Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I had a look at the link, but there was nothing contrary to startfor's article. In fact the 2 complement each others quite well.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Revisited opinion.

I stumbled into this passage
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As if the invasion was versus an ethnical group (the Sunni), while the Kurds were just cannon fooder for the Turc. This part is especially avoiding the difficult part of US policie between their need of Kurds and their need of Turkey to access the Balkans.

As a whole, I was not impressed by that website, so I'll keep on with stratfor which seems much more serious in its work.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Very powerful first person article from a war protester:

http://assyrianchristians.com/i_was_wrong_mar_26_03.htm

"`What in the world do you mean?` I asked. `How could you not want peace?` `We don't want peace. We want the war to come` he continued."

"`Look at it this way. No matter how bad it is we will not all die. We have hoped for some other way but nothing has worked. 12 years ago it went almost all the way but failed. We cannot wait anymore. We want the war and we want it now`"

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Thermodyne: When writing an "end-message" to this discussion, you should take a neutral position... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

R.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Says you!

This was a very soft post from the likes of me. I could have been much more harsh. But for me the enjoyment is in the debate, not the result.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Says you!

This was a very soft post from the likes of me. I could have been much more harsh. But for me the enjoyment is in the debate, not the result.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey Thermo, you was Soft again! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif You should have wrote "fight" instead "debate", I think! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

What about the WMDs? That's what all the warmongers said this war was about - we couldn't wait for the inspectors because Saddam had hundreds of labs ready to give us all Anthrax or whatever. Now I am reading long diatribes about saving Iraqis from dictators and WMD being incidental. Where is the integrity?

I for one don't want to pay taxes to "liberate" anyone from his or her life. What about African countries there are lots of WORSE dictators their - I don't see anyone clamoring to invade Nigeria for instance. What happened to giving the Afghanis a better life? It looks like the Taliban are back. This is hypocrisy at its most blatant!!

Dare I say this war was about Oil after all. I just found out that Saddam had shut out U.S. and British oil companies from Iraqi oil contracts - kind of coincidental that these are the two countries that invaded.

[ April 10, 2003, 19:49: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

People that support the war are not necessarily war-mongers. A war-monger is someone that always wants war, no matter what. Most people that have supported this war are not war-mongers. I suggest you apologize for using that term Rex. Its connotations are highly insulting.

[ April 10, 2003, 20:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I didn't say everyone that supported the war was a warmonger - read my post. But, now that you mention it - it does seem that most people who wanted this war - wanted this war "no matter what". Why else would their rational for supporting the war shift?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I can't speak for everybody, but my reasons for supporting the decision to go to war did not shift. It's always been about removing the threat that Saddam posed to our nation. The fact that the Iraqi people are liberated from a oppresive murderous regime is a very nice consequence of the actions taken.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

My rationale for supporting the war has never changed.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

What was the threat? If the Iraqis didn't use any WMD during the war when their lives were at stake then the threat argument is specious because if their ever was any intention to use them they would have used them during the war.

If it was about liberation where are the people clamoring to liberate other people from other dictators?

One of the huge irony of the war is that more people will have been killed by the war than would have been killed by any WMD that will likely be found.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">You got to see it from another point of view. War is a nice change in the daily routine, and as a side effect it gets rid of the old munitions. Also, professional soldiers need at least a war to make it to the big leagues, and then you need to rebuild all that have been destroyed during the war, plus new hardware to replace the damaged ones like planes and tanks. War is not longer as good a business as it used to be, but it can still make a couple bucks.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Hey man, keep bringing those reports about Afghanistan. It is very nice to see reports that don't exactly match with what the mass media is trying to tell us.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As if the invasion was versus an ethnical group (the Sunni), while the Kurds were just cannon fooder for the Turc. This part is especially avoiding the difficult part of US policie between their need of Kurds and their need of Turkey to access the Balkans.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">In a sense, it was, since most of the Saddam regime's supporters were from the Sunnis (minorities in a Shiite/Kurdish nation), and most of Saddam's inner core came from one town, Tikrit. The whole Kurdish-Turkish question is probably one of the real sticky points for future resolution in this region - and you can bet Iran (who has its own minority problems) is watching how things unfold very closely.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I assume you are still referring to StrategyPage.com. Two points - first, just because StrategyPage is free does not mean it's not serious. (I'm not unaware of Stratfor - I get their free e-newsletter). Second, StrategyPage (and its hardcopy predecessor works by James Dunnigan and Austin Bay, How to Make War and A Quick and Dirty Guide to War) have an impressive track record. Case in point - Baghdad. Stratfor envisioned three models of that battle, all three from WWII paradigms. StrategyPage pointed out that the US had learned a lot from Israeli experience in digging out militants from urban areas, and would likely try some new tricks. Lo and behold, Dunningan and Bay got it right - again.

