Good Bush

[jverne]

you're wrong, I came to that conclusion before that movie was ever made




really?






a drop in the bucket ...education was better before the invasion. Not to mention that the contracts for education arent being implemented






one approved by the US ...just like the last guy (allawi), and the guy before him (chalabi)






no





no



no






saddam not bush ...here read this





doesnt mean they werent afraid for their lives




how about your own declassified government documents?


oh and I opposed the first war ...more than a decade before F9/11

haha pwned!!!

Almost love your replies Stern...so...hmm...argumented and backed with facts!! Where do you get the will to find all those pages? :thumbs:

 

[CptStern]

heheh ..over 53 websites bookmarked for just such an occasion

 

[jondy]

heheh ..over 53 websites bookmarked for just such an occasion

lawl

char

 

[gh0st]

oh and I opposed the first war ...more than a decade before F9/11

So then you had no problem with Iraq rolling kuwait over? I guess you'd have no problem if we booted canada off the face of north america then.

i agree with you though, this war was an utter waste.

 

[seinfeldrules]

So then you had no problem with Iraq rolling kuwait over? I guess you'd have no problem if we booted canada off the face of north america then.

Meh, he sees things through a different light. It was OK for Saddam to invade Kuwait because they had oil. It was not OK for the US to free Kuwait because they had oil.

i agree with you though, this war was an utter waste.

I disagree with you here. The Iraqi people will be the ones who benefit from this war. The free, democratic elections are only a prelude of things to come. I know this will take time though, contrary to many people's belief that democracy is a plant born in a day rather than over years. America had to go through years of turmoil before being a respectable nation, hell we are still evolving after 200+ years. Why would Iraq be any different?

 

[gh0st]

I disagree with you here. The Iraqi people will be the ones who benefit from this war. The free, democratic elections are only a prelude of things to come. I know this will take time though, contrary to many people's belief that democracy is a plant born in a day rather than over years. America had to go through years of turmoil before being a respectable nation, hell we are still evolving after 200+ years. Why would Iraq be any different?

Fundamentally, the key difference is that we FOUGHT for our freedom. We've given them elections, we've given them arms, we've given them troops to train them, yet they are not NOT fighting as we did during our own revolution. Democracy isnt something we can impose with a straight face, its something you fight for. We cant do it for them, but thats what we're being imposed to do. Notice how most of the republics (the respectable ones) in the world have gone through their own revolutions. When society is ready they occur, simple as that. The iraqi people talk the talk but they dont walk the walk. This was a big ass blunder.

 

[seinfeldrules]

yet they are not NOT fighting as we did during our own revolution.

Their police force is facing worse attacks than our troops. If people wanted Saddam back, they could have voted that way. Face it, our freedom wasnt won without help either. Without French help we dont win the Revolutionary War. Do I think the Iraq War could have been handled better? Yes. Do I think it was the right thing to do? Yes. Furthermore, they were imposed under a much harsher dictator than what we had to deal with back in the day. Taxation without representation is one thing, having your family executed just for the hell of it is another thing.

 

[gh0st]

Their police force is facing worse attacks than our troops. If people wanted Saddam back, they could have voted that way. Face it, our freedom wasnt won without help either. Without French help we dont win the Revolutionary War. Do I think the Iraq War could have been handled better? Yes. Do I think it was the right thing to do? Yes. Furthermore, they were imposed under a much harsher dictator than what we had to deal with back in the day. Taxation without representation is one thing, having your family executed just for the hell of it is another thing.

Lets get real, the Iraq war wasent justified on a humanitarian basis. Saddam wasent a great guy, but doesnt it strike you as hypocritical that we intervene decades after his mass murders? No evidence exists of a current 'mass grave' site that isnt years and years old. The timing is completely suspicious. Why now?

I dont believe Saddam was on the ballots, for some reason. Iraqi police? They arent doing shit - there arent enough of them dedicated enough to fight the idiots who are trying to **** thier countr yup.

