WMDS = not there [Archive]

GT40FIED

01-13-2005, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by SFKing
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814588/

what was the purpose of the war....oh yea what they didnt find.

what a fucking idiot.

Man...this isn't news. Long before the war many high ranking officials (Powell, Rice, etc.) publicly stated that Iraq did not pose a serious threat to us. Then all of a sudden once war became an option they seriously changed their tune.

What's the purpose of this war? Pride, pure and simple. I find it interesting that the only common name that comes up when discussing those who have taken on Iraq that isn't Iatolah or Shah, is Bush. Regardless of whether or not Bush is fighting a war to make daddy happy (and by fighting I mean sending a lot of other folks off to die), he's still doing it to prove that quite simply he can. With no real evidence that Iraq posed any threat to us at all, how can there be any other concensus?

CD5Passion

01-13-2005, 08:22 AM

:crazy: I was going to join the military out of highschool, too bad Bush came around and made me want nothing to do with it:cool:

V8killimports

01-13-2005, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Gosei_Passion
:crazy: I was going to join the military out of highschool, too bad Bush came around and made me want nothing to do with it:cool:

I am not sure even the Coast Guard would take a fuck stick like you. Don't dog the military.. nobody dog's the fact that you pump my fucking gas. People here do more in a weekend than you will do in your lifetime.

Where did all the WMD go? They must have just dissappeared I guess? My guess is Syria.

GT40FIED

01-13-2005, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by V8killimports
I am not sure even the Coast Guard would take a fuck stick like you. Don't dog the military.. nobody dog's the fact that you pump my fucking gas. People here do more in a weekend than you will do in your lifetime.

Where did all the WMD go? They must have just dissappeared I guess? My guess is Syria.

Calm down Mike...I didn't see anything in there dogging the military. Just dogging Bush.

Here's my whole-picture perspective on the entire situation. We were told Iraq had WMDs and that Saddam was a threat and that he helped finance Al Qaeda (all of which are seriously up for debate). Now there are apparently no WMDs to be found and Saddam is gone. At this point it doesn't appear that Iraq is much safer (if at all) than before we got there, yet we (and by "we", I mean one douche bag on an aircraft carrier) still declared "mission accomplished". A bit of cognitive dissonance there, but whatever. So when can we leave? After the elections at the end of the month? In 6 months? In a year? Never? Until someone can clearly answer these questions, I will personally assault anyone who claims our mission has been accomplished. Typically when military missions are fully accomplished, people leave. As that hasn't happened yet, King George II will be on my shitlist...along with millions of others, I'd imagine.

drdingo21

01-13-2005, 07:31 PM

mavaaoife

01-13-2005, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by GT40FIED
Typically when military missions are fully accomplished, people leave. As that hasn't happened yet, King George II will be on my shitlist...along with millions of others, I'd imagine.

shit on of my good friends and my boyfriend uncle just left for iraq in the past week.. WHAT THE FUCK are we ( and we i mean the US) sending more troops in for?

CD5Passion

01-13-2005, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by V8killimports
I am not sure even the Coast Guard would take a fuck stick like you. Don't dog the military.. nobody dog's the fact that you pump my fucking gas. People here do more in a weekend than you will do in your lifetime.

Where did all the WMD go? They must have just dissappeared I guess? My guess is Syria.

haha hey man next time you decide to fucking lose grip, would you actually take a look long enough for your mind to observe what i wrote?. i wrote ABSOLUTLY nothing about "doggin the military". You must've missed the part where I said "i wanted to join" and it's people like you and comments like that that deter me even more from the forces.
and the only reason your ass if over there is because of people like me. the ones who pay the taxes that pay for your fucking weapons dumbass. without the people there would be no military. and just because I'm not hanging in some fatiques and have a m16 slung over my shoulder doesn't mean you're superior to me in terms of what we achieved. so congratufuckinglations you made yourself look like an idiot and made your branch look bad in the process

btw i think the WMD's have been up Bushs ass all along

AzCivic

01-13-2005, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by Gosei_Passion

and the only reason your ass if over there is because of people like me. the ones who pay the taxes that pay for your fucking weapons dumbass. without the people there would be no military.

sorry, this just sounded rather stupid..yeah if there was no nation to defend then there'd be no military, did you just learn that or something? I thought it was common sense.

and we pay taxes too so do you want a cookie?

AzCivic

01-13-2005, 10:06 PM

i'm still waiting for cheap gas.

