How does the West win the 'War on Terror'?
- Thread starter McRocket
- Start date
I'm sorry Peter but an invasion is exactly what transpired. If the purpose of the war in Iraq was simply to remove Sadaam for the sake of removing him, then why wasn't this the administration's policy in the first place. They deposed Sadaam (who I don't deny was a murderous bastard), and replace him with our own lackeies. The fact of the matter was that the President Bush wanted to secure the strategic oil fields of Iraq to ensure the continuity of American's God given right to drive Hummers which get 9 miles to the gallon and only pay $1.00/gallon at the pump. Well another failure. At least he made some money for his friends.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=RTN&t=2y Raytheon
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=2y Halliburton
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=XOM&t=2y Exxon Mobil
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LMT&t=2y Lockheed Martin
Free the Iraqi people my ass. He was just makin' money for his corporate big wig friends http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-elite.htm.
Peter you claim that we offered help to the Iraqi people, how by turning their country into the ninth plane of hell? Look at the pictures of what war really looks like, PLEASE NOTE THESE LINKS TRULY ARE PORNOGRAPHIC
http://crisispictures.org/?p=195
http://crisispictures.org/?p=203 and
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/. These people did not deserve to die on the basis of a lie. I'm sorry two wrongs do not make a right.
The Iraqi people may have wanted their freedom from Sadaam, but you only have to look at the success rate of governments installed or supported by US power, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Iran, Iraq (back when Sadaam was a good guy remember http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/rumsfeld_saddam.gif) Bush went in front of the country and in his State of the Union Address said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Some say that they were just relying on the intelligence given to them. I say bullshit, examine the Downing Street Memo, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html, "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."[emphasis mine]
It's called plausible deniability, they made damn sure that anything suggesting otherwise was ignored. The result 1700 dead American soldiers, over 13,000 wounded, approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians... And we impeached Clinton for one dirty dress.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=RTN&t=2y Raytheon
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=2y Halliburton
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=XOM&t=2y Exxon Mobil
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=LMT&t=2y Lockheed Martin
Free the Iraqi people my ass. He was just makin' money for his corporate big wig friends http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-elite.htm.
Peter you claim that we offered help to the Iraqi people, how by turning their country into the ninth plane of hell? Look at the pictures of what war really looks like, PLEASE NOTE THESE LINKS TRULY ARE PORNOGRAPHIC
http://crisispictures.org/?p=195
http://crisispictures.org/?p=203 and
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/. These people did not deserve to die on the basis of a lie. I'm sorry two wrongs do not make a right.
The Iraqi people may have wanted their freedom from Sadaam, but you only have to look at the success rate of governments installed or supported by US power, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Iran, Iraq (back when Sadaam was a good guy remember http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/rumsfeld_saddam.gif) Bush went in front of the country and in his State of the Union Address said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Some say that they were just relying on the intelligence given to them. I say bullshit, examine the Downing Street Memo, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html, "C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."[emphasis mine]
It's called plausible deniability, they made damn sure that anything suggesting otherwise was ignored. The result 1700 dead American soldiers, over 13,000 wounded, approximately 100,000 Iraqi civilians... And we impeached Clinton for one dirty dress.
OK..First off.. We accomplished the main goal of the US....THE CAPTURE OF SADAM!!!..so how you see it as a miserable failure is fucking beyond me :dunno: Second...You say we've CAUSED a great deal of the trouble in the mid east? The mid east has been a cluster fuck WAY before we even got there....so dont blame the country whos liberating Iraq from the dead head leader they once had...WHO CAUSED A GREAT DEAL OF THE TROUBLE IN THE MID EAST!!!
Your just fuckin nuts buddy....maybe it takes a terrorist attack in your neigborhood for you to wake the fuck up. And im also wondering what exactly it is that you all think we should do?? IF BUSH HADENT HAVE GONE TO IRAQ....AND ANOTHER ATTACK DID FOLLOW...YOU ALL WOULD THEN BE BITCHIN AND GRIPING SAYING "IT COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED". No matter what...you guys will always blame bush!! Isnt it funny how quickly people forget 9/11
that just blows my fucking mind how anyone could think that....THATS THE REASON ALL THIS SHIT IS GOING ON IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!
I'm sorry, the capture of Saddam was not the Main Goal, it was a goal, an important one. The people of this country were sold on this war by scaring them into believing that, as then NSA Condi Rice said, "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Well the fact of the matter was that the UN Inspectors had pretty much already concluded that their weren't any nukes in Iraq, nor did he have the capacity.
