• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

War in Iraq utterly pointless as a War on Terror

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
WTF has Iraq to do with 911 ?

Threats of Iraqi WMD were grossly exagerated so Bush & Blair could get the war they so longed for. Yes folks.. that means our fine upstanding Christian's Blair & Bush are total liars !
Apparently they choose to ignore the Bible's 'Thou Shall not Lie' when it suits them to do so, rather like Bin Laden who picks & chooses which bits of the Koran he chooses to follow & which bits he chooses to ignore.

The war in Iraq is simply inflaming muslims just like putting your boot into an ants nest. If you don't want to get bitten, then GTF out of it !
After all... did the whole world turn commi when you quit Nam ?.... Nope.. so you killed 2 million people, mostly women & children, for absolutely nothing !

Bush's phoney war on terror is self fullfilling. As long as you are there you will get attacked by people that aren't even a terrorist threat to mainland US. How many terrorist attacks have there been in USA since 911 due to Muslims ? .. none to my knowledge.
Bush's war is as phoney as the war on communism in the Americas was. Those countries trying to escape the fascist tyrrants installed by the CIA were never a threat to the USA. Just Like Saddam wasn't a threat to USA & didn't take part in 911.

What a friggin fuss about the 3k mostly yanks that died. A tragedy, but what must so many Iraqis now die when they had F... all to do with 911 ?
There is a 911 dead toll every day from malaria... mostly children but that doesn't matter of course cos they aren't God's chosen race...namely 'yanks'.

The war in Iraq is insane. It's all out of proportion to 911.. it's wholly inapropriate & it's doing nothing but inciting hate for the USA.

Why is it US presidents always have to be fighting a phoney war somewhere.. could it be a way to unite the USA & keep the jingos happy ?
You know.. you all have to have someone to hate to unite you. Well even in that respect it's having the opposite effect...it's backfired. What a friggin disaster !

One other thing.. the crusaders like Blair & Bush that extol the virtues of fighting terror where terror as such doesn't even exist, never put their own lives on the line do they ?

They're chicken Sh** t.

Have a nice day.
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
You might remember that John Kerry under Clinton's administration also thought there were WMDs in Iraq. At one point he was for going into Iraq. Thats why he lost in the election because he changed his position after he found out that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Also Iraq supports terrorists like the guys who flew the planes into the WTC. They would have continued to commit acts of terrorism, therefor we needed to go to the source Vis-a-vis Afghanistan and Iraq. The Vietnam War wasn't to stop communism it was to stop it from spreading.

Bush's phoney war on terror is self fullfilling. As long as you are there you will get attacked by people that aren't even a terrorist threat to mainland US. How many terrorist attacks have there been in USA since 911 due to Muslims ? .. none to my knowledge.
There haven't been any because brave soldigers have captured and stoped many of the terriortists on their turf. Exactly what the war was intended to do.

What a friggin fuss about the 3k mostly yanks that died. A tragedy, but what must so many Iraqis now die when they had F... all to do with 911 ?
The fuss about the US soldigers that died is that they died so you don't have to. Most innocent Iraqis who are killed, are killed by insurgence from Sadiua Arabia, Joradan, and Syria. The same people who plan terrorists attacks like 911 and car bombs. We are not fighting Iraqis we are fighting mostly people from other countries.

There is a 911 dead toll every day from malaria... mostly children but that doesn't matter of course cos they aren't God's chosen race...namely 'yanks'.
Actually today on the radio Bush was talking about giving a massive amount of aide to poor countries with starving children, because those countries are likely to become safe havens for terrorists. He is going to help them help themselves so they can help to stop terrorism in the future.

One other thing.. the crusaders like Blair & Bush that extol the virtues of fighting terror where terror as such doesn't even exist, never put their own lives on the line do they ?
Bush is leading the country and Blair is leading their country. How do you think they are going to fight anymore than they already are with a war on terror on their agenda?
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
"You might remember that John Kerry under Clinton's administration also thought there were WMDs in Iraq. At one point he was for going into Iraq. Thats why he lost in the election because he changed his position after he found out that there were no WMDs in Iraq. Also Iraq supports terrorists like the guys who flew the planes into the WTC. They would have continued to commit acts of terrorism, therefor we needed to go to the source Vis-a-vis Afghanistan and Iraq. The Vietnam War wasn't to stop communism it was to stop it from spreading."
Yes but even when you left Nam communisim didn't spread. Besides.. read some history.. you got into Nam cos the French were beaten. They deserved to be... why after all should the Vietnamese people have put up with a brutal French colonial rule... Shame Truman ignored Minns please for good accord with the west in 1945. How would you like the States to be colonised ? You'd fight for independance wouldn't you ?WTF were you doing killing 2 million people cos they didn't want to be under brutal French rule.. None of your F*****g business. Arrogance beyond words.
Besides I'm not interested in making party political issues out of it republicans v Democrat.. this is beyond that !


