PDA

View Full Version : Iraq War: Fail or necessary?



Irish Guerilla
07-26-2008, 10:53 AM
ok i know some hate meh already because i am the brother of irish rebel and now some of you maybe will even hate me more,but i have to ask.
what do you think about this war?

Irish Rebel
07-26-2008, 10:58 AM
iraq war:well bringing down saddam hussein might be correct,but for the rest of this war...dont know what to say

AppleShark
07-26-2008, 11:04 AM
You probably should have posted this in the "FRIENDS" thread. It belong there.

TimTaylor
07-26-2008, 11:13 AM
I would say it definitely did help the Iraqi people.

It wasn't completely required to go into Iraq. We went in thinking they had a WOMD program. What we found were simply plans and ideas for a WOMD, nothing more.

However it did benefit Iraqi people by a big margin. Did you know the death rate was higher before the war? When Saddam was taken out of command (when the USA entered), the death rate lowered in Iraq. Now the most dangerous place in Iraq is a lot more safer.

Plus we managed to get groups that were allied with Al Queda to join our side.

Mammal
07-26-2008, 11:55 AM
What about iran? :O

May be a war there soon?

imkrazie
07-26-2008, 12:03 PM
We went in thinking they had a WOMD program. What we found were simply plans and ideas for a WOMD, nothing more.

Actually, Iraq did have a WOMD program...luckily we got in there before it really took off.

We found 500 tons of low-grade uranium mainly to be used in nuclear power plants but they can be enriched to (what I assume is high-grade uranium) for bombs, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html

GrayFox
07-26-2008, 12:07 PM
The begging was necessary, but to stay around this long is wasting away.

Italian Jew
07-26-2008, 12:15 PM
Actually, Iraq did have a WOMD program...luckily we got in there before it really took off.

We found 500 tons of low-grade uranium mainly to be used in nuclear power plants but they can be enriched to (what I assume is high-grade uranium) for bombs, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html

Just because there was yellowcake uranium does not mean they had a weapons program...

Omar
07-26-2008, 02:48 PM
Actually, Iraq did have a WOMD program...luckily we got in there before it really took off.

We found 500 tons of low-grade uranium mainly to be used in nuclear power plants but they can be enriched to (what I assume is high-grade uranium) for bombs, etc.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/07/iraq.uranium/index.html

Bull..... wait for it...... SHIT

AppleShark
07-26-2008, 03:24 PM
Omar, go play with your turtles/360. Or you could just go back to "pumpin' yo guns".

Repeat
07-26-2008, 04:22 PM
Just because there was yellowcake uranium does not mean they had a weapons program...

And just because there is smoke doesn't always mean there is fire...but it usually does.


I bet we'd find some interesting things if we were to go for a little dig in their desert...just sayin'...just sayin'...

LegalSmash
07-26-2008, 05:16 PM
And just because there is smoke doesn't always mean there is fire...but it usually does.


I bet we'd find some interesting things if we were to go for a little dig in their desert...just sayin'...just sayin'...

Yellowcake is indicative. We arrest people in the US for paraphenelia like pipes related to drug crimes. I think that the war has ousted a dangerous, blood thirsty imbecile, but we should have killed him back in 1991, as for WMDs, see the US code sections referenced in a previous posting regarding this, we consider anything from a hand grenade up to be a weapon capable of mass destruction. Lastly, Both iran and iraq used chem weapons in their little scuffle back in the 80s, there was a preponderance of the evidence that it was likely that they had SOMETHING.... even if not, 4K dead and 16000 injured, counting both disabling and ambulatory injuries is NOT bad for a 5 going on 6 year conflict, by this time in Vietnam we had already lost nearly 30K.





Omar, I mean this with all sincerity: die in a fire.

Omar
07-26-2008, 05:33 PM
Yellowcake is indicative. We arrest people in the US for paraphenelia like pipes related to drug crimes. I think that the war has ousted a dangerous, blood thirsty imbecile, but we should have killed him back in 1991, as for WMDs, see the US code sections referenced in a previous posting regarding this, we consider anything from a hand grenade up to be a weapon capable of mass destruction. Lastly, Both iran and iraq used chem weapons in their little scuffle back in the 80s, there was a preponderance of the evidence that it was likely that they had SOMETHING.... even if not, 4K dead and 16000 injured, counting both disabling and ambulatory injuries is NOT bad for a 5 going on 6 year conflict, by this time in Vietnam we had already lost nearly 30K.





Omar, I mean this with all sincerity: die in a fire.


Go to hell. the US didnt do any good to iraq. u maybe killed saddam, but that made it even worse, now theres suicide bombers n rapist every where back then it was car jackers and clothes stealers. (be leave me some dudes actually steal clothes from other ppl lol.)
Legal go to hell... GO TO HELL!.. ok im done.

barackobama
07-26-2008, 05:38 PM
Bringing up the IRAQ war = FAIL.

LegalSmash
07-26-2008, 05:40 PM
Go to hell. the US didnt do any good to iraq. u maybe killed saddam, but that made it even worse, now theres suicide bombers n rapist every where back then it was car jackers and clothes stealers. (be leave me some dudes actually steal clothes from other ppl lol.)
Legal go to hell... GO TO HELL!.. ok im done.

First, you interjected yourself into the proceedings. I'm simply telling you the same as the other person... also please note:

For a 15 year old, you argue like you are 5 and mentally retarded, and I think it goes beyond any language barrier.