For myself, I think Bush 41 got it right when he wrote with Brent Scowcroft wrote in, A World Transformed:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome." --- George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (1998), pp. 489-90
For myself, I think Bush 41 got it right when he wrote with Brent Scowcroft wrote in, A World Transformed:
Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome." --- George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (1998), pp. 489-90
First off...I happen to drive an old muscle car that gets 8mpg..so :thefinger
that just happens to be due to a little thing called FREEDOM which seems to mean jack shit to most nowdays. I am so sick and tired of you people saying "its all for oil"...Please get some common fuckin sense...why am I paying 2.65/gal then? Wheres all this oil we're getting??? trust me...if it were for oil....we would have it by now :1orglaugh I can't help but notice how many of you all are talkin shit against this countrys policies in a way that suggest you absolutly hate us....But yet you sure as hell love the freedom, and liberties in this country...and most will bleed the shit out of this country with your wellfare and tax breaks without even a simple sign of respect or thanks...nope...just sit here, and talk shit while your eating american food, driving on american roads, and living on american soil...now that pissis me off!!
talk about disrespect!!
Oh..ok, so that makes it all safe...yup...lets just pull out...we'll be better off just sittin around and wait and see if anything happens...yeah..good plan.
First off...UN is fucking useless...going to war without the UN is like going deer hunting without a drum set..YA DONT NEED IT!! Second...where are you getting your information...oh..thats right..msnbc..yeah, they know everything. :thumbsup:
The Main goal for going over there was to eliminate the threat of an attack against the US in the wake of 9/11..The threat of attack was by SADAM...THAT IS THE MAIN GOAL OF THE WAR IN IRAQ!!! And it was accomplished...only to be frowned upon by spoiled liberals who get a stress attack if there pants are in a rinkle....Tell me...what would you do if you were in the presidents shoes after 9/11??? More peace talks...yeah...allotta fuckin good that did us in the 90's
Well to answer your well thought responses Guy, I'll quote you Thomas Jefferson, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." I love this country, you see the big difference between the way people like you and those like me look at the country is this:
People like you see America the way a small child sees his or her parents, after all Mommy and Daddy can do no wrong.
I see America the way grown-ups look at their parents, we love our parents, but we're not ignorant of the fact that parents make mistakes, and when they do we're not afraid to call them on it.
You ask me what I would do if I were in the President's shoes on 9/11. I can tell you what I wouldn't do, spend 7 minutes reading, "My Pet Goat," with the first-graders. He didn't want to upset them... Bullshit. I wouldn't have diverted troops from Afganistan (remember that's where Osama is) to Iraq. I wouldn't have pissed off the rest of the world with a policy of pre-emption. I wouldn't have allowed both the Iranian government and the North Korean governments to develop nukes.
Freedom is not driving your car, it's getting to vote, speaking your mind, and calling bullshit bullshit.
You say liberals are trying to take away the freedoms of this country, bullshit. It's people like Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson and James Dobson who can't stop thinking about tell all of us what we can and can't do in our bedrooms. You seem to think "libruls" like me are the cause of America's problems so let's imagine a world with out "libruls" like me, no civil rights movement (we don't need to let non-whites vote do we), no equal rights movement (women should stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant), no labor movement (I sure as hell hate that I get paid overtime, why can't they just pay me my normal rate), no child labor laws (I think 8 is a perfect age to start in the factory), no clean air and water standards (nope you don't need those if you like to hunt and fish), no social security (gramma can starve for all I care). Yup the world would be better off without people like me.
As for tax breaks, yeah the poor really did well with the President's tax breaks, keep telling yourself that pal, honestly...
People like you see America the way a small child sees his or her parents, after all Mommy and Daddy can do no wrong.
I see America the way grown-ups look at their parents, we love our parents, but we're not ignorant of the fact that parents make mistakes, and when they do we're not afraid to call them on it.
You ask me what I would do if I were in the President's shoes on 9/11. I can tell you what I wouldn't do, spend 7 minutes reading, "My Pet Goat," with the first-graders. He didn't want to upset them... Bullshit. I wouldn't have diverted troops from Afganistan (remember that's where Osama is) to Iraq. I wouldn't have pissed off the rest of the world with a policy of pre-emption. I wouldn't have allowed both the Iranian government and the North Korean governments to develop nukes.
Freedom is not driving your car, it's getting to vote, speaking your mind, and calling bullshit bullshit.