You can keep StratFor - I'll stick with a proven winner.

[ April 10, 2003, 21:41: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Rex, Saddam has already killed many many more of his own people (by several orders of magnitude) than the coalition forces have killed in this war. He would have continued the biological and chemical weapons experiments on his own people if we did nothing to intervene. Sure, some people die in war. But after the war, the mass-murders in Iraq will stop. A little pain and suffering in the present for much greater in the near future is always worth it.

How can you say more people have died in the war than would have been killed by WMD? That is a rather arrogant presumption. You can not know what level of WMD production Iraq has (with 0 level always a possibility) without actually going in there and rooting it out. If Iraq has a lot of WMD, it would very easily be capable of killing many more people than have died in this war.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Another huge irony is that fewer people were killed in the war then have been killed by the regime.

The fact that WMD haven't been used yet in the conflict doesn't by itself prove the absence of the weapons. There are many possible explanations. All of which you will scoff at so I won't bother wasting electrons posting them.

He had them in the past and had shown a willingness to use them. He had not totally documented their destruction. We had evidence that he still had them and was trying to develop them further. And he had connections with terrorist organazations that would have happily used them on our shores. That's a threat.

I can understand why you might look at the evidence and say it was wrong. I can understand that you might believe out interpretation of the data was incorrect. I concede that you sincerely believe there was no legitimate threat. What I don't understand is why you insist that not only was there no threat, but that we must know there was no threat and therefore our reasons for war must be something else other than what we claim they are.

Geoschmo

[ April 10, 2003, 21:51: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Fyron, Geo

For the 19th time in this thread alone: BEEING AGAINST THE WAR DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE PRO SADDAM.
Everybody knew Saddam was the worlds biggest dickhead and nr. 1 badguy. Now that dubious title belong to GWB.

People in Iraq are probably better off now, but I don't think the killings and civil war in Iraq are over yet (I hope I am wrong).

You have removed 1 terrorist supporter, but you have pissed off the rest of the Islamic world and increased their support to terrorism.
You have taken out 1 supporter of WMD's, but proven once and for all the need for any nation not best buddy with USA to have strike back capabilities.
You have wingclipped the UN and alienated your friends in Europe.
You have created a negative image off USA and US companies/trademarks, which mean lower sales of US products. Maybe dragging US and the world into a new recession.

I truly believe that history will prove this war to be one of the biggest mistakes of modern times, but again: I hope I am wrong.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Primitive, for the 20th time, I never said you were pro sadam because you were agaisnt the war.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:

Quote:

What I don't understand is why you insist that not only was there no threat, but that we must know there was no threat and therefore our reasons for war must be something else other than what we claim they are.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">How many Gas or Anthrax is needed to kill a good number of people? How spread it into the US cities?
Everybody knew that Saddam had not balistic missiles, then, how?
These in my view, are basic questions that need to be answered to consider if Saddam was really a potential treat to USA or not.
Yes, with time, he could have purchased the technology (even purchase Nukes) but he had 12 years to do it and he was unable to.

But then, I want to know why Saddam's WMD was a more imminent threat that North Korea's active program. In fact, NK claims to have already Nukes and to have missiles that could reach every place in USA.

Honestly, think this war like most the wars, was about power.
And honestly again, don't think after this war USA will be a more safe place to live, because as proved the fuc$%&g attack against the WTC, a maniac doesn't need WMD to kill massive number of people.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Sorry Geo, but I find it hard to read yours (and others) Posts any other way.
The paranoia must be spreading http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Common guys, stop this nonsense about Oil, WMD and liberation of Iraq. The only selfconsistent explanation I know of is the Edip' complex of Bush junior. You see, he always wanted to kill his dad and his subconsious projected G.Bush senior onto S.Hussein as a personification. There is no need for any more complex conspiracy theories. This one is perfectly valid !

