• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fallujah Napalmed: US Uses Banned Chemical Weapon in Iraq

Even if Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9-11, which it didn't. And even if invading them casued there to be more terrorist in Iraq then there were before, which it did. Then now it most certainly is part of the war on terror. It wouldn't have needed to be this way, but you can't unring a bell now can you? Which is why so many countries and so people advise against this whole mess. We could have stayed in Afghanistan and either finished or be finishing that job. But it's too late for all that thinking now. Now we're there. Now we got to do this and doing it is ugly work. Like it or not. And pulling out isn't an option either becasue the power vaccuum that would create would cause an even bigger mess then the one we've already created. We have to stay, finnish the job and support our troops.
Excellent Pacridge we do see some things eye to eye. However when I think back to Sept.11 01 as well as the war in Afganistan that started in OCT of 01. I knew we were going to Iraq. I had some people tell me it was going to be Syria or Iran however I knew it was going to be Iraq. Iraq would be the easiest to get consensus for from the UN. They had ignored all the damn resolutions that the UN had passed. It should have been unanimous vote for the action. However the UN as well as other countrys didn't want to hold Iraq reponsible or accountable. So now Jihad Jonny and the rest of the towel head brigade are going to Iraq to fight the great infadel. I say awsome lets do the killing over there as much as we can.. I remeber the night Bush gave his speech to the duel sessions of congress and told the world your with us or your with the terrorists. He spelled it out very clear what was coming. I think the other nations in the world should have payed attention.
 
CSA_TX said:
Excellent Pacridge we do see some things eye to eye. However when I think back to Sept.11 01 as well as the war in Afganistan that started in OCT of 01. I knew we were going to Iraq. I had some people tell me it was going to be Syria or Iran however I knew it was going to be Iraq. Iraq would be the easiest to get consensus for from the UN. They had ignored all the damn resolutions that the UN had passed. It should have been unanimous vote for the action. However the UN as well as other countrys didn't want to hold Iraq reponsible or accountable. So now Jihad Jonny and the rest of the towel head brigade are going to Iraq to fight the great infadel. I say awsome lets do the killing over there as much as we can.. I remeber the night Bush gave his speech to the duel sessions of congress and told the world your with us or your with the terrorists. He spelled it out very clear what was coming. I think the other nations in the world should have payed attention.
Why go to any of these places? Why not stay in Afghanistan and keep going after the a**hole who actually did attack us? I mean if you're going to go after a country over there for the 9-11 thing why not the Saudi's. 15 of the 19 hi-jackers we're Saudi nationals.
 
Pacridge said:
Huh, somebody I want to be President less then Bush. Didn't know that was possible.

Well I geuss I'm gonna have to rely on help from rock the vote and famous celebrities to get the votes that I need. :D
 
It was 4th down and goal - momentum was on our side.

Turkey however didn't give us a pass so we could come in from the North and the South - as expected.

Because of that, it is taking WAY longer than expected.

Because of that, there are still insurgents and terrorists from other countries.

We would have been done months ago had Turkey lived up to its end of the deal.
 
Mr.America said:
Well I geuss I'm gonna have to rely on help from rock the vote and famous celebrities to get the votes that I need. :D
Good luck with that. Celebrities aren't famous for supporting people who want to invade other countries. Then again their also known for backing the looser. Kid Rock might be your ticket.
 
KID ROCK does USO tours so he get my vote just like my buddy Ted Nugent and Charlie Daniels.

Why go to any of these places? Why not stay in Afghanistan and keep going after the a**hole who actually did attack us? I mean if you're going to go after a country over there for the 9-11 thing why not the Saudi's. 15 of the 19 hi-jackers we're Saudi nationals
I think the best answer for this comes from my gut not from the facts or figures spewed on the internet or on the TV news.
We have to go to these places that are breeding grounds for terrorists. These people with so much hate in their vains that they will do nothing but try to kill us. This is there religion and their belief that their duty is to kill us. They think they are going to paradise with some hooker virgins. I disagree I think they are wishing for some spf 2000 about now.They will continue to try and kill us so we must intercede and take the killing to them. However for the time being we are killing them in a civilized Geneva covention way. I believe that if we don't fight this fight now we will never rid the world of these people. And my grandkids will live in an America that is not at all like the one I lived in. So In my heart I know this must be done it is the battle of civilization.
 
CSA_TX said:
KID ROCK does USO tours so he get my vote just like my buddy Ted Nugent and Charlie Daniels.


