I do agree, but one thing you forget. The UN was supposed to enforce sanctions, not make Saddam more rich because of Australian wheat companies for example.JaggedPanther wrote:
No, that's something for our oil companies to rake the profits off of. Something well predicted in advance and most of the noobs are just realizing now. You were never in the equation.usmarine2007 wrote:
The UN was supposed to take control of Iraq after the 1st Gulf War, they failed. What natural resource? Oil? Well, where the fuck is this oil? Sure as hell not in America, or my gas would be cheap as hell, but it ain't.JaggedPanther wrote:
BTW, Why the hell does the UN have to go in a take the load on the shoulders off off the US?? The UN shouldn't be the dog of the US or follow it wherever there is natural resources that US wants to control (AKA Invading a country).
It was not the UN that failed in the 1st Gulf war it was George Bush Sr's, the UN"s mandate was to ensure Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. AND GUESS WHAT??? We went to war because there was sketches, drawings and coloring books PROVING Saddam had WMD remember?
My next guess is the reason for the iraqi war will change (once again) to 'Operation American Resolve' 'Operation Stay The Course', some other sheepy catch phrase or 'Operation Rafeal McDonalds' and all the sheep will be fooled again.
The first President Bush understood this. It is why he didn't depose Saddam. He was smart.usmarine2007 wrote:
It pains me to say Saddam was right. Did I agree with his methods? No. But dammit, they worked. The only way to deal with those people ( and yes I said those people, don't like it, go talk about Wake or Titans) was to murder anyone who got out of line. There is no need to do that stuff in the US, UK, Europe, Australia, or many other countries because we do not act like animals. We all try to make our countries better, except the people in Iraq right now. And I know what you are going to say, "it is only a few bad apples," well, I disagree. People can't speak out because they will be killed. Doctors flee the country because they get kidnapped and so do their family members. So, what do you do? Who knows. But Saddam had it right because he knew how to control the animals. Do I like the stuff he did, hell no. But I just do not know another way to control these people. So, until someone can figure out how, it is hard to say he was wrong.
Yep, Saddam was the glue that kept the Sunis and the Shiites, the Arabs and the Kurds together. He did what nobody else had done since the Persian empire controlled the area, and it's doubtful that anyone can replicate his success. He modernized the area, Iraq was the only country not to be under Islamic Law, and women had a great deal of freedom compared to other countries in the area. Let's face it, he was a far better nationalist than our president could ever aspire to be.
The funny thing to me, is that Americans seem to feel that we went to Iraq to free the people from a monster named Saddam Hussein. We need to not forget, this entire war was waged on the baseless claims that Saddam's administration (or Saddam himself) helped and/or gave refuge to al-Qaida, and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and were ready and willing to use them against the US just the same. Riiiiight.
The funny thing to me, is that Americans seem to feel that we went to Iraq to free the people from a monster named Saddam Hussein. We need to not forget, this entire war was waged on the baseless claims that Saddam's administration (or Saddam himself) helped and/or gave refuge to al-Qaida, and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and were ready and willing to use them against the US just the same. Riiiiight.
The world is the U.S.' play ground and when some part of it gets out of line we have to flex our muscle. If you don't think the U.S. rules the world you're crazy!
See, I am not the only one who thinks this.Masques wrote:
Well, at best I'd say that's incoherent and I don't see how you can both believe that he needed to go and that he ruled in the "right" way. It's really an either/or situation.usmarine2007 wrote:
I know, it is confusing isn't it?
I can see believing that while he was brutal the predicted alternative to his regime is worse.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061204/ap_ … iraq_annan
I find yours an interesting contribution. the "glue" Saddam used was total and ruthless repression, the only thing he kept together was his own dictatorial Sunnitic power over Irak, nothing more, nothing less.RoofusMcDoofus wrote:
Yep, Saddam was the glue that kept the Sunis and the Shiites, the Arabs and the Kurds together. He did what nobody else had done since the Persian empire controlled the area, and it's doubtful that anyone can replicate his success. He modernized the area, Iraq was the only country not to be under Islamic Law, and women had a great deal of freedom compared to other countries in the area. Let's face it, he was a far better nationalist than our president could ever aspire to be.