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Rex, chill out a little. All will be come to light if we allow for people to do their jobs. By this
time tomorrow we will be reading about the Iraqi nuclear program. The leaks have already
started. While the world is better off with out the tauban we have already found. I suppose
they could have been saving it to make 5,ooo,ooo liters of Banned roach spray. We have already identified some sites where these agents were dumped recently. But check the news this week end, and see if you don’t hear about some WG plutonium. Could it be that we knew it was there? Could it be that we knew when it was sent there and from where it came? Could it be that this was part of the need to act quickly? And could this be the beginning of the end for
another government far from the sands of Iraq?

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

And MB... also remember that Iraq had no ties with the terrorists who did the sept. 11 attacks.

Bush himself stated that in a speack back in January.

You know. When I jumped into this thread at the beginning I was not decicided if I thought that this war was the best course of action.

Though the Last 100 odd pages I did form an opinion.

THat the war was wrong.

I have yet to see any proof that this war was necessary. And that the future events from this war is necessary. All pro war arguements were based on hyprocracy , fabrications, lies and what if's.

It did not sit well with my thoughts nor my feelings.

All I do know is that 10's of thousands Iraqs are dead , wounded or missing. THis occured in a few weeks. That a cluster bomb dropped on a heavily populated area is a WMD. That the cololition who is charged with bringing democracy to Iraq has members who's human rights violations rank up their with Iraq and are also dictatorships themselves.

I would like to be persuaded to believing that this was the right move. But pro war as the only solution arguement was weak ( to date).

So I ask , since this war is not over yet.

Why was this war needed?

Was it worth it ?

I feel horrible for thinking this. I doubt i am not the only one, but I for one hope that this drags out. That a bloody nose situation arrises so that the chicken hawks lose their power in dc. And that North America loses its apatite for waging war. For war should not come so easy as it has and as it has been offered the Last few months.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I just said, the paranoia is spreading.

If there are evidence presented tomorrow, lets hope it's more accurate then the "evidence" presented so far.
No more the of the fakes and circumstantial evidence from before the war.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It is a good thing that nothing I have ever said implied that in any way shape or form then. Unless, of course, you want to add more to my Posts than is there, and make up such claims.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That is a lie. I suggest you unconvince yourself of that as soon as possible.

[ April 11, 2003, 00:26: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Two have been traced back to forged records that were tampered with during the occupation of Kuwait.

Also lets face reality here. No terrorist organization the size and complexity of Bin Laudins can function with out the services of a notional diplomatic organization, and the also need the protection and cover of national security organizations. As the remains of Iraq are examined, this will come to light.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">As I just said, the paranoia is spreading.

If there are evidence presented tomorrow, lets hope it's more accurate then the "evidence" presented so far.
No more the of the fakes and circumstantial evidence from before the war.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Oh the finding will not be the news, the source will be the news. Looked like a deal had been
worked out (Just my Opinion) but I think that fell apart on the road to Syria.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Why was this war needed???? and What do you mean this war????

Our involvement in the started in response to the invasion of Kuwait.
We went to war to liberate them, and we did it.
Guess what, the war did not end then. It takes both sides to end a war.
Saddam has never met the conditions of the cease fire.
So the war has not ended.
Does it make sense to ignore an armed, injured and insulted enemy?
It takes both sides to end a war.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Two have been traced back to forged records that were tampered with during the occupation of Kuwait.

Also lets face reality here. No terrorist organization the size and complexity of Bin Laudins can function with out the services of a notional diplomatic organization, and the also need the protection and cover of national security organizations. As the remains of Iraq are examined, this will come to light.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thermo:

Think we covered this before,
There are many reasons a Baluchi would like a Kuwaiti passport. This is circumstantial evidence
at most.