I'm fairly certain rapists and Islamic extremists existed prior to the US coming in and wiping up the Hussein boys. Crime existed in iraq prior to the US arriving, it just was not as prevalent in the public eye, probably also due to media control... again, please, go learn something before you say something, because somewhere near 85% of the time, you sound like an ignorant ass.

Omar
07-26-2008, 05:42 PM
First, you interjected yourself into the proceedings. I'm simply telling you the same as the other person... also please note:

For a 15 year old, you argue like you are 5 and mentally retarded, and I think it goes beyond any language barrier.

I'm fairly certain rapists and Islamic extremists existed prior to the US coming in and wiping up the Hussein boys. Crime existed in iraq prior to the US arriving, it just was not as prevalent in the public eye, probably also due to media control... again, please, go learn something before you say something, because somewhere near 85% of the time, you sound like an ignorant ass.

U WON THE INTERNET ARGUMENT!! HOLY SHIT... want a medal? or is the boner enough for u.. srsly u cant prove that Us made iraq better.
no matter what... oh and im not ignorant. i just dont like u.

barackobama
07-26-2008, 05:46 PM
Well, when Saddam was in power, IRAQ was not such a mess, if they just left it alone, a couple 100 people would of died a year under the power of Saddam, now the US/UK came in, 1000s of people are dieing every month/year!

Omar
07-26-2008, 05:49 PM
Well, when Saddam was in power, IRAQ was not such a mess, if they just left it alone, a couple 100 people would of died a year under the power of Saddam, now the US/UK came in, 1000s of people are dieing every month/year!

Exactly.

AppleShark
07-26-2008, 05:58 PM
Like lulz Roxam totally pwnt Legal Smash omgz I thought you were smart or something! Omar's power level currently appears to be over 9,000!!

But on a more serious note, Omar, you came into a thread that did not merit its own existence and proceeded to start an argument with anyone reading. You can't spew crap like that and not expect a harshly worded response. Consider yourself lucky it was Legal who took the matter into his hands - and did it with a certain finesse. You managed to make one of the weakest points I have ever witnessed, and amazingly still had time to butcher the English language in the process.

Your views on the Iraq war are irrelevant in this situation - my problem with you is your counter-argument (or lack thereof). As soon as the first person to reply cut through you like a knife through butter, you retreated back into your shell (turtle pun). You must have seen your post inciting the kind of reaction you have witnessed, yet you pull the classic "It's my ball and I'm going home" routine. Rather than admit defeat gracefully, you do everything in your power to belittle your opponent's victory.

You can't lose if you don't try right? Wrong. I didn't think it was possible, but I have managed to lose even more respect for you. If you think that regurgitating the sensationalist bullshit you will find in any bottom-rack tabloid makes you smart, or witty, then you are wrong. The "Anti-War, Anti-Bush" bandwagon already has enough members without another misinformed, opinionated idiot jumping on it too.

Just my two cents ; )

Omar
07-26-2008, 06:00 PM
Like lulz Roxam totally pwnt Legal Smash omgz I thought you were smart or something! Omar's power level currently appears to be over 9,000!!

But on a more serious note, Omar, you came into a thread that did not merit its own existence and proceeded to start an argument with anyone reading. You can't spew crap like that and not expect a harshly worded response. Consider yourself lucky it was Legal who took the matter into his hands - and did it with a certain finesse. You managed to make one of the weakest points I have ever witnessed, and amazingly still had time to butcher the English language in the process.

Your views on the Iraq war are irrelevant in this situation - my problem with you is your counter-argument (or lack thereof). As soon as the first person to reply cut through you like a knife through butter, you retreated back into your shell (turtle pun). You must have seen your post inciting the kind of reaction you have witnessed, yet you pull the classic "It's my ball and I'm going home" routine. Rather than admit defeat gracefully, you do everything in your power to belittle your opponent's victory.

You can't lose if you don't try right? Wrong. I didn't think it was possible, but I have managed to lose even more respect for you. If you think that regurgitating the sensationalist bullshit you will find in any bottom-rack tabloid makes you smart, or witty, then you are wrong. The "Anti-War, Anti-Bush" bandwagon already has enough members without another misinformed, opinionated idiot jumping on it too.

Just my two cents ; )

i was jk.. ffs.. did u make ur brother to type this..
good one.. You have never respected me, so get the fuck off this thread, you liar.

AppleShark
07-26-2008, 06:04 PM
i was jk.. ffs.. did u make ur brother to type this..

You were joke?
Did I make my brother to type this?

Do you speak English or do you just have a gift for slapping your keyboard and
producing random words?

Just as I said, you've adapted the mentality of "Don't try, can't fail". You're in too deep to back out now, Omar.

P.S. Are you by any chance on your local debate team? With phrases such as "Get the fuck out of this thread" in your repertoire, I can see you having quite an illustrious career.

Seriously Omar, STFU and GTFO if you want to bring this down to that (your) level.

Omar
07-26-2008, 06:07 PM
You were joke?
Did I make my brother to type this?

Do you speak English or do you just have a gift for slapping your keyboard and
producing random words?

Just as I said, you've adapted the mentality of "Don't try, can't fail". You're in too deep to back out now, Omar.

wtf are u talking about. back out what? jk means either joke, joking or something related to joking/joke or sumthin... use ur imagination.

AppleShark
07-26-2008, 06:09 PM
U WON THE INTERNET ARGUMENT!! HOLY SHIT... want a medal? or is the boner enough for u.. srsly u cant prove that Us made iraq better.
no matter what... oh and im not ignorant. i just dont like u.

Good one, but I think I've heard it before. You weren't joking, at least not until you realised the water was at neck height and rising.

