Gulf Wars

[Fred Black]

The first one was seen as 'necessery' to protect kuwait from a newly armed Saddam Hussein (the US armed him by the way). Now almost ten years after wards with all the media coverage and War on Terrror they've done another Gulf War and this time they haven't got away from the problems they caused as easily as the first. Now was this really necessery?

[Insanity]

Well, as an Iraqi I'd say it was necessary. But only up to a point.

It was necessary to ONLY get rid of Saddam, then they should have left. All this ******** about us unable to lead our own country is a really bad excuse to keep control of the oil. Ofcourse we can't lead our own country, what with you guys destroying everything.

They should just leave and we could take care of ourselves.

[Potters Goblet]

Leave and let the country fall into the hands of guys like Al-zarqawi? Yeah okay that's smart. We liberate a country from the hands of a complete moron and suddenly they're like "Okay you guys can go now.... you've done all the dirty work, now let us be."

We're not the ones enacting homicide bombings. That's the minority SUNNI population. The ones loyal to Bin Laden and Saddam.

Tell the terrorists to put down their weapons of terror and we'll be more than happy to go home but we're not going to leave an unstable region and risk somebody WORSE than Saddam rising to power.....

Personally if I was Bush I'd tell the Shia this... they're the Majority and it wold get them on our side, I bet if we said "look, Saddam persecuted you for years. You want him back? We'll be more than happy to give him back. OR would you like to stand up with your majority population and maybe help us against the Sunni terrorists that make up less than 25 percent of your freaking population? Saddam Loyalists in power or America helping you make a new world where everybody can be free (sunni and Shia alike).... You tell me... which sounds better????

Darn those wacky infidels! How dare they want a Tyrannical psychopathic moron removed from power!

How dare the U.S. stand up and have the guts to say he needs to go. And who are we to say it? We're the country that led the war in 1991 that SHOULD have ousted his butt. Just because our coalition partners in that war suddenly lost their backbones in THIS one doesn't mean we have to lose ours too. We're not over there raping Iraqi women and torturing small children, blowing up 34 innocent people in an unsuspecting Fallujah Marketplace.... that'd be YOUR People, Iraq!

Don't blame us because guys like Al-zarqawi are too stupid to see this as a chance to make a new life for themselves. We don't want your oil. We don't want your land. If we did, we'd have more soldiers over there than we do and you can bet that we'd be referring to Iraq as "East Texas" right now. If that's all we wanted, we'd be fighting a more proactive war. As it is we're fighting a reserved war, attempting (though at times failing) to preserve civilian lives. It is the IRAQIS who are killing 400 innocent civilians every second!

Just leave???

Okay and before we do, here's your leader back... sorry for the inconvenience Saddam. Hope you enjoyed your vacation. Now that you're all rested and refreshed, let me tell you where you can find some nice, fresh, innocent Iraqi civilians to murder....

So, Still want us to leave?

[Auror Williamson]

Although I believe the wars were instigated by Saddam, and that were were perfectly justified in invading for the reasons given by the American and Coalition governments at the get-go, I still would have supported the war if Bush had openly said it was over oil. It's a dangerous thing to leave so much natural resources to such a despotic, dangerous man. We need to keep the reserved openyl flowing to the world, and also stop the Saddam-Annan Oil-For-Food connection which was actively (and illegally) occurring.

[LeeJordanfan]

PotterGoblet, ummmm...the essence of democracy is allowing people to make thier own choices. Not telling them who they should like or not like as leadership in thier own countries. This is why a great number of countries take issue with the U.S. Now, before you attack me as an unpatriotic American, let me start with saying my parents were in NY Emergency Response, and my family lived walking distance to World Trade on 9/11.

Now, the United States had been supporting Saddam's leadership for a long time, don't you know? As far back as the 1980s the U.S. goverment provided Saddam with military tools and chemical weapons to use against Iran. Oh, and don't forget that we sent Iraq anthrax strains for military use as well. (Source, International Herald Tribune, 2002. But there's plenty of other sources too).

You can't say "Look, Saddam is bad because he attacked the Kurds." Because Turkey has attacked those same Kurds! and you don't hear a whisper about it in the U.S. Why? Because Turkey's in NATO! The hypocrisy here is obvious to all non-Americans. As well as Americans who have been directly affected by terrorism.

George Washington University, in the U.S., maintains a National Security archive of documents that have been declassified and are available publically. http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ Notice the nice guy in the picture shaking hands and being friendly with Mr. Hussein. Yup, you guessed right, it's our old friend Donald Rumsfeld! So this whole argument of "Saddam is bad and we just went it to fix it" kind of falls flat.

We're not the ones enacting homicide bombings. That's the minority SUNNI population. The ones loyal to Bin Laden and Saddam. Huh? Implying that Americans bombing civilian areas is "better" or "more moral" because they aren't "suicide bombing" is ironic. Killing civilians is homicidal, no matter how it's done, or by which side. You're quite mistaken when you say that Sunni=support for Saddam and bin Laden. Ghazi al-Yawer is Sunni. So it's pretty clear that there are Sunnis who oppose Saddam. Sunni is a religious branch of Islam, it isn't a political group, even though it's members of course may be political in one way or another.

On a side note, we aren't there to promote justice and peace. Otherwise, we wouldn't have gone in and enforced an old ban against labor unions. (American dockworkers have been loud about this). I'm not saying Saddam was good, because it's clear he wasn't. However, since Iraq was a secular country, women had economic opportunities that are denied them in other Middle East countries. In some parts of Iraq, they can't go out any longer unless they are covered. This is not progress, this is regression.

Just because our coalition partners in that war suddenly lost their backbones in THIS one doesn't mean we have to lose ours too. I must disagree here. George Bush, Sr. was a war hero in his own right. If he didn't take Saddam Hussein out of power, it was because he made the choice not to. You think an American war hero would chicken out if he thought it was the right thing to do? Of course he wouldn't. The difference is that Bush Sr. is right and Bush Jr. is wrong. Bush Sr. would have probably gone after Afghanistan and Bin Laden before Saddam if September 11 had happened on his watch, since he never made Saddam a priority to remove from power.

Tell the terrorists to put down their weapons of terror and we'll be more than happy to go home but we're not going to leave an unstable region and risk somebody WORSE than Saddam rising to power.....You mean someone that the U.S. can use like they did with Saddam in the 80s? So, Still want us to leave?Yeah, I do. We have no business in Iraq while bin Laden is on the loose.

One last point, you might be more effective with your debate if you refrain from using words like "moron" "stupid" or "wacky infidels". It doesn't come across as respectful of the Iraqi people.

AurorWilliamson Old-fashioned Republicans, who are scarce nowadays, take a dim view of goverment control over the means of production. This would include oil. I think the nation would be better served by putting more resources into renewable energy. Depending on other countries for our economic necessities like oil makes a dependent nation and weakens our people. Decentralized energy in the form of solar (as opposed to nuclear power) would also eliminate the possibility of most organized energy terrorism. You can't attack a centralized power source if there isn't one.

[Fred Black]

Saddam was not in a position where he could use nuclear or chem/bio weapons. He did torure many innocent and kill thousands but just take him out and not the whole country. It is because America does stupid moves like this (with Britain right behind it) that leads to terrorism. America should solve it's own problems like getting rid of Bush!

[Insanity]

Leave and let the country fall into the hands of guys like Al-zarqawi? Yeah okay that's smart. We liberate a country from the hands of a complete moron and suddenly they're like "Okay you guys can go now.... you've done all the dirty work, now let us be."

We're not the ones enacting homicide bombings. That's the minority SUNNI population. The ones loyal to Bin Laden and Saddam.

Tell the terrorists to put down their weapons of terror and we'll be more than happy to go home but we're not going to leave an unstable region and risk somebody WORSE than Saddam rising to power.....

Personally if I was Bush I'd tell the Shia this... they're the Majority and it wold get them on our side, I bet if we said "look, Saddam persecuted you for years. You want him back? We'll be more than happy to give him back. OR would you like to stand up with your majority population and maybe help us against the Sunni terrorists that make up less than 25 percent of your freaking population? Saddam Loyalists in power or America helping you make a new world where everybody can be free (sunni and Shia alike).... You tell me... which sounds better????

Darn those wacky infidels! How dare they want a Tyrannical psychopathic moron removed from power!

How dare the U.S. stand up and have the guts to say he needs to go. And who are we to say it? We're the country that led the war in 1991 that SHOULD have ousted his butt. Just because our coalition partners in that war suddenly lost their backbones in THIS one doesn't mean we have to lose ours too. We're not over there raping Iraqi women and torturing small children, blowing up 34 innocent people in an unsuspecting Fallujah Marketplace.... that'd be YOUR People, Iraq!

