WT Forums

Item #1 "Gulf War II will breed hundreds more Bin-Ladens"
Comment: You don't understand. Sept. 11, 2001 bred millions of war mongering G.W. Bush backers with the resolve to combat Islamofacism.

Item #2 "The U.S. betrayed the oppressed Iraqi's when Bush 41 called for an uprising and didn't follow up with necessary help."
Comment: Total destruction of several elite army divisions and thousands of burning tanks was not enough help for them then? How about 12 years of no-fly zones? The media now will have us believe that all it takes to stop an army is a few Toyota pick-ups with .50 cal mounts and some TV episodes of the "Rat Patrol" for training. If you are oppressed, start helping yourselves. I'm sick of Blame America First.

Mc/I + P/A

_________________
????

Item #3: This war is only about Oil.
Comment: If the war was only about Oil we could have staged in Israel and worked our way east.

1. Don't look conspicuous; it draws fire.
2. Never draw fire; it irritates everyone around you.

_________________
\"One of you is gonna fall and die, and I'm not cleaning it up\"

I agree with items 2 and 3. If it was for oil, than the government would value caribus in ANWR more than soldiers giving their lifes in Iraq LOL
but i have to add to the first one:
The reaction among the muslim population in the entire region is not as positive as expected. We see more suicide bombers (and come on, saddam doesnt have nearly as much control over these bombers as we would like him to have), and less oposition forces. The call for violence towards the US is unfortunately beeing conducted and recoginized. I say it again, we cannot bomb the opinion of the people.
Saddams propaghanda might succeed. If people feel opressed or intruded upon, the might stick with the most absurd governments, as the germans did after WW1. I won't judge before the war is actually over, but it certainly seems possible right now, that we truly are counteracting the war on terrorism.
We already see too much 'irregulars' and fanatics. Sure Saddam has some control direct, or indirect, over these people, but it is highly unlikely that most of them have someone with a gun behind them, who will shoot them if they dont blow themselves up, the 9-11 hijackers obviously didn't and they originated from the same kind of people.
Of course they have to be dealt with, but war is not the right way.
War just supports their views. And if war would be necessary (which is very well might have been), i don't feel it was seen as the last resort. Many alternatives have been proposed by other nations, but they havn't even been reviewed (for example a large force of UN-Peacekeepers in the region, there was more to the plan but i'm not going into detail..just one of many examples).
So i'm not very confident that the war with iraq will actually help the war on terror, as islamofacism is very likely to be fueled, and recieve a major boost by this war.

-Freak

That is yet another side effect of this war.

All the jahil mullah fighters are massing in Iraq, just as they did in Afghanistan...to fight us.

Better they show up in the battlezone to take us on than on our streets. We can kill them safely in Iraq, away from our soil.

"I Am Infantry...Follow Me!!!"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> The reaction among the muslim population in the entire region is not as positive as expected.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Any Iraqi citizen shown in the media supporting the US, or even just not supporting Saddam, is killed. It's already happened. It does happen. We haven't seen a lot of jubilant Iraqi civilians celebrating in the street because if we had seen it, they'd all be dead.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Sure Saddam has some control direct, or indirect, over these people, but it is highly unlikely that most of them have someone with a gun behind them, who will shoot them if they dont blow themselves up<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Actually, he and his regime does. A suicide bomber that was stopped at a checkpoint on Sat was only doing it because the Iraqi militia has his wife and children in custody. It's hard for us, living in such a free society, to appreciate how repressed the Iraqi people are, but we have to realize that they don't have a neutral police force (their police is the military, which is what's oppressing them in the first place), they don't have a free press to voice problems (military/govt controls that too), they don't have a court system that persues justice (military/govt official makes arbitrary decisions without a trial). The list could go on forever.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> the 9-11 hijackers obviously didn't and they originated from the same kind of people<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You'll have to define "same kind of people." I am a Christian. I don't approve of abortion, but you won't find me protesting outside of an abortion clinic trying to make anyone else take my life decisions as their own, like you might find some Christian Fundamentalists doing. But, as Christians, we are the same "kind of people."