 

[qckbeam]

Fundamentally, the key difference is that we FOUGHT for our freedom. We've given them elections, we've given them arms, we've given them troops to train them, yet they are not NOT fighting as we did during our own revolution. Democracy isnt something we can impose with a straight face, its something you fight for. We cant do it for them, but thats what we're being imposed to do. Notice how most of the republics (the respectable ones) in the world have gone through their own revolutions. When society is ready they occur, simple as that. The iraqi people talk the talk but they dont walk the walk. This was a big ass blunder.

I couldn't agree with you more. This is the main reason I don't see this working out.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Lets get real, the Iraq war wasent justified on a humanitarian basis. Saddam wasent a great guy, but doesnt it strike you as hypocritical that we intervene decades after his mass murders? No evidence exists of a current 'mass grave' site that isnt years and years old. The timing is completely suspicious. Why now?

It was completely justified on a humanitarian basis. Saddam was one of the most evil men to walk the planet, akin to Hitler, but with less people to kill. Why now? The US doesnt **** around anymore after 9/11. Enough diplomacy with countries who dont know how, or wont listen to reason on a global scale. How many UN resolutions? 11? How much did it teach him? Nothing. He still attempted to kick the inspectors out. Countries like Iran and NK should be taking notes while we finishing sorting things out in Iraq.

I dont believe Saddam was on the ballots, for some reason.

If enough people wrote him in he could have won. Hell, if all of Iraq really wanted him back they could easily kick the US out.

there arent enough of them dedicated enough to fight the idiots who are trying to **** thier countr yup.

Where do you see many bombings? In police lines. Yeah, the lines of people waiting to sign up to go help the Iraqi people. The sad thing is people from places like Syria and Saudi Arabia and buying into this Jihad garbage and are giving Iraqis a bad name.

 

[gh0st]

It was completely justified on a humanitarian basis. Saddam was one of the most evil men to walk the planet, akin to Hitler, but with less people to kill. Why now? The US doesnt **** around anymore after 9/11. Enough diplomacy with countries who dont know how, or wont listen to reason on a global scale. How many UN resolutions? 11? How much did it teach him? Nothing. He still attempted to kick the inspectors out. Countries like Iran and NK should be taking notes while we finishing sorting things out in Iraq.

Somehow you just arent hitler unless you kill 6 million people. I agree with you, GHWB should have stomped him out when he had the chance and the "moral majority". Not just change direction, attack a country we had no moral reason to attack, its unethical to allow genocide to go on then change your mind when its convenient - decades after the fact. We might as well march into germany and teach those fascists a lesson in respect. As a result, America is weaker than its ever been in the past few decades, we are stretched too thin to wage war with REAL threats, and we cannot adequately protect ourselves. We are bogged down in iraq, not quite to the same degree as with vietnam, but basically yeah, we are bogged down. No end in sight, as the saying goes. Its basically been proven that regardless of whether or not weapons inspectors inspected or not that there was insufficient evidence to wage wars and cost 1600 american soldiers their lives

If enough people wrote him in he could have won. Hell, if all of Iraq really wanted him back they could easily kick the US out.

Yeah thats what a good number of them are trying to do. Not the majority of course. Do you even know if the ballots had write in options?

Where do you see many bombings? In police lines. Yeah, the lines of people waiting to sign up to go help the Iraqi people. The sad thing is people from places like Syria and Saudi Arabia and buying into this Jihad garbage and are giving Iraqis a bad name.

Not necessarily in police lines; though those are the most reported on targets because typically so many die. Most are just joining because of the fact its the only real job thats available to them. When the shit hits the fan their ass is flying out of there. They dont even want us there. Sadly I get the feeling that echoes a lot of iraqi police officers opinions, and who could blame them?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Not just change direction, attack a country we had no moral reason to attack, its unethical to allow genocide to go on then change your mind when its convenient - decades after the fact.

I assure you that Saddam was still running a tyrannical system in which he would kill (or jail) anyone that spoke out against him.

As a result, America is weaker than its ever been in the past few decades, we are stretched too thin to wage war with REAL threats, and we cannot adequately protect ourselves.