Don't blame us because guys like Al-zarqawi are too stupid to see this as a chance to make a new life for themselves. We don't want your oil. We don't want your land. If we did, we'd have more soldiers over there than we do and you can bet that we'd be referring to Iraq as "East Texas" right now. If that's all we wanted, we'd be fighting a more proactive war. As it is we're fighting a reserved war, attempting (though at times failing) to preserve civilian lives. It is the IRAQIS who are killing 400 innocent civilians every second!

Just leave???

Okay and before we do, here's your leader back... sorry for the inconvenience Saddam. Hope you enjoyed your vacation. Now that you're all rested and refreshed, let me tell you where you can find some nice, fresh, innocent Iraqi civilians to murder....

So, Still want us to leave?

Hahahahahahahaha.

Yes I want you to ****ing leave.

The "we're here to help build a country" excuse is sooo lame. You're killing people, RAPING WOMEN, TORTURING CHILDREN, stealing our oil and alot more.

Whatever your stupid tv feeds you is utter ********.

Why don't you leave, and we'll see how we get on. If we don't, we'll happily let you in again.

I'm not even going to waste my energy on you telling you what you're doing to MY country because you're too narrow minded to understand.

Foo'.

[marauderlupin]

The first one was seen as 'necessery' to protect kuwait from a newly armed Saddam Hussein (the US armed him by the way). Now almost ten years after wards with all the media coverage and War on Terrror they've done another Gulf War and this time they haven't got away from the problems they caused as easily as the first. Now was this really necessery?

The U.S. took an interest for obvious reasons with the side effect of freedom for Kuwait. I think the first war had a real coalition because it was seen as neccesary for Saddam to be repelled for the stability of the region. He did threaten other countries in the Gulf, most of which had a lot of oil but virtually no armies, with conventional and chemical weapons, so the fear and panic at the time was real. We had our windows sealed with duct tape. They told us (especially ex-pats and military families) to fill our storage rooms with canned food and water. There was a high expectation for a chemical war within the population.

This second war is so different because there are no convincing reasons to camoflage the real reasons and because the American intentions to go to war were so transparent to everyone from the start. That is why the new coalition is laughable and quickly dwindling and that is why the demonstrations against this war have been so widespread.


Leave and let the country fall into the hands of guys like Al-zarqawi? Yeah okay that's smart. We liberate a country from the hands of a complete moron and suddenly they're like "Okay you guys can go now.... you've done all the dirty work, now let us be."

What a sickening, imperialistic approach: "We know what's good for those brown people whether they like it or not!"

FYI: They didn't ask to be liberated by the U.S. It's not the U.S.'s job to decide who should be liberated. It is up to the people to decide and, yes, U.S. has done a lot of dirty things to their country. Iraqis want them to stop. They want the U.S. to leave them alone.

By the way, how powerful is Al-Zarqawi? How many followers? Are the Iraqi people backing him? If so, got evidence?

We're not the ones enacting homicide bombings. That's the minority SUNNI population. The ones loyal to Bin Laden and Saddam.

What about Al Sadr? Is he a Sunni? No, he's a Shia.

How can the Sunni population* be simultaneously loyal to Saddam, the secular Ba'athist and Osama, the religious terrorist whose end-objective is to overthrow all secular governments in the Middle East...you know like the one Saddam was running? Did you even bother to read up on the politics of these individuals or are you just another Fox News lemming? It's so sad that people can have such strong opinions without any basis whatsoever.


*edit: I said "Sunni population" to keep things simple for those who aren't up to speed on the more complex tribal aspects of the country.

Tell the terrorists to put down their weapons of terror and we'll be more than happy to go home but we're not going to leave an unstable region and risk somebody WORSE than Saddam rising to power.....

There are terrorists and then there are insurgents who are fighting because their country is OCCUPIED by a very HOSTILE army and they want to be FREE from occupation. It is what can be expected from any country under attack. It attempts to repel the attackers by any means necessary.

Personally if I was Bush I'd tell the Shia this... they're the Majority and it wold get them on our side, I bet if we said "look, Saddam persecuted you for years. You want him back? We'll be more than happy to give him back. OR would you like to stand up with your majority population and maybe help us against the Sunni terrorists that make up less than 25 percent of your freaking population? Saddam Loyalists in power or America helping you make a new world where everybody can be free (sunni and Shia alike).... You tell me... which sounds better????


It pains me to tell you this, but I don't think Bush has a very high opinion of your suggestions. In fact, he's decided to do the opposite. Because so many Sunnis plan to skip the voting, he's going to encourage more positions to Sunni candidates even if they don't win. Wrap your brains around that one since you know so much about the country.

New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/international/middleeast/26diplo.html?hp&ex=1104037200&en=dc34a08c61975e6d&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=regi)

Free link: US push for 'Sunni seats' rejected (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C5ABB0EF-3402-4E1C-95BA-B889CEE99623.htm)

Has it ever occured to you that the U.S. is wary of the Shias because the strongly religious members (expected to pull the most voters) within their group might ally themselves with Iran?


How dare the U.S. stand up and have the guts to say he needs to go. And who are we to say it? We're the country that led the war in 1991 that SHOULD have ousted his butt. Just because our coalition partners in that war suddenly lost their backbones in THIS one doesn't mean we have to lose ours too. We're not over there raping Iraqi women and torturing small children, blowing up 34 innocent people in an unsuspecting Fallujah Marketplace.... that'd be YOUR People, Iraq!

Oh! You didn't hear about Abu Ghraib? Want me to send pics? And did you see what happened to the people and the buildings in Fallujah? How about Mosul? Heck! How about the whole country? A perfect explanation for why the U.S. is one of only 7 countries who refused to sign onto the ICC. There are just too many war criminals in the current and past governments.

Don't blame us because guys like Al-zarqawi are too stupid to see this as a chance to make a new life for themselves. We don't want your oil. We don't want your land. If we did, we'd have more soldiers over there than we do and you can bet that we'd be referring to Iraq as "East Texas" right now. If that's all we wanted, we'd be fighting a more proactive war. As it is we're fighting a reserved war, attempting (though at times failing) to preserve civilian lives. It is the IRAQIS who are killing 400 innocent civilians every second!

I guess the U.S. just didn't want to win in Vietnam badly enough.


Just leave???

YES. 98% of the population think the U.S. is an occupier rather than a liberator. That has got to be clear enough a message.

poll (http://multigraphic.dk/lounge/wordpress/index.php?p=749)

Okay and before we do, here's your leader back... sorry for the inconvenience Saddam. Hope you enjoyed your vacation. Now that you're all rested and refreshed, let me tell you where you can find some nice, fresh, innocent Iraqi civilians to murder....

A politically oppressive leader who provides all the healthcare, education, general infrastructure they need vs an oppressive occupier who wants to siphon off their resources, privatize their social programs and destroy their infrastructure so American companies can rebuild it at ridiculous costs. What did Iraqis ever do to deserve such appealing choices?


And don't you worry Saddam murdering Iraqi civilians, the U.S. is doing a far more efficient job than he could manage.


Well, as an Iraqi I'd say it was necessary. But only up to a point.

It was necessary to ONLY get rid of Saddam, then they should have left. All this ******** about us unable to lead our own country is a really bad excuse to keep control of the oil. Ofcourse we can't lead our own country, what with you guys destroying everything.

They should just leave and we could take care of ourselves.

I personally think his overthrow would have been embraced by the rest of the world if it was done by Iraqis and it's not like you never tried to overthrow him before.

[iluvhhr]

This war was 100% **. There was no proof of WMDs, which was the main reason for the war. While I agree that Saddam is a horrible person who can probably be comparable to Hitler, it wasn't the US's obligation to march in there and get rid of him. While I think the US should leave, now the soldiers can't, because it looks like a statement of defeat. Soldiers are dying for no reason.

[Auror Williamson]

I think the US should leave

Isn't that a bid ... innapropriate? To invade a country, give up because the cause costs a lot of money, and there's been relatively few casualties, then just...leave? What about the citizenry of that country who would then be subject to the rule of incoming despots and the invasion of totalitarianist regimes?

[marauderlupin]

The United States and its occupation *is* the biggest obstacle for Iraq and the best solution would be for them to leave. They have caused more than enough damage to scar Iraq for decades. Iraqis and the rest of the world would rather that what is in their best interests took place. The U.S. occupation is not in their best interests. It is only a way to shackle them to huge contracts with American firms. The best solution is for the U.S. to be replaced by a U.N. Peace Force. The international community would be much more willing to help if the U.S. was out of the picture or at least took a more diminshed and less obviously imperialistic role.

[LewsTherin]

I think that if America just packed up and left then Iraq would descened into utter chaos (we saw just such scenarios in post-collonial Africa, and Africa is still at war); either that or someone worse than Saddam would rise to power, and that would require another war. Maybe America could pull out slowly while U.N. forces, particularly from countries the Iraqis are willing to tolerate, take their place? But I think America is going about this war in the wrong way. They're trying to fight a conventional war against irregular forces, which won't work. America needs to out-guerilla the guerillas, but if there's on thing the American army is bad at, probably the only thing, it's guerilla warfare. Ultimately, though, I have litte doubt that things will not improve in Iraq. The Arab world is notorious for being ill-disciplined and badly led, where they're not completely corrupt, and even if America pulls out, Iraq may well find itself under the thumb of another dictator.

