Iraq War

[simpletool]

Agreed.

Part of the fear on our allies part however - was that the elimination of Sunni Saddam might just enhance the hands of Shi'a Iran and Syria. Which is exactly what has happened.

Syria is run by an Alwai minority and is made up of a Sunni majority. The only link I can think of that would put Iran, Syria, and Shi'a together is Hezbollah.

To add to this thread: I believe the new president of Iraq is Kurdish. I don't see how an angry Iraqi Arab majority would vote for a Kurdish president (especially after hearing about Kurdistan). That's like the United States having a black president right after the civil war (don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with that but I don't think the southern half would have allowed it to happen and history agrees with me as we have yet to see a black president). Than again, when the Bush adminstration is involved with polls the outcomes are always a bit surprising aren't they?

As for the question of civil war: There seems to always be massive deaths in Iraq do to fighting, bombing, etc. When Iraqis are killing Iraqis is that not a civil war?

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

I's a fallacy to me why only Iraq, even only Muslims are equated with terrorism. In fact the oldest acknowledged terrorist group, (in my limited knowledge, Please excuse me if I'm wrong.) is IRA, from 1922. Not one religion/race is free from terrorist groups. The list

And if you talk about state-sponsored terrorism, please think of Vietnam.

And to remind you all, I haven't yet found the reply to my question, "What was the need of starting a war in Iraq?"

 

[YMIHERE]

And to remind you all, I haven't yet found the reply to my question, "What was the need of starting a war in Iraq?"

One of the biggest reasons was that Bush just wanted to kick some ass.

 

[MRPIMPN4EVA]

One of the biggest reasons was that Bush just wanted to kick some ass.

:rofl: Makes me think of Dazed and Confused.

Bush: "I came here to take your oil and kick some ass. We're almost outta oil"

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

One of the biggest reasons was that Bush just wanted to kick some ass.

:rofl: Makes me think of Dazed and Confused.

Bush: "I came here to take your oil and kick some ass. We're almost outta oil"

Don't you think, that too is terrorism?.

Be rational and not emotional, please. Patriotism is OK. But to loan a word from the 'old west' - "a good guy going renegade".

 

[YMIHERE]

Don't you think, that too is terrorism?.

Be rational and not emotional, please. Patriotism is OK. But to loan a word from the 'old west' - "a good guy going renegade".

I agree that its terrorism on Bush's part. Having your country invaded and occupied is a terrifying event to say the least. I was not praising Bush. But he wanted a show of force to intimate other countries in the geopolitical area of the Middle East. All he accomplished was to show the limits of military power to solve political problems, and what an impotent power the US is when it takes over another country. How ironic is that!

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

I think you're giving the American leaders too much credit. I think terrorism has absolutely, completely nothing to do with it. It is just an excuse. Which is why I believe not to believe anything I am supposed to believe, even regarding 911.

Fox

I'm a little confused Fox. If it is not the American People, (Which I strongly believe, is not, and have expressed several times in my post. They are the mere milk-cow, as I look at them) and if the scene is played out, then who is responsible, if the credit doesn't go to the leadership?

If you look at the circumstances and the situation of the countries involved prior to the Kargil War between India & Pakistan, you will know, it was done to bail out both the Governments from a crisis situation, by fomenting the patriotism fervor. Sorry it's off-topic but I wanted to explain the leadership-quotient in any conflict/warfare.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

I's a fallacy to me why only Iraq, even only Muslims are equated with terrorism. In fact the oldest acknowledged terrorist group, (in my limited knowledge, Please excuse me if I'm wrong.) is IRA, from 1922. Not one religion/race is free from terrorist groups. The list

And if you talk about state-sponsored terrorism, please think of Vietnam.

And to remind you all, I haven't yet found the reply to my question, "What was the need of starting a war in Iraq?"

I didn't find any mention of KKK in the list. Sorry, they are older to IRA, my mistake.

 

[Member2019]

Kkk

I didn't find any mention of KKK in the list.

Definitely an excellent point.
One could argue that the KKK, at least during its peak, was the equivalent of the Hezbolla in Lebanon.
Entire states in the US did not crack down on their existence.

 

[meesterperfect]

Except the KKK didnt swear to "poof" the entire United states out of existence.