CD5Passion

01-13-2005, 11:28 PM

Originally posted by AzCivic
sorry, this just sounded rather stupid..yeah if there was no nation to defend then there'd be no military, did you just learn that or something? I thought it was common sense.

and we pay taxes too so do you want a cookie?

my point was that he is in no way superior to me just because he is in the military. Hoping to drop his ego down a notch or two, but i know how stubborn people are so I'm done trying

dabouncerx24

01-14-2005, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by AzCivic
i'm still waiting for cheap gas.

:yes: ...same here.

GT40FIED

01-14-2005, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by Gosei_Passion
my point was that he is in no way superior to me just because he is in the military.

That is one thing that tends to bother me. I have nothing in any way, shape, or form against any member of the military. I do, however, take exception to those members who think the world would collapse without them. For some reason this seems to be a bigger issue as of late. I hear a lot of "I fought to protect your right to say what you want". My apologies, but last I checked Iraq was in no way revved up to take away my freedom of speech. Who is? The current president. With the Freedom Act II not far away and the first unholy incarnate already in place, I'm more worried about our own government denying me rights than some government half way across the world whose primary resource behind oil is dirt and sand. Not to say I don't appreciate the people in uniform, especially those who have died. I just think everyone does their part in their own way. They can go off and fight a war while I question the political quagmire-like bullshit shat keeps them in harm's way. We all do our part, just in different ways. Other countries don't hate us because of our freedoms...they hate us because our president forces us to invade them and skullfuck them ad nauseum.

CD5Passion

01-14-2005, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by GT40FIED
Other countries don't hate us because of our freedoms...they hate us because our president forces us to invade them and skullfuck them ad nauseum.

excellent point, but propaganda would have us think otherwise

IALuder

01-15-2005, 09:05 AM

lol, they fired all the 60 minutes people for that shit. i think they all need to be fired. :yes:

some countrys hate us becuase we wont have anything to do with them. hell i wish i owned a country and the US had nothing to do with me. others hate us becuase we have religious freaks runnintg around forcing their damn religion on them. so they think all americans are like that. fawking religion. i hate religion. :mad: :mad:

AzCivic

01-15-2005, 08:28 PM

america has the religous freaks? i thought that was the middle east?

GT40FIED

01-15-2005, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by AzCivic
america has the religous freaks? i thought that was the middle east?

Every country has religious freaks. We just have a tendency to force our religion(s) on others. That's just kind of what we've always done. This time around we've walked a fine line of that, but I think we've done a decent job of seperating rather murky political intentions from religious zealotry. The only place I see our religious intentions going a little wild is here at home...not abroad.

pdiggitydogg

01-15-2005, 09:14 PM

oh no...we're not going to have another religion thing are we?

CD5Passion

01-15-2005, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by AzCivic
america has the religous freaks? i thought that was the middle east?
have you looked around? there's religious freaks everywhere, I know I've told Steve about the time i went to a concert and a priest came up and started telling us we were basically spawn of satan and will be condemned if we don't leave the concert. so we threw donuts at him since that's all we had on our persons and a groupie off the Adema bus threw ice.

:D

AzCivic

01-16-2005, 12:02 AM

really? did he tell you he was going to kill you to rid the world of one more infidel? didnt think so.

Violent Apathy

01-16-2005, 12:18 AM

Just cause it's worse somewhere else doesn't make it right...

GT40FIED

01-16-2005, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Violent Apathy
Just cause it's worse somewhere else doesn't make it right...

And I hope nobody kids themselves into thinking there are just as many people who wouldn't "kill for god" in the U.S. Sure, they're not in the news as much because the "news" wouldn't dare run a story about a REAL problem in this country lest they be labeled communists. Besides...it much easier to focus on your "enemy" than people who live amongst you (though in this case the two may be one in the same). There are just as many people who pervert the bible's message as there are who pervert the Quran's (sp?) message.

IALuder

01-16-2005, 02:00 AM

i think its all a bunch of BS. i think that we need to pull our troops out of every country. leave the embassies. <-- still dont know the purpose of having those anyways. but we should fix our country before we start to fix another or destroy it.

religion has to be one of the bigger reason why people in other countries hate us. sence we done believe the way they do, it makes evil.

GT40FIED

01-16-2005, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by SFKing
leave the embassies. <-- still dont know the purpose of having those anyways

Trust me...if you ever get seriously fucked in another country, you'll learn why those embassies are there.