And Insanity, it sounds to me like you've been listening to propaganda rather than truth. Arab spin-doctors are after all world famous. Now, I have no love for America myself, but I find it hard to believe that American soldiers or personnel would rape and torture their way across Iraq. Their army is well disciplined and any cases of rape or torture would be the exception, not the rule.

[LeeJordanfan]

I think that if America just packed up and left then Iraq would descened into utter chaos (we saw just such scenarios in post-collonial Africa, and Africa is still at war); either that or someone worse than Saddam would rise to power, and that would require another war.No. Before the first Gulf War, Iraq was pretty close to any modern, industrial society. If we keep our nose of their buisness, it's likely they can achieve this again.

Maybe America could pull out slowly while U.N. forces, particularly from countries the Iraqis are willing to tolerate, take their place? But I think America is going about this war in the wrong way. Or the U.N. could move in immediately and the U.S. could leave immediately. That would probably be best.

They're trying to fight a conventional war against irregular forces, which won't work. America needs to out-guerilla the guerillas, but if there's on thing the American army is bad at, probably the only thing, it's guerilla warfare. The U.S. got better at this when they founded the School for the Americas. We in the U.S. trained Latin American soliders there how to overturn democratically elected leaders we didn't like. (I've got tons of sources for this if you'd like them).

Ultimately, though, I have litte doubt that things will not improve in Iraq. The Arab world is notorious for being ill-disciplined and badly led, where they're not completely corrupt, and even if America pulls out, Iraq may well find itself under the thumb of another dictator.Don't think so. The Iraqi people are not weak.

Now, I have no love for America myself, but I find it hard to believe that American soldiers or personnel would rape and torture their way across Iraq. Their army is well disciplined and any cases of rape or torture would be the exception, not the rule.You didn't hear about the prison where Americans tortured prisoners? Abu Ghraib? It's been all over the American and Arab news. Also, the American press is running stories about American women in the military who have been subjected to assaults from other American soliders. I don't know if American soliders are doing that in Iraq, but if they would do it to American women serving in Iraq, then it's not such a shocker for me to believe.

[Alastor D]

Or the U.N. could move in immediately and the U.S. could leave immediately. That would probably be best.
I'm very much afraid it's too late for that. They would fight any foreigner as furiously as they are fighting US now. Didn't they blow up the UN headquarters in Baghdad quite early? I'm also afraid that very few UN member countries would pour in their money and send their soldiers there to be killed in order to clean up the mess US created.

Whatever we think about wether this war was justified or not, the tragical fact remains that it was the best gift Al Qaeda could ever dream of. Al Zargawi, who was their rival is now their ally, and their recruits are pouring in by the thousands.

Btw. Remember to disagree in a polite and respectful manner. We have seen quite many threads closed here already. The mods are watching us.

[Insanity]

I think that if America just packed up and left then Iraq would descened into utter chaos (we saw just such scenarios in post-collonial Africa, and Africa is still at war); either that or someone worse than Saddam would rise to power, and that would require another war. Maybe America could pull out slowly while U.N. forces, particularly from countries the Iraqis are willing to tolerate, take their place? But I think America is going about this war in the wrong way. They're trying to fight a conventional war against irregular forces, which won't work. America needs to out-guerilla the guerillas, but if there's on thing the American army is bad at, probably the only thing, it's guerilla warfare. Ultimately, though, I have litte doubt that things will not improve in Iraq. The Arab world is notorious for being ill-disciplined and badly led, where they're not completely corrupt, and even if America pulls out, Iraq may well find itself under the thumb of another dictator.

And Insanity, it sounds to me like you've been listening to propaganda rather than truth. Arab spin-doctors are after all world famous. Now, I have no love for America myself, but I find it hard to believe that American soldiers or personnel would rape and torture their way across Iraq. Their army is well disciplined and any cases of rape or torture would be the exception, not the rule.


Bullsh*t. Read the posts before to answer your question. I think I'd know more of what's happening in my country than you thank you.

[Fred Black]

I agree with INsanity, possibly because America backed a war that happened in my country, but also because he is talking sense. It would have been much more appropriate to do what the British Soldiersr did. The British as always tried to understand the people and the places surroundings and as a result few Black Watch (British Division) members died. However the Americans have this stupid macho thing were we are the good guys, you are bad, we destroy your place, if you stop us we'll hurt you. If you like us we'll hurt you. As a result more Americans are dead (possibly also due to their foolish friendly fre!). So down goes Iraq, what next? Iran? Pakistan? But I don't see them going near Israel even though Sharon broke more UN rules than Sadam

[Insanity]

I agree with INsanity, possibly because America backed a war that happened in my country, but also because he is talking sense. It would have been much more appropriate to do what the British Soldiersr did. The British as always tried to understand the people and the places surroundings and as a result few Black Watch (British Division) members died. However the Americans have this stupid macho thing were we are the good guys, you are bad, we destroy your place, if you stop us we'll hurt you. If you like us we'll hurt you. As a result more Americans are dead (possibly also due to their foolish friendly fre!). So down goes Iraq, what next? Iran? Pakistan? But I don't see them going near Israel even though Sharon broke more UN rules than Sadam
I couldn't agree more. I officially LOVE you. I never thought I'd actually have somebody who agrees with me on every political issue 100%.

By the way, I'm a she. I think by "he" you were reffering to me, correct?

[Wab]

To be perfectly pedantic many of the Arab states refer to the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 as the first Gulf War. The US saw Iraq as the good guys and Don Rumsfeld was a big fan of Saddam even when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds.

The war of 1990-1991 was superficially justified as Iraq did carry out an act of naked aggression but Kuwait did provoke Iraq by tapping into Iraqi oil reserves and refusing to pay compensation. I would have been happier if we weren't lied to about the reason. The reason wasn't as Bush (the smart one) said: "To return democracy to Kuwait" because Kuwait wasn't democratic to start with. At least it was legal.

The current debacle...don't get me started.

[Potters Goblet]

Hahahahahahahaha.

Yes I want you to ****ing leave.

The "we're here to help build a country" excuse is sooo lame. You're killing people, RAPING WOMEN, TORTURING CHILDREN, stealing our oil and alot more.

Whatever your stupid tv feeds you is utter ********.

Why don't you leave, and we'll see how we get on. If we don't, we'll happily let you in again.

I'm not even going to waste my energy on you telling you what you're doing to MY country because you're too narrow minded to understand.

Foo'.


I'm not over there msyelf because I'm in a wheelchair and can't join the military but I have 2 cousins in the marines and another friend over there as a contractor. None of them have raped, pillaged, stolen or anything, Check the headlines of newspapers from any of 17 foreign countries from Britain to Denmark to France or even Russia and Germany. YOu won't find stories of AMERICANS assassinating Shia or Sunni muslims. You'll find stories of "abuses" At prison camps but you know what? I don't really care about how we're treating POW's when your people are televising the brutal beheadings of NEWS PEOPLE, JOURNALISTS and CONTRACTORS.... Who's really the bully? Us or Iraq? We're killing soldiers. We're shooting Homicide bombers and blowing up suspecting terror strongholds..... Meanwhile Al-zarqawi is beheading UN aid workers on video tape. Now THERE is somebody you want to be like!


And there's not going to be any of these "Let's see if we can handle it.. if not, America can come back!"

we've already cleaned up ONE of your messes by ridding The world of SADDAM. It's not our responsibility to wipe your butt forever and keep cleaning up your mess just because Iraq is too stubborn to learn from past mistakes.

Like I said, if you'd like us to give you back Saddam, just send a letter to 1600 pennsylvania Ave. in washington d.c. OR email president@whitehouse.gov.

I'm sure Dubya will be more than happy to let the people over there have a reminder of what life under Saddam was like. Ungrateful iraqis really tick me off. We liberate your country from oppression and tyrany. We give you a model for democracy that you can build upon to create a democratic MUSLIM state where everybody has one vote, one voice all of their own. Freedom of the press. Freedom to be Sunni, Shia or CHristian or Jew. We come offering an olive branch and the freedom to carry a big stick in the other hand and all you want to do is hit US with the big stick.

The way I look at it maybe we should just leave. Then when the 60 percent Shia Population destroy the 22 percent Sunni, we'll go back in to a country that'll surely be more open to our help, because the sunni population make up more than 75 percent of the terror activities in Iraq.

Iraq's like the france of the middle east. They've never won a war in their lives. They didn't win against Iran, They have lost 2 wars against America and their allies. Maybe Iraq needs to stop letting their alligator mouths overload their tadpole butts before they turn away anyone that wants to help them.