 

[Member2019]

Yes, the KKK wanted to destroy the US ...

Except the KKK didnt swear to "poof" the entire United states out of existence.

Yes it did, the KKK went against the will of the people of the United States.
It wanted to "destroy" the very existence -- the "American way of life" -- for African Americans.
People who were against the rights of its citizens, such people were domestic enemies of the state and its people.

If the KKK was as strong as it was 150 years ago today, and the stage was set, you'd have similar situations.
You'd have some radical elements of the KKK using WMDs against an entire African American concentration
(and who cares about "white deaths" since they are "****** lovers" because they live near them?).
And many southern states would have leaders who would "turn a blind eye" towards those events.

Now I'm glad the United States has grown past those days, and we are one of the rarest nations where those of Islamic, Jewish and other faiths,
as well as those of various colors and other ethic backgrounds get alone perfectly, without issue (taking away the poor, inner city economics).

And three reason for that are ...
A) Our Constitution, especially the separation of the electorate from the Legislative and Executive
B) Our Judicial system (which shocked many nations even more than "A" when we first implemented it)
C) Our "unrestricted" media, which is free to be as ignorant or as investigative as they wish

In fact, if there is 1 difference between the US and Russia today, it's our media, which makes me wonder what changed with the end of the Soviet?

 

[Senor_Cheese35]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_on_el_pr/edwards2008

 

[meesterperfect]

Edit-I transferred my comment to a new post on the News Media.

 

[pussy+dickdenice]

I just wish the news media was unbiased. I want news,facts, not opinions and propaganda.
But they know what sells, give the people what they want.
Example: 2 news headlines:
1)Bus full of children have a nice day
2) Bus full of children rolls of Cliff.
Which one will sell more papers?
Just wish there was one source of news coverage, 100% unbiased.
Thanks.

Exactly, your observation is perfect, meesterperfect

 

[meesterperfect]

thanks p+d, I made a new thread out of it.

 

[Holoferno]

I am not blaming neither side but I want to say that main problem is in bringing ideals of democracy to people which just don't like democracy. 3/4 of world's nations don't like western ideals; you must bring them what they want and that's not democracy.
Americans shouldn't criticise Bush because he is a leader who fights for American interests. Without guys like him (in history) you will not be the first superpower in the world with high standard. Every other nation in the world should criticise Bush but not Americans. Every country in the world would like to have right wing, brutal leader who fights for interests and benefits of his nation. But our leaders will sold their own parents for private benefits.
From my view America was popular in the world throughout Cold War. There was Vietnam and Korea... but everybody was on American side against USSR. After fall of USSR and communism USA become pompous. That arrogancy made many nations untrustful to USA. USA is now on top of the hill and from now USA can only go downhill. Beware of that. You must try somehow manage to return confidence that USA enjoyed decade or two ago.

 

[ElStupido]

Its bad, and the only way it can get better is by leaving. It is definitely another Nam.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Its bad, and the only way it can get better is by leaving. It is definitely another Nam.

That pretty well sums it up! Good post:thumbsup:

 

[sammy402002]

I say the Iraqis start learning American accents and start telling US soldiers the same thing US soldiers tell me when I criticize the war and our government:

If you don't like our cuntry... git out!!

(Actually they should get out anyway, I don't remember any of them applying for Visas, or firing weapons and dropping bombs becoming legal in Iraq. The UN certainly doesn't think its legal even if the government of Iraq has already been demolished and silenced.)

Then what would happen? Another Pol Pot type massacre? I know we have broken the nation,but what next?-The U.S.taxpayers own it now..We are responsible.We must TRY to see if it can be fixed without a civil war bloodbath.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Then what would happen? Another Pol Pot type massacre? I know we have broken the nation,but what next?-The U.S.taxpayers own it now..We are responsible.We must TRY to see if it can be fixed without a civil war bloodbath.

Its a worthy idea Sam.you are absolutely correct we broke it.The problem is that just cause you brake something doesn't automatically mean your able to fix it.We are just preventing them from having it out and settling it like they eventually will, now or 10 tears from now.Vietnam could never be settled until we got out of the way and our staying just caused more deaths for us and the vietnamease.I think Iraq is the same thing.