Omar
07-26-2008, 06:11 PM
Good one, but I think I've heard it before. You weren't joking, at least not until you realised the water was at neck height and rising.
i was jk about the boner part, and the medal thing. but the "you cant prove that the Us did Iraq better no matter what" part was for real. and not just making a joke.

AppleShark
07-26-2008, 06:16 PM
Alright, so lets say I am to adapt the Omar philosophy. I walk into a bank, press a loaded gun to an employee's head and demand whatever funds are available. When the police arrive, I simply drop the gun, tell them "i waz just jking nao k thx bai" and go on my merry way? No. The police wouldn't let me run away, just as I'm not letting you back down from your earlier statements. You wanted a fight, and now you have one.

*Edit*

No more of this on the forum, if you want to talk to me, do it over steam.

Italian Jew
07-26-2008, 06:23 PM
Yellowcake is indicative. We arrest people in the US for paraphenelia like pipes related to drug crimes. I think that the war has ousted a dangerous, blood thirsty imbecile, but we should have killed him back in 1991, as for WMDs, see the US code sections referenced in a previous posting regarding this, we consider anything from a hand grenade up to be a weapon capable of mass destruction. Lastly, Both iran and iraq used chem weapons in their little scuffle back in the 80s, there was a preponderance of the evidence that it was likely that they had SOMETHING.... even if not, 4K dead and 16000 injured, counting both disabling and ambulatory injuries is NOT bad for a 5 going on 6 year conflict, by this time in Vietnam we had already lost nearly 30K.





Omar, I mean this with all sincerity: die in a fire.


It is legal in some US states to own bongs, pipes, etc. as long as there is no evidence of illegal drug use. There is no federal law stating that one cannot buy a bong for use with tobacco or another legal drug, so the laws remain solely within the states. It is not correct to compare state legislation with a foreign nation as it would be the federal government that has a say in foreign matters. You may come under arrest for the incorrect suspicion of illegal substance use with a legal product, but you would be released without any punishment. If what you said were to apply, we would have handed back Iraq to Saddam once no evidence was found.

What about those other countries that had access to uranium and had WMD's? Every country technically has WMD's, so arguing that Iraq had them and that is what made them dangerous is moot (because you would have to invade all other countries for possessing WMD's) unless you can prove that they had weapons that were designated for use against us or allies. What the US was concerned about were nuclear devices or chemical warheads, none of which were found. WMD is just one of those convenient vague terms that the government likes to throw around, but seeing as how they didn't do shit with other countries, it is obvious what the real reason was.

What about Kazakhstan, Niger, Namibia, Uzbekistan, China, India, Romania, Pakistan, etc.? They all have yellow cake uranium and many have been known to have some form of uranium enrichment programs. Iraq's program was stopped in 1991 and no evidence shows that they were trying to make bombs.

Where were the weapons designed to kill us all? There were even officials stating that intelligence reports were modified or told in a way that altered the "truth". Reports also indicated that the aluminum tubes in the country were not weapons grade and would do poorly if used as missiles, bombs, or whatever nightmare our government imagined. There was no real threat to us, so what was the reason?

Sure, the war is going better than previous ones, but no war is far better than a good war. People are just trying to look for ways to make us look better because having invaded a country for less than a legitimate reason means we are just an imperialistic nation like all the rest.

Saddam was an evil tyrant, but the US cannot be the world police in matters like these all the time. Other countries have rulers just as bad or worse than Saddam, but they are not our targets. If the call to arms against Iraq was for this reason, we would have invaded North Korea, China, numerous African countries, etc.

Iran would have been the target if the US was actually looking for nuclear weapons or chemical warheads. Iran was widely known to have programs for enriching uranium. It may have been as simple as the US needing a distraction or a scapegoat at the time. Maybe our plan was to scare Iran into removing their programs by invading the weaker next door neighbor, who knows? What is definite is that Iraq was not a military threat to us and it is some pawn regarding US interests in the middle east. Iraq was the easiest place to invade in the region.

Whether this turns out to be beneficial on our end remains to be seen in the upcoming years. Maybe in several decades you might see a history channel special about the real truth. Unfortunately, all we can do is argue the credibility of evidence, testimony, and policy regarding the matter.

Repeat
07-26-2008, 07:17 PM
. again, please, go learn something before you say something, because somewhere near 85% of the time, you sound like an ignorant ass.

Dude... around 85% is a pretty forgiving percentage...I'd at least up it to somewhere in the 94%-98% range.

Italian Jew
07-26-2008, 07:19 PM
Alright, let the kid be. He doesn't need any more flaming in his direction, nor does he need to dish some more out.

Omar
07-26-2008, 07:20 PM
Alright, so lets say I am to adapt the Omar philosophy. I walk into a bank, press a loaded gun to an employee's head and demand whatever funds are available. When the police arrive, I simply drop the gun, tell them "i waz just jking nao k thx bai" and go on my merry way? No. The police wouldn't let me run away, just as I'm not letting you back down from your earlier statements. You wanted a fight, and now you have one.

*Edit*

No more of this on the forum, if you want to talk to me, do it over steam.

E fight.. im scared shitless? get a life. I dont have time for "fights"

Omar
07-26-2008, 07:21 PM
Dude... around 85% is a pretty forgiving percentage...I'd at least up it to somewhere in the 94%-98% range.

thanks for the positive comment.

meh.. i dont rly give a shit about this thread. got better things to do.

LegalSmash
07-26-2008, 08:10 PM
It is legal in some US states to own bongs...... the rest

Sorry, Jew, had to cut it down so I could make my point regarding it. Omar, see what Jew did? Despite the fact that I disagree with him as to the substance of what he says or in some cases the spirit of it, I can respect what he says because he makes cogent statements. He makes sense, and generally speaking is civil in debate. Learn something from him.

