So...he needed to be removed for the methods he used to stay in power, but (as per your first post) he was "right" in the way that he kept power?usmarine2007 wrote:
I agree with invading to remove him from power because of his methods of controlling his country. It was our fault for thinking people wanted to live without rape rooms and trenches full of bodies in the sand.
The last thing we want, however, is for Iraq to turn into Somalia. That place has gone down the shitter and al-Qaeda is now setting up training camps there.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It can be easy to wax nostalgic about the good old days of Saddam, but its short sighted. If we reinstate him we will never regain our dignity. If we cut and run nobody will ever follow into combat again. We are in their face in the Middle East, right where we should be after 9-11.
We still have troops in Germany and Japan, would you say we are still at war there?
Give it some more time.
We still have troops in Germany and Japan, would you say we are still at war there?
Give it some more time.
yeah, after we intentionally and unintentionally committed genocide on their race and attempting to obliterate their culture. I'm glad they're building Casinos and managing to do pretty well at it. If they can put a few fat, white pieces of trash into the poor house while improving thier own communities, I say more power to 'em. It's the least we can do.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
OP: One could've argued the same about the American Indians of US past. Now they live on reservations, or are otherwise properly absorbed by our culture.
like what? shitty land?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Given lots of free stuff, though.
you people don't get it. the only thing that can hold a country like Iraq together is a piece of shit like Saddam Hussein. It takes crazy to rule crazy. Even if the majority of Iraqis are just people trying to live their lives without AK's and IED's, all it takes is a crazy little minority to throw the whole thing into chaos. which is what we have.
Last edited by Reciprocity (2006-11-28 23:51:21)
-maybe we shouldn't have hung our dignity out on a limb?ATG wrote:
It can be easy to wax nostalgic about the good old days of Saddam, but its short sighted. If we reinstate him we will never regain our dignity.
-yeah, because look at how far John Wayne foreign policy has gotten us. Mission accomplished in Afghanistan? Taliban and Al Qaida gone? Mission accomplished in Iraq?ATG wrote:
If we cut and run nobody will ever follow into combat again. We are in their face in the Middle East, right where we should be after 9-11.
-Depends, are troops stationed in Germany, Japan and South Korea caught in the middle of civil wars and being killed on a daily basis? More time doing nothing will accomplish something? Do people still think that you can simply out-kill the insurgents? Keep killing 'til there are none left? And no, I'm not saying our troops are useless, there's just nothing more they can do in Iraq, besides playing umpire in the middle of civil war.ATG wrote:
We still have troops in Germany and Japan, would you say we are still at war there?
Give it some more time.
I just want to say something here before I leave this topic forever..
I'm saying that Iraqis are following the "stream" .. I'm refering to the episode with the danish drawnings...
People ran around setting fire to danish buildings BUT! they didn't know why they did it, they didn't know where Denmark was placed on a world map. They just followed the other Iraqis and listened to the priests.
and "research" showed that those priest even made up their own pictures and said it was fx. France fault...
= no, they are not ready for ANY kind of democracy
I'm saying that Iraqis are following the "stream" .. I'm refering to the episode with the danish drawnings...
People ran around setting fire to danish buildings BUT! they didn't know why they did it, they didn't know where Denmark was placed on a world map. They just followed the other Iraqis and listened to the priests.
and "research" showed that those priest even made up their own pictures and said it was fx. France fault...
= no, they are not ready for ANY kind of democracy
Last edited by CaptainMack (2006-11-29 00:23:47)
Who's face are you on in Iraq? You can't control the country, at least not with that level of troops, and if you cut and run it will likely be another Vietnam: bailing out and letting the enemies overrun the country.ATG wrote:
It can be easy to wax nostalgic about the good old days of Saddam, but its short sighted. If we reinstate him we will never regain our dignity. If we cut and run nobody will ever follow into combat again. We are in their face in the Middle East, right where we should be after 9-11.
Germany and Japan are just a little but diferent then Iraq...ATG wrote:
We still have troops in Germany and Japan, would you say we are still at war there?