I think the best answer for this comes from my gut not from the facts or figures spewed on the internet or on the TV news.
We have to go to these places that are breeding grounds for terrorists. These people with so much hate in their vains that they will do nothing but try to kill us. This is there religion and their belief that their duty is to kill us. They think they are going to paradise with some hooker virgins. I disagree I think they are wishing for some spf 2000 about now.They will continue to try and kill us so we must intercede and take the killing to them. However for the time being we are killing them in a civilized Geneva covention way. I believe that if we don't fight this fight now we will never rid the world of these people. And my grandkids will live in an America that is not at all like the one I lived in. So In my heart I know this must be done it is the battle of civilization.
This why going into Iraq was such a completely bad idea. Iraq was one of the only secular (non-religious) nation in the region. Staying in Afghan. and finishing that job would have made so much more sense. But as I said before you can't unring a bell.

And I disagree- playing on gut instinct doesn't work well with world politics. It's a lot more like math- facts and figures work to your better advantage.
 
CSA- A lot of what you say, at times, I agree with. Some of what you say, not so much. One thing that strikes me when I read your posts is that seem to have this gleeful approach to killing people. I get the impression that while I see it as a necessary evil you seem to view it as something we finally get to do. I've always considered our value of human life one of the many great things that sperated us from them.
 
I don't know if I would consider myself gleeful of killing people. These are human beings that have families and lives of there own. However the fact that these people would like nothing better to see my life and that of my loved ones ended due to the fact I am an infadel. Because of that reason it gives me satisfaction that these SOB's are getting killed. I wish they would just let us live in harmany however I do not beleive that is possible at this point. With what has happened since 1979 to Americans at the hands of terrorists I think the fight is justified and if it means them or us then yes I am glad to see it is them. Should they bring the fight to our shores I will stand up and give all if that is what is required for my country and my loved ones.
 
CSA_TX said:
I don't know if I would consider myself gleeful of killing people. These are human beings that have families and lives of there own. However the fact that these people would like nothing better to see my life and that of my loved ones ended due to the fact I am an infadel. Because of that reason it gives me satisfaction that these SOB's are getting killed. I wish they would just let us live in harmany however I do not beleive that is possible at this point. With what has happened since 1979 to Americans at the hands of terrorists I think the fight is justified and if it means them or us then yes I am glad to see it is them. Should they bring the fight to our shores I will stand up and give all if that is what is required for my country and my loved ones.
Problem is it isn't just them. It's us and them. Right now, at least since 9-11-2001, it hasn't been on our soil. But make no mistake we're loosing poeple just like they're loosing people. Our last count was some where in the neighborhood of 1250 and that just over there, wait until they figure out how to do it here agian.

In '79 we got caught with our hand in the cookie jar so to speak. We suppport these terrorist leaders and thier regimes when it appears to suit us and then try to behave like we're above the stridence when the shit hits the fan. We were supporting the Shah and it turns out he was a miserable f**k. Reagan and Bush Sr. both supported Saddam and the Tailiban. Hell we gave the Taliban cash, weapons and training. Course they we're fighting the USSR at the time and we didn't like them much, so it was a mine enemies enemy thing. But as long as we continue to climb in bed with murdering dictators there no end to this in sight.
 
Excellent points about 1979...

Don't forget the Hijackers; we gave them whatever they wanted. (including handing over prisoners)

Because of that, we are now stuck with terrorists who think they can call the shots. Bad, very bad mistakes.
 
I agree and excellent point on dealing with Hijackers. We can't do that ever. It's a lose/lose propostion every time. Basically that's what Reagan did with the Arms for hostages in Iran. And I believe we're still paying the effects of that deal. When you give in to thier demands once there no reason for them not to believe there's another pot o'gold waiting for them when they take thier next hostage.

This whole middle east thing has been a mess for so long. I'm not sure I see an end to the maddness. I never thought going into Iraq made any sense. But we're there now and maybe we can get this thing done and get out of there ASAP. Elections there are just around the corner. Get some demo. elected Iraqis in charge, turns some stuff over to the UN and let's get our guys and gals coming home.

On a side note. It seems to me one of the main reasons we're in Iraq and the middle east is the oil. I know, I know- freedoms on the march- we're spreading democracy. Sure. But if it weren't for the oil we wouldn't give a rats ass about these countries. So in an era when we can have an X prize of 10 million to the first guy that can get a private craft into space. Why can't we get an X prize of 25 million to the first guy/gal who can come up with a legitimate alternative to the internal combustion engine? Who ever comes up with the idea/concept first wins. We'd be free of depending on these bastards for their oil and we could tell them all to go spit in the sand.
 
Last edited:
While it's technically true that the continent of America is split into north and south

Incorrect, sir. North and South America are 2 seperate continents.

The continents of the world include N. America, S. America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica
 
It was 4th down and goal - momentum was on our side.

