what are your feeling on the war on "terror"

[Hellsflame]

this thread might have been done hundreds of times but id like to know what you think.

The war on terror has been going on for years, even before bush. Its never really got us anywere but death ;(.

The body count is getting HUGE (im still reaserching on that since bush has banned most info on the war) and still rising. I have noticed that the war on terror is almost NEVER on the news anymore. does anybody find that odd.

what about the billions of dollars being POURED into the "war". the country doesnt have enough money so bush is taking it from the states. california for one is completly broke.

and last off, one of my favorite quotes for an idiot who has no idea what hes doing

"Terror"

You can declair war on a noun

that pretty much says it all. bush is fighting a losing fight. hes DESTROYING the seed of civilization. Iraq is part of our history, civiliztion came from the citys of iraq.

and last off. Iraq qar a peacfull country before we arived. Saddam was greedy but not evil. he sucked all the money out of iraq for his own wants. the people lived peacfull lives until america BOMBED the country to rubble. we killed THOUSANDS of civilian people for NO REASON AT ALL. plus all the bombs missed there target which was saddams temple. none of those people deserved to die NONE OF THEM. if you dare say " they were casulaties of war" then you have some MAJOR issues to work out. this is NOT A WAR, its a masacre. The iraqs are KILLING us with 30 year old weapons. they arnt even solgiers, there farm boys and towns folk that just want us out of there country. the terrorist in iraq formed AFTER we had attacked. we are also killing them by the hundreds.

bush has called for more troops in iraq to fight in the war...

heres a fun fact...

there are more police in LA than there are solgiers in iraq.
thats pretty weird dont you think.

plus heres something that you ALL SHOULD HAVE SEEN. a few months back one of bush's people said on live news that

"There werent and are still no weapons of mass destruction in iraq"
mainly saying, "we were wrong"

plus it wasnt saddam who ordered the attacks at 9/11. it was o' samma bin laden. does anybody wonder what happend to afganistan. one day we just left it and went for iraq for no reason at all. there are about 100 troops in afganistan looking for o'samma.

(i have more but it would be to long to read to post it all)

post your thoughts...

 

[Razor]

I think the war on terror should be a lot more then invading countries, but to help poor countries gain a footing in the world market, fighting tyranny in an unbiased way and providing aid and help to developing countries.

 

[gh0st]

The misconceptions you have, are sadly mirrored by so many of your liberal kind. http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf. Iraq was not a peaceful country. Saddam was not nice to his people. The fact that you even said that makes the rest of your otherwise unintelligble post even worse. You sound as stupid and misinformed as the Iraqi "Minister of Information".

"There are no American tanks in baghdad! We are slaughtering them by the thousands!"

Seriously, if anyone wants to decode your post I welcome them to it but theres no way I'm going to pursuade you out of your fantasty land so I'm not even going to bother.

Actually. Yes I will bother. I'll go backwards to make this more interesting.

plus it wasnt saddam who ordered the attacks at 9/11. it was o' samma bin laden. does anybody wonder what happend to afganistan. one day we just left it and went for iraq for no reason at all. there are about 100 troops in afganistan looking for o'samma.

We and many other countries have a large amount of troops in afghanistan working on infrastructure and other security tasks. Currently we have 17,900 troops in afghanistan, where did you get this 100 number?

plus heres something that you ALL SHOULD HAVE SEEN. a few months back one of bush's people said on live news that

"There werent and are still no weapons of mass destruction in iraq"
mainly saying, "we were wrong"

We all know this. The war is justified for other reasons.

plus it wasnt saddam who ordered the attacks at 9/11. it was o' samma bin laden. does anybody wonder what happend to afganistan. one day we just left it and went for iraq for no reason at all. there are about 100 troops in afganistan looking for o'samma.

plus it wasnt saddam who ordered the attacks at 9/11. it was o' samma bin laden. does anybody wonder what happend to afganistan. one day we just left it and went for iraq for no reason at all. there are about 100 troops in afganistan looking for o'samma.

Hitler didnt attack pearl harbor, should we not have beaten his ass? I'm just saying that not everything is so linear, we have far better reasons for liberating the Iraqi people than mere weapons.

bush has called for more troops in iraq to fight in the war...

No shit. Iraq is a country just like ours and needs to have its infrastructure and government rebuilt from the corrupt and disgusting dictatorship it had before.

that pretty much says it all. bush is fighting a losing fight. hes DESTROYING the seed of civilization. Iraq is part of our history, civiliztion came from the citys of iraq.