I dont believe that. We are finally focused on defense after years of neglect under Clinton. If need be, the US could still show up anywhere on the planet and kick the shit out of country X. If it was an emergency, a draft may be necessary, but if a threat arises I would gladly fight for my country along with millions of others.

We are bogged down in iraq, not quite to the same degree as with vietnam, but basically yeah, we are bogged down.

Its been what, 3 years? We were in Nam for almost 20 years with 50k+ casualties. Iraq is barely a drop in the bucket compared to that war.

Its basically been proven that regardless of whether or not weapons inspectors inspected or not that there was insufficient evidence to wage wars and cost 1600 american soldiers their lives

We all know the intel was ****ed. However, Saddam didnt help his case by kicking out the inspectors. I still dont see why he would have felt the need to do so unless he was hiding something.

Do you even know if the ballots had write in options?

No idea, but you cant count a vote unless someone is checked off. If enough ballots had Saddam written on it, then I'm sure the story would have been all over the place.

Yeah thats what a good number of them are trying to do. Not the majority of course.

Again, these people are coming in from Syria and Saudi Arabia as well. It is foolish to consider the insurgency purely Iraqi anymore. I think we netted about 125 people in the last raid we performed in the desert near Syria.

Not necessarily in police lines; though those are the most reported on targets because typically so many die. Most are just joining because of the fact its the only real job thats available to them.

. They dont even want us there. Sadly I get the feeling that echoes a lot of iraqi police officers opinions, and who could blame them?

Bush has said that all that needs to happen is for Al-Jafaari to ask us to leave. I'm sure he'd settle for the Iraqi congress. They know they need us for the time being.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

so, let's say that the only reason why we attacked Iraq is to free people from Sadam, but look, what's over there? it's Africa, and hundreds of people are killed every day, Hey let's go free them too!.. No? why not? 'cause they don't have oil? ahh, i see

 

[Dag]

Somalia, maybe? Did they have oil? No. Did we go in and try to help? Yes. What stopped us? The UN. Thats most of the reason that the US doesn't intervine with the problems of other countries. We can't help other countries if the Hipocracy of the UN goes, "Nope, its thier problem, sucks for them."

 

[iyfyoufhl]

Somalia, maybe? Did they have oil? No. Did we go in and try to help? Yes. What stopped us? The UN. Thats most of the reason that the US doesn't intervine with the problems of other countries. We can't help other countries if the Hipocracy of the UN goes, "Nope, its thier problem, sucks for them."

i wasn't talking about somalia

 

[CptStern]

Somalia, maybe? Did they have oil? No. Did we go in and try to help? Yes. What stopped us? The UN. Thats most of the reason that the US doesn't intervine with the problems of other countries. We can't help other countries if the Hipocracy of the UN goes, "Nope, its thier problem, sucks for them."

what the hell are you talking about? the UN was in somalia, I think you're thinking of rwanda ..and yes there was a UN contingent in rwanda during the worst of the massacres ...the US on the other hand was nowhere to be found.

for the last time people the UN is powerless without it's members ..the UN has NO army, unless they are provided by the member states ...seriously, the way some of you talk it's almost as if the UN was a country


btw somalia has oil, lots of it ...but it's also been very unstable for the past 20 years ..it also was/is the home of radical muslim fundamentalists including al qaeda

 

[iyfyoufhl]

what the hell are you talking about? the UN was in somalia, I think you're thinking of rwanda ..and yes there was a UN contingent in rwanda during the worst of the massacres ...the US on the other hand was nowhere to be found.

for the last time people the UN is powerless without it's members ..the UN has NO army, unless they are provided by the member states ...seriously, the way some of you talk it's almost as if the UN was a country


btw somalia has oil, lots of it ...but it's also been very unstable for the past 20 years ..it also was/is the home of radical muslim fundamentalists including al qaeda

After a period of time spent on this forum, I noticed that CptStern is never wrong. Weird

 

[CptStern]

awww now you're just embarrassing me

/me waits for my opponents to point out the multitude of times I've been wrong

 

