AstroProdigy Posted January 1, 2006 Report Posted January 1, 2006 Well, no it wouldn't have happened before 2002 because the chief reason that got the Bush administration approval for going to war with Iraq was that the intelligence given to the country stated clearly that Saddam Hussein was helping Osama bin Laden. Now that intelligence was completely false, but after 9/11, the American public was afraid of another terrorist attack and were willing to do anything to prevent one. Also, there are blatant misconceptions about the Native Americans that have been stated here. For one, the Native Americans of North America were not a country; they were a vast and diverse group of tribes. Also, the French and Indian War wasn't to decide whether the Native Americans could keep their land; it was a long lasting Cold War between France and Britain that spilled over to the Americas. The point was to decide whether the British or the French would get the land. In fact, after the British won they did not want to push the Native American groups there away; they wanted to prevent the colonists from pushing them away and destroying the valuable fur trade. As for saying Native Americans aren't our citizens, this is an extremely arbitrary argument. You can say that the Kurds aren't Iraqi citizens by the same argument. This really serves no purpose. Part of the reason for the Revolutionary War was so that we could go and get rid of the Native Americans without British interference. In this case the British were the more enlightened and more powerful nation. Americans are very proud that we won the Revolutionary War and ignore the fact that this doomed the Native Americans. Using such simplistic arguments doesn't show what the issue actually is. Anti War protestors are NOT anti soldier. I can't stand people who oversimplify the issues and try to give groups with opposing views labels that make them look like something they're not. If anything Anti War protesters support the soldiers more because unlike War Hawks, the protestors don't want to see our brave men and women come into harms way needlessly unlike the War Hawks (Republican Party) who think more about the United States overpowering the rest of the world (we spend more on military than all other nations combined) and don't seem to care how many soldiers need to die in order to achieve this. The problem with our two main parties is quite simple. The Republican Party has been corrupted. I'm not saying this is natural to the Republican Party. The corruption under the Bush administration is completely different from previous Republican administrations. I respect Bush senior, Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower. They may or may not have had a positive influence on the United States, but at least there wasn't such a blatant partisanship and disregard for democracy. The Democratic Party does not have a strong, unified message to bring to the people. That is the problem that the Democrats have; they look weak. I don't know if or when that will change, but it might be soon as the Democrats in the Congress have been voting solidly together while the Republican Party has been divided as moderate Republicans now see that the mainstream of America is NOT conservative as it seems to be.
LearJett+ Posted January 1, 2006 Report Posted January 1, 2006 the chief reason that got the Bush administration approval for going to war with Iraq was that the intelligence given to the country stated clearly that Saddam Hussein was helping Osama bin Laden Sigh Astro... Can you please just stop making !@#$%^&* up?
AstroProdigy Posted January 1, 2006 Report Posted January 1, 2006 Ok I must be making things up because I don't agree with you. Thanks. You don't even bother to look at what I say you immediately want to p!@#$%^&* judgement.
LearJett+ Posted January 1, 2006 Report Posted January 1, 2006 Astro - IT'S BECAUSE WHAT YOU SAY IS NOT TRUE. Liberals don't even think the stuff that you say, you just make it up. Try citing something - I've never ever read one thing that says that Saddam was helping Osama. It's not about passing judgement you idiot, it's about spewing out bull!@#$%^&*.
»Ducky Posted January 6, 2006 Report Posted January 6, 2006 No props to swift. He's in it for the moniez
AstroProdigy Posted January 7, 2006 Report Posted January 7, 2006 That's really funny that you say I'm full of it and then say Bush never said Saddam Hussein was helping Osama binLaden. Are your eyes completely shut that you are simply looking to disprove anything someone says unless it is what the Republican Party dictates and you firmly adhere to? You obviously don't think for yourself you just look for what your sacred Neo Conservative Propaganda says and automatically take it as fact and look to disprove anyone who would dare use their own brains. That is exactly what scares Democrats about the Republican Party. They have complete control over you and you have no idea.