They used to have the fourth largest army in the world. Now they have nothing but chaos. If Iran decided to invade right now, Iraq would be sunk. And showing ungrateful attitude toward America WONT make us want to help you when you're being overrun by Iran and everybody.

If more iraqis took the time to think before they spoke, they might see that we WANT To leave. But we refuse to leave when terrorists are blowing up innocent iraqis. Just today I saw headlines in an American paper and in an egyptian paper talking about an assassination in Iraq. They both had the same perspective on the story. That it was perpetrated by Sunni Muslim Terrorists who will be boycotting the election in January. How stupid is it to boycott an election? You say you want a government that's free from American control yet you're going to boycott??? The only way to get what you want is to PARTICIPATE. But perhaps Iraqis have gotten so lazy and complacent under saddam they've forgotten what it is to make up their own minds. They'd rather have somebody do it for them.

Well, we're not your mother and we're not your baby sitters Iraq. You can't rely on us to be your scapegoat forever. Stand up and take some friggen responsibility for your won dang country!

And check your facts will you? Iraqis are killing iraqis. Iraqis are raping their own women, telling them they can't vote and have to walk around the dang desert under 15 levels of clothes, unable to speak until prince Achmed tells them they can.

If I said that to my fiance' not only would she slap me across the face, she'd start yelling at me and probably wouldn't stop for 3 hours! You don't tell an American woman what she can and can't do. We have women in congress, we have women doctors, lawyers, teachers, soldiers, preachers... you name it. What do you have? A bunch of silent burka-wearing women with no sense of what real freedom is like.

I think the men of Iraq are afraid of the strength of women and maybe women are intimidated by the unspoken ideas they have that often contrast with hubby's ideas. Maybe in another 200 years they'll learn to embrace freedom. In the meantime, I guess oppression is just what Iraq wants. Otherwise they'd stop fighting us and learn to make their own country what they want so that our soldiers could come home to their families.

We're a Christian nation (predominantly). Iraq is a Muslim nation. We (The Christians) are reaching out to you (the Muslims) offering to help you build whatever world you want. YES we have preconceived ideas as to what Democracy should be. Why? Because we've been one for 200 years. But that doesn't mean You have to totally follow our model. But maybe if we sat down at the table and talked, (If you'd stop blowing **** up long enough) Iraq could have a nation they could be proud of. One where everyone's equal, Sunni, Shia, Christian, etc. Man, woman and child. One where the opportunity for... well, opportunity, is open world wide. One where you can have a respected voice on the world scene.

America is not trying to fight the crusades over again. Like I said, if we were, Iraq would be renamed East Texas right now and gas prices in America would be .03 cents per gallon. We're trying to help a nation that has spent 20 or 30 years (How long was Saddam in power?) being oppressed by a brutal dictator.

You have the word of Dubya himself. Just control yourselves long enough to let elections be held. VOTE! Contribute YOUR thoughts on YOUR country. Then America and our partners can go home. We'll stay as long as you need help re-establishing your oil pipelines or building hospitals or feeding your hungry or establishing a clean water supply. We'll do whatever it takes to help and then we'll leave. But we're not there to control anything. We're there to teach IRAQ to control IRAQ. To prevent another Saddam from rising to power.

Another Al-zarqawi. The "IMIR OF AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ" (According to Bin Laden's own words.)


Your choices are
1) Get Saddam Back
2) Let Al-zarqawi, Bin Laden or somebody WORSE come to power or
3) let somebody with compassion and understanding for ALL Iraqi citizenry come to power....

Think...

WHO do you vote for?

We're not trying to make you decide this way or that. We're just offering you choices. If Iraq isn't smart enough to choose correctly that's Iraq's problem.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'll put it bluntly to anyone who wants to post here. We've had numerous versions of this thread before, and they all got closed because a couple of posters could not keep their emotions in check. Neither I nor any of the rest of the staff has the time to referee this thread.

So it's completely up to you who post here. Keep your posts clean, polite, and constructive, and the thread stays open. Otherwise, it gets closed. Clear?

[LeeJordanfan]

Sherlock Holmes ok.

I'm not over there msyelf because I'm in a wheelchair and can't join the military but I have 2 cousins in the marines and another friend over there as a contractor.My family history goes back to the Revolutionary War days, I'm a DAR member. What's your point?

None of them have raped, pillaged, stolen or anything, Check the headlines of newspapers from any of 17 foreign countries from Britain to Denmark to France or even Russia and Germany. YOu won't find stories of AMERICANS assassinating Shia or Sunni muslims. Assasinate means to murder an important person. The end result is death if successful. We are killing a great number of Iraqi civilians. Dancing with different wording doesn't mean that people stop dying at our hand.

You'll find stories of "abuses" At prison camps but you know what? I don't really care about how we're treating POW's when your people are televising the brutal beheadings of NEWS PEOPLE, JOURNALISTS and CONTRACTORS.... Who's really the bully?I don't want to really get picky, but I will, if you want. Homicide is homicide. The Iraqis are not killing as many children as we are. Our bombs have killed a great number of children.

Us or Iraq?If we had not started this war in the first place this would be a non-question. You didn't respond to any of remuslupin's exceptionally valid points on this issue.

We're killing soldiers. We're shooting Homicide bombers and blowing up suspecting terror strongholds..... Meanwhile Al-zarqawi is beheading UN aid workers on video tape. Now THERE is somebody you want to be like!Al-zarqawi and bin Laden were not allies until we got involved. Any military strategist can tell you that creating a circumstance where you make your enemies band together is BAD. The "most effective" way to fight a war is to divide and couquer, not give them a reason to align themselves against you. Bush Sr., a war hero himself, knew that. It appears that his son does not.

we've already cleaned up ONE of your messes by ridding The world of SADDAM. As was pointed out to you before, Saddam was a big friend to the U.S. for decades, so that argument doesn't convince me.

Like I said, if you'd like us to give you back Saddam, just send a letter to 1600 pennsylvania Ave. in washington d.c. OR email president@whitehouse.gov. Bush doesn't even talk to respected Republican Senators like Lincoln Chafee, why would he listen to anyone else?

I'm sure Dubya will be more than happy to let the people over there have a reminder of what life under Saddam was like.You mean practically a modern, industrialized nation before the Gulf War, with a standard of living for thier very poor that exceeded the U.S.?

Ungrateful iraqis really tick me off. We liberate your country from oppression and tyrany. We give you a model for democracy that you can build upon to create a democratic MUSLIM state where everybody has one vote, one voice all of their own. Uh....No. Women are more restricted in Iraq now then they were before the war. You're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan.

Freedom of the press. Freedom to be Sunni, Shia or CHristian or Jew. We come offering an olive branch and the freedom to carry a big stick in the other hand and all you want to do is hit US with the big stick.Iraq was a uniquely and distinct legal secular state. Unlike other Middle Eastern countries, Iraq law's were secular, not under Islamic law. I think you're confusing Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan had the Tailiban in power. Iraq did not.
The way I look at it maybe we should just leaveYes, I agree with you, we should.

Then when the 60 percent Shia Population destroy the 22 percent Sunni, we'll go back in to a country that'll surely be more open to our help, because the sunni population make up more than 75 percent of the terror activities in Iraq.Doubt that. Especially with Sunni in leadership positions. What's the matter? You don't think minority groups can live peacefully in majority populations? You seem to have this idea that Iraqis aren't civilized. Do Republicans want to kill Democrats in the U.S.? Of course they don't. There can be peaceful coexistence? A civilized people can incorporate many viewpoints.

Iraq's like the france of the middle east. They've never won a war in their lives. They didn't win against Iran, They have lost 2 wars against America and their allies. Maybe Iraq needs to stop letting their alligator mouths overload their tadpole butts before they turn away anyone that wants to help them.We didn't win in Vietnam, Korea is a mess, we screwed up many countries in Latin America ousting thier democratically elected leadership because their leaders wouldn't play patsy to U.S. interests. When a Cardinal in the Catholic Church (Cardinal Oscar Romero) begs the U.S. to leave his country, because we are harming the country, and we don't leave, well, I think it shows that we have a bad track record. So I would say that Iraq is the latest country that doesn't want U.S. "help".

They used to have the fourth largest army in the world. Now they have nothing but chaos. If Iran decided to invade right now, Iraq would be sunk. And showing ungrateful attitude toward America WONT make us want to help you when you're being overrun by Iran and everybody.So Iran is now the model of a good country?? I think not. This attitude of "We Americans know whats good for you", is really not going to get us any friends on the world stage.

But perhaps Iraqis have gotten so lazy and complacent under saddam they've forgotten what it is to make up their own minds. They'd rather have somebody do it for them.As I mentioned in my previous post, using words like "lazy" and implying that people are complacent just because they object to your military occupation of thier country, will not advance your cause.

Well, we're not your mother and we're not your baby sitters Iraq. Great, so the U.S. can leave now.

