Page 4 of 6

...

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:00 am
by eeventinee
In regards to Iraq, there is some evidence to suggest that the only reason there is conflict there is because America is there. Before we came, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, now they make up only roughly 7 percent of the insurgency and are simply tolerated by the other insurgents because of America's presence. America leaves, Al Qaeda leaves (forced out, killed) and their biggest point of recruitment/training goes with it. While there are Sunni Shiite issues in Iraq, if it isn't for the American presence it has been suggested that they could co-exist.

Staying simply increases Al Qaeda's numbers/efficiency/experience while costing America money and lives. Unless Americas real goal along was to seize Iraq's oil, in which case go nuts, just dont feed me the company line of we had to remove WMDS, oh wait, I mean we had to get back at him for trying to kill my daddy, nope still not it, we had to remove a bad man who killed lots of people, there thats the one. Don't even get me started on how America supported Saddam through his most vicious acts and continued to until he stopped toeing the company line, it just makes the guise of removing a bad man that much more ridiculous.

Re: ...

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 11:38 am
by Naiin
eeventinee wrote:In regards to Iraq, there is some evidence to suggest that the only reason there is conflict there is because America is there. Before we came, there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, now they make up only roughly 7 percent of the insurgency and are simply tolerated by the other insurgents because of America's presence. America leaves, Al Qaeda leaves (forced out, killed) and their biggest point of recruitment/training goes with it. While there are Sunni Shiite issues in Iraq, if it isn't for the American presence it has been suggested that they could co-exist.

Staying simply increases Al Qaeda's numbers/efficiency/experience while costing America money and lives. Unless Americas real goal along was to seize Iraq's oil, in which case go nuts, just dont feed me the company line of we had to remove WMDS, oh wait, I mean we had to get back at him for trying to kill my daddy, nope still not it, we had to remove a bad man who killed lots of people, there thats the one. Don't even get me started on how America supported Saddam through his most vicious acts and continued to until he stopped toeing the company line, it just makes the guise of removing a bad man that much more ridiculous.


So.... let me get this straight.... we invaded a country based on LIES (when you dont tell all of the truth or omit parts of the truth or manipulate data to cause a certain appearance... its called LYING)... a sovereign nation that admittedly had a mouthy leader.... now that we have gone and totally destroyed almost all infrastructure inside the country (electricity, running water, etc)... allowed untold tons of explosives to fall in the wrong hands.... dismantled their military and only just barely (with duct tape even) put it back.... and we want to leave?!?!?!?!?.... Its amazing how our collective moral concious<sp> led us to these acts, but yet will allow us to leave with the mess thats been made. WE THE PEOPLE allowed our leaders to do this( you think it would have proceded if 200 million letters arrived to Senators stating lack of constituant support?)... so WE THE PEOPLE better hunker down and clean it up ASAP and get the F**K out... lets try to remeber this when another leader wants to attack a nation that has never attacked us.... I feel soooooooooooooooo much safer now that Sadam isnt around.... /rollseyes

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 11:42 am
by Naiin
Horcrux wrote:
Naiin wrote:
Ceruis wrote:Real quick cuz I'm tired.

Your confusing military training with military service. All the proposal asks for is one 9 week session of training during high school and one semester of ROTC during college. The proposal doesn't call for a term of service beyond that. The military does not brainwash anyone. Spend some time around a military unit before you judge us brainwashed.


I dont care if you are asking them for tiddley-winks for 9 weeks.... manadatory does not = freedom


The college semester going to be free or would we have to pay for a mandatory semester? Either way seems outrageous. The cost if it was free would be insane on the government, and the cost for people to put themselves through college is allready steep.


Free and Freedom... not the same thing.... or am I missing your point?

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 11:53 am
by Serano
We invaded Iraq to take Sadam Hussein out of power since he failed to comply with his surrender agreement with the United Nations after his defeat following his unprovoced invasion of Kuwait.

Every other reason is just icing. The real reason was failure to follow the provisions of his surrender agreement.

AS to staying afterwords - thats international politics.

...

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 11:54 am
by eeventinee
Naiin, I agree that what we did is horrible and if I thought there was anyway we could fix it by staying Id be for it. I just dont believe it is possible anymore and that the evidence points to leaving as the only way to stabalize the situation. I never was for the war, you dont have to tell me about the lies. It is time, however, to listen to the Iraqis for once and leave.

Re: ...