[Dag]

what the hell are you talking about? the UN was in somalia, I think you're thinking of rwanda ..and yes there was a UN contingent in rwanda during the worst of the massacres ...the US on the other hand was nowhere to be found.

for the last time people the UN is powerless without it's members ..the UN has NO army, unless they are provided by the member states ...seriously, the way some of you talk it's almost as if the UN was a country


btw somalia has oil, lots of it ...but it's also been very unstable for the past 20 years ..it also was/is the home of radical muslim fundamentalists including al qaeda

I never said the UN wasn't in Somalia, they just ended up letting Aidid get away. Twice before the US tried to strike at him, the UN demanded that they give Somalia a Two day announcement of attack. Which, amazingly, let Aidid slip out of the US grasp. And the US involvement in Somalia was huge, read Black Hawk Down, you'll find the US was there, and played a huge part.
And the UN, being a collection of states, does have power. And I don't think we had our minds set on oil when we went in.

 

[kirovman]

Heh, your opponents were eliminated in the great purges.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

I never said the UN wasn't in Somalia, they just ended up letting Aidid get away. Twice before the US tried to strike at him, the UN demanded that they give Somalia a Two day announcement of attack. Which, amazingly, let Aidid slip out of the US grasp. And the US involvement in Somalia was huge, read Black Hawk Down, you'll find the US was there, and played a huge part.
And the UN, being a collection of states, does have power. And I don't think we had our minds set on oil when we went in.

well, anyway the genocide is going on right now, and US is not even talking about it

 

[Dag]

well, anyway the genocide is going on right now, and US is not even talking about it

Read the newspaper. Go online. Its being stated everywhere. And we are supporting as many countries as we can with limited reasouces and the current middle east situation, which is the result of the worlds actions sixty years ago, not just the US's immediate actions today.

 

[CptStern]

Read the newspaper. Go online. Its being stated everywhere. And we are supporting as many countries as we can with limited reasouces and the current middle east situation, which is the result of the worlds actions sixty years ago, not just the US's immediate actions today.

Iraq has nothing to do with events that happened 60 years ago ..Iraq has everything to do with the collective greed of a handful of neo-cons

 

[Dag]

I believe events 60 years ago had alot to do with Iraq.

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_middle_east/iraq_timeline.jpg

 

[CptStern]

are you sggesting the war in iraq can be traced back to the arab invasion of israel? how about you NOT avoid the obvious ..it started back in 63 when the CIA backed the assassination of General Qassim:

"US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".


"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".



source

 

[seinfeldrules]

so, let's say that the only reason why we attacked Iraq is to free people from Sadam

Who said that?

it started back in 63 when the CIA backed the assassination of General Qassim:

I would vote on when Saddam decided to flick off the world.

 

[iyfyoufhl]

are you sggesting the war in iraq can be traced back to the arab invasion of israel? how about you NOT avoid the obvious ..it started back in 63 when the CIA backed the assassination of General Qassim:

"US diplomat James Akins served in the Baghdad Embassy at the time. Mr. Akins said, "I knew all the Ba'ath Party leaders and I liked them".


"The CIA were definitely involved in that coup. We saw the rise of the Ba'athists as a way of replacing a pro-Soviet government with a pro-American one and you don't get that chance very often.

"Sure, some people were rounded up and shot but these were mostly communists so that didn't bother us".



source

So resourceful it's beautiful

 

[CptStern]

Who said that?


I would vote on when Saddam decided to flick off the world.

you mean when the cia was helping him do just that?


"The book, A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, sets out the details not only of how the CIA closely controlled the planning stages (for the 1963 coup) but also how it played a central role in the subsequent purge of suspected leftists after the coup.


The author reckons that 5,000 were killed, giving the names of 600 of them - including many doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors who formed Iraq's educated elite. The massacre was carried out on the basis of death lists provided by the CIA.


