War on Terror
- Thread starter danmand
- Start date
Well it obvious that you and I disagree on this point. People should take responsibility for their own actions. To blame a thing or another person for once own irresponsible behaviour is just to easy of a way out.
FYI
Safe vehicles kill people too.
FYI
Safe vehicles kill people too.
?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
People should take responsibility for their own actions? How does that apply to the US' illegal invasion of Iraq? Frankly, that sounds like you'd be interested in seeing them answer for their actions on the world stage?
I guess we actually agree.
Is the US actually interested in the "war on terror"? If they were, not creating thousands more would probably be a good way to start. Bombing Baghdad is a bad way to start.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
People should take responsibility for their own actions? How does that apply to the US' illegal invasion of Iraq? Frankly, that sounds like you'd be interested in seeing them answer for their actions on the world stage?
I guess we actually agree.
Is the US actually interested in the "war on terror"? If they were, not creating thousands more would probably be a good way to start. Bombing Baghdad is a bad way to start.
More terrorist? Don't think so. That assumes there was less before, but I think the numbers were greater than we knew. The difference is, we smoked them out of their holes and made them visible.Ranger68 said:
I agree on the WMD story might have been used as an "excuse" to go in, but I also believe that all the truth hasn't come out either, there is a good chance they have been moved. This doesn't diminish our prvious discussion as to their effectiveness, that is a seperate story.
To say that were no AlQuaeda links to Iraq is wishful thinking. You can't produce any proof to support that claim, but I can't produce any proof either that there was, YET. Only time will tell.
The whole region is a breeding ground for those punks, except IRAQ? You must believe that OJ is innocent...and that the check is in the mail...LOL
I rather have them blow up cars in Iraq than here...
Answer to who on the world stage???Ranger68 said:?
I have no idea what you're talking about.
People should take responsibility for their own actions? How does that apply to the US' illegal invasion of Iraq? Frankly, that sounds like you'd be interested in seeing them answer for their actions on the world stage?
I guess we actually agree.
Is the US actually interested in the "war on terror"? If they were, not creating thousands more would probably be a good way to start. Bombing Baghdad is a bad way to start.
The UN?, don't think so... they need to clean up their own mess, before they can hold anybody responsible.
France? let them answer for the Ivory coast and other African adventures involving the foreign legion.
Russia? After Chechnia? don't think so.
China? Their human rights records leaves a lot to be desired.
who else????
Like Jesus said..the one without fault shall throw the first rock...or like we say in Germany "Wer im glasshaus sitzt sollte nicht mit steinen schmeissen"
Why do you think these terrorists were there in the first place? Does it have anything to do with Arab disenfranchisement? That they hate the US for all the evils of their world? Don't you think that there's now a whole new generation of people who might otherwise just have grown up hating Hussein, but have now redirected their anger against the invading armies? Why do you think these terrorists existed at all??
The US has, demonstratively, effectively united many of the Iraqis who would otherwise have been venting their anger against each other. They have united the country AGAINST AN INVADER, which is what happens every time a sovereign nation is invaded for no good reason.
If you are, indeed, "smoking them out of their holes", you'd expect the number of attacks to eventually fall off. If, on the other hand, you're creating more of them, the attacks will not slacken.
Time will tell.
As for the WMDs, you're clutching at straws, no? Uh, yeah, well, it appears our intelligence was faulty (or we lied), but we're pretty sure they had *programs* for *developing* these weapons we all told you they had. LOL Get off it.
Anyway - WHO CARES?! Who cares whether or not they had links to Al Qaeda?! I certainly haven't brought it up, but it goes nowhere! Al Qaeda CERTAINLY had links to Afghanistan, and the US bombed the crap out of them and destroyed all the training camps and bases. Al Qaeda CERTAINLY had links to Saudi Arabia, and the US has done nothing. What does Al Qaeda have to do with anything? It has CLEARLY not influenced US strategy. That's what they'd like you to believe, but any casual regard for the facts tells you otherwise.
They lied about the reason for going into Iraq. Whether they had stockpiles of chemical and biological agents or not, this had nothing to do with the terrorists. Iraq was NO THREAT to the US. To claim self-defense is a lie.