Give it some more time.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
mate, i could go on and on and on about it, i only said burning flags as an example. comon. all they seem to do is burn flags, preach hate, shoot guns in the air in the local streets, shouting alalalalallalaallalaa. Yeah, because, theyre sane right?IRONCHEF wrote:
They're animals because they burn US flags? that's it? You're willing to ignorantly call a nation of people "animals" because they burn flags? Or could it be more accurate to assume that because they look different, behave different, and talk different that they're animals?James-M-II wrote:
i agree with him, they are animals. you see us constantly burning iraqi flags? noDonFck wrote:
So.. ..control through fear is the way to go, eh, Stalin? You refer to Iraqis as "animals", nice!
Seriously, there is ZERO difference between their humanity and ours. It's appalling that ANYONE would criticize a nation of people based on some ignorant criteria like the sordid clips you see on TV, or because of an overwhelming opinion from like-minded ignoramuses.
If you've actually met foreigners, let alone Iraqis (or other arabs, persians, or western asians) you'd realize they are just like us..perhaps not as greedy, gluttonous, or immature.
Sad stuff man..this makes me feel like I'm in Alabama or Mississippi at the height of the segregation based crime period!
President Bush can learn ALOT from Saddam, and Saddam can learn alot from Pres. Bu- oh well thats not trueusmarine2007 wrote:
Ummmm... no. I am glad he is gone, but he was right. Did he have these problems under his regime? No. Do I agree with his methods..... HELL NO! All I am asking is, what is the other way of handling Iraq? Don't pick my words apart, give me solutions.CameronPoe wrote:
Well I have to fucking laugh I must say. One-time advocates for the removal of Saddam now doing a complete 'flip flop' on the issue and actually endorsing Saddam Hussein. Welcome to zero credibility ever again.
This is so wrong!usmarine2007 wrote:
But Saddam had it right because he knew how to control the animals.
How can you call an nation, "animals"?
Shame on you!
Have you ever been there? I have, and most are animals. The only nice people are the rich people. There is no middle ground, either you are rich and everything is fine, or you are poor and kill people or just sit back and nothing to stop those who are doing the killing.blendiys wrote:
This is so wrong!usmarine2007 wrote:
But Saddam had it right because he knew how to control the animals.
How can you call an nation, "animals"?
Shame on you!
I know, it is confusing isn't it?Masques wrote:
So...he needed to be removed for the methods he used to stay in power, but (as per your first post) he was "right" in the way that he kept power?usmarine2007 wrote:
I agree with invading to remove him from power because of his methods of controlling his country. It was our fault for thinking people wanted to live without rape rooms and trenches full of bodies in the sand.
Haven't been there but my friends well, and nobody says they are animals. It's true, poorness makes you wild but not animals, they eat each other.usmarine2007 wrote:
Have you ever been there? I have, and most are animals. The only nice people are the rich people. There is no middle ground, either you are rich and everything is fine, or you are poor and kill people or just sit back and nothing to stop those who are doing the killing.blendiys wrote:
This is so wrong!usmarine2007 wrote:
But Saddam had it right because he knew how to control the animals.
How can you call an nation, "animals"?
Shame on you!
So we in Europe or there in USA, we kill ourselves, are we animals too?
We in the EU and US, do not need rape rooms and mass killings in order to be controlled.blendiys wrote:
Haven't been there but my friends well, and nobody says they are animals. It's true, poorness makes you wild but not animals, they eat each other.usmarine2007 wrote:
Have you ever been there? I have, and most are animals. The only nice people are the rich people. There is no middle ground, either you are rich and everything is fine, or you are poor and kill people or just sit back and nothing to stop those who are doing the killing.blendiys wrote:
This is so wrong!
How can you call an nation, "animals"?
Shame on you!
So we in Europe or there in USA, we kill ourselves, are we animals too?
Yeah right, we done it before.
Well, Bush does agree that ultimately, the Iraqi Security Forces will have to take care of their own country. He never denied that. The only question is at what time that will be the case.
