and definately not a good one at that x.x but what right does Geowrge Bush have as the president of the United States of America to do something about it? Agreed that the UN despite it's "good" intentions (I don't entirely believe that but that's another debate), it was a slow procedure to come to a democratic solution to everything and that all Bush did was take initiative, but through what right?
The thing that concernsme the most is that I believe that the fact that the US wasn't punished for this act, it's creates and atmosphere which allows this type of acts to become just more and more acceptable in society (Unless the US crumbles on itself because of this decision). I can't help but get the image that our future is leading closer and closer to something closer to a world dictorship... a emperor of sorts, who can ssume his power through power and money. I don't think my worry that farfetched either. It all starts by one act, and it's quite possible that the US wasn't teh first to start something like this (eg Hitler), the difference is US hasn't been punished so far...


I agree, the US has way too much power. So much, that it can act as the world police and can pretty much get away with anything. Thats what makes me so mad, the U.S. has this feeling of superiority around them, that grants them immunity from punishment, and gives them the right to invade other countries whenever they feel like it. I think that some things must be done, and that some actions that the U.S. took were justifiable, but dont abuse that power and push your luck, is all im saying.

[saycheese]

u know ur allowed to commit all war crimes during a civil war? legally a civil war is not a war and war crimes therefore are not present :D

[Byakuya7]

u know ur allowed to commit all war crimes during a civil war? legally a civil war is not a war and war crimes therefore are not present :D

a Civil war is a war, hence the name. And even if you do not classify it as a war, the crimes are still present. No logic or word twisting can cover that up.

[saycheese]

^ been tried in the past. international law cant do anything. although the losing side can be tried by the winning side over anything since the winning side sets the laws.

edit: no such thing as a clean war anyway. war "crimes" will always occur to some degree. and basically they can be charged even more severely by propagenda. civil war is not a war. when a country does not declear war its not a war. however when few neibouring countries admit that the conflict has escalated into a war, then its officially regarded as a war. civil war is invalid because a country cannot war aginest itself. when the country splits, ie pakistan then its no longer civil war.

[Something_Clever]

First of all let me get this off my chest:
AAAAHHHHHH!!!! You can't have a war on terror!!! It is logically impossible to fight a war against an idea weither it be concrete or abstract! Just like the "war on drugs," you can't fight a pot leaf or a crack pipe! You also can't fight a war against terror because terrorism is a never ending cycle. You fight against those who control an area and their supporters become a militant minority group that resorts to suicide bombings and killing civilians. But once these people are no more or have regained control another group that disagrees with the mainstream opinion of a dictatorship steps up to fight and kill more innocents, thus the cycle cannot be ended until everyone agrees on how things should be run, but that can't happen because humans have free will. Thus the war on terror is a war to make the US look good but is actually hurting the world community because we're pissing off more people than we're helping thus only creating more terrorists to fight against, so we are petty much creating an ongoing state of war which creates fear which leads to xenaphobia which leads to nationalistic feelings which (as history tells us) leads to an even bigger war. And while all of this is happening Americans want to feel secure so they stick with whoever led them to be the powerful side in this war, thus the republican party gains unrivaled support from frightened Americans and are able to snowball this effect so that US citizens will actually back taking away their rights in the name of their "freedom" until they're able to take away all remnants of freedom turning a once great nation into a facist dictatorship led by King Bush.

Now that I got that off my chest:
The war in Afghanistan was nessasary but not to the extent to which it was taken. Thousands of innocent people were killed but bin Laden was never found even though he's a 50 some-odd man with failing kidneys who needs to have easy access to a dialisis machine. But then the shit hit the fan . . . one day someone in the white house said, "Hey, Iraq is close to Afghanistan . . . and they have lotsa oil. I'm sure no one will question it if we invade in the name of fighting terror. Let's go!! Wait let's say they have weapons, that'll scare the people into supporting us!" It's a fake war on an abstract idea angainst an undefeatable enemy, that is being fought to force Americans, and the world, into servatude to an elitest group of the oil rich astocracy. America, the world, you and me are ****ed! Unless we can stop this now.

[Byakuya7]

edit: no such thing as a clean war anyway. war "crimes" will always occur to some degree. and basically they can be charged even more severely by propagenda. civil war is not a war. when a country does not declear war its not a war. however when few neibouring countries admit that the conflict has escalated into a war, then its officially regarded as a war. civil war is invalid because a country cannot war aginest itself. when the country splits, ie pakistan then its no longer civil war.


So by your logic, anything that isnt directly stated to be a war, isnt one? A war is a war no matter how you look at it. Whether it be against a foreign nation or amongst the inhabitants themselves. A country can have a war against itself. In fact the definition of a war is the waging of armed conflict against an enemy. That enemy doesnt necessarily have to be foreign, it can be the nation itself at war with themselves.