Mikey
07-26-2008, 08:37 PM
Now getting back to the subject, I think the idea of what we are doing in Iraq is great! Yes! We are not doing our best in there but still? How would we think of our self if we just let this go... Yeah.. u did destroy WTC like a bunch of little bitches when tell me if am wrong "WE WORE NOT EXPECTING IT". Does this reming u guys of something? Pearl Harbor maybe? And what did we do then? Go there and try to kick some ass, some battles u loose and some u win.

Mikey
07-26-2008, 08:39 PM
AND GOD i hope the war will neither keep going till about 2012 or a new war will start.. am ready to kick some ass. and getting a job as a firefighter after iraq is easy as shit...

BOOWY
07-26-2008, 08:58 PM
Now getting back to the subject, I think the idea of what we are doing in Iraq is great! Yes! We are not doing our best in there but still? How would we think of our self if we just let this go... Yeah.. u did destroy WTC like a bunch of little bitches when tell me if am wrong "WE WORE NOT EXPECTING IT". Does this reming u guys of something? Pearl Harbor maybe? And what did we do then? Go there and try to kick some ass, some battles u loose and some u win.

My head hurts.

As I understand it, the US went into Iraq because of some 'intelligence' of there being WMDs there. No WMDs found, Saddam's gone... why in the world are you folks still there? Why is there still a "War on Iraq"? Most of the US has forgotten about Osama. I know the media sure has, and it sure seems like your government has as well; that makes conspiracy theories on 9/11, particularly the ones on Osama and the US government, really fucking scary.

Italian Jew
07-26-2008, 09:10 PM
Now getting back to the subject, I think the idea of what we are doing in Iraq is great! Yes! We are not doing our best in there but still? How would we think of our self if we just let this go... Yeah.. u did destroy WTC like a bunch of little bitches when tell me if am wrong "WE WORE NOT EXPECTING IT". Does this reming u guys of something? Pearl Harbor maybe? And what did we do then? Go there and try to kick some ass, some battles u loose and some u win.



AND GOD i hope the war will neither keep going till about 2012 or a new war will start.. am ready to kick some ass. and getting a job as a firefighter after iraq is easy as shit...


lolwut?

PotshotPolka
07-26-2008, 09:13 PM
Go to hell. the US didnt do any good to iraq. u maybe killed saddam, but that made it even worse, now theres suicide bombers n rapist every where back then it was car jackers and clothes stealers. (be leave me some dudes actually steal clothes from other ppl lol.)
Legal go to hell... GO TO HELL!.. ok im done.

This Thread Must Die Now, As Should The Entirity Of The News/Politics Section. All It Does Is Breed Hate Towards Those Who Don't Know What They're Doing, And Those That Are Being Ignorant Little Shits (Yes You Omar, Go Suck A Nut.)

GrayFox
07-26-2008, 10:31 PM
Your typing like Venemous... wow. And Boowy you say
why in the world are you folks still there? I'm assuming your not british because I'm pretty sure there are still british forces in iraq.

Slavic
07-26-2008, 10:33 PM
Now getting back to the subject, I think the idea of what we are doing in Iraq is great! Yes! We are not doing our best in there but still? How would we think of our self if we just let this go... Yeah.. u did destroy WTC like a bunch of little bitches when tell me if am wrong "WE WORE NOT EXPECTING IT". Does this reming u guys of something? Pearl Harbor maybe? And what did we do then? Go there and try to kick some ass, some battles u loose and some u win.

Get your facts straight. When the towers fell we went after the Taliban and Al Queda. Do you know why??? Because they blew up the mother fucking towers, not Iraq. As soon as the US was certain that the Taliban and Al Queda was associated with the act, we attacked their strongholds in Afghanistan. Hey did you forget that we are at war in Afghanistan?

There has been no creditable links between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam. If anything, you could probably find more evidence tying the fucking Saudi Royals.

As to the subject of the Iraq war, I follow along suit with Italian. Also remember that when you tally up the "score" of deaths to see if this is a successful war. Remember the the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians that died. War is ugly and a disgrace. Once it is over, it should never be congratulated or honored, but be held forever regretfully.

Also, Omar, get wise to the fucking signs that are being thrown at you. Take your argument into another thread, this one has already been thrown too far off track.

LegalSmash
07-26-2008, 10:55 PM
I really do not think that we need to get rid of the politics section, to be honest, its one of the most civil I've been privy to. The problem is that threads like this need to be created appropriately, a proper foundation needs to be laid for discussion to remain civil, and for the most part, Imbeciles need to be kept as marginalized as possible. This being said, I think that the thread should start over. It appears as though the initial concept of the thread, although tainted, was not bad per se. We should be able to discuss the progress or lack thereof, of the Iraq conflict in substance, as friends, or rivals, however you may see it. I think its somewhat disconcerting that all it takes is one retard and the entire thread goes awry.

Let me try to put the thread back on course:

Jew, regarding your bong idea:

There actually are laws preventing persons from purchasing tobacco paraphenelia if the person is under the age of majority, this is a federal law, similarly, there is a drinking age, and anyone caught violating either of the laws are pretty much strictly liable to the fines and penalties attached. States can yell all they want about their versions of drug law, but low and behold, ANY drug charge can be raised to a federal court. This is because drug charges are generally, federal jurisdiction, if the fed so chooses to take the matter up... its a concept of preemption of law, and the supremacy clause. Further, that a person is caught with a non-marijuana used bong does not necessarily mean that they will get their object back, especially if it was something they were not supposed to have in the first place.