Bush's constant bubbling about "staying there til the job is done" is not very helpful with regard to the strategy. People demand an exit strategy.
On the other hand, it is obviously very difficult ( if not impossible ) to set a fixed schedule for a troop withdrawal, given the nature of the conflict.
I believe that at the moment, the Iraqi Security Forces ( Army and Police ) are not fully prepared to take over. They lack equipment, training, and also have to face the problem of insurgent mowls within their organizations. They have no heavy machinery, no tanks, APC's, no air support.
As Bush has said, it is up to the military commanders on the ground to decide wether the Iraqis are ready to take over. Btu how long will that take ?
Bush's constant bubbling about "staying there til the job is done" is not very helpful with regard to the strategy. People demand an exit strategy.
On the other hand, it is obviously very difficult ( if not impossible ) to set a fixed schedule for a troop withdrawal, given the nature of the conflict.
I believe that at the moment, the Iraqi Security Forces ( Army and Police ) are not fully prepared to take over. They lack equipment, training, and also have to face the problem of insurgent mowls within their organizations. They have no heavy machinery, no tanks, APC's, no air support.
As Bush has said, it is up to the military commanders on the ground to decide wether the Iraqis are ready to take over. Btu how long will that take ?
Until the last helo leaves Saigon.B.Schuss wrote:
Btu how long will that take ?
100 years ago we did. And 100 years is a blink of an eye in human history. Stop being so self righteous and look into your own past and ancestry. Your great or great great grandfather probably lived in those times.usmarine2007 wrote:
We in the EU and US, do not need rape rooms and mass killings in order to be controlled.
If the EU & US hadn't fucked with the middle east continuously for the past 200 years who's to say they wouldn't have dragged themselves out of the quagmire just as we have done over the past 100 years.
Look, the point is, Iraq sits on a huge oil filed and could be as rich and stable as the UAE or Kuwait if they wanted to. I do not care about the EU or the US history, that is not in play here, and is not the point. I do not remember the US having mass killings as a means of control or rape rooms in our recent history.JahManRed wrote:
100 years ago we did. And 100 years is a blink of an eye in human history. Stop being so self righteous and look into your own past and ancestry. Your great or great great grandfather probably lived in those times.usmarine2007 wrote:
We in the EU and US, do not need rape rooms and mass killings in order to be controlled.
If the EU & US hadn't fucked with the middle east continuously for the past 200 years who's to say they wouldn't have dragged themselves out of the quagmire just as we have done over the past 100 years.
and there we have it, folks, another Vietnam comparison...usmarine2007 wrote:
Until the last helo leaves Saigon.B.Schuss wrote:
But how long will that take ?
Bush should face the facts. You cannot fight insurgents with regular armed forces. You have rules, your opponents don't. You have to protect the civilian population, your enemy doesn't give a shit.
Saddam was succesful in handling the different ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq because he was a ruthless military dictator, with Gestapo methods, underground torture chambers, etc..
Torture, illegal arrests, mass murder, genocide, censorship, you name it. He did it all.
Obviously, such methods are no longer acceptable. These days, other strategies are being employed to bring the country under control. But democray doesn't come overnight, and there are seldomly simple solutions for complex problems. It will be a long, hard ordeal, and lots of people are going to die. The only question the US president will have to answer is for how long those who die should be US soldiers...
well, I don't know about the rape rooms, but America has surely seen its share of mass killings.usmarine2007 wrote:
Look, the point is, Iraq sits on a huge oil filed and could be as rich and stable as the UAE or Kuwait if they wanted to. I do not care about the EU or the US history, that is not in play here, and is not the point. I do not remember the US having mass killings as a means of control or rape rooms in our recent history.JahManRed wrote:
100 years ago we did. And 100 years is a blink of an eye in human history. Stop being so self righteous and look into your own past and ancestry. Your great or great great grandfather probably lived in those times.usmarine2007 wrote:
We in the EU and US, do not need rape rooms and mass killings in order to be controlled.
If the EU & US hadn't fucked with the middle east continuously for the past 200 years who's to say they wouldn't have dragged themselves out of the quagmire just as we have done over the past 100 years.