And check your facts will you? Iraqis are killing iraqis. Iraqis are raping their own women, telling them they can't vote and have to walk around the dang desert under 15 levels of clothes, unable to speak until prince Achmed tells them they can.O.K. let me try again. In Iraq before, women voted. Women had rights. In fact, more rights then they have in other Middle Eastern countries. Those rights are NOT being preserved in the new constitution the U.S. liked for Iraq. Although, considering that we have a growing population of religious Christians in the U.S. who think women should practice "Biblical Submission" to thier husbands, I'm not surprised the U.S. left women's rights out of the constitution.

A bunch of silent burka-wearing women with no sense of what real freedom is like. That was Afghanistan where it was required, not Iraq.

In the meantime, I guess oppression is just what Iraq wants. Otherwise they'd stop fighting us and learn to make their own country what they want so that our soldiers could come home to their families.No, what they want is for us to leave, so they can get back to the buisness of building a modern nation with national health care, free education, and suchlike, which they had before.

We're a Christian nation (predominantly).This is true. And the religious conservatives who believe in women's "Biblical submission" are growing in number.

Iraq is a Muslim nation. We (The Christians) are reaching out to you (the Muslims) offering to help you build whatever world you want.The thing is, the Christians are doing more of a crusade (Bush's word) than any movement of justice. If it was just for Iraqis we wouldn't be reading the American press telling us that U.S. companies are making billions off the war in Iraq.

YES we have preconceived ideas as to what Democracy should be. Why? Because we've been one for 200 years.Well, actually, if we're pedantic about it, we don't have a democracy, we have a republic. If we had a direct democracy, Gore would have been president in 2000, since he won the popular vote that year, and only lost in the electoral college.

Iraq could have a nation they could be proud of. One where everyone's equal, Sunni, Shia, Christian, etc. Man, woman and child.From looking at the American Congress, they don't seem to think the other parties are equal. Both parties appear to screw over the party that isn't in power. It used to be Democrats, now it's Republicans.

America is not trying to fight the crusades over again. Like I said, if we were, Iraq would be renamed East Texas right now and gas prices in America would be .03 cents per gallon. We're trying to help a nation that has spent 20 or 30 years (How long was Saddam in power?) being oppressed by a brutal dictator. [I doubt that. Oil companies would only lower the price a little bit, and instead pocket the rest, adding billions to thier existing billions. Such is life in the free market economy.

You have the word of Dubya himself. Just control yourselves long enough to let elections be held. VOTE! Contribute YOUR thoughts on YOUR country. Then America and our partners can go home.I seriously doubt that Americans will leave until they've made a better ROI. The Wall Street Journal has run a number of pieces about how U.S. companies are looking to make money with the war in Iraq.

We'll stay as long as you need help re-establishing your oil pipelines or building hospitals or feeding your hungry or establishing a clean water supply. We'll do whatever it takes to help and then we'll leave. But we're not there to control anything. We're there to teach IRAQ to control IRAQ. To prevent another Saddam from rising to power.I could go on all day about countries we "helped" that were better off without our intervention. But that would be OT.

[Potters Goblet]

My family history goes back to the Revolutionary War days, I'm a DAR member. What's your point?

Assasinate means to murder an important person. The end result is death if successful. We are killing a great number of Iraqi civilians. Dancing with different wording doesn't mean that people stop dying at our hand.

I don't want to really get picky, but I will, if you want. Homicide is homicide. The Iraqis are not killing as many children as we are. Our bombs have killed a great number of children.

If we had not started this whole mess in the first place this would be a non=question. You didn't respond to any of remuslupin's exceptionally valid points on this issue.

Al-zarqawi and bin Laden were not allies until we got involved. Any military strategist can tell you that creating a circumstance where you make your enemies band together is BAD. The "most effective" way to fight a war is to divide and couquer, not give them a reason to align themselves against you. Bush Sr., a war hero himself, knew that. It appears that his son does not.

As was pointed out to you before, Saddam was a big friend to the U.S. for decades, so that argument falls flat.

Bush doesn't even talk to respected Republican Senators like Lincoln Chafee, why would he listen to anyone else?

You mean practically a modern, industrialized nation before the Gulf War, with a standard of living for thier very poor that exceeded the U.S.?

Uh....No. Women are more restricted in Iraq now then they were before the war. You're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan.

Iraq was a uniquely and distinct legal secular state. Unlike other Middle Eastern countries, Iraq law's were secular, not under Islamic law. I think you're confusing Afghanistan and Iraq. Afghanistan had the Tailiban in power. Iraq did not.
Yes, I agree with you, we should.

Doubt that. Especially with Sunni in leadership positions. What's the matter? You don't think minority groups can live peacefully in majority populations? You seem to have this idea that Iraqis aren't civilized. Do Republicans want to kill Democrats in the U.S.? Of course they don't. There can be peaceful coexistence? A civilized people can incorporate many viewpoints.

We didn't win in Vietnam, Korea is a mess, we screwed up many countries in Latin America ousting thier democratically elected leadership because their leaders wouldn't play patsy to U.S. interests. When a Cardinal in the Catholic Church (Cardinal Oscar Romero) begs the U.S. to leave his country, because we are harming the country, and we don't leave, well, I think it shows that we have a bad track record. So I would say that Iraq is the latest country that doesn't want U.S. "help".

So Iran is now the model of a good country?? I think not. This attitude of "You're stupid, we Americans know whats good for you", is really not going to get us any friends on the world stage.

As I mentioned in my previous post, using words like "lazy" and implying that people are complacent just because they object to your invasion of thier country, will not advance your cause.

Great, so the U.S. can leave now.

O.K. let me try again. In Iraq before, women voted. Women had rights. In fact, more rights then they have in other Middle Eastern countries. Those rights are NOT being preserved in the new constitution the U.S. liked for Iraq. Although, considering that we have a growing population of religious Christians in the U.S. who think women should practice "Biblical Submission" to thier husbands, I'm not surprised the U.S. left women's rights out of the constitution.

That was Afghanistan where it was required, not Iraq.

No, what they want is for us to leave, so they can get back to the buisness of building a modern nation with national health care, free education, and suchlike, which they had before.

This is true. And the religious conservatives who believe in women's "Biblical submission" are growing in number.

The thing is, the Christians are doing more of a crusade (Bush's word) than any movement of justice. If it was just for Iraqis we wouldn't be reading the American press telling us that U.S. companies are making billions off the war in Iraq.

Well, actually, if we're pedantic about it, we don't have a democracy, we have a republic. If we had a direct democracy, Gore would have been president in 2000, since he won the popular vote that year, and only lost in the electoral college.

From looking at the American Congress, they don't seem to think the other parties are equal. Both parties appear to screw over the party that isn't in power. It used to be Democrats, now it's Republicans.

I doubt that. Oil companies would only lower the price a little bit, and instead pocket the rest, adding billions to thier existing billions. Such is life in the free market economy.

I seriously doubt that Americans will leave until they've made a better ROI.

I could go on all day about countries we "helped" that were better off without our intervention. But that would be OT.

First, it would help if you'd learn to read words rather than put words where none exist.... I'm not going to go quote by quote above because I don't have that kind of time. But I'll hit on a few points that MAYBE will clarify what I'm trying to say, since you aren't going to just read my words, but rather put your own assumptions where they don't belong

1) I wasn't CONFUSING Iraq with anyone, Afghanistan, Iran or any other country. It's called COMPARING. I was asking the Iraqis if that is the kind of life they want. Do they WANT that kind of oppression. If they say yes, THEY are the morons, not Americans.

2)My family history goes back to the Revolutionary War days, I'm a DAR member. What's your point?.
I'm related to john Hancock as well as several other notable historical figures. Did I mention anything about history? What part of my point did you miss? I said that I'm disabled. That I am NOT in Iraq myself but that three people I know, love and care for ARE there currently. (Actually there are 5 people there but I referenced three because I do not have contact with the other 2 on a regular basis.) Did that require you to bring in family history just because I said I had friends and family in Iraq? Where's the relevance? Your great great... grandfather that fought in the Revolution. Is he in Iraq today? No? Okay then he's probably not relevant to this conversation thanks. But if you'd like to compare family history, I'd put mine against anyone's any day. My great (something or other) Uncle died with Col. Fannin at Goliad. A distant cousin was killed at the battle of San Jacinto. My grandfather fought in World War 2. Two Great Grandfathers fought in World War one. I had no fewer than 10 documented ancestors in the civil war and have confirmed (so far) 3 that fought in the Revolutionary war. Three uncles fought in Viet Nam, One fought in Korea. Two of my friends and one cousin fought in the first Gulf War. I've had Police Chiefs, Mayors, congressmen, statesmen, actors and entertainers of all sorts. (Interesting sidenote: I'm related to John Ritter and Lucille Ball.) But was this EVER my point? No. My point was while 5 of my CURRENTLY LIVING family and friends are over in Iraq, SEEING what is going on and telling people what is REALLY Going on, I'm at home listening to it all from the confines of my wheelchair. Think before you reply. It helps to stay on topic.