And reality ?
The Al Queada was mortal enemies of the secular Bath party. I doubt Saddam would have given any advanced weapons to Bin Laden as they just as well could end up beeing used on Iraq. The main political backer of Al Queda was Afghanistan (logically), with much of the funding coming from "friendly" nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I think even GWB has given up on pinning 9-11 on Saddam.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can't speak for every post here. There have been some that seemed to say that every person that opposes the war supports Sadam. There have been a few that pretty clearly did support Sadam. But I try hard not to lump people together. Just because you disagree with me on one thing doesn't mean you disagree with me about everything. I'd like to know how you got that from anything I said, paranoia or not.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">It stands to reason that nations with more fundamentalist Muslims would have more in common with Al Qaeda than with a secular leader such as Hussein. What you apparently fail to understand is the Arabic (and most Eastern cultures) view of enmity.
You apparently see it as:
Terrorists hate -> U.S. and U.K. and Saddam and Israel and ... all the same.

Arabs see it as a continuum:
Terrorists hate -> U.S. then Israel then U.K. then Saddam then ...
They will support anyone lower on the list against anyone higher on the list. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"; and, "My brother against my cousin, but my cousin against a stranger"--those sum up the Arabic philosophy of enmity.

Of course the terrorists hate Saddam, but they hate the U.S. more. Saddam is an Arab, at least; he pays well; they get plenty of women; and best of all, there's a chance to give the U.S. a black eye. Any fundamentalist Muslim is duty-bound to decry the U.S.'s actions. Of course, if the U.S. comes out victorious, that just means one more enemy is off the slate. The situation isn't to their liking, but at least they didn't lose everything.

[ April 11, 2003, 01:14: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can't speak for every post here. There have been some that seemed to say that every person that opposes the war supports Sadam. There have been a few that pretty clearly did support Sadam. But I try hard not to lump people together. Just because you disagree with me on one thing doesn't mean you disagree with me about everything. I'd like to know how you got that from anything I said, paranoia or not.

Geoschmo</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Creating false statements to respond to out of what other people actually said is a common tactic employed out of ignorance. Most people that do it do it accidentally and unwittingly.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Two have been traced back to forged records that were tampered with during the occupation of Kuwait.

Also lets face reality here. No terrorist organization the size and complexity of Bin Laudins can function with out the services of a notional diplomatic organization, and the also need the protection and cover of national security organizations. As the remains of Iraq are examined, this will come to light.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Thermo:

Think we covered this before,
There are many reasons a Baluchi would like a Kuwaiti passport. This is circumstantial evidence
at most.

And reality ?
The Al Queada was mortal enemies of the secular Bath party. I doubt Saddam would have given any advanced weapons to Bin Laden as they just as well could end up beeing used on Iraq. The main political backer of Al Queda was Afghanistan (logically), with much of the funding coming from "friendly" nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

I think even GWB has given up on pinning 9-11 on Saddam.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then we will agree to disagree for now. You should look back at what got Bin Laudin pissed
off to begin with. Then remember that “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” dates from an
older Arabic slogan “The slayer of those who torment me, will be my brothers in the greatness
of god.” The Arab world has always needed to set aside it’s internal differences to repel
invaders. It has become part of their culture. And Saddam was the kind of guy who could deal
with the devil himself. I would think that for a free hand in Iraq, Saddam would have offered
support and aid.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Krsqk
Your arguments is good, but:
While Saddam could have had a deal with Bin Laden, he could never have trusted the Al Queda. Bin Laden kept Iraq on the list of enemies (he had to out of religious reasons), and Saddam could never have been sure that some local or splinter group would not take matters in their own hand. That said, there are many safe ways Saddam could have supported Bin Laden, SAM missiles for one (not beeing able to fly much himself).

But I think the main reason we haven't seen any proof of a Saddam - Bin Laden connection is that there wasn't any. There just wasn't any need for one. Saddam could find all the agents/terrorist he needed safer and cheaper elsewhere, and Bin Laden had no problem getting the money and weapons he needed to achieve his goals.

Geo
I dunno, Your Posts is by far the worst, but I feel there is a "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority, that reduces everybody who disagree to low level scum. You have a great and special standing in the community, and your words carries much more weight than the average guys words would do.

Maybe the fault is all mine, I get a short fuse around this war thread. Anyway, I do/did not mean to offend you.

Fyron
You really crack me up sometimes.

Thermo
Agreed

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I don't have the same feeling about the Geo's Posts.
But really disagree that "we were threatened and we have the right to do whatever we want" attitude that implies moral superiority
In my view, this only imply Military/Technological/Political superiority, not moral.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Enemy of my enemy - give me a break. Talk about stereotyping. BTW: If anything we're the ones guilty of that. Did you guys forget that all the invaders were from anglo/english speaking countries?