"There haven't been any because brave soldigers have captured and stoped many of the terriortists on their turf. Exactly what the war was intended to do."
No.. Bin Laden in Afganistan sending him under cover is what has done that. Not Iraq.

"The fuss about the US soldiers that died is that they died so you don't have to. Most innocent Iraqis who are killed, are killed by insurgence from Sadiua Arabia, Joradan, and Syria. The same people who plan terrorists attacks like 911 and car bombs. We are not fighting Iraqis we are fighting mostly people from other countries."

Yes but they are only there becuase you are there !

"Actually today on the radio Bush was talking about giving a massive amount of aide to poor countries with starving children, because those countries are likely to become safe havens for terrorists. He is going to help them help themselves so they can help to stop terrorism in the future."

Don't you think with a 911 every day from Malaria they need to stop that more than protect you blessed holy Americans from a terror threat that is exagerated & was mainly due tro your favouritism towards Jews becuase there are so many infuential ones in the USA. BTW I am not anti semite but you should have had a balanced ME policy.. not an anti arab one !

I look forward to your answer to my question of.. would you like to be colonised ?
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Messerschmitt said:
The Vietnam War wasn't to stop communism it was to stop it from spreading.
What kind of government does Vietnam have today?

There haven't been any because brave soldigers have captured and stoped many of the terriortists on their turf. Exactly what the war was intended to do.
At what cost? Do you know how many people were left homeless in Afghanistan? Do you know how many died of exposure in starvation after we bombed the hell out of everything? How many out of the near million finally bought in to the terrorist propaganda?

Actually today on the radio Bush was talking about giving a massive amount of aide to poor countries with starving children, because those countries are likely to become safe havens for terrorists. He is going to help them help themselves so they can help to stop terrorism in the future.
Umm... Tony Blair asked Bush for $25 billion to help poor countries, and Bush responded with $674 million. I would call that kind of money massive, though it's not exactly what's needed.
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
No.. Bin Laden in Afganistan sending him under cover is what has done that. Not Iraq.
You obvisously feel hurt I can see that you let your emotions run wild on that last post, so let me reitorate the reasons that have drawn us to to war in the middle east. "They" are not their because we are there. Terrorists have been in Iraq and Afganastan since the late 80's. Along with Bin Laden's funding Al qaeda grew and began to plan attacks on the United States. insurgence flooded Iraq and Saddam did nothing to stop them because he doesn't like the US either and he even helped Al qaeda. Then 911 happened and most likely we would have had more terrorists attacks if it weren't for our brave men and women stoping them in their home towns before they attacked you and I back home. WE ARE IN IRAQ TO STOP TERRORISTS.

Don't you think with a 911 every day from Malaria they need to stop that more than protect you blessed holy Americans from a terror threat that is exagerated & was mainly due tro your favouritism towards Jews becuase there are so many infuential ones in the USA. BTW I am not anti semite but you should have had a balanced ME policy.. not an anti arab one !
Maybe you skipped what I last said here it is again. Actually today on the radio Bush was talking about giving a massive amount of aide to poor countries with starving children, because those countries are likely to become safe havens for terrorists. He is going to help them help themselves so they can help to stop terrorism in the future.

I do know my history. I think you should reread your chapter on Viet Nam or you should get a better book because obviously you haven't the slightest clue as to what you are talking about when it comes to Viet Nam. Communism did spread after Viet Nam and we again tried to stop the spread. Why don't you do a little homework on you research and then we will talk. I do watch all and read all types of news, but I don't read or watch any who clearly sympathize with people who want to kill me.

As to answering your question it is incredibly stupid even for you, and I refuse to answer something so stupid.
 
Last edited:

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Messerschmitt said:
You obvisously feel hurt I can see that you let your emotions run wild on that last post, so let me reitorate the reasons that have drawn us to to war in the middle east. "They" are not their because we are there. Terrorists have been in Iraq and Afganastan since the late 80's. Along with Bin Laden's funding Al qaeda grew and began to plan attacks on the United States. insurgence flooded Iraq and Saddam did nothing to stop them because he doesn't like the US either and he even helped Al qaeda. Then 911 happened and most likely we would have had more terrorists attacks if it weren't for our brave men and women stoping them in their home towns before they attacked you and I back home. WE ARE IN IRAQ TO STOP TERRORISTS.
Where did bin Laden get his training? Do you have some sort of proof of this al Qaeda-Hussein connection? I'm sure GW and Rumsfeld would love to hear about it.