[saycheese]

^ leagally sir.

[Byakuya7]

^ leagally sir.

bah, didnt see that legally in your first post:)

[Neve]

Personally, I can't see any reason for the invasion of Iraq other than that it had oil. Sure, Saddam was an evil dictator, but Africa is full of evil dictators! Mugabi for instance. Now lets look at the differences...who has oil? Who does Bush choose to invade? hmmm.....

[maximoose666]

There is no "war" on terrorism as such a thing is a paradox. War involves two distinct sides, for a start.
This "war on terror" is merely an excuse for hawks such as Bush to gain the votes of patriots ('a vote against me is a vote against our troops'), to assert themselves on the world stage ('we're the most powerful nation in the world. This is a little reminder.'), to set up countries with governments favourable to them both economically ('we put you in power - subsidise trade with us or else...) and politically ('yeah.. how about you follow pro-American policies and... go easy on Israel, ok?'), and finally to make nice little gains for their companies such as a more congenial oil price situation.

[akin_t]

I don't have much to say on this topic other than ... I'm not for the war and I don't even support our troops over there. It's a difficult thing to say but, they lost their lives in vain. They have gained nothing by going to Iraq, not even the respect of fellow Americans. (that's open to debate, but a great deal of Americans aren't for the war)

[M-50]

There is no "war" on terrorism as such a thing is a paradox. War involves two distinct sides, for a start.
This "war on terror" is merely an excuse for hawks such as Bush to gain the votes of patriots ('a vote against me is a vote against our troops'), to assert themselves on the world stage ('we're the most powerful nation in the world. This is a little reminder.'), to set up countries with governments favourable to them both economically ('we put you in power - subsidise trade with us or else...) and politically ('yeah.. how about you follow pro-American policies and... go easy on Israel, ok?'), and finally to make nice little gains for their companies such as a more congenial oil price situation.
I agree with Maximoose666 in what he says that there is no war against terror. There is just a war to gain oil because the worlds supplies are running out. America are doing the same thing to Rusiia. As the worlds supplies of Natrual Gas is running out they are 'trying to get in bed with' (it's an economic term, not reality) Russia. :headbang:

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

I for one believes that America should support its troops. The Military doesn't start wars, politicians do. They aren't dying for a good cause though. Bush can't even explain why we're over there. We brought down a dog that already had his teeth ripped out. There was nothing he could really do against us. Ugh, this situation is just crap.

[Vampyrelord]

Byakuya7 is completely correct. For your information, saycheese, America never bothered declaring war on Iraq, they simply sent troops in. These days no one formally declares war, they just invade.. Does this mean there are no more wars? I think not! Take that, ye pedant!

[saycheese]

ehehe, orly!?
if someone cares to explain, coz i cbb to.

anyway to be more on topic. american military is running short on resources waging this war. not enough extra revenue is being pumped into the war machine and too many projects are either delayed or canceled or reduced, puting the tech race a step behind, and effectively shortening america's life span with its on-going drop in world opponion.

edit: should say tech advantage not race

[Vampyrelord]

There is no "war" on terrorism as such a thing is a paradox. War involves two distinct sides, for a start.
This "war on terror" is merely an excuse for hawks such as Bush to gain the votes of patriots ('a vote against me is a vote against our troops'), to assert themselves on the world stage ('we're the most powerful nation in the world. This is a little reminder.'), to set up countries with governments favourable to them both economically ('we put you in power - subsidise trade with us or else...) and politically ('yeah.. how about you follow pro-American policies and... go easy on Israel, ok?'), and finally to make nice little gains for their companies such as a more congenial oil price situation.

I agree entirely old chap. Jolly good show.

[krumpage]

I still think that America has invaded Iraq w/o reason, I mean, they had a reason but it was really lame, saying that Iraq had nuclear facilities and weapons, and they couldn't find any so they changed the reason to fighting with terrorism.
just to correct you on that the "weapons of mass destruction" they or should i say we (i dont know lol does my presidents action for the country make it my action too?) clamed were there were could be used for terrorism so it really was staying with the "fighting terrorism" thing. since i truly beleive if they did have nuclear weapons it wasnt for self defense. in fact didnt they find a place where they could make nuclear weapons. i really have no idea since im not really current with whats happening

[SLVR]

I dont think we are doin anything wrong were just not makin progress on it as fast as people expected which is why alot of people hate it.

[saycheese]

just to correct you on that the "weapons of mass destruction" they or should i say we (i dont know lol does my presidents action for the country make it my action too?) clamed were there were could be used for terrorism so it really was staying with the "fighting terrorism" thing. since i truly beleive if they did have nuclear weapons it wasnt for self defense. in fact didnt they find a place where they could make nuclear weapons. i really have no idea since im not really current with whats happening

iraq had originally built a nuclear powerplant and was supplied by france, but the reactor got trashed by the israel air power before it was fully operational. iraq's weapon's program has degraded since.