The lists were compiled in CIA stations throughout the Middle East with the assistance of Iraqi exiles like Saddam, who was based in Egypt. An Egyptian intelligence officer, who obtained a good deal of his information from Saddam, helped the Cairo CIA station draw up its list. According to Aburish, however, the American agent who produced the longest list was William McHale, who operated under the cover of a news correspondent for the Beirut bureau of Time magazine.

The butchery began as soon as the lists reached Baghdad. No-one was spared. Even pregnant women and elderly men were killed. Some were tortured in front of their children. According to the author, Saddam who 'had rushed back to Iraq from exile in Cairo to join the victors, was personally involved in the torture of leftists in the separate detention centres for fellaheen [peasants] and the Muthaqafeen or educated classes."


source

 

[seinfeldrules]

you mean when the cia was helping him do just that?

I severly doubt the CIA has been helping Saddam over the past decade. We arent talking about 40 years ago.

 

[CptStern]

who cares? all of the sudden that vindicates them? that's like saying charles manson is now reformed because he hasnt killed anyone in over 30 years

 

[Dag]

who cares? all of the sudden that vindicates them? that's like saying charles manson is now reformed because he hasnt killed anyone in over 30 years

That would be reformed, if he decided not to kill anybody anymore. In fact, thats a major Reform.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well if we look back a little further I suppose we could blame Europe for allowing Hitler to come to power. Who cares if they ended up removing him, that doesnt vindicate them!

 

[CptStern]

so on that basis we should just release him? sorry but the crimes speak for themselves ...and the cia's exploits arent only regelated to iraq, there's also:

Iran
Guatemala
North Vietnam
Hungary
Laos
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Congo
Brazil
Indonesia
Greece
Bolivia
Uruguay
Cambodia
Chile
Angola
Australia
Afghanistan
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Honduras
Panama

 

[seinfeldrules]

so on that basis we should just release him? sorry but the crimes speak for themselves ...and the cia's exploits arent only regelated to iraq, there's also:

I've noticed that those are mainly in response to the USSR during a long passed Cold War. I was wondering if you could give me some details on how much $ the US has donated to third world countries over the past 40 years.

 

[CptStern]

ummm no ...look up 1953 iran, look up laos look up panama, bolivia and a half dozen other world hot spots that had nothing to do with the ussr

 

[seinfeldrules]

ummm no ...look up 1953 iran, look up laos look up panama, bolivia and a half dozen other world hot spots that had nothing to do with the ussr

Iran in the 70s, Afghanistan, much of Central America. All were battlegrounds for the Cold War. Look at what the USSR was doing in the post-WWII era. They were taking everything they could.

 

[gh0st]

I assure you that Saddam was still running a tyrannical system in which he would kill (or jail) anyone that spoke out against him.

I have no doubt of that. I can assure YOU that there are for worse cases of genocide occuring elsewhere in the world, aka Sudan and other African countries. What sets the two apart? Iraqi genocide happened decades ago, whereas other nations are being raped and pillaged as we speak and need our help way the **** more than Iraq does, and murky intelligence.

I dont believe that. We are finally focused on defense after years of neglect under Clinton. If need be, the US could still show up anywhere on the planet and kick the shit out of country X. If it was an emergency, a draft may be necessary, but if a threat arises I would gladly fight for my country along with millions of others.

Strains imposed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it far
more difficult for the U.S. military to beat back any future act of
aggression, launch a preemptive strike or intervene to prevent
conflict in another part of the world, the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff said in a classified analysis sent to Congress on
Monday. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...3may03,0,6915005.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
​

I wouldent be so sure. I'd fight as well, regardless of the conflit, ESPECIALLY if America was in some kind of peril, but I can still believe they arent justified. Moreover, I doubt anyone in their right mind could say that Iraq is a better place to live right now. theres little education, little utilities, little food, little water, little electricity, many attacks, tensions between political idealogues, and so forth. freedom is not being fearful to go outside your home.

Its been what, 3 years? We were in Nam for almost 20 years with 50k+ casualties. Iraq is barely a drop in the bucket compared to that war.

I dont think 1600 Americans is an insignificant number at all. It may be "a drop in the bucket" but its right up there in terms of pure pointlessness.