Turkey however didn't give us a pass so we could come in from the North and the South - as expected.

Because of that, it is taking WAY longer than expected.

Because of that, there are still insurgents and terrorists from other countries.

We would have been done months ago had Turkey lived up to its end of the deal.
huh?

I don't see how the situation with the insurgents would be any different if we had the ability to use Turkey as a launching platform for invasion.

Care to elaborate?
 
If we could have come in through Turkey - we would have flanked them. Taken them all (or a helluva lot more) in one go. From the north and the south.

It seems to me one of the main reasons we're in Iraq and the middle east is the oil. I know, I know- freedoms on the march- we're spreading democracy. Sure. But if it weren't for the oil we wouldn't give a rats ass about these countries.
I disagree. We are there because it is the SMARTEST strategic move in history. Iraq becomes an Allie and we are set for the middle east. Besides, if it were for the oil doncha think we would be getting MORE than 3% oil imports from Iraq?

[Will lookup numbers later for proof, don't have the site bookmarked anymore]
 
vauge said:
If we could have come in through Turkey - we would have flanked them. Taken them all (or a helluva lot more) in one go. From the north and the south.

I disagree. We are there because it is the SMARTEST strategic move in history. Iraq becomes an Allie and we are set for the middle east. Besides, if it were for the oil doncha think we would be getting MORE than 3% oil imports from Iraq?

[Will lookup numbers later for proof, don't have the site bookmarked anymore]
It would be impossible for me to disagree with you more. IMO this is one of, if not the, biggest bone head moves of all time. Time will tell, I'm hoping you're right. But I truely think you're wrong.

The amount of oil we get from Iraq directly isn't the entire picture. Plus looking at the number regarding Iraqi oil is bogus becasue they've had restrictions and then war and now sabotaged pipelines. So whatever the numbers are they're sure to be damn low. We expected them to go up after we invaded, remember. Bush said "this war will almost pay for itself with all the oil we'll pump." That didn't happen. But what I'm saying is we're in that region because the region has oil. And gaining Iraq as an Ally isn't going to make the rest of the region a slam dunk either. We're already allies with Saudi's, have been for years, that hasn't done wonders. The Middle East is far too complex to solve with simple solutions. Iraq becoming an ally will do nothing to solve the Israeli problem.
 
and now sabotaged pipelines
the pipeline legislation never made it through. Wasn't that Afganistan?

Bush said "this war will almost pay for itself with all the oil we'll pump."
No, I don't remember. I believe he was saying that the oil the IRAQI'S get will help pay to restructure and setup a governement. (I may be wrong) So far, it's behind, but that is where the money is going - to the Iraq government to help pay thier debts. Luckily for them, some countries have let thier debt be forgotten.

But what I'm saying is we're in that region because the region has oil.
We have oil right here in the US and get most of our oil from Canada..yes..Canada. I don't understand why some folks truely believe it's about the oil. Besides, OPEC would be a wee bit upset if we took the oil.

The Middle East is far too complex to solve with simple solutions. Iraq becoming an ally will do nothing to solve the Israeli problem.
Your right, but we are not talking about the Israeli problem.

The reason why I say that this is a damn fine move, is because since Iraq is now our Allie(sp) we can use them like we are using our allies and "friends" in the neighborhood of North Korea to stop the threats before they happen. I firmly believe that China and company will take care of the N Korean nuk threat through diplomacy.

In years to come Iraq will be a strong member in the Arab of Nations and will be on our side. More so than the Saudi's.
 
Vauge:
If we could have come in through Turkey - we would have flanked them. Taken them all (or a helluva lot more) in one go. From the north and the south.
Hmmm. . . Maybe. Maybe not. Interesting thought though.

Vauge:
We have oil right here in the US and get most of our oil from Canada..yes..Canada. I don't understand why some folks truely believe it's about the oil. Besides, OPEC would be a wee bit upset if we took the oil.
The price of fuel effects the price of shipping goods. We live in a global economy. If any country has to pay more to ship things here, you can bet they're passing the cost on to us.

Oil costs $x.xx a barrel regardless of where it comes from. Russia opened up a pipeline and undercut the market with their oil and OPEC had a cow. Russia then raised their prices to align themselves with the rest of the oil producing companies.

Even with American oil, the price is going to be about the same because the companies out there drilling are out to make a buck and will sell at whatever price the market will bare.

Having a US endorsed government in Iraq will allow us to have more influence in OPEC then we have now, not to mention it will also allow more oil to come out of Iraq. As the oil levels increase, the price should decrease due to reduced scarcity.