IALuder

01-16-2005, 02:24 AM

oh, thats their job. i thought they were for some other reasons.

V8killimports

01-16-2005, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by AzCivic
really? did he tell you he was going to kill you to rid the world of one more infidel? didnt think so.

Exactly.. we don't force our religion on other people nearly like other countries have been known to do. Nobody has forced any religion onto me that I can remember.. so I don't see a problem. If someone comes you your door telling you to accept jesus crist or you will go to hell tell them to fuck off if you want.

As for Gensei whatever, the fact that you were going to join the military based on Bush, and decided not to join because of him simply shows me that you are a pussy and an idiot. I didn't join for Bush and if Kerry was elected wouldn't have quit. You join the military for other reasons, and what you said earlier shows that the military is better off without you. I love doing what I do and don't do it to crush the muslim nation, or any bullshit on the ground. I do it because I see guys mangled everyday missing limbs, whoe have lost their eye sight, or whatever, and I love the fact that I can try to prevent some of that from happening, franted in small amounts, and make some of their lives just a little bit easier... and that is exactly why I do what I do.

Join and do things for you own reasons, not because you are throwing a little fit that Bush got re-elected and wanted to teach someone a lesson by not joining.. because I can tell you right now that nobody gives a shit that you didn't join. And like I said before, it's more of a positive for the military... believe me.

And no, I am not here because of you. You don't have ANY say over the defense budget.. and the fact you typed that made me laugh harder than I have in a long time.

CD5Passion

01-16-2005, 01:04 PM

I did do something for my own reason and that is not joining because I don't want to throw away the only life I have because of a war of pride. and I was by no means trying to influence anyone from joining the military, which I don't particularly remember saying or implying. you don't know me personally, you could even begin to know if the military is better off with out me. I've been trained in displine since I was young, I have a great shot with a gun (granted a rifle is alittle different) and I have more than enough intelligence to keep me alive
I saw something today on the news about almost any civilian being able to buy a .50cal sniper rifle, hahaah so much for homeland security.

V8killimports

01-16-2005, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Gosei_Passion
I did do something for my own reason and that is not joining because I don't want to throw away the only life I have because of a war of pride. and I was by no means trying to influence anyone from joining the military, which I don't particularly remember saying or implying. you don't know me personally, you could even begin to know if the military is better off with out me. I've been trained in displine since I was young, I have a great shot with a gun (granted a rifle is alittle different) and I have more than enough intelligence to keep me alive
I saw something today on the news about almost any civilian being able to buy a .50cal sniper rifle, hahaah so much for homeland security.

Are you kidding me? lol Because you can shoot a gun doesn't mean jack shit. Most career fields don't even involve a gun.

And first of all "saw something onthe news" sums up a lot about you and the fact that you regard the news as god. Second.. .50 cal sniper rifle.. homeland security? .50 cal sniper rifle has nothing to do with homeland security. A .50 cal sniper rifle is not going to destroy a city. That statement was just retarded.

Wren57

01-16-2005, 01:20 PM

Don't worry about it Mike... some people just don't see the big picture.

IALuder

01-16-2005, 03:28 PM

ok wren what is the big picture in your veiw?

im not taking sides, i merly want to know what you think.

Wren57

01-16-2005, 03:41 PM

OH boy here we go...

*disclaimer*
If you can't deal with a POV that may be different than yours, or if you choose to not look through ALL propoganda generated by EVERYONE, are easily offended or otherwise sensitive, or if you are pregnant or nursing, you should stop reading right here.
**********

The big picture is global. This is, in basic terms, a war of ideas. This is a war between order and chaos; the paradox is that the order (represented by the "west") is corrupted. So, which is better; corrupted order or chaos? That is the main question here.

Now, look at the Middle East. People say we shouldn't have invaded Iraq, but maybe Saudi Arabia. We are fighting this war of ideas, as it was brought to us, and we will finish it. We NEED Saudi Arabia as an ally for a while; they are our only ally there (other than Israel). You have to see through the strategy; We are dividing and conquering. This has been coming for a long time, which is why we have kept positive relations with Saudi Arabia. We will be friends with SA and set up an American-friendly Iraqi gov't. We already have Afghanistan, Pakistan, and SA on our side; then we get Iraq, so we have 4 allies in the area. Then we can take on Libya, Iran, etc. It is a war of ideas, and we are dividing and conquering; this is a very basic military principle. I don't agree with everything that is happening, but I AM smart enough to realize that Bush is NOT stupid, that he DOES have an overall strategy and so far, it IS working (democracies aren't made in the face of turmoil overnight... it took the US a LONG time). We are achieving our objective; to win the war of ideas. THAT is the big picture. Even if a city gets nuked or a few buildings destroyed, we will win. We might lose a battle, but we will win the war.