LearJett+ Posted January 7, 2006 Report Posted January 7, 2006 Astro, are you really that dense? NO ONE SAID SADDAM HAD A DIRECT LINK TO OSAMA. You're just making stuff up - try getting a source, any source. You liberals think you know everything and that you're enlightening the rest of us, but you're misled. You actually aren't led at all - you're just creating bull !@#$%^&* to argue with and then saying that I'm disagreeing just to disagree, when in reality you're not even making a real arguement.
AstroProdigy Posted January 7, 2006 Report Posted January 7, 2006 How could you even say I need a link to prove that Bush linked Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda? That just goes to show that you will stick with Bush to even the bitter end no matter wat happens. Such mindless following can be compared to the Nazis and the Soviet Communists. You have no idea what's going on; but if you really need a link about how Bush linked Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda and used that as a reason for going to war in Iraq then: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraqhttp://www.usiraqprocon.org/bin/procon/pro....96065143057433^------------Got that link from FOXNews.com and includes quotes of what Bush stated himself.http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/12/bus...illy/index.html^------------Here Bush says that the invasion of Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism significantly.http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/...iraq/index.html^------------Bush says the War in Iraq is part of the War on Terror because "Saddam could use al Qaeda as a 'forward army' that could attack the United States with weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction 'and never leave a fingerprint behind.'"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html^------------Here's another onehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm What is that, eight links from a variety of sources? They're all fake right Lear? Do i need a link to these links or else the links are made up? Why don't you use that argument again it's the only one you seem to have. Everyone else has posted arguments that show they're at least using their own brains and thinking about the issues, but all you've been doing is spewing the propaganda of your intellectual masters. You obviously have no mind of your own. Anything someone who doesn't agree with what Bush says must be spewing liberal propaganda in your mind. You don't even care what's said unless it's identical to the Republican Party propaganda; and when what you're beloved party says doesn't make sense, your way of dealing with it is deny, deny, deny. Good job.
»Ducky Posted January 7, 2006 Report Posted January 7, 2006 Without even looking at the links, I can tell you Astro is correct.The Bush administration has said many times that they know Saddam had links to Osama. HOWEVER, it's just spewed bull!@#$%^&* for the most part. Most of the evidence is basically heresay (In my opinion at least)There have been numerous get togethers to vote whether the alleged links were for real or not. The outsome was decided that there was nothing solid. ----------------------------Being a Liberal myself; I do disagree with numerous other statements Astro made. Native Americans aren't a country; correct. They are a nation however.Different words, the same meaning when applied to this topic. Anti-war persons CAN BE anti soldier. You are actually simplifying a category. I know many people who believe soldiers and the act of soldiering is a waste of both man power and money.WarHawks CAN BE liberal. As I recall; almost everyone wanted to destroy Osama. In the Iraq sequence, liberals also wanted to see him taken out of power.You are demonizing the republican party. There is no new corruption in the political system. It's the same recycled bull!@#$%^&* there has always been.Win Election, jam as many people into office that share your opinion; own the vote using propaganda, misinformation and a sly tongue. Everyone is guilty of this. Democrats (Liberals primarily. Not quite conservative democrats or centrists) have the same message they always have had. Free Market, privacy, and civil justice and equality.That's a unified message. It takes a back seat when it comes to war though. No one ever remembers the issues that effect us daily. When it does come to war though; excluding democratic conservatives; most of us primarily just want to leave Iraq and get our soldiers home ASAP.Suddam was caught; iraq is primarily saved. What's done is done and it's pointless to argue about it now.
