"War on Iraq soap-boxing"

[-Demosthenes-]

Wow. Who have you been listening to? Nobody was terrorizing Iraq under Sadaam' date=' so don't EVEN try to use [i']that[/i]. The fact that the people are being terrorized now is because we overthrew their powerful tyrant, leaving a vacuum which we were incapable of filling, since we went in with no exit strategy and went out of our way to ignore their culture.

Who have you been listening to? The people were terrorized under Sadaam. The US helped the people overthrow the tryranical government, and the situation continues to improve.

There is no doubt that Sadaam was a bad guy, but he was NOT the fountain of terrorism you are painting him as now.

I think it has everything to do with it! Terrorists pray that we'll get mad and strike them back. In fact, the harder we strike back, the more terrorists we create. They blow up a building, we level a city. Torture prisoners for information. In the eyes of their followers can't you see the injustice that represents? Can't you place yourself in their shoes for just a moment and see that? I'm really not asking you to sympathize with them, just to see that they are just as capable of becoming enraged at injustice and barbarism as we are. Who is the bigger agressor here in their eyes, the superpower or the small middle Eastern country with no leader?

Just because a Nation is powerful doesn't mean that they are nessicarily the agressor, or that anyone assumes that way.

People in Iraq can now vote with more than one man on the ballot, girls and women can now go to school and even own property (what a concept!) people have rights now! Why would you think that they wouldn't want that?

[Tetrahedrite]

Dude, they've got to you!!

[-Demosthenes-]

Its merely a split from another thread.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=128461#post128461

[Tetrahedrite]

I am aware.....by "they" I mean the American politicians and the conservative media.

What Phi for All et al. are describing is what is actually what is happening, what you are describing is the spin that the politicians et al. put on the facts!

[-Demosthenes-]

I am aware.....by "they" I mean the American politicians and the conservative media.

What Phi for All et al. are describing is what is actually what is happening' date=' what you are describing is the spin that the politicians [i']et al.[/i] put on the facts!

First of all, conservative media? Since when did we have a concervative media? It's very liberal as I see it.

Second of all, can you say that anything I said was untrue?

[Tetrahedrite]

First of all, if you told a person in Australia (and other countries I suppose) that the American media was liberal, you would be likely to cause fits of laughter, most likely followed by the question "are you serious?"!

Secondly, I'm not going to go through what you've posted in the other thread point by point (Phi for All, Time Traveller, Sayo etc have already done that), but I think your view can be summed up with this quote:

[invading] it made everything better

I, for one, and many other people would strongly disagree with this statement, and in fact hold the view that the whole concept that invading Iraq was a bad thing to do

[TimeTraveler]

[invading'] it made everything better

 

Even when I was a blind supporter of the war a while back, it was always obvious this was never the truth.

 

Demo, I used to have close to the same perspective as you on this war, so I understand where you are coming from. It's kinda funny my mind began changing when I cancelled my cable because they jacked up my cable bill. So for entertainment I starting checking out educational films at the college I attend. I have been exposed to enough evidence to see how unjust this war is, and its the kind of evidence you won't see here in America. Probably because it is considered unpatriotic.

 

The way I see it, I care for my country, I care for the soldiers oversea's, I care about the American people, and I care about the human race. To not open your mind to the possibility that our fears have been preyed on, lies have been told to us, and this war has nothing to do with terrorism or saddam's regime or faulty intelligence, is the only thing unpatriotic.

[atinymonkey]

People in Iraq can now vote with more than one man on the ballot' date=' girls and women can now go to school and even own property (what a concept!) people have rights now! Why would you think that they wouldn't want that?[/quote']

 

FFS Iraq has bugger all to do with Afghanistan. Stop confusing the two regimes in your bigoted interpretation of the Iraq regime.

 

The very same laws are in force in Iraq that were there prior to the occupation. Women have had the right to vote in Iraq since the 1980, which need I remind you is only 15 years after America allowed African Americans to vote.

 

I'm getting tired of this attitude that Iraq's regime prior to the occupation was a mixture of the worst of humanity bound together in an unholy pact of evil.

[JaKiri]

First of all, conservative media? Since when did we have a concervative media? It's very liberal as I see it.

 

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[syntax252]

could you support that statement and explain just how these troops are saving american lives?

 

Since the events of 9/11 initiated the war against terrorism, and since Saddam was a known supporter of terrorism, it would seem to follow that he would either have to change his ways or be removed from power.

 

He refused to change his ways.

[syntax252]

Because if syntax252 is proposing that we are in Iraq to save American lives (which, incidentally, completely misses the point of this thread)

 

I said that is response to the proposal that we should remove our troops from Iraq.

 

Not germane to the topic, perhaps, but it was responsive rather that initiative.

[Sayonara]

If you refer to the part in parenthesis, then fair enough. But the point that staying = more deaths (or, in fact, going in the first place) still stands.

[Sayonara]

Since the events of 9/11 initiated the war against terrorism' date=' and since Saddam was a known supporter of terrorism, it would seem to follow that he would either have to change his ways or be removed from power.