Now, some of the things gosei has said has cracked me up. Do you realize how LITTLE of the armed forces is actually on the battlefield? Not everyone has a rifle and a flak jacket. You say you pay taxes so you don't have to fight; what a jackass that makes you sound like. I dare you to tell the next cop that pulls you over that he owes you something because you pay his salary through taxes. This sense of entitlement to America's freedoms is sickening. Freedom is NOT free, and if you haven't learned that over the past 3 years, then it may be too late...

Kinda too big a topic to say all I want to as I don't want to type a thesis, but ask any specific questions and I'll be happy to answer.

IALuder

01-16-2005, 03:50 PM

so your saying, we are going to go to war with every country were not an ally with? just to make them an ally?

Wren57

01-16-2005, 04:03 PM

No, I just didn't explain that cause I was lazy and figured you'd get it anyway. We are at war with any country that is hostile towards us AND disagrees with our ideas (probably hostile bc of the disagreement). A few countries HATE us, and would love to see our destruction; they just don't have the power to bring us down. We are taking the war to their doorstep instead of giving them time to gather arms, in which case they would bring the fight to OUR soil...

GT40FIED

01-16-2005, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by highlander
No, I just didn't explain that cause I was lazy and figured you'd get it anyway. We are at war with any country that is hostile towards us AND disagrees with our ideas (probably hostile bc of the disagreement). A few countries HATE us, and would love to see our destruction; they just don't have the power to bring us down. We are taking the war to their doorstep instead of giving them time to gather arms, in which case they would bring the fight to OUR soil...

That all sounds fine and good, but do realize just how many countries hate us? It's a shitload. Even countries that "support" us in this war are pissed at us...like Britain. Man, do they hate us over there. Destroying anyone with a different ideology and strong feelings of dislike...that reminds me of something. Oh yeah...terrorism. Look...people are going to hate us. That's just the way it is. It's not because we have freedom...they could get that on their own if they wanted it so bad. It's because we're pompous, arrogant, and violent with a touch of narcissism thrown in for good measure. You mentioned that we've got the support of Afghanistan. Are you kidding? Their government is basically our government with funny hats and their military...wait...what military (unless you mean our military). It's a bit antithetical to "liberate" (politician-speak for "blow the fuck out of") a country and then turn around and claim that they agree with us. I do wonder why the rest of the world hates us.

Wren57

01-16-2005, 06:07 PM

Steve, point out where I said I agree with the way things are in the world and I'll FedEx you a sugar cookie. Don't attack me for speaking the truth; I am not in control of it, nor do I support it or agree with it. I am stating facts, not agreeing or disagreeing with them, so don't try to put me on the defensive, for I have not said anything that would put me on a side to defend.

And yes, people are gonna hate us. But the "live and let live" policy will only work if everyone agrees to it; they have not, are not, and will not ever agree to it. They want a fight. If someone has resources and support, they can create a fight with the US. Would you like to have troops fighting for you in desert wastelands, or would you rather have to keep a rifle nearby in case the Taliban kicks down your door...

GT40FIED

01-16-2005, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by highlander
Steve, point out where I said I agree with the way things are in the world and I'll FedEx you a sugar cookie. Don't attack me for speaking the truth; I am not in control of it, nor do I support it or agree with it. I am stating facts, not agreeing or disagreeing with them, so don't try to put me on the defensive, for I have not said anything that would put me on a side to defend.

And yes, people are gonna hate us. But the "live and let live" policy will only work if everyone agrees to it; they have not, are not, and will not ever agree to it. They want a fight. If someone has resources and support, they can create a fight with the US. Would you like to have troops fighting for you in desert wastelands, or would you rather have to keep a rifle nearby in case the Taliban kicks down your door...