The funny thing to me, is that Americans seem to feel that we went to Iraq to free the people from a monster named Saddam Hussein. We need to not forget, this entire war was waged on the baseless claims that Saddam's administration (or Saddam himself) helped and/or gave refuge to al-Qaida, and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and were ready and willing to use them against the US just the same. Riiiiight.
To understand the complexity of the Irak situation now, remember Irak fought a bitter war of attrition against the Khomeiny Iran in the 80-ties, for more about 8 years long. Thats longer than WWII lasted.
And it was the same Khomeiny who toppled the Pro-American (puppet-)regime of the Persian Shah of Iran.
This was in the era of the cold war. The US having lost an important an strategic ally the Iran of the Persian Shah (western oriented), to the fanatic shiit muslim Khomeiny.
In the end Saddam could only keep the Iranians, who outnumberd the Iraquis 10 to 1 if im correct, at bay, by deploying chemical warfare. Guess who deliverd those chemicals to Irak, indeed The Iraqi allies/weapon suppliers of that time: USA, France, Germany and even the tiny Holland to some extent.
Why were they helping Irak then? Well they didnt want to loose any more geo-political influence in ANOTHER country in the Middle East, and had a fresh grudge against Khomeiny as well.
The shift in political priorities (who is allie/pro-american or not) came after the Cold war ended, and when Saddam invaded the wealthy Koewait. That was the moment things changed.
In my opinion one semi-good solution would be something like in the Balkan after the Milosovic-era: Craotie, Servie, Bosnia.
The New Irak, divided in 3 seperate countries:
1. Kourdistan in the North, including some land now part of Turkyie and Iran ! (UN/US/EU backed)
2. Sunnistan country around Bagdad (UN/US/EU backed, specially financially due to lack of oil reseves)
3. Shiitistan in the south region (Iran backed)
Turkyie wants to be part of the EU? Ok, on condition they retreat from Cyprus and give some land in east-Turkey to the Kurds.
Iran wants influence in Shiitistan, Ok, on condition they give some land in northern-Iran to Kurdistan.
In the end it is all about peace ! (and NOT about oil, as the USA always said, didnt they) ?
Last edited by MajorHoulahan_MASH (2006-12-09 15:29:28)
Your remark must be ironic/sarcasm.SlightlySto0pid wrote:
The world is the U.S.' play ground and when some part of it gets out of line we have to flex our muscle. If you don't think the U.S. rules the world you're crazy!
If not, if you think the U.S. rules the whole world, you're ignorant.
Last edited by MajorHoulahan_MASH (2006-12-09 15:39:54)
Don't be so smug there Cam, I know what he is saying. It WAS right for us to get rid of Saddam, the only things that was underestimated was the flooding into Iraq of terrorists, hell bent on making sure they country never saw peace or prosperity,and the US's liberal factions lack of fortitude to get the job done, and go as far as to actually aid the terrorists,( why THAT was a surprise I have no idea). Plenty of congressmen voted to go to Iraq, then when it didn't go as planned, cut and ran, just like a true liberal would.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.
The lesson that has been learned here is: don't go fucking with far-off nations who pose no real threat to you unless you're prepared to deal with the fact that they don't fucking want you messing around with their nation or overstaying what little welcome you had.
What he is saying and please correct me if I am wrong, is : Saddam KNEW those people were animals and treated them as such, the coalition goes in to treat them as free people and find out that they really are fuckin' animals. That, was a mistake
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-10 04:46:22)
Regerdless of saddams methods, when he was in charge of that country how many car/suicide bombs were on the news.
as for the U.S. flexing its muscle, that is rubbish. the only reason bush started the war in iraq was for money through oil.
i agree these people are animals and need to be treated as such. if anyone has seen the video of the british man getting his head cut off you will agree.
as for the U.S. flexing its muscle, that is rubbish. the only reason bush started the war in iraq was for money through oil.
i agree these people are animals and need to be treated as such. if anyone has seen the video of the british man getting his head cut off you will agree.