 

He refused to change his ways. [/quote']

We've been over this again and again and ohmygodmyeyes again in various other threads; threads to which that topic is more relevant.

 

I think most of them are in the politics forum if you want to check them out.

[syntax252]

I think the individuals who believe that going into Iraq has made American citizens safer from terrorism need to wake up and smell the gunpowder!!

All that the US has done is created more terrorists where there were none before. Surely you don't buy the drivel that says that the world is now safer without Saddam. As Phi for All said' date=' the US has just given the Muslim faith a further excuse to hate you [the USA']. The problem the US has is that it is creating enemies faster than it can kill them off!

I honestly believe in decades to come history will show that unilaterally invading Iraq was the worst mistakes ever made by the US. A very large portion of the world now believe that the US is barbaric and tyrranical (whether true or not) and this surely will result in more US citizens losing their lives in years to come.

 

I don't think we are at war with the Nuslim faith. I think we are at war with Islamist fanatics. The average Muslim has no more use for these terrorists than we do. That if why we are not fighting 30,000,000 people in Iraq, but only a few fanatics.

 

The exit stratigy is that as the Iraqi government establishes itself and their army and police force is established and trained, we can withdraw and they will be able to maintain their own government--as a democracy, which is much better for the whole world.

 

The bottom line is that terrorism thrives on ignorance and poverty. Democracy tends to reduce both of those things. Make no mistake, this is a big job that will no doubt take decades to accomplish, but it is a job worth doing because the alternative (submission to terrorist demands) is unacceptable.

[syntax252]

If you refer to the part in parenthesis, then fair enough. But the point that staying = more deaths (or, in fact, going in the first place) still stands.

 

 

?? I don't see what you are getting at here.

[syntax252]

We've been over this again and again and ohmygodmyeyes again in various other threads; threads to which that topic is more relevant.

 

I think most of them are in the politics forum if you want to check them out.

 

Well' date=' OK.

 

Does that mean that I am not supposed to [b']respond[/b] to queries?

[Sayonara]

?? I don't see what you are getting at here.

Compare the number of American (or even global) deaths due to "Iraqi terrorism" over the past ten years with the number of deaths during the occupation of Iraq over the past ten months.

 

If the purpose of this endeavour is to save lives, then something has gone horribly wrong.

 

 

Well, OK.

Does that mean that I am not supposed to respond to queries?

No, but do try to stay on topic within threads. We all digress at some point or other, and obviously I can see why you'd respond to a post in a 'live' discussion rather than one making the same point in a thread that's a few months old.

[Sayonara]

I don't think we are at war with the Nuslim faith. I think we are at war with Islamist fanatics[/b']. The average Muslim has no more use for these terrorists than we do. That if why we are not fighting 30,000,000 people in Iraq, but only a few fanatics.

Keeping this in mind, it's a terrible shame we don't have more precise ways of targeting them. If we did, we would not need to level cities in order to reach them

[atinymonkey]

Since the events of 9/11 initiated the war against terrorism, and since Saddam was a known supporter of terrorism, it would seem to follow that he would either have to change his ways or be removed from power.

Saddam Hussein and the Iraq regime has had, and continues to have, no links to terrorist activities. No country or government has ever remarked on a possible link between Iraq and terrorist activities aside from Mr Bush, which he later recanted.

 

Here are some links that piss on your theory: -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/publications/General_Powell.htm

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-05-03.html

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/publications/General_Powell.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-04-alqaeda-saddam_x.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/10/1055010937064.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

 

He refused to change his ways.

What ways?He had no WMD, as the UN stated repeatedly. He had no Terrorist links, as the UN stated repeatedly. He had no plans to attack America, as the world govenments stated repeatedly.

 

I don't think we are at war with the Nuslim faith. I think we are at war with Islamist fanatics[/b'].

The US is at war with Al Qaeda, not all the Islamic fundamentalists. Pick the correct enemy.

 

The average Muslim has no more use for these terrorists than we do. That if why we are not fighting 30,000,000 people in Iraq, but only a few fanatics.

Your not fighting 'fanatics' in Iraq. The people that the collation troops are fighting are insurgents, often with no religious affiliation at all. What the insurgents comprise of is groups of people who resent the hostile occupation of Iraq. The US had exactly the same breed of insurgents against the English when the fought for independence, it can't be that hard to see the similarity even if you can't agree with the methods.

 

The exit stratigy is that as the Iraqi government establishes itself and their army and police force is established and trained, we can withdraw and they will be able to maintain their own government--as a democracy, which is much better for the whole world..

The solution is far from that simple. You broke it, you fix it. Democracy by itself does not solve the issue.

 

The bottom line is that terrorism thrives on ignorance and poverty..

Al Qaeda is funded by a multi billion dollor budget produced from Oil. Osama bin laden is a highly educated man, far more so than the average American.

 

Democracy tends to reduce both of those things.

Really? Like democracy prevented the American Civil War? Like Democracy prevented 90 years of the IRA attacks? Like Democracy solved all the issues in Palestine?

 

Make no mistake, this is a big job that will no doubt take decades to accomplish, but it is[/b'] a job worth doing because the alternative (submission to terrorist demands) is unacceptable.