Britain made us. Should we not have attacked them? That whole argument I've never heard before: because its stupid. We are not losing the war on terror. Has there been a terrorist attack in America since 9/11? Nope. Results speak for themselves.

The iraqs are KILLING us with 30 year old weapons. they arnt even solgiers, there farm boys and towns folk that just want us out of there country. the terrorist in iraq formed AFTER we had attacked. we are also killing them by the hundreds.

Your guess is as good as mine (well, as youve proven, no its not) but you are in no position to speak of the weapons they are using, or WHO the insurgents are. Farm boys in iraq? Point out to me some farms in Iraq, and where they could substain a viable insurgency. You cant because youre just making this up from a combination of starwars and bullshit.

what about the billions of dollars being POURED into the "war". the country doesnt have enough money so bush is taking it from the states. california for one is completly broke.

California was broke before the war. Our federal government isnt exactly rich but its certainly managing.

The body count is getting HUGE (im still reaserching on that since bush has banned most info on the war) and still rising. I have noticed that the war on terror is almost NEVER on the news anymore. does anybody find that odd.

How huge? YOu cant say? Thats right. Keep "Researching" all your "facts" they are hilarious for us all.

The war on terror has been going on for years, even before bush. Its never really got us anywere but death

Its been going on for years? Is that why Clinton didnt take out Bin Laden when he was offered him on a silver platter? You are so utterly clueless its really frightening, is this really how you feel?

 

[Tr0n]

I would say refer to my "Power of nightmares" thread...but I'll just say this.

This "war on terror" is a load of crap.

 

[GhostFox]

this thread might have been done hundreds of times but id like to know what you think.

Your assertions are falacious and narrow-minded in so many ways that I don't even know where to begin. If I'm being completely honest. Nice to see you coming out to make the effort though. Welcome to the board.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

What do I think on the war on terror?

I dont know much to think of it -- in the entity we've never experienced one before; so I dont have lessons to draw on when we do something right or wrong.

I just wish honestly, everyone would focus on the real problem:

Space. Lets tackle it.

 

[jondy]

I just wish honestly, everyone would focus on the real problem:

Space. Lets tackle it.

Totally! I can see it now - the 'war on space'

 

[GhostFox]

Totally! I can see it now - the 'war on space'

Does this mean I should go and shoot a gun at the sky?

 

[jondy]

Yeah, go for it, exercise your right to shoot stuff

 

[Razor]

Yeah, go for it, exercise your right to shoot stuff

It is an American's god given right to shoot stuff. Wish i had that right .

 

[T.H.C.138]

whoa!!

I remember when I was like 3 or 4 years old and hearing on the news about terrorists in Iraq,Iran,Palestine,Syria,etc....pretty much the middle east had a monopoly on terrorism throughout the 70s and 80s..hijacking planes..bombing buildings...slaughtering villages...

but Iraq was a happy place before Team America came..children laughing and playing in the flower gardens..everyone holding hands and smiling while singing songs of love and peace..green fields and flowing rivers...and if you believe that,well my friend I have a bridge to sell to you...

don't rely on the google for info..

 

[Eg.]

Saddam was greedy but not evil.


" there are about 100 troops in afganistan looking for o'samma.

yeah, saddam never did anything evil

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...refox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&sa=N

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm

ohh is that a hand being cut off?

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...refox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official_s&sa=N

those damn mass graves keep popping up this time of year...
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/abu_ghraib_cemetery-thumb.jpg

 

[Bodacious]

but Iraq was a happy place before Team America came..children laughing and playing in the flower gardens..everyone holding hands and smiling while singing songs of love and peace..green fields and flowing rivers...and if you believe that,well my friend I have a bridge to sell to you...

don't rely on the google for info..

Stop reading if what I quoted was sarcasm.


Are you insane?

Why do you think the Majority population of Iraq was oppressed by the minority population? Because Saddam and the Ba'athists would murder or imprison anyone who spoke out against him.

When I was in Iraq I was a few miles away from a 3000 corpse mass graves.

Yah, that is a peacefule country.

 

[jondy]

Dude, he was being sarcastic. He's on your side; notice the Team America references

 

[gh0st]

Bodacious that was REALLY obviously sarcasm.

 

[Bodacious]

Sorry, I couldn't tell. Consider my post a response to the original poster thinking Iraq is peaceful.

 

[GhostFox]

Sorry, I couldn't tell

Drunk?

 

[staticprimer]

We all know this. The war is justified for other reasons.

