Your opinions on the war thus far
- Thread starter BC_BIGBUDZ420
- Start date
jesus what the hell is wrong with some of you. as a child of retired vets you can not believe how sad i am to read what some of you say about the service men and women over seas. they are just doing their job. they signed on the dotted line, trained to be soldiers, and take orders. most of them join the service so they can provide a better life for their family back home. why wish them harm? by doing that you are no better than the taliban, saddam, his sons, terrorist, and , in some of the views of people on this board, no better than bush and the powers that be that have caused all of this.
not really ken said:
BAHAHAHHAHAHA
No chill man, I misunderstood it then. I still stand by what I said, just that it wasn't aimed at you or your opinions. Don't take it as if it was at yo, take it as if it was at someone who supports Bushs' reasoning.
I know you are anti-Bush
:thumb:
No chill man, I misunderstood it then. I still stand by what I said, just that it wasn't aimed at you or your opinions. Don't take it as if it was at yo, take it as if it was at someone who supports Bushs' reasoning.
I know you are anti-Bush
:thumb:
Though you are all still shitheads
I said in all likelihood, because there is an element of doubt. And I didn't pull it out of thin air: after one group estimated 100,000 casualties, they were rebutted by another group that estimated about 12,000.
How can you doubt this? Those suicide bombings aren't being aimed at military forces. The attacks are being aimed randomly, more often than not doing the most damage against soft targets. And all of this goes without noting the Sunni-Shiite divide.
Here's one example of the routine bombings going on almost daily in Baghdad. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050702/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hillah_attack_4
Iraq was invaded because it could be done without sustaining mass casualties while also stopping Hussein before he could become a threat again. No matter what you think of the Coalition's dishonesty in pressing ahead for the war, you can't possibly pretend Hussein wasn't a threat, and you can't pretend that he was cooperating with UN Weapons Inspections in 2002.
The UN Weapons Inspectors were able to account for a huge majority of Iraq's weaponry in the 90s. Besides, Hussein was capable of producing his own WMD by the mid 80s during the war against Iran: Israel took out the Dimona nuclear reactor that would have given Iraq nuclear weapons before 1990. It's not like Iraq was sitting on its thumbs; they were aggressively pursuing their own weapons programs.
The war has been a complete disaster. And the way in which the Coalition built its case for war was a complete disaster. But if it had been done correctly and effectively, the justification for the war would have been strong. And there's still time to turn things around.
The same people bitching about the US being too much of an interventionist would certainly feel the same way about a move like that. And did you forget what happened in Somalia?
The oil, if it was considered a reason, has been far from a bonus. The belief was that the oil would recoup the money spent to rebuild Iraq, but that hasn't worked out for a few reasons. First, Iraq's oil infrastructure was pathetic. Second, Iraq's oil infrastructure was repeatedly attacked by saboteurs.
If the United States is going to profit from Iraqi oil, it's going to take decades. As for the awarding of reconstruction bids, that's a different story, although somebody's gotta do it, and it makes sense that companies from the participants get the bids.
The same Fathers who condoned slavery, created the electoral college because they feared the stupidity of the general electorate and had federal Senators picked by state legislatures?
Anyway, there's a reason that certain Act's most controversial and powerful elements included Sunset laws. The bipartisan backlash on that certain Act will limit its use, and the truth is that the complaints about the Act threatening civil liberties has been overzealously trumpeted.
How can you doubt this? Those suicide bombings aren't being aimed at military forces. The attacks are being aimed randomly, more often than not doing the most damage against soft targets. And all of this goes without noting the Sunni-Shiite divide.
Here's one example of the routine bombings going on almost daily in Baghdad. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050702/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_hillah_attack_4
Iraq was invaded because it could be done without sustaining mass casualties while also stopping Hussein before he could become a threat again. No matter what you think of the Coalition's dishonesty in pressing ahead for the war, you can't possibly pretend Hussein wasn't a threat, and you can't pretend that he was cooperating with UN Weapons Inspections in 2002.
The UN Weapons Inspectors were able to account for a huge majority of Iraq's weaponry in the 90s. Besides, Hussein was capable of producing his own WMD by the mid 80s during the war against Iran: Israel took out the Dimona nuclear reactor that would have given Iraq nuclear weapons before 1990. It's not like Iraq was sitting on its thumbs; they were aggressively pursuing their own weapons programs.
The war has been a complete disaster. And the way in which the Coalition built its case for war was a complete disaster. But if it had been done correctly and effectively, the justification for the war would have been strong. And there's still time to turn things around.
The same people bitching about the US being too much of an interventionist would certainly feel the same way about a move like that. And did you forget what happened in Somalia?
The oil, if it was considered a reason, has been far from a bonus. The belief was that the oil would recoup the money spent to rebuild Iraq, but that hasn't worked out for a few reasons. First, Iraq's oil infrastructure was pathetic. Second, Iraq's oil infrastructure was repeatedly attacked by saboteurs.