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 12:06 pm
by Naiin
eeventinee wrote:Naiin, I agree that what we did is horrible and if I thought there was anyway we could fix it by staying Id be for it. I just dont believe it is possible anymore and that the evidence points to leaving as the only way to stabalize the situation. I never was for the war, you dont have to tell me about the lies. It is time, however, to listen to the Iraqis for once and leave.


Odd... the average Iraqi citizen wants us to stay according to the statements made to Davidson Univeristy students via live satelite feed from Iraq by students from the University of Baghdad. The current Iraqi regime wants us to stay... funny that the only people that want us gone are the religious leaders (read political/religous) and religious fanatics from other countries that have poured into Iraq to support these local Ayatolahs.

When our funding dries up ... which it looks like its going to do.... we gotta leave anyways.

stats

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 12:09 pm
by eeventinee
stats can be deceiving, depending on which you look at it will tell you the exact opposite.

In regards to Serano's claim, there were non military ways to accomplish this. Saddam was hanging on by a thread, the only thing keeping him in power was American led sanctions that devastated the Iraqi people and pushed them to Saddam. Take away the sanctions and he loses power from within shortly.

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 12:13 pm
by Naiin
Serano wrote:We invaded Iraq to take Sadam Hussein out of power since he failed to comply with his surrender agreement with the United Nations after his defeat following his unprovoced invasion of Kuwait.

Every other reason is just icing. The real reason was failure to follow the provisions of his surrender agreement.

AS to staying afterwords - thats international politics.


BTW the UN said....... *cough Bullshit.... remember ? Thats why they had to trapse Powell around the UN with the WMD story.... ask any American on the street why they think we went to war....

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 12:31 pm
by Meso
We invaded Iraq to take Sadam Hussein out of power


Swat a fly with a nuclear bomb.

We didn't need hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of lives lost in vain, Billions of dollars wasted, and 5 years of providing more terrorists with an active training ground to take out Saddam Ugly.

One well placed bullet is all it would have taken.

kk, maybe 10 (to take out all his doubles).

This was all hyped up out of proportion and out of control because George wanted to be like daddy and then painted himself into a corner and refuses to accept or admit that he was wrong.

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 1:44 pm
by lerchinc
Odd... the average Iraqi citizen wants us to stay according to the statements made to Davidson Univeristy students via live satelite feed from Iraq by students from the University of Baghdad. The current Iraqi regime wants us to stay... funny that the only people that want us gone are the religious leaders (read political/religous) and religious fanatics from other countries that have poured into Iraq to support these local Ayatolahs



Odd that within the last week the government that got voted in just past a bill requiring either a freeze in troop numbers or an american withdrawl...

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 2:20 pm
by Worff
Oerin wrote:
We invaded Iraq to take Sadam Hussein out of power


Swat a fly with a nuclear bomb.

We didn't need hundreds of thousands of troops, thousands of lives lost in vain, Billions of dollars wasted, and 5 years of providing more terrorists with an active training ground to take out Saddam Ugly.

One well placed bullet is all it would have taken.

kk, maybe 10 (to take out all his doubles).

This was all hyped up out of proportion and out of control because George wanted to be like daddy and then painted himself into a corner and refuses to accept or admit that he was wrong.


Collateral damage and extreme loss of civilian life from attacking them with a nuke, would be unacceptable, not to mention make a lot of countries nervous that we are willing to use a nuke so quickly and indiscriminately. I've heard a few others say that, and it might sound quick and easy but in reality it would have dire consequences worldwide.

That being said, nukes aren't out of the question totally, but I believe they would only be used if 2 or more countries at war (that have nuke capabilites) using conventional weapons and tactics.. and one of them starts to lose to the point defeat is inevitable... the nukes will start flying out of desperation.

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 2:23 pm
by Goofydoofy
This planet needs a swift and decisive plague. Something that will wipe out 75% of the people in a month. I think that would be a good thing.

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 2:36 pm
by Meso
Sheesh Worff :jester
I was just giving an example of extreme overkill

one special forces squad could have taken out Saddam without the need of an invasion / occupation.

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:04 pm
by Worff
lol oh ok :) I thought the "one bullet" was referring to the first sentence about the nuke.

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2007 7:32 pm
by Bilnick
Oerin wrote:Sheesh Worff :jester
I was just giving an example of extreme overkill

one special forces squad could have taken out Saddam without the need of an invasion / occupation.


Didn't it take months to find him AFTER the invasion?

I am not even a military novice, but it seems it would be harder to find someone without an occupying force.