Saddam Hussein was a dictator, there had been no real elections, and he was ploying as if he had been elected through anything other than his baathist party and threat of force. This, technically, is not similar to the property interest a person would have in a non-illicit drug used waterpipe. You don't have a property interest in an elected position, because you serve at the will o the people, and if you are not, you are either appointed at the pleasure of someone else, or you are there through birthright,or violence, both of which are questionable, if at all abhorrent ways to hold power over people. Your logic is incorrect, when we saw no weapons, we would not have given the country back to Saddam, but rather, to the people of Iraq, who hold an actual legitimate interest, both in natural right and property to manage themselves freely, without threat of arms to force them into another Hussein like situation.

The difference between the other countries you named and Iraq is one big thing, Iraq threatens our interests in the middle east, Saudi Arabian oil fields and Israel, I'm not going to make any eloquent statement to dress that up. Pakistan is an uneasy ally with 99 problems, and our other ally India is one. Its a fucked up, ugly situation. Nailing shut Iraq's dictator, a Sunni who along with his Sunni cronies repressed and killed the majority religious group there was an equitable move, despite the terms on which it was sold to the public.

According to our definition (emphasis on our), we found what we could construe in statutory term as a weapon, or the derivative thereof, of a weapon of mass destruction. It could have been a 300 count box of 2 foot dildos filled with yellowcake, and it would have been enough. We went to Iraq on a congressionally sanctioned exception to the constitution's war power provision in article 1, by using the war powers act of 1973 to again allow a president to deploy troops without congressional consent to deploy or a declaration of war. Jew, that is something that needs to be taken up with the spineless congresses that have existed since 1949, not a president who is well within his rights in using the laws to suit his objectives.

I agree with you entirely that we should not be the world police, I hate the fact that its my friends, 20 something year old guys who should be working here and raising families who are getting torn up over there, or seeing their boys torn up, I hate the fact that other countries do stupid shit amongst each other and run behind our country's collective skirts when shit gets ugly for them, the thing is though, that is the position we find ourselves in. I see no difference in our interdicting in foreign affairs of nations we have financial stake in comparison with our taking of the hungry, the poor, the tired masses in 1900 at Ellis Island. Its what we do as a nation. If there is any nation that puts out more foreign aid, more free medicine, more cash and technology on the market for other countries to build off of it is the US, and even you cannot deny that. We cannot afford in this day and age to stick our heads in the sand like the Europeans and pretend that the world is not going to hell in a handbag because some dickhead with a hard on for living like its 1355 and his cronies want to drag the middle east down to the middle ages again.

I liken the middle east and the culture conflict the conflict in a black neighborhood in the US, there are the old blacks that want the kids to go to school, move up in life, and forge into the world beyond the ghetto, then there are the ignorant, backwards, hateful assholes that not only chastise the people attempting to move on with life, but violently oppose it and make everyone miserable, on top of keeping quite vivid the stereotypes that dog those people nearly 160 years after they were freed by the 13th amendment.

I think that you CAN reconcile Islamic belief and modern society, but it takes a mutual understanding that NEITHER right of the Muslim, nor that of the greater society is superior to the other, but the RIGHT has to be mutually respected. Freedom of expression exists, and my expression may piss X or Y off, but as long as I am making statements with some redeeming social value, it should be allowed. You don't get that by going ape shit and chimping out because some newspaper draws a picture (netherlands), nor do you get it by tearing a girl's hijab off in school (france).

Italian Jew
07-27-2008, 12:30 AM
Iran would logically be the center of US attention instead of Iraq. It definitely had a controversy involving enriching Uranium. The Bush administration has labeled Iran as the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism. Also, Iran is strongly against western influence, especially American influence. If any country was trying to subvert American interests, it would have been Iran, not Iraq.

Iraq did try to allow UN inspectors to come back into the country well before the US invaded. Iraq was also a lesser state sponsor of terror than Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. The terrorist groups which Iraq supported were ones that were fighting Saddam's regional enemies. Iraq tended to support secular terrorist groups, unlike Al Qaeda. He did support an Islamist Palestinian group, but because it was against Israel (much like the rest of the middle east). The only link between Al Qaeda and Iraq are unreliable sources that have yet to proven.

The only case for the invasion of Iraq would be that Saddam was an evil, violent, genocidal dictator. This is the only thing that holds any actual merit. The idea that this is the reason why the US invaded is flawed because Saddam was to have been known to be an evil dictator since he became the ruler.

So why did the US wait so long to do anything? The first reason the US gave for the war was that Iraq violated the rules that the UN delegated about weapons programs, uranium enrichment, etc. This then developed into Iraq having WMD's. THEN it was stated that Saddam was a murderous tyrant. This course of events would show that they might not find chemical weapons or uranium enrichment programs; possibly even nothing at all. To cover their asses in the short run, they could use the excuse that Saddam was a murderer and destroyed any liberty in Iraq.

The idea that a democracy would be the best thing for Iraq does not seem to be correct to me. The region is plagued by intrareligious conflict, much like Europe in the late middle ages around the time of the Renaissance. What form of government was preferred by those European states? Democratic governments would have been ill suited for those conditions because unless you have some sort of social constraint over the relgious conflict, the nation would tear itself apart. The problem with religious conflicts is that people jump to a side without really thinking about the issue and they are usually quick to assume that the other side is not up to par with them.