LearJett+ Posted January 7, 2006 Report Posted January 7, 2006 Okay, congratulations, you used a source. One of your sources lists 21 reasons for war. You said that Al-Qaeda ties (which aren't totally disproven in any of your sources) was the chief reason, but it's 8th on the totem pole. Al-Qaeda links or not, we wanted a regime change, to further the war on terror, Iraq violated UN Resolutions, there were a lack of weapons inspections in Iraq, Saddam was an threat to the region and an imminent threat to the US, etc. You can't name one chief reason, Astro. Well, no it wouldn't have happened before 2002 because the chief reason that got the Bush administration approval for going to war with Iraq was that the intelligence given to the country stated clearly that Saddam Hussein was helping Osama bin Laden. Now that intelligence was completely false, but after 9/11, the American public was afraid of another terrorist attack and were willing to do anything to prevent one. Part of the reason for the Revolutionary War was so that we could go and get rid of the Native Americans without British interference. In this case the British were the more enlightened and more powerful nation. Americans are very proud that we won the Revolutionary War and ignore the fact that this doomed the Native Americans. Using such simplistic arguments doesn't show what the issue actually is.If you hadn't noticed, America was British before it had independence. The British were stealing just as much land as the Americans did after it was America. I can't stand people who oversimplify the issues and try to give groups with opposing views labels that make them look like something they're not. If anything Anti War protesters support the soldiers more because unlike War Hawks, the protestors don't want to see our brave men and women come into harms way needlessly unlike the War Hawks (Republican Party) who think more about the United States overpowering the rest of the world (we spend more on military than all other nations combined) and don't seem to care how many soldiers need to die in order to achieve this.I can't stand when people are overly-simplistic, either. When people say what the Bush administration's main reason for going into Iraq was... when they never even said what it was. Or when people say we should just pull out of Iraq right now because war is bad - whether Iraq is stable or not. The problem with our two main parties is quite simple. The Republican Party has been corrupted. I'm not saying this is natural to the Republican Party. The corruption under the Bush administration is completely different from previous Republican administrations. I respect Bush senior, Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Eisenhower. They may or may not have had a positive influence on the United States, but at least there wasn't such a blatant partisanship and disregard for democracy.It's your posts like these that piss me off. No one on here ever talks about the Democrat party. No one disrespects any part of the liberal base - we just argue the topics at hand. This is where you show your true ignorance, talking about the Republican party like you're some sort of expert. The Bush administration is no more or less corrupt than any other presidential administration. You never give examples or anything to back up your bull!@#$%^&*. For any and every example you could possibly come up with, I could come up with an example of corruption in the democratic party. I could say that the main problem is that a lot of this war will be won at home. That we need a united people in the US to successfully win in Iraq. When Iraqi people see liberal war protesters on TV, they see it as weakness. Before you go making accusations, get some examples... at least.
»Ducky Posted January 8, 2006 Report Posted January 8, 2006 I could say that the main problem is that a lot of this war will be won at home. That we need a united people in the US to successfully win in Iraq. When Iraqi people see liberal war protesters on TV, they see it as weakness.I don't necessarily disagree with the statement; but I don't agree either.We are "Winning" in Iraq and most if not everyone I know barely remember we still have soldiers over there because the topic was burned out so long ago. In South Western Pa specifically, you will be hard pressed to find a majority who even care about Iraq other than saying they are for or against. That's hardly a Unified Front.
LearJett+ Posted January 8, 2006 Report Posted January 8, 2006 I know it's not a United Front, that was my point... heh. I live in South Western PA, too, and people here still do care (although most people here just want us to get out of Iraq). What town do you live in?