But that was the reason we were given. WMD's were the primary reason, and the people weren't emphasized until it seemed that the WMD's weren't materializing. Seems to me that the welfare of the Iraqi citizens was just a matter of convienience in terms of justifying the war.

Hitler didnt attack pearl harbor, should we not have beaten his ass?

Your right, he didn't. However, he was allied with Japan. We declared war on Japan when they attacked us, and Germany came with that because of their alliance. For this logic to work, Saddam would have to have been allied with Al-Queda which has already been proven that any ties were flimsy at best.

 

[T.H.C.138]

yeah, it was sarcasm and yes I probably am insane...but thats beside the point

:cheers:

 

[CptStern]

the war on terror provides the perfect cover for the rise of the military-industrial complex as warned by Eisenhower



"In the councils of government, we must guard against
the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or
unsought, by the military- industrial complex."

 

[PickledGecko]

I've never understood the obsession of people with "Big Brother" in 1984. Its been pretty clear to me that there is a parallel between the books war and the neo-conservatives insistence on fighting "wars". The Cold War could never have gone hot without killing everyone in the world. The war on drugs, I mean come on, the CIA were fighting wars paid for by cocaine smuggled into the US, fueling the drug problems. And now we have the war on terror. Allowing the government to pass laws that allow the FBI to arrest people for saying Bush is a bad President.

The fact is, WMDs in Iraq was a lie. The connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was a lie, and a really bad one at that, considering anyone who knew anything about the two could have told you that Osama Bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein.

So whats the truth behind the invasion of Iraq? Freeing the Iraqis? It was never mentioned as a motive before the invasion took place and WMDs were conspicuous in their absence. And, lets assume that was the one and only motive. Who the hell gives Bush and Blair the right to send in US and UK soldiers to fight and die for the Iraqis? If they were so ****ing oppressed and wanted freedom so badly, why weren't they willing to die to get it?

History has proven in Europe and America, freedom will come to those who want enough to fight and die for it. All that was gained by the invasion was a West friendly government, and what happens when we leave? If they didn't want freedom before, who says they're not going to let some other Dictator come along and take power like they did 26 years ago.

I don't mean to say that I feel an Iraqi's life is worth less that an American or a Brit, but its their freedom we're talking about. If they want it, they should go get it themselves.

So, if there was no terrorist threat, no WMDs, no responsibility to free anyone not willing to do it themselves, then why? Why does Bush want so badly to put US troops into the Middle East and create a stable democratic area there. In the Middle East, not anywhere else that could use freedom and Western support more, like Africa?

 

[mabufo]

But that was the reason we were given. WMD's were the primary reason, and the people weren't emphasized until it seemed that the WMD's weren't materializing. Seems to me that the welfare of the Iraqi citizens was just a matter of convienience in terms of justifying the war.

What was the name of the deadly gas he launched on his own people again? I forgot the name of it!

Genocide anyone? There's a WMD right there.

EDIT:

So, if there was no terrorist threat, no WMDs, no responsibility to free anyone not willing to do it themselves, then why? Why does Bush want so badly to put US troops into the Middle East and create a stable democratic area there. In the Middle East, not anywhere else that could use freedom and Western support more, like Africa?

You know how much money we send in aid to Africa each year? Quite a bit - I assure you.

 

[CptStern]

What was the name of the deadly gas he launched on his own people again? I forgot the name of it!

Genocide anyone? There's a WMD right there.


.

you mean sarin VX?


source


"This affidavit was submitted in the course of one of a number of prosecutions, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, of U.S. companies charged with illegally delivering military, dual-use, or nuclear-related items to Iraq. (In this case, a Teledyne affiliate was charged will illegally selling zirconium, used in the manufacture of explosives, to the Chilean arms manufacturer Carlos Industries, which used the material to manufacture cluster bombs sold to Iraq.) "

 

[mabufo]

Yeah, that's the name of it, thanks stern!

 

[PickledGecko]

What was the name of the deadly gas he launched on his own people again? I forgot the name of it!

Genocide anyone? There's a WMD right there.

That was Mustard Gas and Sarin, in 1988. Bought from the US and Western Euorpe by the way.

Also, if it was genocide, how did he not manage to kill them all between 1988 and 1991? Figures in the "tens of thousands", wow thats a lot of Kurds, but then, that's the same number of Iraqis killed in the Gulf War. What makes one genocide and the other not?

You know how much money we send in aid to Africa each year? Quite a bit - I assure you.

I'm not talking about money, I'm talking about the lives of my family who are in the armed forces.