Maybe you skipped what I last said here it is again. Actually today on the radio Bush was talking about giving a massive amount of aide to poor countries with starving children, because those countries are likely to become safe havens for terrorists. He is going to help them help themselves so they can help to stop terrorism in the future.
I addressed this in my other post, I believe it was #4?

I do know my history. I think you should reread your chapter on Viet Nam or you should get a better book because obviously you haven't the slightest clue as to what you are talking about when it comes to Viet Nam. Communism did spread after Viet Nam and we again tried to stop the spread. Why don't you do a little homework on you research and then we will talk. I do watch all and read all types of news, but I don't read or watch any who clearly sympathize with people who want to kill me.
Do you think it would be better to annihilate them from existence, or to make them not want to kill you?
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
"You obvisously feel hurt I can see that you let your emotions run wild on that last post, so let me reitorate the reasons that have drawn us to to war in the middle east. "They" are not their because we are there. Terrorists have been in Iraq and Afganastan since the late 80's. Along with Bin Laden's funding Al qaeda grew and began to plan attacks on the United States. insurgence flooded Iraq and Saddam did nothing to stop them because he doesn't like the US either and he even helped Al qaeda. Then 911 happened and most likely we would have had more terrorists attacks if it weren't for our brave men and women stoping them in their home towns before they attacked you and I back home. WE ARE IN IRAQ TO STOP TERRORISTS."

I didnt' dispute their presence in Afganistan. BTW how about violence begats violence ? Don't you think that's one reason they are attacking you becuase you are attacking them, not to mention locking their families up in that Abu Graib dump without trial ?
You see why don't you ask why they so hate the west ?
Your biased pro Israeli & anti arab policy has something to do with it.
Where is the evidence that Al qaeda were funded or aided by Saddam ?
He had oil & property developer billions.. he didn't need help from Saddam.

"Maybe you skipped what I last said here it is again. Actually today on the radio Bush was talking about giving a massive amount of aide to poor countries with starving children, because those countries are likely to become safe havens for terrorists. He is going to help them help themselves so they can help to stop terrorism in the future."
Bush spends $200 + Billion on a war in the wrong country & $200 million on stopping poverty... Great !
Get that in perspective.. a thousand times as much on killing machines than vaccines & the like. Is this the way for the great liberator & purveyor of justice to carry on ?

"I do know my history. I think you should reread your chapter on Viet Nam or you should get a better book because obviously you haven't the slightest clue as to what you are talking about when it comes to Viet Nam. Communism did spread after Viet Nam"
Where did it spread ?
& no.. you don't know your 20th century history. You obviously know nothing of the history of indochina through the 20th century.

"As to answering your question it is incredibly stupid even for you, and I refuse to answer something so stupid."
That is a pathetic cop out ! You can't answer it becuase you know you would fight anyone that tried to colonise your country just as the Vietnamses fought the French. Then when they justly had them beaten you stuck your oars in & killed 2 million.
Pal if you think that's right & just then maybe you ought to let your emotions run on & try being a thinking human & empathise with their plight.
I'll tell you one other thing I'm no commie lover or no leftie. I'm a business man.. but I do accept that the west is guilty of some attrocious policies & crimes against the rest of the world.
Until you come clean on that & elevate yourself above your Fox news level of education, then you just aren't being honest. Those policies are no good from a humanitarian point of view or in terms of world commerce.
 
Last edited:

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It was generally accepted that Iraq had very little connection with Al Queda, and most islamic terrorist organization. His regime was not islamic, thus the terrorists were a threat to him. Remember the US actually supported him during the Iran-Iraq war (he was seen as a strategic ally against the ISLAMIC extremists who had overthrown the Shah of Iran).

Why the US chose Iraq to be the starting point for the war on terror, i dont nkow.

Now the war on terror in itself is a whole other debate. I personally agree somewhat with Robin in that you can't fight violence with violence. I think understanding why the Arab population despises us can be a starting point. It certainly isn't envy. I'll argue that Islam and "jihad" isn't the main reason (its just used as a tool). It has to do a lot more with our policies in the region -- Israel (which is also a huge debate), our ties to dictatorships and corrupt rulers in the region, economic policies and so on. These policies have angered a lot of mid east people. And out of anger and frustration, fundementalism and terrorism starts spreading.

I think fixing this mentality is too delicate of a situation to just go into a country kill the old regime, stick in a democracy, and hope the people love us. What other route we can take, I have no idea.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Gandhi>Bush said:
Where did bin Laden get his training? Do you have some sort of proof of this al Qaeda-Hussein connection? I'm sure GW and Rumsfeld would love to hear about it.
Well they obviously have and have repeatedly reminded you of it, why do you ignore it. But forget this administration which you would refuse to believe just to maintain your misinformed position. How about the previous administration which went into federal court and, under threat of punishment for filing a false affidavidt and false indicitment did in fact indict Bin Laden in 1998 after the embassy bombings and stated in that indictment

" In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

Now you tell me what you claim the Bush administration knew different, how they knew it and where they got it. You tell me why you were not claiming the Clinton administration was lying and why Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry et al all supported the Clinton administrations bombing of Iraq and stated thier belief that Bin Laden was working with Iraq and that Iraq was a serious and growing threat. What changed the day Bush was sworn in?
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
nkgupta80
Nice post.. I agree with you
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Saddam may not have given direct aid to insurgence, but he sure didn't try to stop it.

I didnt' dispute their presence in Afganistan. BTW how about violence begats violence ? Don't you think that's one reason they are attacking you becuase you are attacking them
I don't think you understand what I am saying. Terrorists attacked us on 911 ok. Later in an audio tape Bin Laden and Al Queda claimed resposibility for the attcak. Let me ask you a question. What would you do if you were the president when 911 happened? The United States has to find terrorists before they strike in the United States. That is the main reason for war. Iraq just so happens to have a large infastructure for terrorists.Where else is a large concentration of terrorists residing? "BTW how about violence begats violence?" Do you expect America to be at the mercy of future attacks? After 911 terrorists attacks sprung up all over because terrorists thought that they could commit such acts and get away with them without conciquence.

Your biased pro Israeli & anti arab policy has something to do with it.
Why do I have to like Arab policy? I wouldn't have a bias if they didn't think I was an infadel and needed to be killed.

I didn't "cop out" on answering the question because the answer is soo odbivious that you already know the answer and I need not answer it. Thats why I said it was a dumb question to ask.

"Bush spends $200 + Billion on a war in the wrong country & $200 million on stopping poverty... Great !
Get that in perspective.. a thousand times as much on killing machines than vaccines & the like. Is this the way for the great liberator & purveyor of justice to carry on ?"

Thoes killing machines are used to kill terrorists and to protect soldigers which in turn protects you. At lest we are attempting to help out countries in need, what good does compairing do to help people in poor countries, nothing.

Where did it spread ?
Maybe you can recall when the USSR tried to spread to Afghanistan, and the US supported the effort to fight the USSR back almost just like Viet Nam.

& no.. you don't know your 20th century history. You obviously know nothing of history in general.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
nkgupta80 said:
It was generally accepted that Iraq had very little connection with Al Queda, and most islamic terrorist organization. His regime was not islamic, thus the terrorists were a threat to him.
No it was not. Most intelligence agency's correctly believed he and Saddam and bin Laden were working together and had agreed to help each other. The Bush adminsitration had clearly laid out the evidence as did the 9/11 commission, the Senate hearings and the Kay report. But since you don't seem to want to believe them how about the previous administration who in 1998 indicted bin Laden filing that indictment in a federal court under threat or perjury. In that indictment they cleraly stated
" In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

No ties?

The Clinton administration bombed the pharmacuticle factory in the Sudan because they believe Saddam and bin Laden were attempting to produce WMD there and every high level official from that administration who testified before the 9/11 commission confirmed that they STILL believed that to be the case.

No ties?

Richard Clarke, the darling of the left, maintains that Saddam was offering bin Laden safe haven in Iraq after the embassy bombings and wrote to Sandy Burger that that is where he would head if he got wind they were looking for him in Pakistan.

Remember the US actually supported him during the Iran-Iraq war (he was seen as a strategic ally against the ISLAMIC extremists who had overthrown the Shah of Iran).
No we didn't support him, we sided with him publicly but secertly gave intelligence to both sides hoping they would fight to a draw and end the conflict. But then did you expect us to side with Iraq? A country which had recently committed and act of war against us?


Why the US chose Iraq to be the starting point for the war on terror, i dont nkow.
Since we didn't no wonder you don't know.

Now the war on terror in itself is a whole other debate. I personally agree somewhat with Robin in that you can't fight violence with violence.
Really? It seems to have worked against the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. It seems to have worked in the Civil War. I could name more but I think you get the point.

But thank you for confirming exactly what Karl Rove was speaking of the other day.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Mechershmitt
You still haven't asnswered my question. Why did you interfere when the Vietnamese wanted to be free from brutal French colonial rule ?
Would you not fight colonisers of the USA ?
Why should Vietnamese not fight for independance in 1950's ?
Show me your knowledge of Indo China history. Where did you study it ?.... Fox News University of glib propaganda... ha ha ha ha.
USA even made Nam war happen by pretending you were attacked in Tonkin Gulf just like Hitler pretended to be attacked by Poles before invading them !
So USA like Nazis eh ?

Stinger
Don't be ridiculous Japan & Germany declared war on the USA. Saddam did not & was in no way anything like the same kind of threat to you. After all he was your old buddy against Iran. Pity you waited until 1942 before you decided to fight the real threat & only then when Hitler declared war on you !
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
No it was not. Most intelligence agency's correctly believed he and Saddam and bin Laden were working together and had agreed to help each other. The Bush adminsitration had clearly laid out the evidence as did the 9/11 commission, the Senate hearings and the Kay report. But since you don't seem to want to believe them how about the previous administration who in 1998 indicted bin Laden filing that indictment in a federal court under threat or perjury. In that indictment they cleraly stated
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

No ties?
Nope.

The Clinton administration bombed the pharmacuticle factory in the Sudan because they believe Saddam and bin Laden were attempting to produce WMD there and every high level official from that administration who testified before the 9/11 commission confirmed that they STILL believed that to be the case.

No ties?
They were wrong weren't they?

Richard Clarke, the darling of the left, maintains that Saddam was offering bin Laden safe haven in Iraq after the embassy bombings and wrote to Sandy Burger that that is where he would head if he got wind they were looking for him in Pakistan.
And how did that lead turn out?

No we didn't support him, we sided with him publicly but secertly gave intelligence to both sides hoping they would fight to a draw and end the conflict. But then did you expect us to side with Iraq? A country which had recently committed and act of war against us?
What is support if not selling chemical weapons? How can you say we didn't support Saddam? We publicly supported Saddam. We gave both sides weapons because we wanted to make money. Cha-ching.

Really? It seems to have worked against the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. It seems to have worked in the Civil War. I could name more but I think you get the point.
WWII was violence that was a direct result of the violence in WWI. We screwed Germany so bad after WWI that they went along with the first fascist anti-semite that narrowed his mustache. WWII could have been prevented, but we let there people sit there and suffer. Kind of like some of the starving people of the Middle East. They turn to violence because they think that that works. You're showing them that it is.

But thank you for confirming exactly what Karl Rove was speaking of the other day.
There is a difference between not resorting to a violent solution and offering therapy. Understanding the actions of the enemy can prevent further damages. Attacking the motives of terrorism rather than the practitioners is a much more logical way of both fighting and winning this war.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
That is the main reason for war. Iraq just so happens to have a large infastructure for terrorists.Where else is a large concentration of terrorists residing?
Hah... Iraq definately did not have a large number of terrorists. And FYI, consider Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. These are the countries who have had the largest concentration of terrorists. Two of which are our strategic allies... none of which are different from Iraq in atrocities committed.


from what I've read and heard about the ties between Saddam and Al Queda, most of the accepted information shows that the relationship was very vague and mostly financial. I never said he wasn't our enemy. He just isn't a large part of the terrorist network (especially compared to other regimes in the region). The terrorist network could very well live without Saddam's regime ever having existed.

On Iraq being the starting point, My Mistake. I completely forgot about Afghanistan.


Really? It seems to have worked against the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy. It seems to have worked in the Civil War. I could name more but I think you get the point.

I said that "I agree somewhat". I should have expanded on this. I am not an idealist who believes everything can be solved through peaceful means. But remember, we're not fighting against a specific regime or nation. We're fighting against individuals and more so an ideology. I just don't agree that going into countries and getting rid of a regime should be our main tactic in the war against terror. It just doesn't help fight the ideology.

And like I said in order to get to the root of the problem we gotta look at what these terrorists are fighting for, and why the general population over there resents us. Very delicate, and very complicated. WE can go around killing terrorists, sure. But new terrorists will always pop up. I mean, lets just say we exterminate all the existing terrorist networks. If we then continue blindly, and make the same mistakes that cause the mid east to resent us, new terrorist organizations will constantly form.

After 911 terrorists attacks sprung up all over because terrorists thought that they could commit such acts and get away with them without conciquence.
Terrorism has been going on long before 911. There wasn't any surge in terrorism after 911, but there hasn't been much of a drop.

Why do I have to like Arab policy? I wouldn't have a bias if they didn't think I was an infadel and needed to be killed.
Thats the problem, this isn't the underlying reason why they hate us and we gotta understand that. They twist Islam so that they have justification to attack us. But why they hate us in the first place, I've already outlined.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Speaking of Iran.. Let's not forget that nasty regime the US backed with the Shah & his notorious secret police.
History teaches us that the USA isn't interested in people's liberty or human rights. That's not why you are in Iraq. If it were then why did the USA via the people like that slimeball Kissenger & the CIA overthrow so many democratically elected presidents in the Americas then install fascists like Pinochet ?
Why becuase the USA likes any SOB as long as he's their's. You no longer considered Saddam to be yours so you got shot of him. The plight of the Iraqi people & the war on terror has nothing to do with it !
Sanctions backed by the USA more zealously than any other country & for longer, killed more people than Saddam. Most of them were kids.
Here's your bedfellows Mechershmitt & Stinger... Dictators all supported by the USA:-
Abacha, General Sani Nigeria
Amin, Idi Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal Brunei
Botha, P.W. South Africa
Branco, General Humberto Brazil
Cedras, Raoul Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel Liberia
Duvalier, Francois Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco Spain
Hitler, Adolf Germany
Hassan II Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko Zaire
Montt, General Efrain Rios
Guatemala
Noriega, General Manuel Panama
Ozal, Turgut Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza Iran
Papadopoulos, George Greece
Park Chung Hee South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto Chile
Pol Pot Cambodia
Rabuka, General Sitiveni Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios Guatemala
Salassie, Halie Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr. Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr. Nicaragua
Smith, Ian Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo Paraguay
Suharto, General Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed Pakistan
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
nkgupta80 said:
I am not an idealist who believes everything can be solved through peaceful means. But remember, we're not fighting against a specific regime or nation. We're fighting against individuals and more so an ideology. I just don't agree that going into countries and getting rid of a regime should be our main tactic in the war against terror. It just doesn't help fight the ideology.
Too True mate.. you summed it all up nicely there
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
To Robin: Let me start off by saying that you still don't know your history. End of French occupation 1956. Start of Viet Nam 1965 with the Rolling Thunder campaign. We didn't interfere The French occupation and Viet Nam are two different events.

USA even made Nam war happen by pretending you were attacked in Tonkin Gulf just like Hitler pretended to be attacked by Poles before invading them !
As well as we are on the topic of fiction let me bring up one of my cospriacy therories. The one where all the Liberals were droped off by an alien spaceship and pretend to know a whole lot of nothing.

Don't be ridiculous Japan & Germany declared war on the USA. Saddam did not & was in no way anything like the same kind of threat to you. After all he was your old buddy against Iran. Pity you waited until 1942 before you decided to fight the real threat & only then when Hitler declared war on you !
I think you shouldn't be so ridiculous OF COURSE JAPAN & GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON US you REALLY REALLY REALLY must not know your history. FYI after Japan declared war on the US with the bombing of Pearl harbor Germany soon followed with their declaration of war. The only reason why we didn't jump into the war sooner is because the left was against fighting a war and it gave Roosevelt a heck of a time trying to rally support for the war.

And nkgupta80 if Iraq isn't full of insurgency then who are we fighting in Iraq?Clowns perhaps. Of couse Iraq is full to the brim with terrorists thats why we are there duh!

Robin why don't you tell me what resources did you use to back up your claim of the Dictators who are all supported by the USA.
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Mecherschmitt
"To Robin: Let me start off by saying that you still don't know your history. End of French occupation 1956. Start of Viet Nam 1965 with the Rolling Thunder campaign. We didn't interfere The French occupation and Viet Nam are two different events."

After French defeat in Dienbienphu you should have left the Vietnamese to their own devices. What did you do ?... install a despotic puppet dictator in S.Nam. I ask.. really is that the way to promote the great freedoms on offer from the west that are supposed to be so much better than Communism ?
Christ then look at the wicked things you did.. Pinkville, dioxin, carpet bombing, phantom & skyhawk pilots napalming villages saying 'they are just gooks man'.
Mechershcmitt you need to take a look into your soul of you have one. You can't tell me that was the way to make the world a better place.