Truth? You mean all of that subjective material and conjecture that anyone can twist to mean whatever they want? Yeah...that truth kicks ass. Look...there's no such thing as truth. There's only opinion and viewpoint. I don't support a "liveand let live" policy either, but we've got a REALLY shitty track record of picking our battles. Korea...Vietnam...Iraq #1. All overwhelming successes, to be certain. So who gets to decide which side is picking a fight? I'm sure to many in the Arab world we're the ones picking the fight and they'd be right. To us their terrorist bullshit alone is picking a fight. Again, we'd be right. So if everyone's right, why go to war? What benefit do we have of invading Iraq? Iraqis could have gotten freedom on their own if they had wanted to. My gas prices are still pretty high, so I'm assuming oil wasn't a big part of it. OPEC controls all of that anyway. Then you're just left with Saddam. A whole war to get one guy. But now Iraq is a breeding ground for people who didn't hate us before, but sure as fuck hate us now. Who did the risk/reward analysis on this plan? Fire that asshole. As for the options you gave me, I choose neither. If I feel that my own life or the lives of others are in real danger I'll pick up a gun and fight for myself. I don't need someone else doing it for me. But there aren't really any countries that pose a credible threat to us...save maybe the one nobody is paying attention to, North Korea. Why haven't we invaded Pyongyang? I'm sick of people saying that others are fighting for my freedoms. Last I checked, Saddam wasn't in any way gearing up to take away my freedom of speech. More than anything, I fear that from our own government. So with all of this legislature running around trying to control what people can say, why doesn't the military invade Washington DC? I mean, if anyone is screwing with my freedoms, they're in DC. The bottom line is that being like a drunk in a bar swinging a bottle...taking on all comers is not an effective option or, given the size of our military, even a possible one.

Wren57

01-16-2005, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by GT40FIED
Truth? You mean all of that subjective material and conjecture that anyone can twist to mean whatever they want? Yeah...that truth kicks ass. Look...there's no such thing as truth. There's only opinion and viewpoint.

Yes, there is truth. I am not debating emotions, I'm saying we are at war over ideas; I mentioned motives and goals, not feelings. Keep your eye on the ball.

So who gets to decide which side is picking a fight? I'm sure to many in the Arab world we're the ones picking the fight and they'd be right. To us their terrorist bullshit alone is picking a fight. Again, we'd be right. So if everyone's right, why go to war? What benefit do we have of invading Iraq? Iraqis could have gotten freedom on their own if they had wanted to.

First of all, Iraq picked the fight by invading Kuwait over 10 years ago. Then they were given another chance, and they picked a fight again by not agreeing to the terms of their second chance (resolution 1411 or whatever it was). These are the FACTS, deal with them. Also, terrorists picked the fight with us by crashing planes into the WTC. When have we done anything even similar to that? Please tell me. And no, Iraqis could NOT gain their freedom on their own; pitchforks and shovels don't stack up against RPGs and a huge militia.

My gas prices are still pretty high, so I'm assuming oil wasn't a big part of it. OPEC controls all of that anyway. Then you're just left with Saddam. A whole war to get one guy. But now Iraq is a breeding ground for people who didn't hate us before, but sure as fuck hate us now. Who did the risk/reward analysis on this plan? Fire that asshole.

It was not about Sadaam. Did you read the divide/conquer motives I listed about? THAT is why.
As for the options you gave me, I choose neither. If I feel that my own life or the lives of others are in real danger I'll pick up a gun and fight for myself. I don't need someone else doing it for me. But there aren't really any countries that pose a credible threat to us...

So you want to sit back until someone gets powerful enough to pose a threat? That is stupid. Squash the enemy before they squash you. Duh.
save maybe the one nobody is paying attention to, North Korea. Why haven't we invaded Pyongyang?

Because they have artillery aimed at Seoul, and if we invade, they basically destroy Seoul. Il will be out soon enough, and that will bring about regime change. Their military is antiquated and could easily be crushed, but WE DONT WANT A FIGHT, so we are being patient. Do you have any idea the miserable state of their economy vs the capitalist economy of South Korea? NK will come around soon enough.
I'm sick of people saying that others are fighting for my freedoms. Last I checked, Saddam wasn't in any way gearing up to take away my freedom of speech. More than anything, I fear that from our own government. So with all of this legislature running around trying to control what people can say, why doesn't the military invade Washington DC? I mean, if anyone is screwing with my freedoms, they're in DC. The bottom line is that being like a drunk in a bar swinging a bottle...taking on all comers is not an effective option or, given the size of our military, even a possible one.
I agree... if you feel so strongly, do something about it. The ACLU drives me insane, as do many other censoring bodies. You will have to admit it is mainly the left extremists censoring everything... well, them and the bible-beating far-right zealots. If you feel strongly about it, write your congressman; they do listen.