It's all sophistry. Total bullshit. Your reasoning is so muddy it's obvious you haven't thought much about it.
What's obvious is that the US lied about why they were going into Iraq, and has created a whole new generation of hatred for them. If anyone thought they were going to kill more terrorists than they created, they're going to be in for a shock.
To say that you'd rather have them blow up cars in Iraq is no defense at all, except "might makes right". The value of an Iraqi citizen is clearly less than the value of an American citizen.
God Bless America.
Enjoy your war on terror, bub.
The US has, demonstratively, effectively united many of the Iraqis who would otherwise have been venting their anger against each other. They have united the country AGAINST AN INVADER, which is what happens every time a sovereign nation is invaded for no good reason.
If you are, indeed, "smoking them out of their holes", you'd expect the number of attacks to eventually fall off. If, on the other hand, you're creating more of them, the attacks will not slacken.
Time will tell.
As for the WMDs, you're clutching at straws, no? Uh, yeah, well, it appears our intelligence was faulty (or we lied), but we're pretty sure they had *programs* for *developing* these weapons we all told you they had. LOL Get off it.
Anyway - WHO CARES?! Who cares whether or not they had links to Al Qaeda?! I certainly haven't brought it up, but it goes nowhere! Al Qaeda CERTAINLY had links to Afghanistan, and the US bombed the crap out of them and destroyed all the training camps and bases. Al Qaeda CERTAINLY had links to Saudi Arabia, and the US has done nothing. What does Al Qaeda have to do with anything? It has CLEARLY not influenced US strategy. That's what they'd like you to believe, but any casual regard for the facts tells you otherwise.
They lied about the reason for going into Iraq. Whether they had stockpiles of chemical and biological agents or not, this had nothing to do with the terrorists. Iraq was NO THREAT to the US. To claim self-defense is a lie.
It's all sophistry. Total bullshit. Your reasoning is so muddy it's obvious you haven't thought much about it.
What's obvious is that the US lied about why they were going into Iraq, and has created a whole new generation of hatred for them. If anyone thought they were going to kill more terrorists than they created, they're going to be in for a shock.
To say that you'd rather have them blow up cars in Iraq is no defense at all, except "might makes right". The value of an Iraqi citizen is clearly less than the value of an American citizen.
God Bless America.
Enjoy your war on terror, bub.
How about they answer to themselves. Your post is in no way a defense of the US actions.langeweile said:
Rather, what's GOING to happen, is that some nation with as little sense as the US is going to decide that since the Americans set the bar, they're going to decide who and when someone's a future threat to their own interests and start something a lot more serious. How about a few Chinese nukes on Taiwan? Hey, it's going to be hard for the US to argue against it when China accuses Taiwan of fomenting terror against its interests! It's a pre-emptive strike! We're setting the people of Taiwan free! We're liberating our own territory!
Or, more immediately, having created a whole new reason for Arabs to hate the west and the US, we'll see a *spate* of terrorist attacks outside the cozy confines of some far-away land where we don't care who they blow up - attacks where we CARE about the people they're killing.
Just watch.
The US is going to have to answer to the judgment of history.
I guess than other nations have to step up to the plate and defend themselves.Ranger68 said:
You are right let history be the judge. Let's see what happens, because I still maintain we don't know half of the s***t that went on in IRAQ.
The answer to "Who made money on the oil for food deal?" will be just the beginning. The answer to this will uncover the true motivation of the French and the Germans to resist the invasion. The house of cards will come crumbling down...just wait and let history decide.
The relevance is in their being so aginst the action. As well as it is relevant when you add the UN into it.lenharper said:
Innocent untill proven guilty is a presumption the law must take.
And if chosen for a jury you must go into the trial without a pre-concieved notion of guilt. You are oblighted to be unbiased.
And if chosen for a jury you must go into the trial without a pre-concieved notion of guilt. You are oblighted to be unbiased.