Part of the problem is that for the Last six month there has been this moving target to justify the war.

Instead of coming up with dubious arguments why don't you pro war guys come out and say what your thinking - that it's either them or us - like the cold war. At least you wouldn't sound disingenuous.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I wouldn't disagree that both Saddam and his supporters were angling for good positions from which to stab each other in the back if necessary. I wouldn't necessarily link Saddam and bin Laden, by the way; but I would link Saddam and terrorism in general. There is also a definite trans-national link between Saddam and fundamentalist Islam--that's why we're encountering these fighters from other countries. There are several Groups in whose best interests it was to defeat the US and their coalition; they contributed whatever they could/would to achieve that goal.

Rex, that may be stereotyping; but stereotypes of Middle-Eastern Arab culture tend to hit a lot nearer the mark than stereotypes of other cultures, due mostly to the homogenizing effect of Islam. In fact, there are a lot more similarities among Eastern cultures as a whole than Westerners readily accept. We are conditioned to pick out differences in ourselves and others, and tend to project our blended culture onto others. In reality, differences in Middle-Eastern Arabs exist more in spite of their culture than as a part of it.

Taking the discussion in another direction--stereotypes are not evil. They are even helpful. Stereotypes exist precisely because there are factors which are generally shared by a large segment of a given population. Stereotypes deal with large Groups of people, and are useful in those situations. The statement "Iraqis are cheering the fall of Saddam's dictatorship" is not made false because some Iraqis support him, any more than the stereotype "The accent of Americans living in the midwestern regions of the US is easily understood" is false because some living in the Midwest may have an Irish brogue or a Southern drawl. Of course there are exceptions to generalizations, but that doesn't make the generalizations any less true.

I think many people have mixed up prejudice and stereotype. Prejudice applies a stereotype to every individual in that group, without accepting the possibility for the existence of exceptions. For example, "Southerners are stupid hicks" would be prejudicial, while "Education in the southeastern United States is lower than in the Midwest" is stereotype. No one is saying that all Arabs are US-hating, Saddam-loving, dictatorship-embracing scumbags--any more than anyone is saying that everyone who supports this war is a disingenuous, deceitful, greedy warmonger who wants a US empire in the Middle East. Most people who use statements involving "Everyone" or "All you" can be written off pretty quickly as either exaggerating or prejudiced.

[ April 11, 2003, 04:04: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Excuse me, what have I been saying for the Last four months? I consider the threat posed by Iraq to be real, and serious enough to warrant action. That's why I supported the decision to go to war once it was clear that the diplomatic efforts were not going to succeed. If you want to be frank and say it was "them or us" I don't have a problem with that. I don't see a big difference in the two statements. How have I been disengenuous about it? Given the choice, I choose us.

Does that mean I think the US get's to do whatever the hell it wants anywhere in the world just because we can and who cares if anyone disagrees? No, I don't. I don't agree with Pax Americana or whatever it's being called. But I believe Iraq presented a credible threat and needed to be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Geoschmo

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Please Primitve, with all do respect, stop misrepresenting my comments in this public forum. Disagree with what I have said by all means, my but don't make stuff up and say I said it.

I do consider my reputation in this forum, but have never claimed to be morally superior to anyone. I respect the opinions of everyone here, even those I disagree with vehemantly. And for me what happens in this thread stays in this thread. These conversations have no bearing on how I treat anyone outside this thread. You can ask Rex about that if you doubt me.

If you care to take this conversation into private email and give me some examples of what I have suposedly said along these lines I would appreciate it. If I have been careless with my words and given you this impression somehow in my comments I would like to know it. But how you can say my Posts are the worst examples of this behavior I honestly have no idea.

Geoschmo

[ April 11, 2003, 04:16: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Disclaimer - Saddam is a murderous tyrant. Not up their with Hitler and Stalin but maybe the equal of Suharto, and more brutal than Pinochet and co.

Now that I've got that out of the way I can get to my point.

Why did a "supposedly" 400,00 strong military capitulate so quicky? If Saddam wasn't willing or capable to use WMDs to defend his own capital, then how could he have possibly been a threat to the US, or even my country? Maybe the threat Iraq posed was overstated?