»Swift Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 Freak - funny man you. Ducky - sometimes I am. ------------------------------------------- Well I read a lot of the posts that were written and I wanted to say a few things myself. I am not Anti-War but I wanted to say that there are a two thousand american's that will never see the sun on their face again. It's one of the things that makes you think as you hear some of the briefs or meetings I go to everyday. I am up in Kurdishstan and the Persmerga (sp?) were fighting Saddam's regime for 30 to 35 years. They are by far the most efficient military force in Iraq and they have my deepest respects. The area I am in rarely gets attacked at all for a plethora of reasons, mainly the Persmerga know what they are doing. They've got check points and if any Iraqi not a Kurd goes through a series of inspections before they even let them within the city limits of Irbil (Erbil, Arbil). For the rest of this country, it's IED, VBIED attacks, mortar attacks and ambushes. These are rampant in the central part of the country, and a lot of the Iraqi's have now taken it into their heads to slowly move against those who are doing this. From 2003 to present time, the U.S. has worked hard to make this country grow economically and politically, which sad to say is a hard war to win. But as it stands, they're slowly getting on their own two feet. Now I don't condone a lot of what I've seen and read, heard and watched. You all have valid points and the Bush administration has had a great many faults, which were because some people were very anxious for a war. Lies and deception are an amazing tool to use against a country worried about terrorist attacks. As it is, this last deployment I didn't even want to PARTICIPATE in. As I stated, three deployments. Feb 03 - Jul 03Feb 04 - Jul 04Nov 05 - Oct/Nov 06 If anything I keep coming back to my 'home away from home' again and again. Now I am a married man and I can say that being apart from my own wife and how things are, my mind is a bit unhinged. Hehe, always knew I was crazy. As it stands, I like the views represented by all of you. It's interesting to see what everyone will dredge out of the news media, here is one major thing to know: Never believe everything the media says on T.V. There is a bigger picture usually. Like here is one for you.. Remember the Jessica ... Lynch? Issue? Her rescue? They said on FoxNEWS, Marines Special Forces (i.e. - 5th Special Forces Group helped coordinate the rescue with I MEF) ... there is no Marines Special Forces. We all had a good laugh when they said that on the News that day. So just a little military insight. Have a great day
LearJett+ Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 Force Recon - aren't they special forces?
»Swift Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 they are a type of special ops, but not SF specifically afaik I am army not Marines
Aileron Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 So they used "forces" instead of "ops"...not exactly a major mistake. I guess we should pull forces out of Iraq when the Iraqi government wants us out. We will never be able to aprehend every terrorist and criminal in a country at any given time, so all we can aim for is "stability", which is rather vague. However, in this case it probably means "Until insurgent forces have been weakened enough that Iraqi forces can suppress them without foreign aid." Since Iraq is a sovereign country and the new democratic government is worthy of world respect, it is their decision whether or not they are ready to handle the insurgency on their own.
»Swift Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 ISF has slowly been taking over their own country. We've been doing handovers to them so they have a place to operate and train more of their Local Nationalists. Just wanted to point that out. Now the question of when 'we' go home? Ha... sounds like a myth to most of us
LearJett+ Posted January 9, 2006 Report Posted January 9, 2006 How long have you been there? I don't know about army, but I know that in the Marines they're switched out every 5 months or so (although they can go back, too.)
»Swift Posted January 10, 2006 Report Posted January 10, 2006 as I stated in my first post I have come here three times. Feb 03 - Jul 03Feb 04 - Jul 04Nov 05 - Oct/Nov 06
»i88gerbils Posted January 10, 2006 Report Posted January 10, 2006 I wish I could read more about Iraq's economic and industrial development, but there seems to be a lack of published material on subjects other than terror, natural disasters, white girls, and entertainment. I think the only industry I've heard doing well is the gl!@#$%^&* industry.
AstroProdigy Posted January 10, 2006 Report Posted January 10, 2006 Well the media wants ratings. They are, after all, businesses That's why I like CBS better because they're funded by the government. By the way the Alito hearings are now being shown on CBS. You should watch them.
Aileron Posted January 11, 2006 Report Posted January 11, 2006 That is true. There is much more published material on every little pissant attack insurgents make over large national economic and political progress in Iraq. Many on the right call this a left wing bias in the media, though what it really is in this case is just that explosions sell newspapers more than the building of bridges, hospitals, schools, etc. and people hating each other sells more than old enemies hammering out an arrangement to live together. Its probably economic incentive rather than some desire to change the political minds of the public, but to those trying to argue for the right, its disturbing to have to fight the perceptions created by this system. Same thing with the President. "Blunders" sell. A smoothly run operation does not. The only major mistake Bush ever made with Iraq is that he overjustified it. He gave 21 reasons to go to war, but should have only stated the 10 he was sure about and left it at that.
Recommended Posts