Just out of curiosity, how would you suggest dealing with people who know only violence? How do you stop the school bully from beating up the other kids on the playground without threat of punishment?

"See that green switch? Flip it down."

"Just out of curiosity, how would you suggest dealing with people who know only violence? How do you stop the school bully from beating up the other kids on the playground without threat of punishment?"

Anger management courses? Ritalin? Psychiatrists?

LOL, liberals....just kick the kid in the ass and tell him to be good.



"I Am Infantry...Follow Me!!!"

with 'same kind of people'i mean people from the same ethnic background, same region, very similar conditions, and therefore very similar views and opinions.
I'm not a crazed hippy or 'love-not-war' liberal (they usually realy don't know what they're talking about). And seriously, do you think all the terrorists have someone with a rifle or a regime in their backs? Do you think that the terrorists we saw are not determined to
'destroy the west'? Sure saddam has some control, as i said, but what about those 'refugees', which are now coming back from jordan to fight? What about all those suicide bombers outside iraq? What about the terror-camps inside iraq? Are they not determined to act on their own? It is a natural reaction to counteract an apparent 'invasion'. Of course it is a liberation but too view people see it like that.
And it's not a 'school-bully', but a dictator with influence on the entire region, and with significant support from all those who see the US as the aggressor, which is a significant number of fanatics.
And there are alternatives to deal with the situation which would be less destabilizing than war. I honostely don't know exactly where you were going with the abortion example...I posted in a different topic that i disapprove demonstrations and protests. If you are relating to the people in the middle east, well many disaprove the US, but they do act in violent ways. Thats nothing we can prevent by bombing and invading another country. That is what fuels them. And we shall remember that those fighters you mentioned, M-21, are in Iraq because of the war, and not the war because of them. Soon we won't be able to keep them in the 'war-zone' as more people will share their views and cruel approaches.


-Freak

What I meant by the abortion example is that people can have similar beliefs, even similar backgrounds, but behave in entirely different ways. Just because the guys who hijacked the planes were raised with Islamic beliefs in the Middle East doesn't mean everyone there is ready to get on a plane and fly it into a building. There are shades of everything, including the Iraqis. Some people don't want to fight at all, some will throw a rock but do nothing more, and some will mow any American down with a machine gun the first chance they get. All are under Saddam's control, but to varying degrees. And ARE they all pouring back into Iraq to fight? I haven't heard much about that. I know the call went out, but we'll see if anyone responds to it.

The point I was making with the school bully is that if you can't solve a small problem, it doesn't get any easier when it's a big problem. We all want discussion. We would all rather come to a peaceful verbal agreement than shed any blood over a disagreement. But Saddam has power now. He keeps his power by killing his people and leaving them to live in fear. If we stop him from doing the things that his people fear, which is what our diplomatic solution would lead to, he would no longer have power. And he knows this, which is why he is not open to discussion. He is not willing to compromise. Just like the bully who feels stronger and more important by beating up littler kids. He doesn't want to stop because then he's not "big and strong" anymore. So how do you reason with the bully? How do you reason with Saddam? You can't. That's why we are at war, and that's why President Bush didn't wait around for "diplomacy to fail." Because common sense says it never had a chance in the first place.

"See that green switch? Flip it down."

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Of course they have to be dealt with, but war is not the right way.
War just supports their views. And if war would be necessary (which is very well might have been), i don't feel it was seen as the last resort. Many alternatives have been proposed by other nations, but they havn't even been reviewed (for example a large force of UN-Peacekeepers in the region, there was more to the plan but i'm not going into detail..just one of many examples).
So i'm not very confident that the war with iraq will actually help the war on terror, as islamofacism is very likely to be fueled, and recieve a major boost by this war.

-Freak


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Freak: I get the feeling I'm an old cynic next to you, and thirty years ago I was enligtened and tolerant and analytical, as you seem to be now. However, I can not remember any diplomatic efforts in the past 30 years that have produced any progress. Even negotiated treaties regarding ballistic missiles and anti ballistic missiles seem to have been scams. Each side negotiated wording that allowed their loophole. Even in the 1930's nations were doing it. After the Washington Treaty was signed to limit battleship size, everyone proceeded to build things technically outside the limits. The US was the least offender, the Japanese the worst (Yamato, Musashi).Please point out a diplomatic success or two so I can feel young and optimistic again.