You mean submission to the will of the Iraq population. It's their country, and they can decide what they wish to do with it. The majority of insurgents don't really give a damn about govenment, they just want the American troops to stop decimating cities like Basra and get the hell out of Iraq. Imagine how you'd feel if Russia had invaded America and killed your entire family 'for your own good'. Have some empathy for the Iraqis.

[syntax252]

Compare the number of American (or even global) deaths due to "Iraqi terrorism" over the past ten years with the number of deaths during the occupation of Iraq over the past ten months.

 

If the purpose of this endeavour is to save lives' date=' then something has gone horribly wrong.[/quote']

 

Would you agree that after we lost some 3,000 people on 9/11 that it was time to take terrorism more seriousely that he had prior to 9/11?

 

That no president could survive if he stuck to the same old half hearted efforts of the past?

 

 

No, but do try to stay on topic within threads. We all digress at some point or other, and obviously I can see why you'd respond to a post in a 'live' discussion rather than one making the same point in a thread that's a few months old.

 

Well, there you go again.

 

On the one hand, you criticize me for not staying on topic, while in the same post respont to the very post that you are criticizing.....

[syntax252]

Keeping this in mind, it's a terrible shame we don't have more precise ways of targeting them. If we did, we would not need to level cities in order to reach them

 

Oh, I quite agree to that. What do you have in mind?

[syntax252]

Saddam Hussein and the Iraq regime has had' date=' and continues to have, no links to terrorist activities. No country or government has ever remarked on a possible link between Iraq and terrorist activities aside from Mr Bush, which he later recanted.

 

Here are some links that piss on your theory: -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/publications/General_Powell.htm

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-05-03.html

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/publications/General_Powell.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-04-alqaeda-saddam_x.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/10/1055010937064.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true

 

 

[b']What ways?[/b]He had no WMD, as the UN stated repeatedly. He had no Terrorist links, as the UN stated repeatedly. He had no plans to attack America, as the world govenments stated repeatedly.

 

 

The US is at war with Al Qaeda, not all the Islamic fundamentalists. Pick the correct enemy.

 

 

Your not fighting 'fanatics' in Iraq. The people that the collation troops are fighting are insurgents, often with no religious affiliation at all. What the insurgents comprise of is groups of people who resent the hostile occupation of Iraq. The US had exactly the same breed of insurgents against the English when the fought for independence, it can't be that hard to see the similarity even if you can't agree with the methods.

 

 

The solution is far from that simple. You broke it, you fix it. Democracy by itself does not solve the issue.

 

 

Al Qaeda is funded by a multi billion dollor budget produced from Oil. Osama bin laden is a highly educated man, far more so than the average American.

 

 

Really? Like democracy prevented the American Civil War? Like Democracy prevented 90 years of the IRA attacks? Like Democracy solved all the issues in Palestine?

 

 

You mean submission to the will of the Iraq population. It's their country, and they can decide what they wish to do with it. The majority of insurgents don't really give a damn about govenment, they just want the American troops to stop decimating cities like Basra and get the hell out of Iraq. Imagine how you'd feel if Russia had invaded America and killed your entire family 'for your own good'. Have some empathy for the Iraqis.

 

Have you read the 9/11 report?

[Sayonara]

Would you agree that after we lost some 3,000 people on 9/11 that it was time to take terrorism more seriousely that he had prior to 9/11?

You didn't lose 3,000 people though, did you? The World trade center was populated by workers from a range of nationalities. Regardless, that has nothing to do with Iraq.

 

Or maybe by "we" you mean the USA and her allies, in which case the figure had risen significantly beyond 3,000 a long time before your government decided to be more active.

 

Don't take this to mean that the world wasn't appalled by the attack. It's just a reminder that there was terrorism before that. Lots of it.

 

 

That no president could survive if he stuck to the same old half hearted efforts of the past?

What has that got to do with anything? Are you actually suggesting that people ought to roll over and die to keep someone in an administrative roll for a four year term?

 

 

On the one hand, you criticize me for not staying on topic, while in the same post respont to the very post that you are criticizing.....

Primarily for your benefit. I could just as easily close or split the thread; it's all the same to me.

 

 

Oh, I quite agree to that. What do you have in mind?

Anything. Seriously; any truly surgical operation, no matter how long it takes. I think, as a coalition, we've demonstrated quite well over the past year that the slash 'n' burn approach does not work.

 

 

Have you read the 9/11 report?

Which one? The UK report that was written to justify the war and subsequently torn to shreds because it was full of demonstrable lies, or the USA report that was based on that and CIA intelligence that was shown to be incorrect?

 

 

I'm going to have to split this thread, aren't I?

[Aardvark]

Would you agree that after we lost some 3,000 people on 9/11 that it was time to take terrorism more seriousely that he had prior to 9/11?

 

No.

 

Terrorism existed before 9/11. I don't see what makes New York so special.

[syntax252]

No.

 

Terrorism existed before 9/11. I don't see what makes New York so special.

 

Terorism existed before 9/11, but 9/11 was the worst thing to date that had happened to us. Don't you think that that would require a President to take action beyond what had been taken before?