That is exactly what I am saying.lowing wrote:
What he is saying and please correct me if I am wrong, is : Saddam KNEW those people were animals and treated them as such, the coalition goes in to treat them as free people and find out that they really are fuckin' animals. That, was a mistake
USA should have left Saddam alone, until he did have weapons of mass destruction. To many soldiers have lost there lives fighting a war that should have never been started.
Stalin? of course you meant Bush....DonFck wrote:
So.. ..control through fear is the way to go, eh, Stalin? You refer to Iraqis as "animals", nice!
"Terrorists targeting our nations milk"
"terror alert condition orange"
ect....
Last edited by destruktion_6143 (2006-12-10 11:07:35)
It has been the goal of many to label those fighting in Iraq as terrorists. Yes, some wish to use terror as a political tool, and there are criminals, but to dismiss them all as terrorists is an ignorant method of propoganda. Labelling every fighter as a terrorist eliminates any understanding into why they are fighting. They will be no negotiations or attempts to satisfy these "terrorists", despite whatever cause they fight under. It is easy to say that they all hate peace and prosperity, because that is what terrorists obviously do by our definition, but it is a ridiculous statement. They have goals and desires, of political ambitions, not just pure evil. If you refused to use the terrorist label, then progress could occur by understanding why they are fighting.lowing wrote:
Don't be so smug there Cam, I know what he is saying. It WAS right for us to get rid of Saddam, the only things that was underestimated was the flooding into Iraq of terrorists, hell bent on making sure they country never saw peace or prosperity,and the US's liberal factions lack of fortitude to get the job done, and go as far as to actually aid the terrorists,( why THAT was a surprise I have no idea). Plenty of congressmen voted to go to Iraq, then when it didn't go as planned, cut and ran, just like a true liberal would.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.
The lesson that has been learned here is: don't go fucking with far-off nations who pose no real threat to you unless you're prepared to deal with the fact that they don't fucking want you messing around with their nation or overstaying what little welcome you had.
What he is saying and please correct me if I am wrong, is : Saddam KNEW those people were animals and treated them as such, the coalition goes in to treat them as free people and find out that they really are fuckin' animals. That, was a mistake
And yet, you continue to use a label. Oh yes, liberals, a convenient scapegoat. So you are now stuck in Iraq. Better blame the liberals. And the President's plans in Iraq have gone flat. Better blame the liberals, and their plans to solve the situation. Who really have you stuck in Iraq? Liberals? And if I am to understand you, liberals are actively aiding the "terrorists"? Well, it's easy to insult political ideologies, especially when you call its adherents cowards, but that is merely avoiding their solutions by using insults, and refusing to refute their arguments. "When it didn't go as planned" wasn't the fault of liberals, but instead the fault of the administration.
In Canada, our Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to go to Iraq. Thanks to his liberalism, we aren't stuck there.
whop whop, I didn't know I act like an animal, thanx for the info. Dude u have to be less rude to ppl on the internet. U never thought there will be any iraqi ppl on this foum eh? . Other than don't have any comments.usmarine2007 wrote:
It pains me to say Saddam was right. Did I agree with his methods? No. But dammit, they worked. The only way to deal with those people ( and yes I said those people, don't like it, go talk about Wake or Titans) was to murder anyone who got out of line. There is no need to do that stuff in the US, UK, Europe, Australia, or many other countries because we do not act like animals. We all try to make our countries better, except the people in Iraq right now. And I know what you are going to say, "it is only a few bad apples," well, I disagree. People can't speak out because they will be killed. Doctors flee the country because they get kidnapped and so do their family members. So, what do you do? Who knows. But Saddam had it right because he knew how to control the animals. Do I like the stuff he did, hell no. But I just do not know another way to control these people. So, until someone can figure out how, it is hard to say he was wrong.