Why do people say it's about oil like it's some sort of bad thing. What else should we go to war for if not for economic security?

PacRidge:
The amount of oil we get from Iraq directly isn't the entire picture. Plus looking at the number regarding Iraqi oil is bogus becasue they've had restrictions and then war and now sabotaged pipelines. So whatever the numbers are they're sure to be damn low.
Vauge:
the pipeline legislation never made it through. Wasn't that Afganistan?
Vauge, I beleive he was refering to the sabatoge that's been going on, not the undermining of pipeline legislation.

PacRidge, your words make logical sense. When it comes to Iraq, it's about potential oil, not actual oil.
 
vauge said:
the pipeline legislation never made it through. Wasn't that Afganistan?

No, I don't remember. I believe he was saying that the oil the IRAQI'S get will help pay to restructure and setup a governement. (I may be wrong) So far, it's behind, but that is where the money is going - to the Iraq government to help pay thier debts. Luckily for them, some countries have let thier debt be forgotten.

We have oil right here in the US and get most of our oil from Canada..yes..Canada. I don't understand why some folks truely believe it's about the oil. Besides, OPEC would be a wee bit upset if we took the oil.

Your right, but we are not talking about the Israeli problem.

The reason why I say that this is a damn fine move, is because since Iraq is now our Allie(sp) we can use them like we are using our allies and "friends" in the neighborhood of North Korea to stop the threats before they happen. I firmly believe that China and company will take care of the N Korean nuk threat through diplomacy.

In years to come Iraq will be a strong member in the Arab of Nations and will be on our side. More so than the Saudi's.
Wasn't talking about any pipline in Afghanistan, Speaking to the damage being done to the pipelines in Iraq today.

Your right Bush never said the oil would pay for the war. In a speach in Feb. 2002 he said Iraqi oil would pay for the occupation and rebuilding. He never said it would pay for the war. My mistake, sorry.

If your not addressing the Israeli problem, you're not addressing the problems in the Middle East. It's the underlining issue in regards to everything in the region. You can not seperate it and solve anything.

Iraq may become our strong ally. Again I completely and honestly hope so. I fear several possiblities are more probable. One, that the insurgents will never stop, never give up and like we did in Nam we can win every battle and over time loose the war. Remember the insurgents think God's on their side and God wants them to fight. It's pretty big incentive to keep fighting when you think God wants you to. Two, that we will help get a government get in place and they will turn their backs on us. Wouldn't be the first time someone in that region took our assistance (the Taliban for example) when it suited them and then quickly turned away from us. Third, we help a new government start, but they are too weak and have too much internal strife to be of any real assistance in the region.
 
vauge said:
We have oil right here in the US and get most of our oil from Canada..yes..Canada. I don't understand why some folks truely believe it's about the oil. Besides, OPEC would be a wee bit upset if we took the oil.
That statement was true until May 2003. In an attempt to push oil prices several middle east countries, most notable the Saudi's, reduced their output. Thus pushing Canada above the Saudi's as out largest supplier. The Suadi's have since starting pumping a larger volume and have retaken the lead.

http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/May03imp.pdf

But the real issue isn't who we get the most from. The real issue is that we need a whole bunch of this stuff and no one place has the ability to supply us with that need. Both the Canadians and the Saudi's are each suppling around 17-18%. That leaves us about 65% short of what we need. According to the Fed's a shortage of 4-7% can be "extremely harmfull to the US economy." It is this fact that makes it so important to us to maintain stablity in any oil producing region/nation. That's why this is about the oil.

That's why I'm saying we need to get on with getting off of this stuff. It's going to happen sooner or later. By all accounts the oil due to run out, probably within the span of our lives.
 
Excellent find!! (It has been quite awhile since I looked it up)

That's why I'm saying we need to get on with getting off of this stuff. It's going to happen sooner or later. By all accounts the oil due to run out, probably within the span of our lives.
I agree we need off the stuff. I have seen research papers that have evidence that oil has come back 5-10 years later to places they thought where dry. The place where I grew up in New Mexico is a good place and point for this argument.

As for the "shortage" factor - any business person will tell you that you have to limit the supply for demand to make a profit. That is exactly what is happening.

But, every stinking time we try to drill in Alaska - the dems keep it from happening. So who is really at fault? The Saudi's, OPEC, or own own legislative branch?
 
vauge said:
But, every stinking time we try to drill in Alaska - the dems keep it from happening. So who is really at fault? The Saudi's, OPEC, or own own legislative branch?
Have you seen the numbers regarding the projected amount of oil reserves in the Artic Reserve region? It really isn't all that much and overall probably wouldn't have much of an effect on the US oil situation. It would create jobs and it would create revenue for the oil company's. But as for it being some solution to our oil shortages, it's not.