3) I'm not DANCING around wording. I'm not denying that civilians are dying. Again that wasn't the TOPIC i was discussing in that point. My point was No Americans are walking up to Iraqi politicians and putting a bullet in their head. Is that false? When was the last time an AMERICAN shot an Iraqi dictator in the head? Nobody shot Saddam. Nobody shot Chemical Ali and Nobody WOULD have shot Uday and his group if they'd have not shot first. (They fired first when cornered. They didn't want to answer for their crimes. They decided to die rather than explain why they tortured people.) I never said Americans aren't killing innocent people. I said they aren't DELIBERATELY assassinating people meant to lead Iraq. I said what I said because what I said was what I meant to say. it was my topic. It was my point. I wasn't addressing the issue of civilian casualties at the time because what would be the point? I can not DENY that Americans have killed civilians anymore than YOU can deny that terrorists knocked down the twin towers. It's two facts that can't be argued. Why bring up a point and try to argue it when there's no justification? Killing is bad. But for every one civilian killed by an American Bomb, I promise the terrorists have killed at least three. (speculation... pulling numbers out of thin air. making a point that they are evil. That they are killing more with their tactics than we are with ours. If they'd stop, we'd stop. It's that simple.)

4. I'm going to combine a lot of things in this one. First, Iraq oppressed women's rights just as Afghanistan and other countries did. They had the RIGHT to vote, yes, but they were often discriminated against and intimidated not to vote. And By Muslim law, women can not usually do things without a husband's approval. Husbands just had to say "you can't go vote" and that was that. ANd that's what happened. So don't sit there and tell me that Iraqi women had the freedom to vote when we all know that's not the case. Muslim men do not allow their women freedom of individuality. (on average.) Whether Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan, it's just the truth. Here in America, Islam is different. My cousin is married to a Muslim and the first time he pulled that **** on her that women are subserviant, she'd leave his butt so fast his head would spin!

Second, would you just rather have Saddam back? He led the minority Sunni party which makes up 20 to 25 percent of the entire population. Can the minority party lead? Sure. But do you want to be against a man that gasses his own people just because there are more of them and because they serve Allah differently? The Shia should be grateful if nobody else is. Millions died at the hands of Saddam and now he's not there to impress the will of one man. See it wasn't the SUNNIs leading. It wasn't the MINORITY leading. If it was, that's one thing. It was SADDAM. And ifyou disagreed with Saddam.... BLAM! gunshot right to the head.

All Americans want is for that leadership style to stop. I don't care if your new leader is Sunni, Shia or Catholic. He won't be my leader and I don't have to listen to him. But give me a break here! You're arguing just to argue. You're putting out points that have no relevance on ANYTHING I said. I'd love to know what mail-order service gave you your diploma if you're Drawing Conclusion and basic comprehension skills are that minimal.

5. Saddam was only a friend of the US because the administration of the time perceived him as a lesser evil than Khomeni and the people in Iran that were there. Right or wrong, that's the perception of the administration and the fact is that an evil government (Iran of that day) was removed. (though more by the simple dying of Khomeni than by anything anyone did.) Once removed, Saddam became the problem. The "Solution" became the problem.

6. If we had not started this whole mess in the first place this would be a non=question. You didn't respond to any of remuslupin's exceptionally valid points on this issue.

Perhaps that's because I wasn't trying to respond to anyone's post in particular. If I was, I would have quoted from it. My objective was to create my own strand of independent thought. If, in the process, I responded to somebody, great!

Al-zarqawi and bin Laden were not allies until we got involved. .

Never said they were allies before. This is where reading what I said instead of what you think I said comes in real handy. Read my words, not your take on my words.

I'm not going to respond to anything more than you said because it's more of the same. Misinterpreting things, reading more into it than was there and making points that have no relevance to anything I said. I've illustrated that enough. You're an intelligent, articulate orator. That much I can tell, But it is you who fell flat by not arguing the points in my post. If you're going to be in a debate at least debate the points IN the argument.

[Insanity]

I'm not over there msyelf because I'm in a wheelchair and can't join the military but I have 2 cousins in the marines and another friend over there as a contractor. None of them have raped, pillaged, stolen or anything, Check the headlines of newspapers from any of 17 foreign countries from Britain to Denmark to France or even Russia and Germany. YOu won't find stories of AMERICANS assassinating Shia or Sunni muslims. You'll find stories of "abuses" At prison camps but you know what? I don't really care about how we're treating POW's when your people are televising the brutal beheadings of NEWS PEOPLE, JOURNALISTS and CONTRACTORS.... Who's really the bully? Us or Iraq? We're killing soldiers. We're shooting Homicide bombers and blowing up suspecting terror strongholds..... Meanwhile Al-zarqawi is beheading UN aid workers on video tape. Now THERE is somebody you want to be like!


And there's not going to be any of these "Let's see if we can handle it.. if not, America can come back!"

we've already cleaned up ONE of your messes by ridding The world of SADDAM. It's not our responsibility to wipe your butt forever and keep cleaning up your mess just because Iraq is too stubborn to learn from past mistakes.

Like I said, if you'd like us to give you back Saddam, just send a letter to 1600 pennsylvania Ave. in washington d.c. OR email president@whitehouse.gov.

I'm sure Dubya will be more than happy to let the people over there have a reminder of what life under Saddam was like. Ungrateful iraqis really tick me off. We liberate your country from oppression and tyrany. We give you a model for democracy that you can build upon to create a democratic MUSLIM state where everybody has one vote, one voice all of their own. Freedom of the press. Freedom to be Sunni, Shia or CHristian or Jew. We come offering an olive branch and the freedom to carry a big stick in the other hand and all you want to do is hit US with the big stick.

The way I look at it maybe we should just leave. Then when the 60 percent Shia Population destroy the 22 percent Sunni, we'll go back in to a country that'll surely be more open to our help, because the sunni population make up more than 75 percent of the terror activities in Iraq.

Iraq's like the france of the middle east. They've never won a war in their lives. They didn't win against Iran, They have lost 2 wars against America and their allies. Maybe Iraq needs to stop letting their alligator mouths overload their tadpole butts before they turn away anyone that wants to help them.

They used to have the fourth largest army in the world. Now they have nothing but chaos. If Iran decided to invade right now, Iraq would be sunk. And showing ungrateful attitude toward America WONT make us want to help you when you're being overrun by Iran and everybody.

If more iraqis took the time to think before they spoke, they might see that we WANT To leave. But we refuse to leave when terrorists are blowing up innocent iraqis. Just today I saw headlines in an American paper and in an egyptian paper talking about an assassination in Iraq. They both had the same perspective on the story. That it was perpetrated by Sunni Muslim Terrorists who will be boycotting the election in January. How stupid is it to boycott an election? You say you want a government that's free from American control yet you're going to boycott??? The only way to get what you want is to PARTICIPATE. But perhaps Iraqis have gotten so lazy and complacent under saddam they've forgotten what it is to make up their own minds. They'd rather have somebody do it for them.

Well, we're not your mother and we're not your baby sitters Iraq. You can't rely on us to be your scapegoat forever. Stand up and take some friggen responsibility for your won dang country!

And check your facts will you? Iraqis are killing iraqis. Iraqis are raping their own women, telling them they can't vote and have to walk around the dang desert under 15 levels of clothes, unable to speak until prince Achmed tells them they can.

If I said that to my fiance' not only would she slap me across the face, she'd start yelling at me and probably wouldn't stop for 3 hours! You don't tell an American woman what she can and can't do. We have women in congress, we have women doctors, lawyers, teachers, soldiers, preachers... you name it. What do you have? A bunch of silent burka-wearing women with no sense of what real freedom is like.

I think the men of Iraq are afraid of the strength of women and maybe women are intimidated by the unspoken ideas they have that often contrast with hubby's ideas. Maybe in another 200 years they'll learn to embrace freedom. In the meantime, I guess oppression is just what Iraq wants. Otherwise they'd stop fighting us and learn to make their own country what they want so that our soldiers could come home to their families.

We're a Christian nation (predominantly). Iraq is a Muslim nation. We (The Christians) are reaching out to you (the Muslims) offering to help you build whatever world you want. YES we have preconceived ideas as to what Democracy should be. Why? Because we've been one for 200 years. But that doesn't mean You have to totally follow our model. But maybe if we sat down at the table and talked, (If you'd stop blowing **** up long enough) Iraq could have a nation they could be proud of. One where everyone's equal, Sunni, Shia, Christian, etc. Man, woman and child. One where the opportunity for... well, opportunity, is open world wide. One where you can have a respected voice on the world scene.

America is not trying to fight the crusades over again. Like I said, if we were, Iraq would be renamed East Texas right now and gas prices in America would be .03 cents per gallon. We're trying to help a nation that has spent 20 or 30 years (How long was Saddam in power?) being oppressed by a brutal dictator.