We all know the intel was ****ed. However, Saddam didnt help his case by kicking out the inspectors. I still dont see why he would have felt the need to do so unless he was hiding something.

I agree he shouldnt have. But he did. The intelligence we had to go on wasent conclusive enough to justify the use of 150 thousand US troops, regardless of his actions. If he had acted hostile toward us, then yes we should have bitch slapped him back to bangkok - but he wasent. we'd blown the shit out of his army and infrastructure during the 91 war... he wasent a threat.

No idea, but you cant count a vote unless someone is checked off. If enough ballots had Saddam written on it, then I'm sure the story would have been all over the place.

Maybe. I'm not saying they'd want saddam to be back in power... but things were likely better for them under saddams regime than they are now.

Again, these people are coming in from Syria and Saudi Arabia as well. It is foolish to consider the insurgency purely Iraqi anymore. I think we netted about 125 people in the last raid we performed in the desert near Syria.

And? They wouldent be there if we werent there.

Bush has said that all that needs to happen is for Al-Jafaari to ask us to leave. I'm sure he'd settle for the Iraqi congress. They know they need us for the time being.

Yeah. They need us because they arent doing shit themselves.

 

[CptStern]

and the removal of a democratically elected government in iran circa 1953 you ignore? still doesnt vindicate the death squads, the support of tyrants, murderers and despots ...google Dan Mitrione or Juan Bosch or Patrice Lumumba or Mobutu Sese Seko or General Suharto or General Castelo Branco or Arosemana or Trujillo

 

[Dag]

I have no doubt of that. I can assure YOU that there are for worse cases of genocide occuring elsewhere in the world, aka Sudan and other African countries. What sets the two apart? Iraqi genocide happened decades ago, whereas other nations are being raped and pillaged as we speak and need our help way the **** more than Iraq does, and murky intelligence.

The reason we invaded Iraq instead of other Middle Eastern Countries is because they were posing the biggest threat to the US and its allies. Iraq threatened America, Kuwait, Israel, and all our allies, because first and foremost, The Iraq government hated us, for kicking Saddam out of Office the first time. (Although, we should have gotten rid of him permanetly, instead of just kicking him out.) When he came back, he had a hatered of the US and its allies. And he had Biological weapons, and plans for WMD. Which country would you go after first, a country in Civil war, or a Country that already has a somewhat stable government with Biological weapons and possibly WMD's, with a passionate hatred of you?

 

[seinfeldrules]

I have no doubt of that. I can assure YOU that there are for worse cases of genocide occuring elsewhere in the world, aka Sudan and other African countries. What sets the two apart? Iraqi genocide happened decades ago, whereas other nations are being raped and pillaged as we speak and need our help way the **** more than Iraq does, and murky intelligence.

The US viewed Iraq as legitimate threat as well as a humanitarian crisis.

I doubt anyone in their right mind could say that Iraq is a better place to live right now. theres little education, little utilities, little food, little water, little electricity, many attacks, tensions between political idealogues, and so forth. freedom is not being fearful to go outside your home.

Was it any different before? There are a few key differences I see now:
1. No more Saddam
2. The future only looks brighter, not darker (unlike the past 30 years)

I dont think 1600 Americans is an insignificant number at all. It may be "a drop in the bucket" but its right up there in terms of pure pointlessness.

I didnt say that those lives were insignificant, but the entire Iraq War is insignificant when compared to Vietnam on overall scale.

If he had acted hostile toward us, then yes we should have bitch slapped him back to bangkok - but he wasent.

He was shooting at our planes. He had attempted to assasinate Bush Sr. He kicked out the inspectors.

Maybe. I'm not saying they'd want saddam to be back in power... but things were likely better for them under saddams regime than they are now.

Thats the liberal media getting to you. Sounds like a page right out of F 9/11.

And? They wouldent be there if we werent there.

They just would have been training there, not fighting (not specifically Al Qaeda).

Yeah. They need us because they arent doing shit themselves.

Again, things wont instantly happen, it will take time and dedication. Something that I think the American public lacks.