So tell me then almighty Ranger, what was the reason to invade Iraq? It wasn't oil, AlQuaeda or WMD's what was it then?Ranger68 said:
Your post implies that ALL Iraquis are united in the fight against the USA This is not true? there is maybe 20% and if there is more or all as you claim, why the hell should I care if they blow each other up?
No your reasoning on this point is weak, however it is your opinion and I respect it.
You seemed to be a smart guy and i value and appreciate your insight and opinion. I have a question. Why do you have to insult people? Why I might not be as well read on some issue than you are, does that make me stupid?
An opinion on something is just that an opinion..no need to be insulting.
"The relevance is in their being so aginst the action. As well as it is relevant when you add the UN into it."
Huh? If I decide to do something and someone asks me why I did it I can't say because Joe and Bob are against it. Well, I can, but then I am saying -- well I did this becuase Joe and Bob are against it.
So, to follow your logic, the US invaded Iraq because Germany and France didn't want them to? That's pretty bizarre foriegn policy.
Huh? If I decide to do something and someone asks me why I did it I can't say because Joe and Bob are against it. Well, I can, but then I am saying -- well I did this becuase Joe and Bob are against it.
So, to follow your logic, the US invaded Iraq because Germany and France didn't want them to? That's pretty bizarre foriegn policy.
Maybe their judgemetn on the situation was not driven by the truth and more by the need to protect profits? Not a bad motivation I might add, but at least be honest about it.lenharper said:
lenharper said:
You are using it out of context.
The UN was approached for support to enforce santions and several countries stood and said NO
france and germany were very vocal about it at that. Well now a fiancial connection has been established to them as well as the UN itself you can see how these opinions become suspect.
Langewiele:
That still has nothing to do with coming to a conclusion about why the US went to war.
It seems to me that the reasons change as we move farther and farther away from the beginning of the conflict.
At first the reasons had to do with WMD (colin powell's pitch to the UN) combined with a belief that Osama and Saddam were joined at the hip.
That was the reason given at the time as I recall.
Or was the reason the conspiracy theorist view -- it's all about oil.
Or is it the ZOG types -- damn Jews somehow had somethin' to do with this. Y'know Israel actually rules Washinton -- ya taken a look at the protocols of zion lately -- it's all there!!!
And now the pitch we hear is that the war was engaged so that the US could bring democracy to a country that had toiled under the yoke of a brutal dictator.
It just seems to me that with the confusion over why the US decided to invade and the administrations inability to stick to a story -- that the decision to attack Iraq wasn't very well thought out. And now they are scrambling to find some kind of justification for it.
I'll throw your words back at you -- I think people would at least give some creedence to the necessity of going to war with Iraq -- if the administration could "at least be honest about it" and give a plausible reason as to why they invaded in the first place instead of changing their tune every six months or so...
That still has nothing to do with coming to a conclusion about why the US went to war.
It seems to me that the reasons change as we move farther and farther away from the beginning of the conflict.
At first the reasons had to do with WMD (colin powell's pitch to the UN) combined with a belief that Osama and Saddam were joined at the hip.
That was the reason given at the time as I recall.
Or was the reason the conspiracy theorist view -- it's all about oil.
Or is it the ZOG types -- damn Jews somehow had somethin' to do with this. Y'know Israel actually rules Washinton -- ya taken a look at the protocols of zion lately -- it's all there!!!
And now the pitch we hear is that the war was engaged so that the US could bring democracy to a country that had toiled under the yoke of a brutal dictator.
It just seems to me that with the confusion over why the US decided to invade and the administrations inability to stick to a story -- that the decision to attack Iraq wasn't very well thought out. And now they are scrambling to find some kind of justification for it.
I'll throw your words back at you -- I think people would at least give some creedence to the necessity of going to war with Iraq -- if the administration could "at least be honest about it" and give a plausible reason as to why they invaded in the first place instead of changing their tune every six months or so...
I firmly believe that there was a calculation by Bush that Iraq would welcome the USA with open arms. If that would have come to pass, nobody would give a rats ass why we went there in the first place.
A happy and free Iraq would have and will shut up a lot of critics.
A happy and free Iraq would have and will shut up a lot of critics.