If the United States is going to profit from Iraqi oil, it's going to take decades. As for the awarding of reconstruction bids, that's a different story, although somebody's gotta do it, and it makes sense that companies from the participants get the bids.
The same Fathers who condoned slavery, created the electoral college because they feared the stupidity of the general electorate and had federal Senators picked by state legislatures?
Anyway, there's a reason that certain Act's most controversial and powerful elements included Sunset laws. The bipartisan backlash on that certain Act will limit its use, and the truth is that the complaints about the Act threatening civil liberties has been overzealously trumpeted.
Iraq constantly skirted weapons inspections and had a history of aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.
Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States in the conventional sense that they were going to lob nuclear bombs from half the world away. But they were a complete threat right in the middle of the world's hot spot, and the last thing any of us needed was a volatile regime capable of destabilizing the Middle East when the countries are armed with chemical weapons and/or nukes.
And if a series of events triggered WMD or nuclear war between countries like India and Pakistan, or Iran and Israel, the radioactive fallout would certainly be a global threat. And Hussein had already invaded 3 of his neighbors in 1990.
Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States in the conventional sense that they were going to lob nuclear bombs from half the world away. But they were a complete threat right in the middle of the world's hot spot, and the last thing any of us needed was a volatile regime capable of destabilizing the Middle East when the countries are armed with chemical weapons and/or nukes.
And if a series of events triggered WMD or nuclear war between countries like India and Pakistan, or Iran and Israel, the radioactive fallout would certainly be a global threat. And Hussein had already invaded 3 of his neighbors in 1990.
You just quoting what the U.S media reported, don't believe everything you read..
Sadam was a threat back in 1990, but he wasn't anymore. America should've taken action and capture Hussein when they were in Iraq with the Gulf-war, but they didn't.. With this war, they haven't make their selves reliable from the start, they just lied to the world.
Sadam was a threat back in 1990, but he wasn't anymore. America should've taken action and capture Hussein when they were in Iraq with the Gulf-war, but they didn't.. With this war, they haven't make their selves reliable from the start, they just lied to the world.
Morris you and I know this is true only if we are discussing Saddams regime prior to the 91 Gulf War. since 1996 Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed. 90-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability were verifiably eliminated. This includes all of the factories used to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and long range ballistic missiles. Have you considered what a 'tremendous' military threat Iraq was post 1991 Gulf War? the freakin country had a GNP equivalent to that of the state of Kentucky. Yeah some threat.
Have you considered that the your argument that Saddam Hussein is a threat to his neighbors has not been voiced by his neighbors? Not Saudi Arabia, not Iran, none of Iraq's neighbors have called for military action. Surely if these nations felt 'threatened' by Saddam they would have supported this war on his regime, none did.
Seven months before 9/11 George tennet testified before Congress that Iraq posed no threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East. It was then, after the 9-11 attacks, that intelligence reports from the CIA radically changed from previous months, which said Iraq posed no immediate threat to the U.S, to now show Iraq had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and was in hot pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
In an interview on February 2001 with Powell on how to deal with Iraq, Powell said the U.N., the U.S. and its allies "have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions."
Powell also went on to say that Saddam's "forces are about one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago," and "Containment has been a successful policy".
In a seperate interview, Powell said the U.S. successfully "contained" Iraq in the years since the first Gulf War and that because of economic sanctions placed on the country Iraq was unable to obtain WMD."We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,". "We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them... it's been quite a success for ten years..."
At the end of the day Saddam and his regime was no more a threat to the u.s and his neighbouring countries than a mosquito.
Have you considered that the your argument that Saddam Hussein is a threat to his neighbors has not been voiced by his neighbors? Not Saudi Arabia, not Iran, none of Iraq's neighbors have called for military action. Surely if these nations felt 'threatened' by Saddam they would have supported this war on his regime, none did.
Seven months before 9/11 George tennet testified before Congress that Iraq posed no threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East. It was then, after the 9-11 attacks, that intelligence reports from the CIA radically changed from previous months, which said Iraq posed no immediate threat to the U.S, to now show Iraq had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and was in hot pursuit of a nuclear bomb.
In an interview on February 2001 with Powell on how to deal with Iraq, Powell said the U.N., the U.S. and its allies "have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions."
Powell also went on to say that Saddam's "forces are about one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago," and "Containment has been a successful policy".
In a seperate interview, Powell said the U.S. successfully "contained" Iraq in the years since the first Gulf War and that because of economic sanctions placed on the country Iraq was unable to obtain WMD."We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,". "We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them... it's been quite a success for ten years..."
At the end of the day Saddam and his regime was no more a threat to the u.s and his neighbouring countries than a mosquito.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.