[Machiavelli]

Nuclear weapons is not the major issue afterall. It is the biological weapons. A nuclear weapon, let us say a hydrogen bomb, could easily annihilate a large area, but in the case of biological weapons, it could annihilate a super-large area--bad scenario: a province; worse scenario: a country; worst scenario: the whole world--without leaving traces of survival. By developing biological weapons, it gives way to biological warfare, which includes terrorism. And terrorism is one of the main propagator of biological weapons, which everyone is basically worried about.

[mooks]

Just wondering if anyone knew...

Because of the sanctions hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, disproportionately children, died as a result of them, although certain skeptics claim the numbers to be less. UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000. The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture. On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it"

Amazing how quick we are to forget the injustices formed out of political tentation.

Oh, let's not forget the 'Oil for food' programme, Iraq was in 1996 allowed under the UN Oil-for-Food Programme (under Resolution 986) to export $5.2 billion (USD) of oil every 6 months with which to purchase items needed to sustain the civilian population. Denis Halliday who oversaw the programme believed it inadequate to compensate for the adverse humanitarian impacts of the sanctions.
Oh, Thirty percent of the proceeds were redirected to a Gulf War reparations account.

Can you believe that? Do these people have souls? or a heart?
warm blood, maybe?

[saycheese]

bio capability is too hyped about in sci-fi novels. even at worst case senarios, it cant be worse than the black plague if yer regarding ratios. viruses either die off or mutate. if you isolate the troubled areas, you can effectively kill off the virus and its chance for mutation. the main problem is human itself(unless the virus can attach onto other animals, which then calls for extermination), where they aint willing to die and escape at all costs. and thats the most likely cause for a bigger breakout. nuclear attack is easily survivable if you have the specific shelter. if you cannot make it into the shelter in time, you actually have to jump and duck to increase ur chances of surivival(yeh, its stupid if ur in impact zone but else it atlest stops a projectile from impaling u) after the initial blast, just worry about geting ur airways covered to stop alpha particles leaking into ur system and get away asap. secondly wear extra clothing to lower beta absorbtion, and finnnally gamma isnt half as harmful as the previous two radiation. the reason why alot of people died in hiroshima was because they were not educated in dealing with a nuclear threat and alot of people died while trying to evac. and a side note, the nuclear attack on hiroshima killed alot of insects that later on, they were able to grew tomato there where it couldnt be done before.

[Random Havoc]

Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it"

I cannot in my right mind immagin someone able to say something like that. How heartless...

[Machiavelli]

Globalization multiply the total human annihilation by thousandfolds.

[mooks]

The evidence for weapons of mass destruction was weak. hopeless even.
Part of the 'intelligence' came from a college students' paper! check this article out:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2735031.stm
Friday, 7 February, 2003, 13:14 GMT
Iraq dossier 'solid' - Downing StreetReports claimed some information was out-dated
A dossier of evidence against Iraq is "solid", Downing Street has insisted
after allegations that it included plagiarised material that was 12 years
out of date.
The UK intelligence document released on Monday was designed to help win
over sceptics by detailing Saddam Hussein's efforts to hide weapons of mass
destruction.
But it emerged that some of the document was copied from three different
articles, including one written by a postgraduate student.
Excerpts from a paper relating to the build-up to the 1991 Gulf War by
Californian student Ibrahim al-Marashi were used in the intelligence
document.

Here's the two papers side by side... you can judge if it's plagiarized or not;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2736149.stm

[vision33r]

Bush & Blair couldn't fool an old man on a donkey with that WMD bs. It doesn't matter if they lied or not because the whole country don't give a damn except the families with soldiers.

Us just want our cheap gas and want to kick muslim butt so Bush will get support for going to war regardless of WMD.

However, the whole Bush & big businesses teamed up and the whole instability in Iraq and middle east has made gas prices even more expensive.

what is done is done... hopefully the future is brighter because Americans are no longer being sympasized by the world due to 9/11, we are hated by just about ever country that opposed the war.

[MazdaRxEight]

Basically..... The U.S. government's initial war on terrorism back in 2001 was all planned out, the WTC attack such was all planned out so they can have an excuse to go into the middle east and then slowly use propaganda their way into Iraq with ideas such as "weapons of mass destruction" and after U.N. inspectors said they were clean... the pesident said "weapons of mass destruction related program activites" (LOL). Hence it's all wrong already, the war shifted into Iraq and not Osama anymore. BTW... the Osama in the videoas and his plan on destryong the WTC's were made by the government as an excuse to move into Middle East.