The Iraq War

[poopgoblin]

This is a continuation of a debate I'm having with Vagrant0 about the Iraq War here: http://forum.gamingsource.net/index.php?sh...mp;#entry253468. Yes, I think that the U.S. had valid reasons to invade Iraq.

 

It sickens me that Dems, the media, etc. are so obsessed with making Bush look bad that they're willing to do all they can to make it appear that we failed in Iraq.

 

I recently got in an arguement with my mom who said that Bush was like a little Hitler because it was "his way or the highway." NO. if anyone was like Hitler, it was Saddam. I've just finished the book Saddam's Secrets by Former Iraqi Gen. Georges Sada. In his book, Mr. Sada tells of a man who turned off the television while Saddam was making a speech because he wasn't in the mood for the lies. That week, the man's son, who was only five or six at the time, told his teacher what happened. The man was taken away form his home, and never seen again, FOR TURNING OFF THE T.V.!

 

There are also people who say that America is becoming a Fascist state. FOOLS! If America was truely a Fascist state, you'd probably be lying in a mass grave somewhere for saying that.

 

"Iraq never had any WMDs!" read a history book. In 1988, Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds and in 1990, he ALMOST gave the order to attack Israel with planes armed with chemical weapons. Before we liberated Iraq, Saddam had his WMDs moved to Syria.

 

Then there were people who say that iraq never posed a threat to the U.S. However, he was a threat to stability in the Mid-East, and that would threaten the U.S., also, he could've easily sold weapons to terrorists who could've used them against us.

 

And how are we defending America by being there? well, try and put yourself into the shoes of a mis-led Middle Eastern youth. You want to kill an American, so where do you go? do you go to the U.S., which would be hard to get into, and an expensive trip, then, when your there, try to find weapons and a place to stay until you're ready. OR do you go to Iraq, which is much closer and easier to get into, and once your in, be able to find groups who will take you in, give you weapons, and maybe some training?

[ninja_lord666]

I agree that we should stay in. If we back out now, everyone will be calling us cowards...even the French! I will *not* live to see the day that the French call us cowards. I also agree that there was reason to invade, but overall, I really don't care if we went in or not. They didn't pose an *immediate* threat to us. Iraq wouldn't have been able to do anything to us, but, if they did sell weapons, or even intelligence to some place else...like Iran, then we'd be in trouble.

I also agree that it is mainly the media's fault. They have brainwashed America into thinking Bush is the Anti-Christ come here to kill us all. That's not true. Bush is actually one of the best presidents...not the[/]b best, but one of them. I'm sure, if Kerry won, you'd hear little to no coverage of the war, but the thing that would be said would make Kerry look like the big hero. News is incredibly biased... :dry:

[thejake1453]

dude i agree with you poopgoblin, you and my fellow australians should stay in iraq, we need to make sure no damn terrorists blow up either of our countries! and you may know that our Aussie forces are re-training the iraq army so they can hold iraq against the terrorists! but don't worry about people hating G. Bush for the war cos plenty of people here hate John Howard for sending our troops into iraq, but hey, aslong as he's in power they'll stay untill the whole thing is over, hopefully our next Prime Ministers will support our american allies in further conflicts!

[Abramul]

In my opinion, we should've gone after North Korea. If memory serves, at the time of the invasion of Iraq, they were known to be working on both nuclear weapons AND medium-range missiles...and I don't think the neighbors would've minded all that much if they were prevented from doing so.

[Dark0ne]

I'm pretty sure China/Russia would have had something to say about invading North Korea.

 

As for Iraq: should we have invaded? No. It's blatently apparent that there were no WMDs in Iraq and the public were taken for fools. The people who then say "so, there were no WMDs but atleast we got the dictator" are similarly fooling themselves; by that standard many African states should have been invaded prior to Iraq where genocide happens on a mass scale daily.

 

The lesson learnt from this stupid war is that dictators, despite often being evil and malicious in nature, some how manage to keep the peace; something that the US is unable to do. So what does that mean? My personal opinion is that these people can only be peaceful when threatened by dictatorship and are not ready for democracy. We've forced democracy on them and look where it is going. Education first, revolution second.

 

These people have been brought up on rule through power; the group that holds the most power rules rather than the group with the largest number.

 

Anyone who thinks that what we've done in Iraq is a good thing is only deluding themselves.

 

Now Tony Blair announced yesterday that he would be resigning (long time coming) in June and, as far as I can tell, openly admitted that he went against public opinion to stand by the US (can you imagine the amount of political pressure put on Blair to go to war back when it all starred?). I'm around 90% sure that, no matter WHAT party was in power in the UK we'd have gone to war, simply because the political/economical reprecussions from not going would have been nasty.

 

Does that make us lackies? Probably, but I look forward to when the $ collapses in on itself from the mass-inflation/debt/over spending and the oil currency changes to the euro; which is what is going to happen if the US continues on it's current course. That will be a big time of change if it does occur.

[ninja_lord666]

In my opinion, we should've gone after North Korea. If memory serves, at the time of the invasion of Iraq, they were known to be working on both nuclear weapons AND medium-range missiles...and I don't think the neighbors would've minded all that much if they were prevented from doing so.