Last edited by rabee2789b (2006-12-10 13:37:12)
Huh? I could care less where anyone is from.rabee2789b wrote:
whop whop, I didn't know I act like an animal, thanx for the info. Dude u have to be less rude to ppl on the internet. U never thought there will be any iraqi ppl on this foum eh? . Other than don't have any comments.usmarine2007 wrote:
It pains me to say Saddam was right. Did I agree with his methods? No. But dammit, they worked. The only way to deal with those people ( and yes I said those people, don't like it, go talk about Wake or Titans) was to murder anyone who got out of line. There is no need to do that stuff in the US, UK, Europe, Australia, or many other countries because we do not act like animals. We all try to make our countries better, except the people in Iraq right now. And I know what you are going to say, "it is only a few bad apples," well, I disagree. People can't speak out because they will be killed. Doctors flee the country because they get kidnapped and so do their family members. So, what do you do? Who knows. But Saddam had it right because he knew how to control the animals. Do I like the stuff he did, hell no. But I just do not know another way to control these people. So, until someone can figure out how, it is hard to say he was wrong.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-12-10 13:52:42)
Good post,Drakef wrote:
It has been the goal of many to label those fighting in Iraq as terrorists. Yes, some wish to use terror as a political tool, and there are criminals, but to dismiss them all as terrorists is an ignorant method of propoganda. Labelling every fighter as a terrorist eliminates any understanding into why they are fighting. They will be no negotiations or attempts to satisfy these "terrorists", despite whatever cause they fight under. It is easy to say that they all hate peace and prosperity, because that is what terrorists obviously do by our definition, but it is a ridiculous statement. They have goals and desires, of political ambitions, not just pure evil. If you refused to use the terrorist label, then progress could occur by understanding why they are fighting.lowing wrote:
Don't be so smug there Cam, I know what he is saying. It WAS right for us to get rid of Saddam, the only things that was underestimated was the flooding into Iraq of terrorists, hell bent on making sure they country never saw peace or prosperity,and the US's liberal factions lack of fortitude to get the job done, and go as far as to actually aid the terrorists,( why THAT was a surprise I have no idea). Plenty of congressmen voted to go to Iraq, then when it didn't go as planned, cut and ran, just like a true liberal would.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.
The lesson that has been learned here is: don't go fucking with far-off nations who pose no real threat to you unless you're prepared to deal with the fact that they don't fucking want you messing around with their nation or overstaying what little welcome you had.
What he is saying and please correct me if I am wrong, is : Saddam KNEW those people were animals and treated them as such, the coalition goes in to treat them as free people and find out that they really are fuckin' animals. That, was a mistake
And yet, you continue to use a label. Oh yes, liberals, a convenient scapegoat. So you are now stuck in Iraq. Better blame the liberals. And the President's plans in Iraq have gone flat. Better blame the liberals, and their plans to solve the situation. Who really have you stuck in Iraq? Liberals? And if I am to understand you, liberals are actively aiding the "terrorists"? Well, it's easy to insult political ideologies, especially when you call its adherents cowards, but that is merely avoiding their solutions by using insults, and refusing to refute their arguments. "When it didn't go as planned" wasn't the fault of liberals, but instead the fault of the administration.
In Canada, our Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien refused to go to Iraq. Thanks to his liberalism, we aren't stuck there.
but I disagree with it. We are "stuck" in Iraq because the democrats that voted to go there has turned tail, leaving our troops holding the bag. They put politics over security and winning the damn war. All we need to win this war is a unified country with the will to do so.
IF you are fighting AGAINST the coalition, you are fighting FOR the terrorists, helping them keep the flames of chaos blazing.
I will bet you a dollar your country will be primed to get involved in post war Iraq, even though you had nothing to do with stablizing the country. France tried the same shit after the war started in '91. They wanted nothing to do with the war, but wanted EVERYTHING to do with post war details. The coalition told France to pretty much fuck off. Canada can pretty much do the same.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-10 15:26:07)
We're stuck in Iraq because Bush and his friends didn't understand that the Iraqi people are more interested in killing each other than in forming a coherent country. When the decision was made to decommission the Iraqi Republican Guard, many then unemployed soldiers joined the insurgency that was building from local militias (like the Mahdi Army) and the foreign groups (supported by Iran and Syria). We're stuck because we didn't anticipate all of the forces at work here.lowing wrote:
Good post,
but I disagree with it. We are "stuck" in Iraq because the democrats that voted to go there has turned tail, leaving our troops holding the bag. They put politics over security and winning the damn war. All we need to win this war is a unified country with the will to do so.
IF you are fighting AGAINST the coalition, you are fighting FOR the terrorists, helping them keep the flames of chaos blazing.