GT40FIED

01-16-2005, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by highlander
Yes, there is truth. I am not debating emotions, I'm saying we are at war over ideas; I mentioned motives and goals, not feelings. Keep your eye on the ball.

First of all, Iraq picked the fight by invading Kuwait over 10 years ago. Then they were given another chance, and they picked a fight again by not agreeing to the terms of their second chance (resolution 1411 or whatever it was). These are the FACTS, deal with them. Also, terrorists picked the fight with us by crashing planes into the WTC. When have we done anything even similar to that? Please tell me. And no, Iraqis could NOT gain their freedom on their own; pitchforks and shovels don't stack up against RPGs and a huge militia.

It was not about Sadaam. Did you read the divide/conquer motives I listed about? THAT is why.

So you want to sit back until someone gets powerful enough to pose a threat? That is stupid. Squash the enemy before they squash you. Duh.

Because they have artillery aimed at Seoul, and if we invade, they basically destroy Seoul. Il will be out soon enough, and that will bring about regime change. Their military is antiquated and could easily be crushed, but WE DONT WANT A FIGHT, so we are being patient. Do you have any idea the miserable state of their economy vs the capitalist economy of South Korea? NK will come around soon enough.

I agree... if you feel so strongly, do something about it. The ACLU drives me insane, as do many other censoring bodies. You will have to admit it is mainly the left extremists censoring everything... well, them and the bible-beating far-right zealots. If you feel strongly about it, write your congressman; they do listen.

For as much as you like to get on me about your perception that I substitute my opinion for fact, you sure do enjoy doing it yourself, don't you Wren? Yeah...Iraq invaded Kuwait...10 YEARS AGO. If you've taken PoliSci 101 yet, you'll also know that it's the responsibilty of a given citizenship to overthrow a government they don't think is working. Somehow I doubt all of the people brandishing AKs and RPGs are members of the military. Look...I'm not saying we should sit around with thumbs firmly up our asses waiting for someone to attack us. I just don't think a "shoot first, ask questions later" foreign policy is going to work. Eventually all of the people we've bullied/bribed into saying they support us will turn against us if we invade any country who dislikes us. If we're going to fight, why not fight the good fight? If Iraq didn't play a part in attacking us, why invade them and not the countries who did play a part? Forget tactics...the first consideration for war should be justification. That's something we just don't have.

Wren57

01-16-2005, 08:37 PM

10 years is NOTHING in the grand scope of world time and political change, yet you make it sound like an eternity. Ha.

And yes, I've taken PSC101, and it is their responsibility. We did not go in there to help the Iraqi people; don't buy into that propoganda. We went in there because we had intel that Iraq had WMDs (cmon, we warned them 8 months before invading, I bet they moved them). We know there were terrorist training camps in Iraq, Sadaam hated us, we thought he had WMDs, his own people hated him (for the most part), and he had proven his ability and likelyhood of attacking another nation given the power to (Kuwait) AND ignoring multinational sanctions. C'mon, what more justification do you really need?

Fight the good fight? What the FUCK does that mean?

Attack those that attacked us; gee, we are. It is called Afghanistan. If you don't understand why we can't send in troops to Afghanistan like we did Iraq then you have no basis to even argue this point, so give it up. If you really need explaining to, just ask (or google it).

Anyway, to avoid this getting too nasty, I will say that I see justification for this war, for it is there. If you choose to ignore/deny it, or just don't agree with it, then that is your decision and at your discretion.

GT40FIED

01-16-2005, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by highlander
10 years is NOTHING in the grand scope of world time and political change, yet you make it sound like an eternity. Ha.

And yes, I've taken PSC101, and it is their responsibility. We did not go in there to help the Iraqi people; don't buy into that propoganda. We went in there because we had intel that Iraq had WMDs (cmon, we warned them 8 months before invading, I bet they moved them). We know there were terrorist training camps in Iraq, Sadaam hated us, we thought he had WMDs, his own people hated him (for the most part), and he had proven his ability and likelyhood of attacking another nation given the power to (Kuwait) AND ignoring multinational sanctions. C'mon, what more justification do you really need?

Fight the good fight? What the FUCK does that mean?

Attack those that attacked us; gee, we are. It is called Afghanistan. If you don't understand why we can't send in troops to Afghanistan like we did Iraq then you have no basis to even argue this point, so give it up. If you really need explaining to, just ask (or google it).