Its not about oil, not about liberation, not about security threats, not about UN resolutions, its all about POWER.

And I have a little secret that I'm willing to share with everyone - "People cheat, lie and spread half-truths in order to maintain and gain power."

There was an agenda to invade Iraq long before UN resolution 1441. America never intended to let the UN dictate the actions to take against Saddam. The UN was irrelevant if it didn't support the US's plan (and irrelevant if it did, a sort of a lose-lose situation). It was all done for show. Someone or some group in the US administration decided invading Iraq was a way to gain power and all that was needed was to build the case. A string of evidence was produced, most of it turned out to be a load of crap. Evidence turned out to me plagiarised, forged and just plain wrong but that didn't stop it coming. Saddam was linked to S11, Al-queda, Maradona's "Hand of God" effort and just about everything else that might get someone behind the invasion. It didn't matter about counter-evidence, if we made up enough excuses then everyone will ended up believing at least one.
Iraq was just a "Target of opportunity" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

So does everybody believe everything their leaders are saying to them? I seriously doubt it, so why would you believe anything they say without evidence? Do you believe the media? The "alleged" champions of truth and democracy than survive based on what type of products their targeted audiences consume, with owners who are always looking to get some media ownership law overturned so they can buy something else. Hardly a recipe for impartiality if you ask me. Do you believe the so called "think tanks"? How are they funded? What agendas do they run?
The only words worth reading are by people who having nothing to gain by telling them. Thats what makes the forum a bit more interesting than my local newspaper.

Askan
(Who can't spell)

[ April 11, 2003, 04:46: Message edited by: Askan Nightbringer ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:

Quote:

If you want to be frank and say it was "them or us" I don't have a problem with that.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">When I say "them or us" I mean Islam and the West - that is what it's coming down to. We're just lucky that the Arabs are so fragmented - and that their leaders are for the most part weak.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you really think that's why the Brits invaded?

[ April 11, 2003, 04:49: Message edited by: rextorres ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Primitive:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So my valid points are nothing more than minor amusements to you? That sure makes me feel appreciated. Thanks.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is precisely what I was talking about, and completely validates my point.

Rex:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Talk about, that is a basic human thought pattern, that influences the thinking of nearly every person in the world.

[ April 11, 2003, 05:42: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Do you really think that's why the Brits invaded?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Without a doubt. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
If they mentioned the obvious link between Saddam and the French Rugby Union side of the Last World Cup then I have no doubt that New Zealand would have sent troops too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Askan

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Sorry Geo:
It was very late yesterday and I edited that post about a 1000 times to make it right. Then of course I screwed up.

That first sentence should have been: Your Posts is by far NOT the worst.
Makes more sense grammatically as well as logically with people like …… around.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

After Iraq, who's next ?

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Then there was this point in a previous article :
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Like it or not.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Great analysis. I agree is very likely that the ChickenHawk brigade will go after Syria next.
But I think Saudi Arabia is more likely to be the real people funding Al Qaeda, and thus a greater danger to the US. I can't help to wonder if the Saudis have been spared because of Bush and Cheney's oil deals with them.......

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Great analysis. I agree is very likely that the ChickenHawk brigade will go after Syria next.
But I think Saudi Arabia is more likely to be the real people funding Al Qaeda, and thus a greater danger to the US. I can't help to wonder if the Saudis have been spared because of Bush and Cheney's oil deals with them.......

I agree that Saudi Arabia is a big player funding terrorists in general, not just Al Quaeda. But more than likely we will keep plugging away at the smaller easier targets before taking them on.

Set up some democracies in these newly liberated countries and watch freedom spread, teh people will see their neighbors enjoying life instead of subjegation and will be more supportive of US involvement.

Get ready Syria you are next.

[ April 11, 2003, 14:40: Message edited by: Hunkpapa ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Who said real goal was setting up democracies ???? Do you really believe that ????
Do you really think the current US administration would like to see Egyptians, Saudi Arabia, Jordanians or United Arab Emirates electing a government made of USA hating religious ?
I may strongly dislike the current US administration, but I have to admit they are not stupid, and their current moves make sense. I do not agree to their move, but in their own logic, it makes sense.