Mc/I + P/A

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>And there are alternatives to deal with the situation which would be less destabilizing than war.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well, now it comes down to the question that so many people are unable to or just plain refuse to answer. Just what are those alternatives?? I am betting that every single one that you can come up with can be very convincingly proven either completely ineffective or just as destabilizing. So put your money where your mouth is and stop just saying that war is not the way to go. Tell us all what the way to go is.....

As for the hordes of refugees rushing back into Iraq. Pure PR BS. Remember a couple days ago Lebanon stating that 4000 volunteer Kamikaze car bombers were going into Iraq to kill the coalition? Well, we have checkpoints in and out of the country and we also have Joint Stars. We only counted a few dozen people going into the country from that direction in the last few days. Now, of course we cannot see everyone getting in but I think we might notice a 4000 person mass of crazies. A group that big is hard to make look like a few dozen people.

lol, stress. Well actually you are right...
I'm sure there are some diplomatic solutions that worked, but very very few. But it's not diplomacy OR war.
I would like to see some kind of 'forced diplomacy'. For example i think it's ludicrous that we basically asked saddam to accept inspectors. Hell, just send them in there! If anything happens to them he gets his ass kicked! In the same way we could just send UN-troops into iraq to keep peace. This would result that most UN-member nations will have to join the effort, and it would remove most of saddams administrative pressure. And if the operation doesnt have any effect, i.e. if the troops still witness(!) saddams abuse of power or if the troops get attacked in any way, saddam is done. This would be what i would have liked to see before the war. Just the fact that i and nobody else came up with that makes me wonder if it would have worked lol.
The germans actually proposed something like that, but it was quite rudly ignored by the US. This is just one example. I believe we could have had more effort for forcing saddam to comply without war. If it didn't work, this would at least give the world a better impression, and maybe some real solid prove, needed for war.

Freak

uh...bad grammar!
how do you edit previous posts? LOL<img src=icon_smile_blackeye.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_dead.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_blackeye.gif border=0 align=middle>

Item #4 "Unilateral" It doesn't look unilateral to me just because so many of our so called "allies" aren't on the list.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030327-10.html
Coalition Members
Who are the current coalition members?
President Bush is assembling a Coalition that has already begun military operations to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, and enforce 17 UNSC resolutions.
The Coalition will also liberate the Iraqi people from one of the worst tyrants and most brutal regimes on earth.
Contributions from Coalition member nations range from: direct military participation, logistical and intelligence support, specialized chemical/biological response teams, over-flight rights, humanitarian and reconstruction aid, to political support.
Forty-nine countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:
Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
This number is still growing, and it is no accident that many member nations of the Coalition recently escaped from the boot of a tyrant or have felt the scourge of terrorism. All Coalition member nations understand the threat Saddam Hussein's weapons pose to the world and the devastation his regime has wreaked on the Iraqi people.
The population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.23 billion people.
Coalition countries have a combined GDP of approximately $22 trillion.
Every major race, religion, ethnicity in the world is represented.
The Coalition includes nations from every continent on the globe

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
uh...bad grammar!
how do you edit previous posts? LOL<img src=icon_smile_blackeye.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_dead.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_blackeye.gif border=0 align=middle>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Do you see the <img src="http://forum.a-10.org/icon_edit_topic.gif" border=0> picture at the top of the post you wish to edit? Click it to edit the post.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

lol.
that doesnt quite make sense...
A huge majority is not involved in active fighting, and if it was for overflight rights, germany and france should be mentioned, too!
By the way the 'new europe' is keeping their mouth shut right now, because they realize they benefit more from the 'old' europe, that from the US. And in all european countries the broad majority of the people oposes the war. Unfortunately US-relations nowerdays is more important than the desire of the people for many nations in europe.
And if the 'old' europe isn't that important anymore, why is it that we don't keep hearing 'oh my god, belarus doesn't supprot us' in the news? No, its always germany and france.
And thats why i think goeing unilateraly is the way to go for the US.
Nations can opose the war, and just not participate in it. But they can't, don't, and shouldn't take actions to hinder the us war-effort (well france did actually). So if the US keeps the pressure on these governments, we see countries like spain britain and eastern europe to go against the peoples wants and needs. So unilateralism realy would be a wise and considerate way to go for a determined U.S., and thats what it's doing.