Anyway, to avoid this getting too nasty, I will say that I see justification for this war, for it is there. If you choose to ignore/deny it, or just don't agree with it, then that is your decision and at your discretion.

How is Iraq attacking Kuwait any of our business? I like all of this "we had intel" and "we thought". Hey...suprise suprise, we were wrong. That happens a lot when you make shit up. I'm well aware of why we went into Afghanistan...and I supported that (I'm not too keen on regime change, but overall it was a good effort). Quick, clean, and relatively short. Just like Iraq. Oh...wait...no.

A big part of the word "justification" is "justice". I don't think a bunch of "well we thought..." is justice when it turns out you're wrong. Iraq posed no direct threat to us and any indirect threats sure as hell weren't deminished by invading them. As for the rest of the world...let them fend for themselves for a change. Not that I mean to sound insensitive, but I don't see why it's always the U.S. that has to be the one sending troops to die for other's mistakes.

Look Wren...just because I think one thing and you think another doesn't mean either of us is right...but it's hilarious that you think you are. You wanna kill 'em all? That's fine. I think it's ridiculous. But whatever. Don't get so focused on being right that you lose the forest from the trees.

Wren57

01-16-2005, 09:09 PM

Iraq invading Kuwait WAS our business. Any instability in a region that hates us is bad; ever heard vacuum of power? Yugoslavia perhaps? Germany was unstable before Hitler.

All this monday-morning quarterbacking by you and people like you will get us nowhere. We might have been wrong about the WMDs. Then again, we were stalled by the UN for 8+ months between when we threatened invasion and when we actually went in. You can move a lot of bombs in 8 months.

What would you have made the decision on? Every day you make the best possible decision with the best possible information you have to make that decision. If we had been correct, and Iraq had WMDs, and we did nothing, and they sold a nuke to Al Qaeda and nuked a city, I guarantee you'd be raising a shitstorm about our lack of action.

Two schools of thought here. I prefer premptive strike to retaliation, as a retaliation strike means we've already been hit, and I would prefer us to not be hit.

On a lighter note;
Of course I think I am right. I wouldn't have an opinion I thought to be wrong. :D What is so wrong with that?

At the same time I realize I might be wrong, and that other people have other opinions, so that is a possibility; just, unlikely. ;)

GT40FIED

01-16-2005, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by highlander
Iraq invading Kuwait WAS our business. Any instability in a region that hates us is bad; ever heard vacuum of power? Yugoslavia perhaps? Germany was unstable before Hitler.

All this monday-morning quarterbacking by you and people like you will get us nowhere. We might have been wrong about the WMDs. Then again, we were stalled by the UN for 8+ months between when we threatened invasion and when we actually went in. You can move a lot of bombs in 8 months.

What would you have made the decision on? Every day you make the best possible decision with the best possible information you have to make that decision. If we had been correct, and Iraq had WMDs, and we did nothing, and they sold a nuke to Al Qaeda and nuked a city, I guarantee you'd be raising a shitstorm about our lack of action.

Two schools of thought here. I prefer premptive strike to retaliation, as a retaliation strike means we've already been hit, and I would prefer us to not be hit.

On a lighter note;
Of course I think I am right. I wouldn't have an opinion I thought to be wrong. :D What is so wrong with that?

At the same time I realize I might be wrong, and that other people have other opinions, so that is a possibility; just, unlikely. ;)

When would I have attacked? How about never? It's funny that while we were rushing to war the U.N. was asking for more time then after we got in there and started looking, everyone who thought war was a good idea said "well it takes time". Fuck that. Nobody in our government will ever step up and say "you know what...I/we was/were wrong". Germany was unstable before Hitler because we had just bombed them into the stone age. Hitler fixed that...and then went crazy. Iraq was pretty much always in the stone age and Sadaam was pretty much always crazy. Big difference. If you want to police the world, join the service. Otherwise don't throw the idea around.

Honestly man...I welcome everyone's opinion and I'm certainly not opposed to you having your own. Just don't present it like that's the only way it can be.

CD5Passion

01-17-2005, 02:36 AM

Originally posted by highlander

You say you pay taxes so you don't have to fight; what a jackass that makes you sound like.

Wren you really should stop putting words in peoples mouths cause I sure as hell don't remember EVER saying that...what was that word you used to label me? Jackass ?
looks like you pinned the tail on the the wrong "donkey"

V8killimports

01-17-2005, 05:08 AM

Well think about what would have happened if we finished Korea.. we wouldn't have the current problems that we do with North Korea. Even China, who supported and even fought against us during the Korean war doesn't support Korea now, and wishes that they never had in the first place. N Korea is as much a thorn in their side as they are in ours.