You say liberals are trying to take away the freedoms of this country, bullshit. It's people like Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson and James Dobson who can't stop thinking about tell all of us what we can and can't do in our bedrooms. You seem to think "libruls" like me are the cause of America's problems so let's imagine a world with out "libruls" like me, no civil rights movement (we don't need to let non-whites vote do we), no equal rights movement (women should stay in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant), no labor movement (I sure as hell hate that I get paid overtime, why can't they just pay me my normal rate), no child labor laws (I think 8 is a perfect age to start in the factory), no clean air and water standards (nope you don't need those if you like to hunt and fish), no social security (gramma can starve for all I care). Yup the world would be better off without people like me.
As for tax breaks, yeah the poor really did well with the President's tax breaks, keep telling yourself that pal, honestly...
my question is "do you have choice with terrorists and dictators?" I don't encourage the killing but with monsters like Ben Laden, Al Zarquawi and others of their terrorist friend negotiating is hardly possible if not impossible.LetoII said:
Terrorists rarely surrender if not never, they prefer to die or sacrifice other people's lives than surrendering.
With some people you can talk and negotiate with other you can't.
Killing is not a solution yes but like I said with terrorist and dictators negotiations will never work.
The embargo on Irak made people unhappy and I think that economic measures can be dangerous over the long run but it is my point of view.
georges said:
how come you guys only see those two extreme possibilities ?! why does it have to be either peaceful negotiation (which is indeed pointless) or killing (which is just as pointless). what about arresting them, infiltrating them by counter inteligence measures ?! you can always work around the killing part. killing people never makes things any easier.
and you DO have the choice. always. if you can get close enough to a terrorist to kill him, you're also close enough for arresting him.
Thse kind of guy must be arreted and trialed.
And not guantanamo-like trial where terrorist are trialed under special rules (or even no rules) but a fair and transparent trial where they will be able to defend themselves and be defended by advocates. Let's capture them and lead them to The Hague' International Tribunal.
History will say "By respecting the rights of those men who didn't respect anything, they have given to them and to the world a lesson of what "civilisation" and "democracy" mean".
If you do not treat these men the same way you would treat any other criminal, then you don't worth much more than them...
And not guantanamo-like trial where terrorist are trialed under special rules (or even no rules) but a fair and transparent trial where they will be able to defend themselves and be defended by advocates. Let's capture them and lead them to The Hague' International Tribunal.
History will say "By respecting the rights of those men who didn't respect anything, they have given to them and to the world a lesson of what "civilisation" and "democracy" mean".
If you do not treat these men the same way you would treat any other criminal, then you don't worth much more than them...
hedgehog said:
nice post, hedgehog ! and i like to add something: even IF the US wanted to "offer their help" out of sheer humanitarian reasons... could they afford it, without getting some sort of benefit from it ?! may i remind you that the USA is almost bankrupt ! about 400 billion $ shortfall ! thousands of US citizens have lost their old-age provisions, the middle-class is getting ever closer to poverty...they just can't afford to be that generous !
or how come the US didn't help those countries where there are tragedies of biblical proportions, like Africa ?! why don't they pass the south africans the patents for AIDS medicaments ?! half the continent is kicking the bucket because of this disease. why didn't they intervene in Rwanda, where they really could have prevented this incredible slaughter ?! compared to Africa, the Iraq seems like fucking paradise !!! where is the effort concerning Africa ?
there is none ! cause there's nothing to gain there. no oil, no natural resources we could benefit from. it's that simple.
guy said:First off...I happen to drive an old muscle car that gets 8mpg..so :thefinger
that just happens to be due to a little thing called FREEDOM which seems to mean jack shit to most nowdays. I am so sick and tired of you people saying "its all for oil"...Please get some common fuckin sense...why am I paying 2.65/gal then? Wheres all this oil we're getting??? trust me...if it were for oil....we would have it by now :1orglaugh I can't help but notice how many of you all are talkin shit against this countrys policies in a way that suggest you absolutly hate us....But yet you sure as hell love the freedom, and liberties in this country...and most will bleed the shit out of this country with your wellfare and tax breaks without even a simple sign of respect or thanks...nope...just sit here, and talk shit while your eating american food, driving on american roads, and living on american soil...now that pissis me off!!
talk about disrespect!!
i don't know about you, guy, but i've learned very early to NEVER confuse a government with its population. nobody hates Americans on this board ! we're questioning the actions of your government, which is something entirely different, and also something every good citizen in this world should do with his own government. the typical "respect your government" "don't ask what your coutry can do for you..." phrases have always been used in dictatorships and militaristic regimes, in order to keep the population as silent as possible.
guy said:
you act like America is owned by the government, as if the American population has no more right to enjoy these things when they're discontent with their leaders. well, tell you what, guy... ALL these things you've mentioned are the property of the American people !!! not the goddamn gov.!
what the hell do you think are you paying taxes for ?! YOU OWN THIS COUNTRY ! the government is only supposed to run it. and they better run it well, cause it's YOUR money they might be pissing away.
you have all the rights to say whatever you like about your government.
that's all i'm gonna say about this.