Nope, actually this symbol is not there LOL.
All i have is 'send reply with quote', and 'profile'.
what i was goeing to change was 'pressure' to 'power', so it makes sense...

And all it takes for evil to triumph could be good men doing the wrong things, eventually making the good guys look evil, resulting in more 'evil guys' goeing against the good guys...<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
and thats what it's doing.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Unless every country on that list was in some way coerced into joining, that isn't what the US is doing.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
And all it takes for evil to triumph could be good men doing the wrong things, eventually making the good guys look evil, resulting in more 'evil guys' goeing against the good guys...<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You have to take quotes in the spirit in which they are written, or else you're making up new quotes. BTW, everyone looks evil to someone out there.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

Edited by - Confed999 on Apr 02 2003 3:01 PM

I was making a new statement.
I didn't mean to make it look like somone elses statement,
i just used the same example to show a different view.

No problem Freak. I'm not mad or anything, just making a point of my own as well.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

ok, maybe its not what we are doing because, in the sense you are using it, the whole world is in fact supporting it, as almost all nations will join the humanitarian effort or granted overflight permissions. Right now more troops are flown in over rammstein AB, than from turky. As i said, nations can oppose the war, but they can't lay stones in the way of it. And even germany and france, the most cited critics, are respecting that (and even minimal support costs the governments popularity). It depends on how you define unilateral.

Confed....

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke"

Good quote



"I Am Infantry...Follow Me!!!"

LOL everyone hates me <img src=icon_smile_blackeye.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>


<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>


Freak

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I would like to see some kind of 'forced diplomacy'. For example i think it's ludicrous that we basically asked saddam to accept inspectors. Hell, just send them in there! If anything happens to them he gets his ass kicked!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'm pretty sure that's what we're doing right now. We told him inspectors were coming in, he didn't cooperate, so now we're kicking his ass. What more is there?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> In the same way we could just send UN-troops into iraq to keep peace. This would result that most UN-member nations will have to join the effort, and it would remove most of saddams administrative pressure.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is circular logic. You are saying the UN will be forced to go along with the US when it deploys its troops in support of us. What exactly did you think was going on in the UN when it came about that France, Germany and Russia were opposing military action in Iraq? I'll help you out. They were refusing to send in UN troops. So, how was it again you were going to force the dissenting UN members into supporting us?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> And if the operation doesnt have any effect, i.e. if the troops still witness(!) saddams abuse of power or if the troops get attacked in any way, saddam is done. This would be what i would have liked to see before the war. Just the fact that i and nobody else came up with that makes me wonder if it would have worked lol.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

OK, now you are losing grip with reality here. Do you honestly think you are such a genius that you came up on that on your own and no one else thought of it? How exactly would you propose removing Saddam from power? Send him a telegram? Fire him with a pink slip? Catch a clue, kiddo. We ARE removing Saddam from power. And it's taking our entire military to do it. This is a mean person. He likes to do bad things, even when you ask him not to and say pretty please with a cherry on top.

I hope this post comes off as really condescending, because I mean it that way. At first I thought that you might actually be a well-informed individual who would bring a balance to the discussion on this board, but... you aren't. You need to back up your facts. When you say "most of Europe..." what study/article/anything that doesn't inlcude your own imagination gave you these figures? Because, frankly, most of them are not correct based on all the other information I have and I'd like to know if I actually am wrong or not. At least try to be factual, even if it comes from Newsweek or CNN.com.

"See that green switch? Flip it down."

I don't think anybody hates you Freak.

Thanks Sniper.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke