|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Sept 30, 2004 15:33:01 GMT -5
Well, you see, Mav, we call Iraq an unjust war because the United States went to war under false pretenses. You remember the whole "weapons of mass destruction" business which we still haven't found, and Zorak, I swear to god if you bring up one of those bogus claims that we found something one more time...
|
|
|
Post by Ai on Sept 30, 2004 15:47:34 GMT -5
Who would you chose to live? A 1000 US solders or 7 million civilans? I'd rather have the whole human race wiped out, but we can't get what we want. And Mav, how do you figure that violence is the only way to comminicate with these people? I'd also say it's an unjust war due to the fact that he's spend BILLIONS of dollars on the fucking piece of shit. I don't think there's anyway you can tell me that the economy is fine with all of the money Bush is spending.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Sept 30, 2004 16:29:40 GMT -5
I would like to point out Vietnam got significantly better after we withdrew. It replaced a extreme right wing totalitarian state with a left wing dictatorship which actually wasn't THAT bad. They then liberated the Cambodians after we left from an especially brutal hardline communist regime under Polpot and have begun to liberalize.
As for President Kerry negotiating with terrorists, that is just slander. In fact the only administration that has actually had direct lines communications with the terrorists now making up Al Qaeda was the Reagan Administration.
As for the answer to Malakym's question. The United States can't play the world's policeman, it will back fire and either turn the US into an imperialist power again or get the entire world against us limiting our power, even beyond what it is now. Power cannot be defined alone as military might, it also must be defined in being able to influence countries. Unless your a real nut job and want to start invading Western Europe who were alienating and need the help of, basically the entire muslim world who we have alienated, and are willing to support a draft you have to seriously look at Americas role in the world. It is ill advised to attack regimes that don't pose a serious threat just because they are bad people. We've done it before, in 1898 we went to war with Spain, the Phillipines who we took from them, liberated if you will, recieved promises we couldn't deliver on and we ended up taking a hell of a lot more casualties in a resistance against us than we expected and it sapped us not to mention forced us to commit brutal atrocities. Be very wary of a crusader ideal, you end up in interminable war. And unless you guys plan on enlisting to fight in that war you have no right to suggest it.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Sept 30, 2004 16:31:29 GMT -5
I'd rather have the whole human race wiped out, but we can't get what we want. And Mav, how do you figure that violence is the only way to comminicate with these people? I'd also say it's an unjust war due to the fact that he's spend BILLIONS of dollars on the fucking piece of shit. I don't think there's anyway you can tell me that the economy is fine with all of the money Bush is spending. That's Neo conservatism for you, they basically want to gain all the domestic points of the democrats with having high spending state side, and preserve the republican points by continueing high spending internationally, the math never adds up. Thats why you have traditional conservatives pissed as hell at Bush almost as much as liberals.
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Oct 2, 2004 16:31:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ai on Oct 3, 2004 13:44:27 GMT -5
Great point, Mav, especially considering we're making fantastic progress.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Oct 3, 2004 14:04:57 GMT -5
Actually, we are Ai. This is great progress. Lets compare it to Germany, and it doesn't even touch this.
Ai, you are just taking the media's constant reports about our death's as a view that we're losing. The Media never comments about how many we've killed at the same time.
We are in no way failing in Iraq. Indeed, it is bloody, but few wars aren't.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Oct 3, 2004 14:12:31 GMT -5
Wait, how can you compare the reconstruction of Germany to Iraq, may I ask, Zorak? From what I understand, it didn't seem as if Germany was going to plummet into civil war and create a new theocracy while at the same time killing thousands of civilians and military personell after the war itself was ended. Infact, doing a little Googling, I found this essay describing how we should follow the example of what we did with Germany.
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Oct 5, 2004 9:42:06 GMT -5
Great point, Mav, especially considering we're making fantastic progress. Do you really read your posts before posting? Same with you Ellis. I do agree with Zorak, deaths does not equal losing, I mean, come on! There is no such thing as a safe war, there will be deaths on both sides, and there will be suffering, that's a given, but still, compared to other wars the one thousand casualties is low. I mean, do you think that France is angry at us for not taking any casualties in World War 2? No! Because we did have casualties, how about World War 1? Same thing. The media is just hyping things up so that they can get ratings, they're as dishonest as many politicians are.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Oct 5, 2004 14:24:59 GMT -5
The thing is, we aren't at war anymore. Remember when Bush came up on the Aircraft Carrier with the huge "Mission Accomplished" banner and told the United States and the world, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Meyo-san on Oct 5, 2004 15:11:52 GMT -5
The thing is, we aren't at war anymore. Remember when Bush came up on the Aircraft Carrier with the huge "Mission Accomplished" banner and told the United States and the world, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."? ;D Don't you remember the War on Terror that's been a huge topic some time ago? For the most part Iraq was harboring terrorists, and that was one of the objectives of the War on Terror, to wipe out terrorist states, and here we are, getting hit by terrorists in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by The Giant-Size Man Thing on Oct 5, 2004 16:05:23 GMT -5
Don't you remember the War on Terror that's been a huge topic some time ago? For the most part Iraq was harboring terrorists, and that was one of the objectives of the War on Terror, to wipe out terrorist states, and here we are, getting hit by terrorists in Iraq. Point conceeded. But appearantly we aren't doing that well considering I believe a Time Magazine map showing that we didn't have control of about 50% of the country.
|
|
|
Post by Juan on Oct 5, 2004 16:17:33 GMT -5
LOL Mav, you beat me to saying that. That was waht I was going to post, lol.
By dealing with Iraq we created a place to essentially magnet in terrorists to be delt with here and now.
|
|
|
Post by Ai on Oct 5, 2004 16:21:09 GMT -5
Rather than argue about how that sort of tactics will get many of our soldiers killed, I have to smile about it. Because, let's face it, a lot of those assholes from high school are now in the army, and good riddance to 'em.
|
|
|
Post by Triyun on Oct 5, 2004 16:30:17 GMT -5
All evidence is that there are far more terrorists operating in Iraq now with porous borders than under Saddam Hussien who would keep it largely secular. That's one of the pillars of Baathism. If you remember a Zarqawi first came to prominence as a spokesman for egyptian militants after a presidential assasination there. The government of Egypt was actually where Baathism began. Furthermore, in the 1980's Baathists in Syria levelled a city which Islamics siezed and plowed the land around it with salt to keep them down. Ironically before the Gulf War women had more rights in Iraq than much of the rest of the middle east including our great Saudi allies *insert sarcasm.* Osama Bin Laden in fact wanted to use what was to form Al Qaeda's back bone to defend Saudi Arabia, the Sauds chose the americans instead. My point is, Saddam's and Bin Laden's goal were contrary to each other. If you want to talk about a state that is a terrorist haven, that's Iran.
Hezbollah is basically an expeditionary force of Iran against Israel. They have tried to create islamic revolutions across the muslim world. They released puppet hostile nationals into both Iraq and Afghanistan after our campaign. And they sheltered Al Qaeda militants after our success in Afghanistan. So really we went against the wrong country. A better solution would have been to shut Iran down through a much more aggressive revolutionary incitement policy there and forcing them to cut of Hezbollah (which incidently would do a lot of good for the mid east peace process). At the same time use a lot more strength in Afghanistan to stabilize it. Then we could have gone after Iran on the nuclear issue with our credibility still intact, they probably would capitulate under a lot of international pressure plus a working democracy on their border. With Iran down we'd be in a really good position. While this is happening arm the resistance movements in the North and South of Iraq. Saddam's army would basically continuously decline like they have over the past decade. Meanwhile we could concentrate on the ignored area of East Asia and focus on North Korea and to a lesser extent on Taiwan.
Frankly the potential for war in that area of the world is a bigger threat than Al Qaeda both in terms of loss of life and economically. Btw, a stabilized Afghanistan on the doorstep of China's Xinjaing province would not be a bad thing nor would it be on Chechnya's doorstep.
|
|