A strong government led by an authoritarian figure (or figures) is needed to keep the region stable for any sustained period of time. Eventually, the region will evolve past these religious squabbles and the need for authoritarian styled governments will cease, but now is not the time. Forcing democracy in Iraq will not stabilize the situation, especially if our goals are to insure freedom for the people. Now they may have some liberties, but the government will change once one party becomes more powerful than the other, then the leader of the party assumes control and destroys all opponents. We have seen this numerous times throughout history. What this democracy will bring is future conflict for the rest of the world (unless the US decides to play babysitter for the next couple hundred years). What Iraq needs is someone to rally behind, someone to unify them, someone to prevent them from cutting each others throats. Saddam was a cruel man and his methods were not humane, but his style of ruling would have been more beneficial in the long run. It may seem cold hearted for me to say that, but democracy is not the all curing remedy for the world.

I think the main reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq was to establish some sort of American presence near Iran (and possibly Syria). Iran would be the most likely candidate as an enemy of the US and at the time, Bush and crew may have believed that a conflict with Iran was near. The occupation zones of the US in Iraq are in the northern section, which would mean they would have easier access to a war with Iran because they would have a straight shot at Tehran as opposed to being in the south where they would have to hop over several rivers. Syria is also located on the border, so the US would have easy access to them as well. The gamble here would be that if the US displayed a heavy presence in the area, then Iran would back down a bit and the aid given to terrorists by both Syria and Iran would subside.

The US also has specific interests in the region regarding oil and those need no description, so I thought I would spare you a lengthy paragraph on something as obvious as that. Besides, I am tired of typing and I think I got all, if not most, of what I wanted to say.










Anyways, why would you want to get rid of this section? Legal and I actually put it to good use (possibly even opening doors for others in the community to have a say in a civilized way). oh shnap that rhymed! :laugh:

Omar
07-27-2008, 05:29 AM
This Thread Must Die Now, As Should The Entirity Of The News/Politics Section. All It Does Is Breed Hate Towards Those Who Don't Know What They're Doing, And Those That Are Being Ignorant Little Shits (Yes You Omar, Go Suck A Nut.)

u go suck a nut or two :O!!!!

LegalSmash
07-27-2008, 08:26 AM
u go suck a nut or two :O!!!!

Omar, die in a fire please.

Now this is a story all about how the jew and legal got in a brawl
with words and allegations now sit right there
I'll tell ya how we unfucked the politics forum on ZM.
In about february 2008,
I got bored and joined ZM cuz of red one day
I dont play CS yet or at the time TF,
but I write books on the poli forums, coauthored by jew
and occasionally phat.
I whistled for a cab and when it came near
the side said "politics" and it had dice in the mirror
for a minute I says yo this cab is rare, but I thought nah forget it
yo holmes to bel-aire.

lolzomgz
07-27-2008, 09:09 AM
there is only a war because of OIL thats why there is no war in zimbarbway (no clue how to spell it) it has no oil the nukes and saving the people is just a cover up i think... :thumbdown:

AppleShark
07-27-2008, 10:12 AM
there is only a war because of OIL thats why there is no war in zimbarbway (no clue how to spell it) it has no oil the nukes and saving the people is just a cover up i think... :thumbdown:

I think the politics selection should be restricted to just admins. Permanently.

Omar
07-27-2008, 11:19 AM
Omar, die in a fire please.

Now this is a story all about how the jew and legal got in a brawl
with words and allegations now sit right there
I'll tell ya how we unfucked the politics forum on ZM.
In about february 2008,
I got bored and joined ZM cuz of red one day
I dont play CS yet or at the time TF,
but I write books on the poli forums, coauthored by jew
and occasionally phat.
I whistled for a cab and when it came near
the side said "politics" and it had dice in the mirror
for a minute I says yo this cab is rare, but I thought nah forget it
yo holmes to bel-aire.

What? You write books.

AppleShark
07-27-2008, 12:50 PM
What? You write books.

Omar, are you a troll? Personally, I hope not, it would be funnier that way.

LegalSmash
07-27-2008, 01:19 PM
there is only a war because of OIL thats why there is no war in zimbarbway (no clue how to spell it) it has no oil the nukes and saving the people is just a cover up i think... :thumbdown:

Next on Jerry Springer....

Repeat
07-27-2008, 01:26 PM
there is only a war because of OIL thats why there is no war in zimbarbway (no clue how to spell it) it has no oil the nukes and saving the people is just a cover up i think... :thumbdown:



Did your mommy and daddy tell you that? If we were in Iraq just for the oil, I'm thinking that we would be getting much more oil from them... They certainly would be higher on the list of countries that we import from...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

So many people have the idea planted in their head that we get so much of our oil from Iraq -- to be fair, we do get quite a bit -- but it's not our top importer by any means.

Does the fact that Canada tops our list surprise anyone?

LegalSmash
07-27-2008, 01:29 PM
Did your mommy and daddy tell you that? If we were in Iraq just for the oil, I'm thinking that we would be getting much more oil from them... They certainly would be higher on the list of countries that we import from...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html

So many people have the idea planted in their head that we get so much of our oil from Iraq -- to be fair, we do get quite a bit -- but it's not our top importer by any means.

Does the fact that Canada tops our list surprise anyone?
Remember man, no one actually reads anything here, they just masturbate to michael moore movies, or in Omar's case, just spout random words and pray to the pigdog he can get them in order.

Slavic
07-27-2008, 02:01 PM
there is only a war because of OIL thats why there is no war in zimbarbway (no clue how to spell it) it has no oil the nukes and saving the people is just a cover up i think... :thumbdown:

Care to elaborate as to why oil prices are rising if we are sucking oil out of Iraq.

The invasion of Iraq was a big power play in the region for western forces. More leverage was needed in the area besides Israel, and that came at the barrel of a gun. Now the real threat of the Middle East, Iran (although I could argue Saudi Arabia to be) can be kept in check by the large US military along their boarder.

Although the initial reasoning for the war is flawed, we are still in this war and we can not change that. We can not leave this war without a completely stable pro-US Iraq government in state. We have taken out Iran's regional rival which gives them opportunity to expand in the region.

If we pull out now Iran will fill this vacuum of power that Iraq used to take up. The only solutions I see possible is:

A direct attack on Iran, which will bring with it enormous social and economic problems in the region but will eliminate the Iran threat.

Prop up permanent bases in the country and follow a "police" role in order to keep Iranian power in check.

Establish a stable pro-US Iraqi government that has the capabilities to oppose Iranian regional influence.

Out of all three I'd rather the last one occur, but sadly I believe that the only form of government that would increase stability in Iraq would be a right winger authoritarian government, much like the ones the US has created in Central America. Such government can put down religious infighting, and establish the Iraqi national identity that these people have lost since the war.

Mammal
07-28-2008, 06:20 AM
Omar, die in a fire please.


Wise words!

Omar
07-28-2008, 05:41 PM
Wise words!

:O You hate me too? :scared:

Irish Rebel
07-28-2008, 07:09 PM
could an admin just close this dumb thread??
it just causes no relation ships.

Irish Guerilla
07-28-2008, 07:10 PM
its not dumb...i wanted to know what ppl think about it.

Irish Rebel
07-28-2008, 07:11 PM
u know that there are already about like dunno how many threads about it?






omg,mick u :001_smile:

Omar
07-28-2008, 07:13 PM
yup.. its just gonna be an argument between me, and all.

AppleShark
07-28-2008, 09:00 PM
yup.. its just gonna be an argument between me, and all.

And you still believe you're right?

phatman76
07-29-2008, 04:00 AM
I know I'm late to the game, but I'll join and ignore the flaming and throw my iraq/iran rant in to the mix in a nutshell...

Iraq necessitated military action in 2003, but not a full on ground war and occupation. However, while it is now occupied, failure or withdrawal is not an option until a sovereign functional state has been established with a stable government and in-control military.

In my honest opinion, the Iraqi's deserved nothing better than to be blasted back to the stone age - destroy their industry, infrastructure and government. Instead, we fought a land war that left the population and most of the non-baathist government intact, along with what little infrastructure was there to begin with. Now, we must rebuild the state with a military capable of maintaining order, and a pro-USA government. Anything less than that would be an absolute failure.

It is obvious that Saddam had long had the capability and the willingness to use WMD's, and the intelligence in 2003 looked credible. In hindsight, WMD's turned out to be a false reason to invade. However, there were other good reasons - oil, a new regional ally, fighting back tolerance or outright support of terrorism in the middle east, and destroying a criminal president with a blatantly anti-USA agenda. While some may argue that those things are not worth the depth of engagement we are in, there is no longer a way to turn back the clock and stop our involvement.

As for Iran, let's not make another mistake and engage a country conventionally. Send in the CIA people to topple the government and destroy the nuke/missile facilities, then bomb and burn whatever they have left that is a threat to us and (if it can be done profitably) take their oil as loot. The only measure of mercy we owe the Iranian people is for stupidly letting the Shah fall to the Ayatollahs in the 1970's, thank you Carter, we owe them a little for that, it was our mistake. Appeasement and negotiation should only be an option if Iran immediately and unconditionally accepts USA terms. No country has a "right" to nuclear power and technology. Countries don't have "rights" like actual people do, they only have what they can defend and what they cannot defend.

Iran's claims to "rights to develop" nuclear technology eerily echo those of Hitler when he broke and trampled Germany's post-WWI armistice limits and built his military. Britain and France made the biggest mistakes of the century by letting Hitler develop his country. Let's not do the same thing, There will be no second USA to save us when Iran actually HAS nukes.

Repeat
07-29-2008, 05:55 AM
yup.. its just gonna be an argument between me, and all.

I really wouldn't call it an argument... an argument (a good one, at least) requires both sides presenting logical and coherent information and ideas... all we got from you was

"Bull..... wait for it...... SHIT".

Repeat
07-29-2008, 02:36 PM
It really begs the question "How can the 'War on Terror' possible win when they do something as retarded as that?"

1.) Stop using their fucking oil.

2.) Blow them up

3.) My personal favorite - both 1 and 2.

Repeat
07-29-2008, 02:46 PM
LOL, LOL and fucking LOL.

This is the US we're talking about here.

Just sayin'! :tongue_smilie:

Italian Jew
07-29-2008, 03:26 PM
We should just buy the world a fucking Coke and get it over with...

Italian Jew
07-29-2008, 03:39 PM
:blink:



Q8H5263jCGg

:001_tt2:

Slavic
07-29-2008, 05:28 PM
Closet Commies.

more like closet capitalists

@phatman

"No country has a "right" to nuclear power and technology. Countries don't have "rights" like actual people do, they only have what they can defend and what they cannot defend."

When did we acquire the right to nuclear power and technology?

tehsnipes
07-29-2008, 06:00 PM
Well, when Saddam was in power, IRAQ was not such a mess, if they just left it alone, a couple 100 people would of died a year under the power of Saddam, now the US/UK came in, 1000s of people are dieing every month/year!