As for who's at fault you forgot one- our executive branch of government. And chances are it's a combination of all four.
 
IronTongue said:
We can't lose the war no matter what. If we lose, the insurgents take over Iraq, and then the citizens of Iraq would be in a REAL problem.

You've perfectly articulated the reason we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place, because if you do, failure is not an option. As Colin Powell warned Bush, "If you break it, you own it."

But failure is very much an option in Iraq. We're failing now. There is absolutely no gaurantee that with enough time and Iraqi casualties, insergent or not, that we're going to "win" there. That eventually "freedom and democracy" will ring (along with Haliburton's cash registers).

The best case scenario is a tenuous, unstable cease-fire. A tinderbox that could go off at any time. Remember that Iraq is an artificial construct carved up by the British after WWI. Iraq didn't just rise up organically. It's a coral of three ethnic factions. It's inherently unstable. Thus, as in Yugoslavia, it could very well be that an authoritarian regime like Saddam's was the only way to keep it together. Remove the iron lid and the whole place goes to hell. That's exactly what we're learning now, and what the British learned during their misadventure in Iraq. "Freedom and democracy" have already failed once there. There's every reason to believe it will fail again, no matter how good our intentions may be. [What is it the road to hell is paved with?] And failure is virtually gauranteed when you've got a criminally incompetent administration running the show. Eventually we'll have to ask ourselves the same question we asked in Viet Nam: How many Iraqis are we willing to kill to "liberate" them?
 
Yes, a lot of what you're saying concerns me as well. I fear we may well be able to win every battle and in the long run loose the war. Just as we did in Nam. I'm always amazed to hear arguements such as "well it's not the Iraqi people it's the insurgents" or "the average Iraq is damn glad we're there." There are so many fundamental inaccuracies with statements of this nature I'm not even sure where to begin.

For starters the population of Iraq can not be described in such general terms. This right and wrong, all or nothing, black and white thinking, generally leads to illogical conclusions. The make up of the Iraqi population is vast and varried, much like this nations. While a number, however small or large, may not be insurgents some most certainly are insurgents. So the the insurgents, at least in part, are the Iraqi people. Granted some of the insurgents have crossed broaders and come from other countries. These terrorist weren't there prior to our invasion. But they are there now and they are killing our troops and those of the Iraqi's loyal to the new government. I have never seen any hard numbers on the percentages regarding the nationalities of the insurgents. But everyone agrees they are made up of a multi-national coalition of sorts that includes many Iraqi's. Part of the reason for this is that the nation of Iraq, as you point out, has been carved up and consist of several groups with several religious and ethnic make ups. That leads to the Iraqi's fighting between themselves for power in the new governemt. And according to polls something like 80% of the average Iraqi disapproves of our occupation so you end up with a number of them fighting each other and us all at the same time.

Making this whole thing one big mess. A mess we've thrown our troops into and asked them to try and solve. By all probabilities it's an unsolvable situation. We learned this, or should have learned this, in Nam. Reagan forced us to learn this again in Beirut. The Soviets were taught this lesson in Afghanistan. And sadly Bush is taking us down this road again in Iraq.
 
I have an optimistic viewpoint on what's happening right now. I think there will one of two outcomes that the history books will talk about:

Lose - The U.S. cannot beat back the insurgency, casualties rise daily, and the American people favor retreat by a 60% to 40% ratio. The Bush administration is forced to pull it's troops out of Iraq, regardless of the thousands of lives lost and billions of dollars invested. As the insurgency takes control of the nation of Iraq and it's people, thousands of men, women, and children are killed as the terrorists force their way into power. Insurgents in the Iraqi military blow up entire platoons of men every day. The insuregents take over the country and we have an enemy more dangerous than Iran and North Korea put together.

Win - After months of fighting the insurgents after Iraqi elections took place, the Iraqi national guard along some small forces of US troops capture Al-zarqawi and sentence him to justice in the Iraqi court system. Eventually the insurrgents scatter or are killed by British coalitions soldiers around the borders. The U.S. military has locked down and secured the major cities and has been able to protect it's citizens, using tactics like not allowing cars into the city, and it's citizens are bussed into and out of the city to keep terrorists from getting in. In the early summer of 2005, the Iraqi president will declare victory over the insurgency as most U.S. forces exit the country. This major victory caused many low-level terrosit cells and operations to break down slowly, as members would turn in their units in exchange for not getting the death penalty. Sometime in winter 2005, Usama bin Laden is turned in as the most elite military team on the entire planet extracts him.


I like the win scenario.
 
Back
Top Bottom