I will bet you a dollar your country will be primed to get involved in post war Iraq, even though you had nothing to do with stablizing the country. France tried the same shit after the war started in '91. They wanted nothing to do with the war, but wanted EVERYTHING to do with post war details. The coalition told France to pretty much fuck off. I hope Canada fucks off as well..
The Democrats can merely be blamed for allowing Bush to authorize the war itself. Had they blocked this move, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq.
It will take sheer brutality to "win" in Iraq, but this is not a very cost effective option. Withdrawal is still our best choice.
Canada has actually been a valuable ally to us in Afghanistan, so I wouldn't tell them to fuck off. I think William Kristol needs to fuck off though.
If this is right, I don't want to be right.
http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html
http://www.kdp.pp.se/old/chemical.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So you really don't think we can win this war if the colaition stopped fucking around politically and went in there and got the job done?..THAT can happen if politics were put on the back burner, Bush can not fight to fronts of this war, Iraq, and home fronts.Turquoise wrote:
We're stuck in Iraq because Bush and his friends didn't understand that the Iraqi people are more interested in killing each other than in forming a coherent country. When the decision was made to decommission the Iraqi Republican Guard, many then unemployed soldiers joined the insurgency that was building from local militias (like the Mahdi Army) and the foreign groups (supported by Iran and Syria). We're stuck because we didn't anticipate all of the forces at work here.lowing wrote:
Good post,
but I disagree with it. We are "stuck" in Iraq because the democrats that voted to go there has turned tail, leaving our troops holding the bag. They put politics over security and winning the damn war. All we need to win this war is a unified country with the will to do so.
IF you are fighting AGAINST the coalition, you are fighting FOR the terrorists, helping them keep the flames of chaos blazing.
I will bet you a dollar your country will be primed to get involved in post war Iraq, even though you had nothing to do with stablizing the country. France tried the same shit after the war started in '91. They wanted nothing to do with the war, but wanted EVERYTHING to do with post war details. The coalition told France to pretty much fuck off. I hope Canada fucks off as well..
The Democrats can merely be blamed for allowing Bush to authorize the war itself. Had they blocked this move, we probably wouldn't be in Iraq.
It will take sheer brutality to "win" in Iraq, but this is not a very cost effective option. Withdrawal is still our best choice.
Canada has actually been a valuable ally to us in Afghanistan, so I wouldn't tell them to fuck off. I think William Kristol needs to fuck off though.
Nehhhhh, Canada can still fuck off
SO, where do you plan on holding the animalistic riots to protest being called animals?? Personally, I hope there are people from Middle Eastern descent reading these forums, You need to know how fucked up we all think your history is, and how we are all sick of your country's BULLSHIT.rabee2789b wrote:
whop whop, I didn't know I act like an animal, thanx for the info. Dude u have to be less rude to ppl on the internet. U never thought there will be any iraqi ppl on this foum eh? . Other than don't have any comments.usmarine2007 wrote:
It pains me to say Saddam was right. Did I agree with his methods? No. But dammit, they worked. The only way to deal with those people ( and yes I said those people, don't like it, go talk about Wake or Titans) was to murder anyone who got out of line. There is no need to do that stuff in the US, UK, Europe, Australia, or many other countries because we do not act like animals. We all try to make our countries better, except the people in Iraq right now. And I know what you are going to say, "it is only a few bad apples," well, I disagree. People can't speak out because they will be killed. Doctors flee the country because they get kidnapped and so do their family members. So, what do you do? Who knows. But Saddam had it right because he knew how to control the animals. Do I like the stuff he did, hell no. But I just do not know another way to control these people. So, until someone can figure out how, it is hard to say he was wrong.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-10 15:51:26)
To add to that, are you in Iraq right now? Or do you live in Detroit or something like that? Also, you tell me why it was not a mess under Saddam but is one now.lowing wrote:
SO, where do you plan on holding the animalistic riots to protest being called animals?? Personally, I hope there are people from Middle Eastern descent reading these forums, You need to know how fucked up we all think your history is, and how we are all sick of your country's BULLSHIT.rabee2789b wrote:
whop whop, I didn't know I act like an animal, thanx for the info. Dude u have to be less rude to ppl on the internet. U never thought there will be any iraqi ppl on this foum eh? . Other than don't have any comments.usmarine2007 wrote:
It pains me to say Saddam was right. Did I agree with his methods? No. But dammit, they worked. The only way to deal with those people ( and yes I said those people, don't like it, go talk about Wake or Titans) was to murder anyone who got out of line. There is no need to do that stuff in the US, UK, Europe, Australia, or many other countries because we do not act like animals. We all try to make our countries better, except the people in Iraq right now. And I know what you are going to say, "it is only a few bad apples," well, I disagree. People can't speak out because they will be killed. Doctors flee the country because they get kidnapped and so do their family members. So, what do you do? Who knows. But Saddam had it right because he knew how to control the animals. Do I like the stuff he did, hell no. But I just do not know another way to control these people. So, until someone can figure out how, it is hard to say he was wrong.