Garfield has a powerful point, Saddam was a bastard, but he was our bastard. He kept the region from falling into the control of Islamic Fundamentalists and becoming chaotic like it is now. Bush just wanted to fight in Iraq to finish his daddy's fight with Saddam and prove that he's the biggest boy on the playground. Saddam should have been taken out a long time ago. Iraq war had nothing to do with our National Security, you got fooled into a phony unjustified war in Iraq when the focus should have been Afghanistan. Cheers to the CIA + Tampon's precious Reagan for jumpstarting the Islamic Fundamentalist movement by directly funding them to counter the Soviets. Iraq should've been left alone

Repeat
07-29-2008, 07:05 PM
Cheers to the CIA + Tampon's precious Reagan for jumpstarting the Islamic Fundamentalist movement by directly funding them to counter the Soviets.

Yeah, because the USSR wasn't an enormous threat or anything... It's not like both countries had their fingers on the buttons to launch the nukes effectively destroying the world...right.

I, too, am another cog in the Reagan War Machine. God bless that man. I wish I could have met him, and it saddens me that I wasn't old enough to see him as President first hand.

Dracula
07-29-2008, 09:31 PM
lolz i read this for reall points and then Omar walks in but not that we are in Iraq pulling out would be worse then staying and it seems to be getting better slowly.

phatman76
07-29-2008, 11:55 PM
more like closet capitalists

@phatman

"No country has a "right" to nuclear power and technology. Countries don't have "rights" like actual people do, they only have what they can defend and what they cannot defend."

When did we acquire the right to nuclear power and technology?

we didn't ever acquire the right, but im sure as hell nobody is gonna try to stop us, too bad for iran people are willing to stop them. Like i said, countries don't have rights, only what they can defend and what they can't. We do have a duty, that is our government has a duty, to defend our lives, our rights, and our interests. This means it is not wrong for our government to do all that is necessary to stop Iran, a country whose leaders have often sworn to annihilate us and our allies, from pursuing anything that would get them a single inch closer to a viable nuclear weapon, including ballistic missiles and advanced nuclear tech (whether it seems peaceful or not).

Italian Jew
07-30-2008, 12:12 AM
Don't they also have a duty to do the same?

Therefore, they are not wrong for trying to develop nuclear technologies. We may not like it that they could destroy us just as easily as we could destroy them, but that's life. Eventually, we won't able to police the world, and maybe another country will police us.

REVERSE! REVERSE!

phatman76
07-30-2008, 02:27 AM
Don't they also have a duty to do the same?

Therefore, they are not wrong for trying to develop nuclear technologies. We may not like it that they could destroy us just as easily as we could destroy them, but that's life. Eventually, we won't able to police the world, and maybe another country will police us.

REVERSE! REVERSE!

Well, the Iranian government does have a duty to protect its people, a duty they often fail to carry out because they are dictators and the people are almost slaves. So no, the iranian government has no one to answer to, not the UN, not NATO, not its People, not the USA. It is not "wrong" for them to develop nuclear technologies peacefully. However, it is a threat, an unacceptable threat, and we should crush them before they pursue it. "that's life that they may be able to destroy us" is a self-destructive policy - we should destroy them before they even have a glimmer of hope of developing the capability to hurt us one bit in any serious way. We shouldn't police the world, and we don't, we look out for our own interests (with allies if possible, unilaterally if necessary). Our interest in self-preservation should have led us to turn Tehran into either a occupied proxy state of our own or a crater ages ago, but for some crazy reason the left feels convicted to "negotiate" with the lunatics running the country. Every time a country crawls out of the pit of anarchy and barbarianism and even hints at a dislike for us, we should either take them over or push them right back down into the mud.

Omar
07-31-2008, 05:06 AM
ok first things first.
Apple you dont have any reason in this thread because the only reason your here is to flame me, while you dont know anything what your talking about. ITS ONE THREAD with you and already you get personal and starts calling me names, to be more specific, you said my country was shit, you made fun of my english, and you called me a fag.

the second thing is about the flaming in all the threads related to Iraq well, Guys dont take it personal its just a discussion, and Repeat, please yo said my post was bad,
i mean the thing i got from you is, "dude hes 90 procent ignorant" or something like that, well i dont want to get personel, Legal dont say i must go burn in a fire or sumthing like that (not polite)


now back to topic.
The informant who informed the US goverment about the WMDs had a BIG paycheck, to be more specific it was either a big gold plate or 4 gold bars something like that, and there was no WMDs, US didnt profit from the war so much, the oil price is rising not only due to decreasing recources, but also because that the US currency is decreasing, like 30 procent from 2001
Irish G,
The war was a big!!!! fail, thousands of lives could have been spared, Millions of money could have been saved, instead of being spended on the weapons and tanks etc etc.. hundreds of women could not be widows now, and many soldiers who came back didnt had their GF sleeping with the neighbour.
you guys should also thing about what US lose and not what it has gained and what iraq had lost, Iraq HATED Saddam, but they didnt realise that he did his job one way or another, now half the country miss him, the people who did crimes was scared shitless by saddam wich held them back, and the shiitis didnt "Show" their acts on the streets ( when they march while hurting them selfs with iron things)

Omar
07-31-2008, 05:35 AM
oh and guys like i said, nothing personal okay?, Legal you can correct me if im wrong, but Apple dont correcnt my gramma cause i dont give a damn.

oh and this is the "hitting them selfs" thing..
WARNING: Some Muslims may be offended, espiacally if they are shia

oh well this cracks me up every time
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBpL6qxfDXo

PotshotPolka
07-31-2008, 02:18 PM
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg

phatman76
07-31-2008, 10:05 PM
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg

Yes, yes indeed. This is time for facepalm.