Tonkin gulf WAS a ruse... if you have to bring aliens into it to disprove it then maybe you need help !

"I think you shouldn't be so ridiculous OF COURSE JAPAN & GERMANY DECLARED WAR ON US you REALLY REALLY REALLY must not know your history. FYI after Japan declared war on the US with the bombing of Pearl harbor Germany soon followed with their declaration of war."
1st you patronise me then decide I need a lesson in ABC of history !

"The only reason why we didn't jump into the war sooner is because the left was against fighting a war and it gave Roosevelt a heck of a time trying to rally support for the war."

What ! .... Lindenberg was so right wing he was practically a Nazi & he was against the war so don't just make out it was lefties against US participating in WWII.

"And nkgupta80 if Iraq isn't full of insurgency then who are we fighting in Iraq?Clowns perhaps. Of couse Iraq is full to the brim with terrorists thats why we are there duh "
Where is the evidence these 'insurgents' were ever going to be a threat to mainland USA ?
Besides how do you help recruit people into becoming insurgents ?
Give their land to the Jews.. or lock their family members up in Abu Ghraib.. or kill many times more Iraqis than Americans were killed in 911.
Mate you have to ask why you are so hated. I'm no lover of terrorists. They suck.. but in the end they are just as brainwashed & self righteous as guys like you.
The USA has stampeded into Iraq like a stampeding Elephant.. only it's stampeded into the wrong country.
I'm off to ZZ land now. It's 1.45 am in UK !
Good night
 
Last edited:

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
"And nkgupta80 if Iraq isn't full of insurgency then who are we fighting in Iraq?Clowns perhaps. Of couse Iraq is full to the brim with terrorists thats why we are there duh "

Bush administration itself said that terrorists are pouring into Iraq from the borders. THe terrorists we are fighting in iraq, were not terrorists before we intervened. We inadverntenly fomented terrorism in iraq. Civilians as we say accidently got killed in the fight: collateral damage. But the families of those killed civilians (from bombings and etc.) don't think they're loved ones are collateral damage. They're just angry, so they turn to terrorism. And these civilians-turned-terrorists are supported by foreign fundementalist and extremist groups (which by the ways dont have their headquarters in Iraq).
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
"The only reason why we didn't jump into the war sooner is because the left was against fighting a war and it gave Roosevelt a heck of a time trying to rally support for the war."

It wasn't so cut and dry right vs. left during those times as it is now.

Anyways, remember most of the people who supported Germany in our country was the right wing who saw Germany as an ally against communism. It's pretty hard to get a democratic country like ours to commit to war unless the majority of the people feel its in their country's interest and protection. BTW, Roosevelt was a lefty, and he wanted to go to war.
 

Messerschmitt

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
Tonkin gulf WAS a ruse... if you have to bring aliens into it to disprove it then maybe you need help !
Ok if Tonkin gulf WAS a ruse then there is proof Right? Give me your proof, oh wait you can't because THATS a conspriacy just like the one I made up dealing with aliens. Listen just because you can make up some junk doesn't mean it really happend. Your not right face it fighting fact with conspriacy just doesn't cut it and why are we even on this topic. I'll tell you why because your were proven wrong in the first few posts so you needed to bring in something that you might be right on. Just like you are doing in this quote below.

What ! .... Lindenberg was so right wing he was practically a Nazi & he was against the war so don't just make out it was lefties against US participating in WWII.
What does this have to do with the Iraq war? Nothing, you were cornered and needed to find a way to change the subject eg the quote above.

As to me not having a soul you need to come up with some better come backs bud.

If you bring up more conspriacy theories then you have no argument for the Iraq war because that would be made up BS.

And nkgupta80 you right about preWW2, but thats not the topic.

Bush administration itself said that terrorists are pouring into Iraq from the borders. THe terrorists we are fighting in iraq, were not terrorists before we intervened. We inadverntenly fomented terrorism in iraq.
No we didn't form terrorism in Iraq. Iraq is just a safe haven for insurgence thats why we are there.