p.s. Please nobody answer this, let him.
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-12-10 16:35:41)
How is it the Democrats fault? Simply because they are in disagreement over the war does not affect it to the degree that the situation is not favourable to the American position. They have yet to take control of Congress and the Senate, so to this point it has been a Republican cause, which was disapproved by the American public. Yes, the Democrats were wrong in voting for invasion, but that does not clear the Republicans either. I am critical of both sides. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. However, the Democrat plan might work, in opposition to the Republican plan, which has hardly been effective.lowing wrote:
Good post,
but I disagree with it. We are "stuck" in Iraq because the democrats that voted to go there has turned tail, leaving our troops holding the bag. They put politics over security and winning the damn war. All we need to win this war is a unified country with the will to do so.
IF you are fighting AGAINST the coalition, you are fighting FOR the terrorists, helping them keep the flames of chaos blazing.
I will bet you a dollar your country will be primed to get involved in post war Iraq, even though you had nothing to do with stablizing the country. France tried the same shit after the war started in '91. They wanted nothing to do with the war, but wanted EVERYTHING to do with post war details. The coalition told France to pretty much fuck off. Canada can pretty much do the same.
Perhaps if you sought the reason behind those fighting in Iraq, you might find that they aren't all evil. They actually have ideals and solutions that they wish to implement, because they see the situation as hopeless, and dislike the occupation. It is a frame of mind that few want to realize, instead promoting a mass label of 'terrorist' without seeking the root cause of violence against American forces. Besides the fact that not every 'terrorist' wishes to actually use terror (the word makes them sound so much more malicious and evil), they aren't simply committing their acts without a reason. It isn't that they have a mental disorder that promotes anti-American violence, but instead a reason that makes them want to fight against what they see as unjust. To make a comparison, the American revolutionaries fought the British for their independance. They saw violence as a legitimate form of expression for their cause. However, it would be wrong for the British government to dismiss them all as terrorists only because they oppose Great Britain. Imagine the citizens ignoring the cause of the revolutionaries, only because they fought against their soldiers. Likely, many Britons thought that what they had given to the colonists was fine and just, and if they opposed it, they were wrong, and therefore 'terrorists'. Maybe this situation did occur. Imagine some Iraqis committed to a principle similar to the American revolutionaries. They may be wrong, they may have some justification, or maybe they should use legimiate non-violent tactics. But what is not productive is to immediately dismiss them as 'terrorists' and urge the country that killing them is the only way to solve the situation. Killing innocents is what made many of them join an anti-American cause, and more deaths will only feed the violence as more will see the cause as just. They aren't mindless killing machines who are automatically evil. They are human beings, who have reasons for committing their acts.
As for my country, I do not wish Canada to get involved in such a manner. I disapprove strongly of our being in Afghanistan, and I wish our departure. If my country does become involved, it will be against my approval, but as a Liberal, I will encourage a better foreign policy in the Middle East.