LetoII said:
Arresting them yes and inflitrating them by counter intellignece them yes also. It is what happened with Saddam but also with Carlos. But during the arrestation can you guarantee that he will not shoot on you or blow himself? That is the big question.When you have arrested him you are not sure as well to get the wanted info.That also needs to be taken in consideration. Always look behind your back as I say.
Taco Bell will give thier new Crunch Wrap to all countries and world peace will come. Then, If theres any more heated arguments, they'll be settled with a game of mortal kombat 2. Jones Soda will be shared and a mean game of poker will be played. And thats how world peace will come about.
georges said:
of course there's no guarantee for that. but in that case he would have been killed by self defense, in the process of the arrest. that's certainly not the same as an execution, is it ?!
georges said:
and exactly what kind of info would you get after shooting him in the head ???
it's pretty hard to interrogate a dead man, don't you think ?!
georges said:
If you're affraid about someone may be able to shout on you, WHAT THE FUCK ARE DOING IN THE ARMY ???
If he blows himself, in the end its the same than if you had killed him.
He may not give you informations after he is captured but he sure won't give them after he's been shooted, so get him and take the chance to get these precious informations.
Well, since we are exchanging the same argument over and over and since we will never find a compromise we all or most of us can agree on, I've decided to stop posting here.
I think it's remarkable that there's not the slightest bit of approach between the two sides of the argument in this thread. That's exactly the situation the politicians face. Everyone agrees that something must be done about the situation, the only difference being that everybody has other ideas about the How. I can't help but wonder if the people -and the governments- of the countries advocating a more gentle approach wouldn't correct their views if something like 9/11 or Madrid or London happened in their countries.
I also noticed that, like it or not, the Muslims vs. Christians aspect plays an important part in our discussion. To a certain degree, this is a war on religion, regardless of where it is fought. For those of you who haven't done so, I really recommend reading Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations", no matter what side you're on.
Lastly, I want to quote a sentence I found in one of the links Hedgehog provided:
I think it's remarkable that there's not the slightest bit of approach between the two sides of the argument in this thread. That's exactly the situation the politicians face. Everyone agrees that something must be done about the situation, the only difference being that everybody has other ideas about the How. I can't help but wonder if the people -and the governments- of the countries advocating a more gentle approach wouldn't correct their views if something like 9/11 or Madrid or London happened in their countries.
I also noticed that, like it or not, the Muslims vs. Christians aspect plays an important part in our discussion. To a certain degree, this is a war on religion, regardless of where it is fought. For those of you who haven't done so, I really recommend reading Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations", no matter what side you're on.
Lastly, I want to quote a sentence I found in one of the links Hedgehog provided:
This is the kind of enemy we're facing. One who does not know any moral boundaries, who does not know the slightest bit of respect towards others or towards human beings. Wherever this lack of human qualities comes from we will all have to realize our enemy isn't the Russian army any more. It is, for that matter, no human being you can "talk to", "integrate", "co-exist with" or "convince" of anything. That's the reason why my standpoint is what it is and I seriously doubt it will change.
That seems to be all you can tell us..is what the president does wrong...I still havent heard any new suggestions as to how to handle terrorism...nope....just a bunch of BS. As for Liberals taking away rights, I agree that there has been some good contributions by SOME members of the democratic party....what I am talking about is taking away the pledge of Allegiance in schools because of the words UNDER GOD. WTF is that all about? NAFTA....Oh yeah, Lets just let any god damn thing come into our country...including Illegal imigrants. Affirmative Action....your telling me a black guy can get a Scholarship before a white guy because hes black, even though his GPA in high school was a 1.1 yeah, that fair.!!!thats what it boils down to, and I must say what a crock of shit that is!! What about the second amendment???yeah...take away our right to own guns...like thats going to solve the crime rate...good plan! someone mentioned the
You can thank clinton for that...and if ya wanna talk poor spending...Clinton administration is the leader in that department....with there studys to "find out why prisoners wanted to escape from prison" yeah...real good spending habbits there. As far as 9/11....you can thank that administration for that as well when in fact the USS Cole WAS linked to Bin Laden...as well as the first WTC Bombing...AND Seria had Bin Laden and offered him to us for a fair trial...which Clinton in all his great fucking wisdom turned it down saying "we have nothing substantial to hold him on". Well, there ya go, your famous liberal president who..Instead of looking out for the wellfare of his nation..was too busy getting a hummer in the oval office...Real good leadership!