You have the word of Dubya himself. Just control yourselves long enough to let elections be held. VOTE! Contribute YOUR thoughts on YOUR country. Then America and our partners can go home. We'll stay as long as you need help re-establishing your oil pipelines or building hospitals or feeding your hungry or establishing a clean water supply. We'll do whatever it takes to help and then we'll leave. But we're not there to control anything. We're there to teach IRAQ to control IRAQ. To prevent another Saddam from rising to power.

Another Al-zarqawi. The "IMIR OF AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ" (According to Bin Laden's own words.)


Your choices are
1) Get Saddam Back
2) Let Al-zarqawi, Bin Laden or somebody WORSE come to power or
3) let somebody with compassion and understanding for ALL Iraqi citizenry come to power....

Think...

WHO do you vote for?

We're not trying to make you decide this way or that. We're just offering you choices. If Iraq isn't smart enough to choose correctly that's Iraq's problem.

1) I don't want Saddam back. I'm Kurdish, not Arabic.
2) I want you to leave because you're making the situation worse. Whether you like it or not, you don't know exactly what's happening there.
3) Oh really? My mom is a doctor, a very good one actually and she was born and raised in Iraq. My aunts are either doctors/lawyers or architechts. Don't insult me like that do you understand? Just because you're American it doesn't mean you're better than me.
4) EXACTLY. You're not our mom/babysitter. Leave us to work out our own problems. We can do it without your help. You're not the world's saviour.
5) I will not vote for people America put in change. They may be Iraqis but they work for you. I refuse to obey Americans.

I've had enough talking to you. I know what happens in my country really well. You have no right to attack me in areas where you know nothing of, as well as attack me for just saying that I want Americans out. That is why I was rude to you in my reply. You're rude to me, I'm rude to you.
I think I set a good example of what most Iraqi women are like. Also, I think you can see that I'm not as dumb as you'd think I would be. I can read/write English probably better than most Americans my age. (I'm 14 years old).

Please reconsider the tone you chose to take with me. I can also start shoving things down your throat (difference between me and you is I know what I'm talking about. It's my country. You go on what they feed you on American TV).

[Fred Black]

People people, please! I think the moderators sre quite annoyed that we are or seem to be getting at each others throats. I hope we are not, but all the same to ensure harmony in this thread and forum ensure politeness and care is put into your reply. A long time ago whe the First world war was over there was a League of Nations. A prelimanary form of the UN. but only USA wasn't in it due to it's government. The idea was brilliant and it was nearly succesful until the time came when a choice needed to be made: Go to war to protect the League of Nations and the world, or not care about the world but keep yourself looking good. Needless to say the League prevented nothing and World War 2 broke out.

Now we have the United Nations which is better than the League but the same problems do and will occurr because Strong Mebers of the UN don't follow the terms and they are not stopped. I'm talking about Iraq being invaded, ring any bells? Same thing with Israel. However when a
non-Member is doing something wrong, the UN (mainly backed by the US) spring into action i.e. Vietnam!

[Auror Williamson]

Insanity, no one's attacking you or insulting you. Please calm down for the sake of the entire thread. I rather enjoy reading posts on this topic. Thanks. :)

[LeeJordanfan]

I put my family history and my 9/11 connections in because one of the first arguments that I hear from proponents of the war, is that my opposition is unamerican and unpatriotic. So you can call it a pre-emptive action on my part. :evilgrin:

I wasn't CONFUSING Iraq with anyone, Afghanistan, Iran or any other country. It's called COMPARING. I was asking the Iraqis if that is the kind of life they want. Do they WANT that kind of oppression. If they say yes, THEY are the morons, not the Americans.Asking someone if they "want to be oppressed" implies that people want to be oppressed. It's not a valid question because everyone would of course say "No".

I'm not DANCING around wording. I'm not denying that civilians are dying. Again that wasn't the TOPIC i was discussing in that point. My point was No Americans are walking up to Iraqi politicians and putting a bullet in their head. Is that false? When was the last time an AMERICAN shot an Iraqi dictator in the head? Nobody shot Saddam No, this isn't a completely parallel comparison. Because we haven't shot "their bad leaders" and they aren't shooting "our leaders" who are safely in America. In that respect it would be a moot issue.

First, Iraq oppressed women's rights just as Afghanistan and other countries did. They had the RIGHT to vote, yes, but they were often discriminated against and intimidated not to vote. And By Muslim law, women can not usually do things without a husband's approval. Husbands just had to say "you can't go vote" and that was that. ANd that's what happened. So don't sit there and tell me that Iraqi women had the freedom to vote when we all know that's not the case. Muslim men do not allow their women freedom of individuality. (on average.) Whether Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan, it's just the truth.
Women in Iraq, sad to say, had more rights than women in other middle eastern countries. What I'm saying now is that Iraqi women are telling us that they are losing what little they had. Allawi is no friend to Iraqi women. (I really don't know what the Bush people were thinking when they installed a former Baath member as the interim leader. Must have been his CIA history.)

What women are saying is that is worse now than it was before the U.S. got involved. Before, women DID have educations and jobs. That's what I meant in my first post when I said women's position is regressing, not progressing. Iraqi women fear, and rightly so in my opinion, that all of the gains they've made from 1900 right up to 1990, are gone completely as the U.S. aligns itself with fundamentalists who opposed the Baath party. Women's groups as diverse as "MADRE" and "The Organization of Women's Freedom in Iraq" are continually reporting on the new anti-woman policies in Iraq.

[Fred Black]

Yes, sorry Insanity i meant she. I have been researching this topic for quite a while and I remember reading a book about an SAS mission. For those who don't know what the SAS is, it is the most Elite covert, ani-terrorist organization which helps out in millitary operations too. It was founded in World war 2 and thank god it's British! ANy way. They helped stop SCUD missiles being launched by dissconnecting them and they were very efficient at their job. There was no SAS mission in this Gulf war 2 and we know why. Under the excuse there are Chem/Bio weapons in Iraq we have to remove them. You'll have to find them first! Britain Has Nuclear weapons, I don't see USA invading britain.

[Insanity]

Insanity, no one's attacking you or insulting you. Please calm down for the sake of the entire thread. I rather enjoy reading posts on this topic. Thanks. :)

Actually, Potter's Goblet DID insult me. Read his last post please. I'm really offended actually. And his first post to me was really violent and started insulting and mocking me. He has no right to do so.

[Auror Williamson]

A quote to ponder:


"From time to time, the Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots."

--Thomas Jefferson, 1803


Doesn't this sound a lot like what we did last year?

[Fred Black]

Every please relax and take a breather for a minute. There are clearly a lot of views here but we and i include myself here, are stating our beliefs and our opinions and I am glad of that fact. Now however what would be intersting for the sake of the thread but also this topic idea, please switch your viewpoint: For example if you oppose the war dry to defend it and visa versa. This mind not seem helpful but it is a tactic that my teacher uses and we learnt far more this way as we had to research a lot more. THat is what I really want, facts and the odd opinion. This will ensure tranquility for a while as we can learn what it's like for the other side.

So, let me begin. I previously opposed the war but i shall try to defend it:

The country was only stable because it had a dictator, a terrible one. Not the worst though think of Hitler and Stalin. However the chance came for us to do something about the Saddam and we took our chance. In hindsight we would have done it differently but at least many can now have freedom of opinion. Any one remember when Afghanistan was invaded because of the Taliban? When the war was over, women were able to get jobs especially on TV (no more tele-ban). SO inlight of this information we knew we could do the same for Iraq and we did.

[LeeJordanfan]

Interesting Fred,

The only thing I can think of is that the since U.S. supported Saddam's regime for so many years, and gave him much in weapons, money, and political support, it could be reasonably argued that it was our obligation to get rid of him. We helped create this situation in the first place.

[Fred Black]

Moral obligation? Well quite. I seem to remember reading about how the US armed the Afghanistani people to fight off Russians but now US attacked Afghanistan! THey want to solve other's problems when they are oblivious of the pit of doom they are falling in. However all that can be said on behalf of the US is that it is done now and let's learn from our mistakes, but we must do this! Also on a lighter note even tough chaos has prevailed there think of the many troops who have spent spent their christmas on patrol and those iraqi's without homes. It truly is saddening that with the development of our ability to think we still don't fully think. Will we ever get out of this endless cycle? The simple answer is no because of the following reasons:

1. Fathers and mothers are lost and the children will want revenge.
2. But also violence is impregnated in our minds from childhood not only because of war but with action toys and films, games etc. which involves killing people.

[Potters Goblet]

1) I don't want Saddam back. I'm Kurdish, not Arabic.
2) I want you to leave because you're making the situation worse. Whether you like it or not, you don't know exactly what's happening there.
3) Oh really? My mom is a doctor, a very good one actually and she was born and raised in Iraq. My aunts are either doctors/lawyers or architechts. Don't insult me like that do you understand? Just because you're American it doesn't mean you're better than me.
4) EXACTLY. You're not our mom/babysitter. Leave us to work out our own problems. We can do it without your help. You're not the world's saviour.
5) I will not vote for people America put in change. They may be Iraqis but they work for you. I refuse to obey Americans.