Oh yes, I forgot about North Korea...We need to invade them or they may launch another missile into the ocean! :ohmy:

 

@ Dark0ne: Are you saying that genocide isn't bad? Are you saying that you aren't revolted when you hear about people being killed in nasty ways...for no reason? Are you saying you like torturous, murderous, people ruling? If so, then why not bring back Nazism. I'm sure they'd rule Iraq just fine. In fact, it you love them so much, why don't you try to get them to rule Britain? I'm sure they'd make quite a few changes you'd like so much.

[Dark0ne]

Who decides what is right and what is wrong, Ninja? What countries are allowed to delegate what happens outside of their own borders? Who is entitled to be the police of the world?

[Ginji]

Who decides what is right and what is wrong, Ninja? What countries are allowed to delegate what happens outside of their own borders? Who is entitled to be the police of the world?

America, apparently.

 

They pretty much said to Iran 'No, you can't have Nuclear POWER because you might make bombs. :huh:

 

It's alright for America to have god knows how many Nukes, but Iran can't have power stations.

 

Here come the flames.

[Vagrant0]

In my opinion, we should've gone after North Korea. If memory serves, at the time of the invasion of Iraq, they were known to be working on both nuclear weapons AND medium-range missiles...and I don't think the neighbors would've minded all that much if they were prevented from doing so.

Why not North Korea? Why not Syria (now that they supposedly have WMD)? It's simple, WMDs were the excuse to go to war. As mentioned in the other topic, the whole reason for invading Iraq was to gain control of the oil supplies, gain allies in the region (other than Saudi Arabia (Israel doesn't count, they have enough problems)), and put more pressure on other mid-eastern countries. I never said that Iraq never had WMD, only that it wasn't the reason why this mess started, even Sadam wasn't stupid enough to use them outside his own country.

 

The problem is that we're losing our position there, and people want us to leave without fixing the mess we started. If more people die, atleast their deaths won't be wasted. When you fight a conventional war against an unconventional force (not even soldiers, but civillians with weapons and a cause) you will have casualties. It doesn't have to be a second vietnam, where people die, money is spent, political dissonance is created, but nothing good ever comes from it. Both those for the war and those against the war have been lying to us, why does it change the fact that we need to hold out until the enemy runs out of children old enough to hold an AK-47 and they're forced to strap bombs to infants. They are in it till death, there is no negotiation, no reasoning, if we stop taking the fight to them, they will take the fight to us.

[poopgoblin]

Ginji, the Iranian leader (don't know how to spell his name) denied the Holocaust. Neddless to say, the man is f---ing insane. Do you know why the US has all those nukes? Because the US doesn't support people who will bring others harm.

 

I think part of the problem is that both sides think that the other is delusional. This could either become a really good discussion or go no where fast.

 

However, there are so many good things going on in Iraq that we don't hear about. Face it, the media is corrupt and will do anything in its power to make sure that it appears that the US failed. Media coverage plays such a huge role in warfare now days, it's not even funny. For example: The Tet offensive of 1968 was a HUGE North Vietnamese loss. They pretty much broke their own back with it. However, the media presented it as a US defeat.

 

And now, the media can actually have an effect on direct fire combat. Remeber Fallujah in Nov. '04? How the US Marines took down that city? Well, that wasn't the first time that they tried it.

 

From: Ralph Peters, War and the Media, Armchair General, March 2007

 

 

"The First Battle of Fallujah began when terrorists led a crowd in seizing, torturing, mutilating and killing four U.S. contractors and then leaving their charred body parts dangling on a bridge. Outraged, Pres. Bush ordered the Marines responsible for the area of operations to free the city of terrorists and insurgents- immediately and with whatever force was necesarry. Marine commanders would have prefered more time to allow for a methodical, prepared attack, but they saluted and went into battle. Gnawing their way into the city, the Marines slaughtered their enemies until they were two or three days from complete control of Fallujah.

The President stopped the attack. Over the next six months, Fallujah became a terrorist city-state. In Nov., American troops had to go back and finish the job.

 

 

What Happened (paraphrasing this)

The Arab news networks claimed that US forces were killing everything that moved. The Kurds (who the author was with) knew that none of this was true. But the truth didn't matter. The Western media didn't challenge the wild lies. Instead, the BBC and other European news networks accepted the Arab media's line. Even US reporting portrayed First Fallujah as a needlessly harsh attack. Global media pressure became so intense that Pres. Bush folded and stopped the attack.

 

FOR THE FIRST TIME, THE MEDIA HAD BEEN ABLE TO REVERSE THE COURSE OF BATTLEFIELD EVENTS, DECIDING THE OUTCOME OF DIRECT-FIRE COMBAT.

 

On the return to Fallujah, US forces took it within a week, before the media could muster enough opposition to rescue the terrorists. Now, US forces fought valiantly in Fallujah, but instead of focusing on the skill and courage of our men, the media chose the situation of the Marine shooting the wounded Iraqi- under murky circumstances- as the symbol of the battle."