 

[mabufo]

According to stern, the stuff was sold by a Teledyne affiliate, to a chilean arms manufacturer.. who then made cluster bombs that were sold to Iraq...

I'm sorry for your loss, but I honestly don't think parts of Africa would be much safer...

 

[gh0st]

But that was the reason we were given. WMD's were the primary reason, and the people weren't emphasized until it seemed that the WMD's weren't materializing. Seems to me that the welfare of the Iraqi citizens was just a matter of convienience in terms of justifying the war.

No. They were a reason. Not the primary reason.

 

[CptStern]

No. They were a reason. Not the primary reason.

no:

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz May 28, 2003

 

[CptStern]

According to stern, the stuff was sold by a Teledyne affiliate, to a chilean arms manufacturer.. who then made cluster bombs that were sold to Iraq...

I'm sorry for your loss, but I honestly don't think parts of Africa would be much safer...

:upstare: that was one comapny in the quote ...did you bother read the document? btw the companies listed are companies that did business with saddam AFTER the sanctions were put in place

 

[gh0st]

Selective quoting stern? Dont bullshit us.

According to a tape recording made by the Pentagon, the actual quote is, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason."

After a brief pause to take another phone call, Wolfowitz continues, "There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually, I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one, which is the connection between the first two." (CNN)​

The first 2 were obviously proven false, the war is still justified for humanitarian purposes. Try again. Kind of makes me wonder what else you blatantly lie about stern.

:upstare: that was one comapny in the quote ...did you bother read the document? btw the companies listed are companies that did business with saddam AFTER the sanctions were put in place

Oil for food.

 

[mabufo]

I read what you posted... because .pdf files freeze up my browser...

I assumed since you posted that example, it would be your strongest one.. and if it is your strongest one - you need to make a better argument.

 

[CptStern]

do you know what an affidavit is? it's a legal document

"This affidavit was submitted in the course of one of a number of prosecutions, following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, of U.S. companies charged with illegally delivering military, dual-use, or nuclear-related "


during the sanctions

 

[gh0st]

Stern are you going to appologize for editing Mr Wolfowitz' quote? Cant get much more reprehensible than that No wonder so many idiots believe you - you lie!

 

[mabufo]

don't make me post what I just posted a second time...

 

[PickledGecko]

I'm sorry for your loss, but I honestly don't think parts of Africa would be much safer...

I didn't mean to misrepresent my situation, I should have said "threat to my family in the forces", as none have died yet.

And my point wasn't that we should attack African countries because it would be safer, but that we should leave the internal affairs of foreign countries to its people. Just because we don't want a Dictatorship doesn't mean we should rush in and "save" everyone from it. If they had such a big problem with Saddam Hussein, they outnumber him. And if his detractors are outnumbered by his supporters, well, thats a kind of Democracy. A brutal one, but if thats what the majority support, thats what they get.

 

[Calanen]

I know what an affidavit is. Its a typewritten statement attested to under oath.

 

[Calanen]

I don't mean to say that I feel an Iraqi's life is worth less that an American or a Brit, but its their freedom we're talking about. If they want it, they should go get it themselves.

How much freedom do you think that the people of Europe would have been able to grab for themselves without the Allies landing on the beaches in Normandy? My view is, precisely none. So are you saying that the USA should have stayed out of the European theatre, along with the rest of the allies, and encourage the people's of Europe to rise up against the Third Reich spontaneously? The people of Poland had a good go at that, and they were slaughted by the tens of thousands.

If the USA had done that, maybe the Reich would have lasted for 1000 years.

Either that or the Russians would have taken over all of Europe.

 

[Absinthe]

The war on terror is a sham and its sole purpose is to put you in a perpetual state of fear that causes you to believe that daddy USA is ****ing you in the ass for the greater good.

 

[KoreBolteR]

all those terrrists who kill innocent civilians (even kids and women).

not to mention.. purposely.

people like them should be eliminated, to stop causing fear in the homes of iraqis.
saddam's fear has now long gone, but sadly the terrorists have taken his place. once they have gone, the people can overcome their fears.
and start rebuilding thier country, and use thier oil usefully.

unlike saddam stealing all the oil for food money and terrorists blowing up oil pipelines.

 

[CptStern]

Stern are you going to appologize for editing Mr Wolfowitz' quote? Cant get much more reprehensible than that No wonder so many idiots believe you - you lie!

I edited nothing ..if you want to post what you believe to be the whole quote go ahead ..I can't find anything that expands from what I posted