I've had enough talking to you. I know what happens in my country really well. You have no right to attack me in areas where you know nothing of, as well as attack me for just saying that I want Americans out. That is why I was rude to you in my reply. You're rude to me, I'm rude to you.
I think I set a good example of what most Iraqi women are like. Also, I think you can see that I'm not as dumb as you'd think I would be. I can read/write English probably better than most Americans my age. (I'm 14 years old).

Please reconsider the tone you chose to take with me. I can also start shoving things down your throat (difference between me and you is I know what I'm talking about. It's my country. You go on what they feed you on American TV).

I'm not going to disrespect you for being Kurdish, for being 14 or for being this, that or the other. I'm not attacking you for any of that and I never was. I was attacking (ONLY!) you not reading my words for what they were. You putting words in my statements that weren't there. Yes I was rude but it was called for because you were claiming that I had said something I hadn't said! You all but accused me of whitewashing American mistakes there. I never did that. Just because I did not openly Acknowledge them it is not the same as DENIAL. I acknowledge them now, just as I did previously. Abu Gharaib (or however you spell it) was a scandal that shouldn't have happened. But I'll be honest with you. My personal take on it is that I don't care if some pow is photographed with underwear on his head. That's not nearly as bad as beheading an innocent FEMALE relief worker who just wants to give clean water to Iraqi citizens.

Just think about this for a moment. Regardless of who is helping you. Let's say a man comes up and offers you two glasses of water. One clean, fresh and purified with a nice bunch of ice cubes floating in it. It's a hot Iraqi summer day and you're thirsty as heck. Now in his other hand, he's holding a brown glass of something that might be water, but you're not sure. The turd floating in it sort of throws you off. All the man says is "Which one do you want?" Now this guy could be American. He could be French. He could be German. He could be Iraqi. He could be Israeli. He could be Iranian. He could be Kofi Annan himself leaving the UN to come help you. I'm not giving the man an identity. He's just a man. He's a man with a smile no his face, generosity in his heart and a mind open enough to let you choose your own drink.

Which drink would you choose? The ice cold, purified drinking water or the dirty muddy wet turd-filled sludge? The man's identity is a non-issue here. Focus on the glasses. Can you do that? See that's the problem with most iraqi's They can't get past the GIVER long enough to see the GIFT. They can't stop focusing on the identity of the man long enough to even SEE what's in his hand. Did I say that's what America had? Totally Crystal clear water? No I did not. It's called an analogy. Heck there may even be a turd or two floating in what we have to offer. Lord knows our society isn't perfect. But ask yourself this. You said you're Kurdish. Was life better under Saddam when you had to hide? When you were getting gassed and bombed by the thousands? Was it better to live in fear of a dictator? Truthfully was it better? I'm glad you have doctors, lawyers and architects in your family. So does Bin Laden. So do I. I'm not impressed by that. Because either way you go, the entire country of Iraq would be better off if you'd PARTICIPATE in a democratically elected government. You say you don't want a government ran by Americans? Well then you should tell your parents to vote out Allawi when the time comes because he's a guy We appointed to head the process. IF you want him out of office, what right do you have to put a bullet in his head and deprive his family of a father? Want me to kill your dad because he's Muslim? Of course you don't! So why kill Allawi just because you don't like him? See here in our country if we don't like leaders, we don't kill them. (Often... Except for a few Psychos that shall remain nameless.) We vote them out of office. They can still return to their children and be a father. They can be a brother, a son.

Put down your guns and pick up a voting slip! If you dont want your government to be a puppet of America as you say then GET INVOLVED! change it! Elect somebody who's going to be strong. Who supports your Kurdish ideals. Your population is 60 percent Shia. Do you want a Shia ruler with no Kurds to check his/her power? Do you want the Kurdish minority to have a voice in the government or do you prefer to let another Saddam make all the decisions for you?

We recently had a presidential election here. I voted. I let my voice be heard. My fiance' happened to vote for a different candidate than I did. In effect, my vote cancelled out her's and vice versa. But we both voted. We both let our voices be heard. We both stood up and said this is what we'd like to see happen. We each wanted different things, but we still said what we wanted.

There's nothing wrong with a healthy debate. There's nothing wrong with me being passionate about my points of view and you being passionate about yours. But passion should not remove respect for each individual's right to say what he or she feels. Passion should also not lead to insults and what not. I believe (and will forever believe) that our soldiers are doing (or attempting to do) a good deed. But I also know that they are merely following orders. Our army didn't go over there on its own. The 1st I.D. didn't just wake up one morning and decide "Yanno what? We should go to Iraq and see what kind of trouble we can find." No, it was Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush (among others) that sent them over there. Given a choice, I know my cousin would have rather stayed with his wife and infant son, who is now walking, talking and growing up without being able to bond with a father that's thousands of miles away risking his life for what he calls a "grateful" people. He said that he gets hugged by kids everyday who call him "the great american." He says that what we see on the news with protests and stuff does happen but that the media never shows the hugs and the smiles of kids who get to go to school for the first time in their lives. Or get to do this or that for the first time. He said that he met one kid who had never seen a football, baseball or basketball in his life but now this kid doesn't go anywhere without the basketball he was given by another soldier.

There are people over there that ARE thankful to Americans. My one friend who is a contractor over there said that he was talking to another Iraqi who was helping him and he (the iraqi) was bashing Saddam. Suddenly another Iraqi walked by dressed in some kind of military garb and my friend said that the civilian Iraqi started shaking and turned about three shades whiter than a ghost. He said that it's still hard for him to realize that it's okay to speak his mind. Is that any way to live? Looking over your shoulder before you open your mouth? He's a grown man! If he wants to sit there and criticize his government he should be able to, without fear of being SHOT or imprisoned!

I truly hope that the media will pick up more stories like this. And on the stories like the documentary I saw on how IRAQI (Not Afghani) women were treated under Saddam. YES I saw the "behind the veil" documentary on the Taliban and how women were treated. I'm not confusing This documentary with that one. This was an entirely different story. And it was done by a group of iraqi women who fled iraq during the Saddam years. They weren't doctors, Lawyers or Architects but that didn't make them less important. And it didn't make me view their documentary with any less seriousness. If anything it made me look at them as more important. Because they were brilliant women. Articulate and (at the time of the documentary) well-educated. But even if they hadn't had the ability to read or write a single word, it doesn't take an education to know oppression. And they KNEW it!

If you want America gone... if IRAQ wants America gone, the quickest way to make it happen is to Help Us Help You

We shouldn't be fighting as individuals anymore than the Iraqi citizenry should be fighting our soldiers. We should all be working together to make the world (not just Iraq and America... THE WORLD) A place of freedom. Freedom to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Man, Woman, child, Crippled, Able-bodied, etc.

Don't curse the west. Don't curse me, the individual. I'll extend an olive branch myself. A symbol of peace. An agreement to disagree. A right of each of us to be independent, free, unique people. I'll extend a promise of respect. Is it too hard to extend one back? I've already proven I can get as silly and rude and petty as anyone else. Now I'm trying to prove that I can rise above all the bull mess. If one American can rise above, maybe all of us (in the world) can.

[Fred Black]

Potter Goblett does have a point but equally he is blinded by something he can't understand. Now using the example that Potter Goblet gave us i will try to show you all why there are problems in the whole 'we are trying to build raltions with Iraqi's but hey don't want our help"!

Firstly they thank you that you have given them a source of clean ice-cold water and the freedom of choice. However they will not thank you for bringing with you dirty sludge in a glass. The only reason there is polluted water is because of the distrution of pipes because of war! Iraq's probly feel it is very patronising for an unwanted forein army marching around their land ordering people about destroying things and then telling them that where they live is a place which contains bad this and that! How dare they is what people think and so feel you are going against their honour. It is not the first time foreigners have come uninvited and ruined the area. Remember when the pilgrims tricked the Indians and with them brought disease. What may be the underlying key here is that they like being given a choice but they didn't need a choice in the first place!

And i must warn you Potter Goblett that you are being patronising to Insanity so please try and refraeseyour words : "See here in our country if we don't like leaders, we don't kill them. (Often... Except for a few Psychos that shall remain nameless.) We vote them out of office. They can still return to their children and be a father. They can be a brother, a son." We are all intelligent people here and we all know that assination isn't the way to get rid of someone, but what you forget my friend is that when you have a dictator runing your country, if you say something against the leader you are done for. Why do yoiu think so many die under the rule of dictators? Stalin and Hitler both killed many people even if they like their children more then the leader. They lived in fear under a dictator do you expect them to go up to Saddam and say: "hello Mr Saddam we are the people of Iraq, we don't like the way you run our country!"
"So sorry people of Iraq, here have your country back, I'll resign first thing tommorw."

[lanifiel]

Say Good-bye...