Now let's compare that to Iraq. At some point in time they would have developed nuclear weapons, and we would have wished that we had dealt with them back in 2002 like we intended.

And saying that Iraq had no WMD is just retarded. From the end of the Gulf War Iraq never followed any of the agreements set by the U.N... but nothing was done about it. Iraq had 11 years to disseminate their WMD to countries like Syria.

And do you realize that 90% of these insurgents are not even Iraqis? And have you noticed that about 75% of the current casualties on our side are Iraqis to include iraqi police, iraqi politcians, and iraqi military? I wonder why that is... It's obviously not about us not belonging there.. because the insurgents seem to think that Iraqis don't belong in Iraq based on their recent attacks.

IALuder

01-17-2005, 06:04 AM

ok some where in here i read "would you wait till they had nuclear weapons to attak with before doing something?" or something along those lines.

heres my answer to that question: then why arent we in iran or NK? both are making them and both took forever disarming them. did they make them, sell them, and then said oh we dissarmed them.

lol, Afganistan. hell we still cant find thw hole/cave this guy is living in. till we find him that war will not be over. my guess is he living right next door to me. i think the war on iraq was to make people look there not over there. why? im not sure. it seems like everyone has forgot we are there.

GT40FIED

01-17-2005, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by V8killimports
And do you realize that 90% of these insurgents are not even Iraqis? And have you noticed that about 75% of the current casualties on our side are Iraqis to include iraqi police, iraqi politcians, and iraqi military? I wonder why that is... It's obviously not about us not belonging there.. because the insurgents seem to think that Iraqis don't belong in Iraq based on their recent attacks.

I think it's more about the fact that insurgents think that the "new" Iraqi military and police forces are working for us and against them. Since we are apparently the infidel (who knew?), the fact that they are working with us must drive many of the insurgents to hate them, as well. Not to undercut the efforts or sacrifices made by the military, but why do we call them insurgents. We invaded them when they didn't want us there. They're fighting off a percieved threat (whether it be real or not) to their way of life. About 250 years ago we called those people "minutemen". Now all of a sudden that they're on the opposite side of the crosshairs we call them "insurgents". I'm not saying it's right or wrong...but it's a bit of a double standard.

Wren57

01-17-2005, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Gosei_Passion
Wren you really should stop putting words in peoples mouths cause I sure as hell don't remember EVER saying that...what was that word you used to label me? Jackass ?
looks like you pinned the tail on the the wrong "donkey"

and the only reason your ass if over there is because of people like me. the ones who pay the taxes that pay for your fucking weapons dumbass.

Are you blind or just stupid?

IALuder

01-17-2005, 06:57 AM

wren is right. sorry darin. you did say that shit. twice to be exact.

V8killimports

01-17-2005, 07:00 AM

SFKing I dunno if what you said is a fucking haiku or what.. because I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.. what are you talking about attacking Iraq to look here instead of there.. and to let people know we are there? here? Are you drunk?

Wren57

01-17-2005, 07:02 AM

Haha, he did use a lot of indefinite pronouns. :D

IALuder

01-17-2005, 07:12 AM

i may be slightly iunder the influnce.

but my point is. why are we not attacking iran or NK? they have nuclear weapons or were making them. the UN told them to disarm and dispose of them. but damn it took them forever to comply. so i guess they made them and sold them. we would never know. the UN never went to Iran did they?

did we go to war with iraq to get peoples attention off afganistan? we still havent found bin ladin, why arent we trying harder? how come people have forgot that we are there? becuase iraq is more important?

V8killimports

01-17-2005, 08:55 AM

No we have not found bin laden.. we still need to, but the fact that we removed the taliban and AQ from Afghanistan has severely hindered their capabilities of performing a major terrorist attack. We still need to put the pressure on afghanistan, and we still do. You talk as if Afghanistan was unsuccessful, which shows how much you know.. like it was some form of embarrassment. Trying harder to find bin laden you ask? Please I am the U.S. military is open to suggestions.. what do YOU suggest?

As for Iran and NK.. they do not comply.. and you ask why don't we attack them? Watch the news lately? Didn't think so.. not to say that we are, because I don't know.. but there is tons of info out there and conjection about that topic.