(which by the ways dont have their headquarters in Iraq).
Ok where is the HQ for terrorists? Tell me so as I can tell the military and make more progress for the US. Call them whatever you want they still think that we are all infidels and that we should all be killed.
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
robin said:
Stinger
Don't be ridiculous Japan & Germany declared war on the USA.
So what? You said violence never solved anything. Wrong, violence has often solved things throughout history. It most certainly solve the problem with the Nazi's and the Imperial Japanese.



robin said:
Saddam did not & was in no way anything like the same kind of threat to you.
But a threat nonetheless and it was violence that solved the problem of Saddam in Kuwait and ultimately a Saddam who would not comply with the UN or the cease fire.

robin said:
After all he was your old buddy against Iran.
I'm sorry but what exactly do you mean by "my old buddy"? I never met the man and doubted he would have ever been my buddy. I REALLY know the leadership in Iran would never have been since they had committed an act of war against my country. What folly if you are suggesting that the US should have supported Iran in a war right after they had committed such an act against us.


robin said:
Pity you waited until 1942 before you decided to fight the real threat & only then when Hitler declared war on you !
Pity Europe which was far more a world power than the US at the time let Hitler get away with his power grabs and flaunting of peace accords like it did. Just like the left wanted to let Saddam get away with it. Fortuniately we had Bush in office who had the will to stop him, too bad he was not President in 1939, Hitler may have been stopped then instead of later.

It is curious how you fault Bush for stopped Saddam when he did and then turn around a fault the US for not stopping Hitler earlier. Quite hypocritical.
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
hmm, terrorist breeding grounds? places we found in afghanistan where angry, desperate naiive kids are trained in islamic fundementalism, and trained to be lethal. Places that are also found in abundance in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, all of which are brutal Islamic theocracies. Terrorist groups are far more welcome in these nations than Saddam's crazy secular dictatorship. These are what I call headquarters for terrorists, and the US knows about this. The world knows about this. Why not attack these nations?

Pakistan has nukes, and a very unstable government (one that has been constantly overthrown since the countries creation). The military governments taht arise in this country are corrupt and often work with the fundementalist groups that have a monopoly in these countries, in the hope of not being overthrown. Why not rave about this country. It's an Islamic fundementalist government, with WMD's, and its been known to give tons of DIRECT support and fuel terrorism (esp in Kashmir), so why not attack it. Instead the US gives Pakistan 2 billion dollars, and maintains the country as a strategic ally.......

Saudi Arabia, country of Osama Bin Laden, and majority of terrorists. Enough said.

Iraq was not known to harbor terrorists. If it did, it was very few. All claims that the US made (not just the BUsh administration) have been proven inconclusive or vague.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
No it was not. Most intelligence agency's correctly believed he and Saddam and bin Laden were working together and had agreed to help each other. The Bush adminsitration had clearly laid out the evidence as did the 9/11 commission, the Senate hearings and the Kay report. But since you don't seem to want to believe them how about the previous administration who in 1998 indicted bin Laden filing that indictment in a federal court under threat or perjury. In that indictment they cleraly stated
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

No ties?



Gandhi>Bush said:
ROFL really deep reply there, then explain the statement from the indictment the Clinton administration entered into federal court and the testimony of his former Cabinet once again verifying Saddam and bin Laden were tied to the pharmicuticle/weapon factory in Sudan.

Then you can try to spin away the following

Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?

Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's?

Mohammed Atta's unexplained visits to Prague in 2000, and his alleged visit there in April 2001 which — notwithstanding the 9/11 Commission's dismissal of it (based on interviewing exactly zero relevant witnesses) — the Czechs have not retracted?

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

Saddam’s ten years of harboring of 1993 World Trade Center bomber Abdul Rahman Yasin?

All documented by Stephen Hayes in his book the connection

No ties? What folly.


They were wrong weren't they?
You certainly haven't shown that they were.


Quote:
Richard Clarke, the darling of the left, maintains that Saddam was offering bin Laden safe haven in Iraq after the embassy bombings and wrote to Sandy Burger that that is where he would head if he got wind they were looking for him in Pakistan.


And how did that lead turn out?
Nothing to discount it's veracity has been presented.




What is support if not selling chemical weapons?
Since we didn't.

How can you say we didn't support Saddam?
We supported both sides in hopes of a standstill and a cessation of hostilities.

How can you cry that we didn't support Iran, a country that had committed a grevious act of war against us?


We publicly supported Saddam.
So what? What does that have to do with today? Hint: nothing.
We gave both sides weapons because we wanted to make money. Cha-ching.
No we did it for exactly what I said. Money was trivial.



WWII was violence
That solved volence, cha-ching.



There is a difference between not resorting to a violent solution and offering therapy. Understanding the actions of the enemy can prevent further damages. Attacking the motives of terrorism rather than the practitioners is a much more logical way of both fighting and winning this war.
As I said you prove Karl Rove was correct. Thankfully you and those who think like you are not in power.
 
Top Bottom