The Democrats have plan??!!!......By all means do tell. We have been waiting for a long ass time now to hear it.Drakef wrote:
How is it the Democrats fault? Simply because they are in disagreement over the war does not affect it to the degree that the situation is not favourable to the American position. They have yet to take control of Congress and the Senate, so to this point it has been a Republican cause, which was disapproved by the American public. Yes, the Democrats were wrong in voting for invasion, but that does not clear the Republicans either. I am critical of both sides. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. However, the Democrat plan might work, in opposition to the Republican plan, which has hardly been effective.lowing wrote:
Good post,
but I disagree with it. We are "stuck" in Iraq because the democrats that voted to go there has turned tail, leaving our troops holding the bag. They put politics over security and winning the damn war. All we need to win this war is a unified country with the will to do so.
IF you are fighting AGAINST the coalition, you are fighting FOR the terrorists, helping them keep the flames of chaos blazing.
I will bet you a dollar your country will be primed to get involved in post war Iraq, even though you had nothing to do with stablizing the country. France tried the same shit after the war started in '91. They wanted nothing to do with the war, but wanted EVERYTHING to do with post war details. The coalition told France to pretty much fuck off. Canada can pretty much do the same.
Perhaps if you sought the reason behind those fighting in Iraq, you might find that they aren't all evil. They actually have ideals and solutions that they wish to implement, because they see the situation as hopeless, and dislike the occupation. It is a frame of mind that few want to realize, instead promoting a mass label of 'terrorist' without seeking the root cause of violence against American forces. Besides the fact that not every 'terrorist' wishes to actually use terror (the word makes them sound so much more malicious and evil), they aren't simply committing their acts without a reason. It isn't that they have a mental disorder that promotes anti-American violence, but instead a reason that makes them want to fight against what they see as unjust. To make a comparison, the American revolutionaries fought the British for their independance. They saw violence as a legitimate form of expression for their cause. However, it would be wrong for the British government to dismiss them all as terrorists only because they oppose Great Britain. Imagine the citizens ignoring the cause of the revolutionaries, only because they fought against their soldiers. Likely, many Britons thought that what they had given to the colonists was fine and just, and if they opposed it, they were wrong, and therefore 'terrorists'. Maybe this situation did occur. Imagine some Iraqis committed to a principle similar to the American revolutionaries. They may be wrong, they may have some justification, or maybe they should use legimiate non-violent tactics. But what is not productive is to immediately dismiss them as 'terrorists' and urge the country that killing them is the only way to solve the situation. Killing innocents is what made many of them join an anti-American cause, and more deaths will only feed the violence as more will see the cause as just. They aren't mindless killing machines who are automatically evil. They are human beings, who have reasons for committing their acts.
As for my country, I do not wish Canada to get involved in such a manner. I disapprove strongly of our being in Afghanistan, and I wish our departure. If my country does become involved, it will be against my approval, but as a Liberal, I will encourage a better foreign policy in the Middle East.
Last edited by lowing (2006-12-10 17:55:10)
Yeah, their plan is to stay until a stable puppet government is in place, just like the Republicans.lowing wrote:
The Democrats have plan??!!!......By all means do tell. We have been waiting for a long ass time now to hear it.
Raaaaaaaaaacist.lowing wrote:
SO, where do you plan on holding the animalistic riots to protest being called animals?? Personally, I hope there are people from Middle Eastern descent reading these forums, You need to know how fucked up we all think your history is, and how we are all sick of your country's BULLSHIT.rabee2789b wrote:
whop whop, I didn't know I act like an animal, thanx for the info. Dude u have to be less rude to ppl on the internet. U never thought there will be any iraqi ppl on this foum eh? . Other than don't have any comments.usmarine2007 wrote:
It pains me to say Saddam was right. Did I agree with his methods? No. But dammit, they worked. The only way to deal with those people ( and yes I said those people, don't like it, go talk about Wake or Titans) was to murder anyone who got out of line. There is no need to do that stuff in the US, UK, Europe, Australia, or many other countries because we do not act like animals. We all try to make our countries better, except the people in Iraq right now. And I know what you are going to say, "it is only a few bad apples," well, I disagree. People can't speak out because they will be killed. Doctors flee the country because they get kidnapped and so do their family members. So, what do you do? Who knows. But Saddam had it right because he knew how to control the animals. Do I like the stuff he did, hell no. But I just do not know another way to control these people. So, until someone can figure out how, it is hard to say he was wrong.