- the indian wars
- war of independence
- slavery
- civil war
no "civil" conflicts by any standard, wouldn't you agree ?
All they seem to do is whatever the MSM shows you they do, am I wrong? have you met iraqis? Have you imagined what they'd be like if hundreds of thousands of them weren't dead? Would you be calm and complacent playing video games if bombs were blowing up your neighbors daily? WOuld you be cool with US servicemen and/or Shi'ite/Sunni militia men raiding your homes before beating, torturing, and killing your family or neighbors? If you realized that a particular country was responsible for ALL of that, would you not join your neighbors in rallies where flags and leader effigies were burned? If AK-47s were in the hands of pretty much everyone, would you not follow along and fire into the air? While my wife and I always duck when we watch that on tv and think "those bullets DO have to land somewhere", we also realize that there's hicks in neighboring cities by us that shoot guns on the 4th of July for some crazy reason too.James-M-II wrote:
mate, i could go on and on and on about it, i only said burning flags as an example. comon. all they seem to do is burn flags, preach hate, shoot guns in the air in the local streets, shouting alalalalallalaallalaa. Yeah, because, theyre sane right?
Have you ever seen Cops? That's what most of the world thinks happens in our country 24/7. But you and I know that's not true. But what is the rest of the world supposed to do because their MSM is painting a very single sided picture of us? Exactly, they have to use reason and try to understand that people ALL over the world are very similar and not all that different. But it takes faith to do that..or actually meeting the people in question.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-29 08:45:19)
Can't compare wars to mass killings can you?B.Schuss wrote:
well, I don't know about the rape rooms, but America has surely seen its share of mass killings.usmarine2007 wrote:
Look, the point is, Iraq sits on a huge oil filed and could be as rich and stable as the UAE or Kuwait if they wanted to. I do not care about the EU or the US history, that is not in play here, and is not the point. I do not remember the US having mass killings as a means of control or rape rooms in our recent history.JahManRed wrote:
100 years ago we did. And 100 years is a blink of an eye in human history. Stop being so self righteous and look into your own past and ancestry. Your great or great great grandfather probably lived in those times.
If the EU & US hadn't fucked with the middle east continuously for the past 200 years who's to say they wouldn't have dragged themselves out of the quagmire just as we have done over the past 100 years.
- the indian wars
- war of independence
- slavery
- civil war
no "civil" conflicts by any standard, wouldn't you agree ?
I don't think anyone proposes for a minute that Saddam actually be reinstalled. All we're hearing here is that he could keep a lid on the ethnic violence can of worms that invasion opened up.ATG wrote:
It can be easy to wax nostalgic about the good old days of Saddam, but its short sighted. If we reinstate him we will never regain our dignity. If we cut and run nobody will ever follow into combat again. We are in their face in the Middle East, right where we should be after 9-11.
We still have troops in Germany and Japan, would you say we are still at war there?
Give it some more time.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 and the war protects no-one from terror on US soil. It's completely unrelated. It certainly didn't protect Londoners and Madrilenos, that's for sure. USA will get hit again, it's just a matter of time. War in Iraq cannot prevent that and does nothing to prevent that.
The war in Iraq has now lasted almost as long as WWII. Hooray for progress!
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-29 09:00:13)
Nope, every country has had it's wars for independence and slavery for that matter. Now we've become more "enlightened" and gotten rid of slavery. Though the sex slavery of children and young adults is rampant in many countries.usmarine2007 wrote:
Can't compare wars to mass killings can you?B.Schuss wrote:
well, I don't know about the rape rooms, but America has surely seen its share of mass killings.usmarine2007 wrote:
Look, the point is, Iraq sits on a huge oil filed and could be as rich and stable as the UAE or Kuwait if they wanted to. I do not care about the EU or the US history, that is not in play here, and is not the point. I do not remember the US having mass killings as a means of control or rape rooms in our recent history.
- the indian wars
- war of independence
- slavery
- civil war
no "civil" conflicts by any standard, wouldn't you agree ?