[OFFICIAL] Operation Iraqi Freedom - Conflict in Iraq

[Elder]

Originally posted by JTNY
Yeah, you have a hard time, because other opinions do not have to agree with the US. My point was not about AIDS being cured by money, it is the fac that the US government proclaims it liberates people, when all it does is look out for its own interests and bring war and exploit foreign lands. Sure it sends aid to other countries, but which Western country doesn't?

The US is not this huge evil. The United States gaining more power would not ruin the world. The US already runs the world, and it still spins fine, the main squabble is (apart from this current administration war on terror and Iraq crap) that more could be done to make a better world. It is my opinion that current events like the Iraqi invasion will have greater dire consequences than positive ones, because the reason for war was political, economic and military gain as well as the false threat that Iraq could deploy WMD in 45 minutes and not liberation. You disagree, oh well.

Well, the US government has "liberated" 2 countries from oppressive, backwoods regimes in 3 years. Maybe the rest of the world should step up and do something for once. Maybe Europe can take care of the AIDS issue. : ) But I forgot that Europe just talks and talks about doing things, but never actually does anything about them.

The Iraq war would never have happened if it were not for September 11th. The 45 minute thing was pretty silly. But I don't think it was the US who made that argument. And always keep in mind, the UN voted for war... like 15 times. But yes, we disagree... oh well.

And the person who was running for president in this country who agreed with you the most got 1 percent of the vote last night in the Iowa primary. So I guess you know where your opinion stands with people in Iowa.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by ?uestlove
Im merely pointing out the pointlessnes of you saying "AIDS can't be cured by throwing money at it." Of course!



There you go again pointing out money wont solve the problem.... There is a wealth of socio-economic conditions that only help the spread the ignorance.



So America has such a marvelous affinity with the Iraqi's, and feel their pain and sorrow under the dictatorship of Saddam?
Are you aware of the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo that has seen more people die in such a conflict since WWII? What did the US do in its "leadership" position? Token effort, if any.
It doesnt click: The US says they are going after Saddam to promote peace and eliminate the terrorist threat from all angles. But these actions that have only the effect of stereotyping, with good reason, the march of America. After all there is every reason to believe that OIL is part of some geopolitical imperialist plan.




Out of the $15 billion promised, Guess how much has been released so far?

$0.

Actually, Americans are a very kind people who do worry about people who are oppressed, down on their luck, etc... But you know what. Any time someone uses the word "imperialist" in their agruments against the US, I can't continue. It shows how wrapped up in the propaganda you are, as you start to sound like the anti war websites around cyberspace.

 

[?uestlove]

Originally posted by Elder
Actually, Americans are a very kind people who do worry about people who are oppressed, down on their luck, etc... But you know what. Any time someone uses the word "imperialist" in their agruments against the US, I can't continue. It shows how wrapped up in the propaganda you are, as you start to sound like the anti war websites around cyberspace.

First lets seperate Americans from the US government. Americans in the, vast majority, are kind and empathic people. The foreign policy objectives is nothing short of IMPERIALIST objectives and ambitions.

I assure you I have the benefit of a variety of media feed and not the propaganda propagated, by and large, by the US media. How often is the "other side" of the story explored? How often is opposing views to that of the government emphasized or given as much media spotlight? Dont talk rubbish my friend; a simple case will be the Israeli-palestinian conflict. If a suicide bomber goes off in Israel Western media outlets arent reserved in calling it a terrorist act without elaboration on the conditions that make one to pursue such calling. But when Israeli soldiers gun down children and women - ordinary bystanders - no recriminations from the US government or media outlets. Palestinians dont have a land; dont have an army to protect their national interests; dont have a viable economy. And what does Washington do to show that it is dealing with the issue fairly, in its self-appointed role of World leader? Token pressure. Sharon has the guts to state that the US government will look after the sovereign interests of Israel. I hope you arent even thinking of saying that the US is fair in its relationship with Palestine.
Dont tell me about propaganda. I have to ask: where do you get most of your information? 70% of all media outlets is controlled by 5 percent. Go figure.

So tell me if it isnt an imperialist regime that the US government is. Where you informed of the the catastrophic war in the D.R.C.? Was it given the enough media coverage or political emphasis? No, but as I said this is the most disastrous conflict since WWII. Or is it simply that African lives arent as important or that there is no strategic geopolitical advantage to be had?

Mr webster on Imperialism:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

The adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan more than supports this definition of imperialism.


What does the US stand for, in light of its recent global gallivanting? True global justice, equality, and Freedom, or self interest? We dont need to beat this issue restlessly; It is either in the sole and specific self interest of the US or world peace.

 

[?uestlove]

Originally posted by Elder
Well, the US government has "liberated" 2 countries from oppressive, backwoods regimes in 3 years. Maybe the rest of the world should step up and do something for once. Maybe Europe can take care of the AIDS issue. : ) But I forgot that Europe just talks and talks about doing things, but never actually does anything about them.

The Iraq war would never have happened if it were not for September 11th. The 45 minute thing was pretty silly. But I don't think it was the US who made that argument. And always keep in mind, the UN voted for war... like 15 times. But yes, we disagree... oh well.

And the person who was running for president in this country who agreed with you the most got 1 percent of the vote last night in the Iowa primary. So I guess you know where your opinion stands with people in Iowa.

Disqualification!!! This statement of yours goes to show that you dont really know what you are talking about.

The Iraq war was already being planned by monsieur Bush as he took office. Or have you forgotten that a certain sacked secretary of treasury named O'neill brought this to light. And it wasnt denied by Bush. Said he (Mr. Bush): It has always been a policy of regime change in Iraq, since the Clinton administration. Where have you been? Or is this another piece of propaganda?

The UN DIDNT vote for war. Why do we have the "Coalition of the Willing", made up of such prestigious countries as the Solomon Islands, the Philippines, and Ukraine(No offence), and not a collection of armies under the banner of the UN. So when did the UN vote for war? Has it been forgotten that Chirac promised to veto any resolution that declared outright war with Iraq? A veto does mean that a resolution will not see the light of day, my freind.

Get your facts right and change or add to your staple diet of FOX news and CNN for more objective opinions to be formed.

 

[JTNY]

Originally posted by Elder
Well, the US government has "liberated" 2 countries from oppressive, backwoods regimes in 3 years. Maybe the rest of the world should step up and do something for once. Maybe Europe can take care of the AIDS issue. : ) But I forgot that Europe just talks and talks about doing things, but never actually does anything about them.

The Iraq war would never have happened if it were not for September 11th. The 45 minute thing was pretty silly. But I don't think it was the US who made that argument. And always keep in mind, the UN voted for war... like 15 times. But yes, we disagree... oh well.

And the person who was running for president in this country who agreed with you the most got 1 percent of the vote last night in the Iowa primary. So I guess you know where your opinion stands with people in Iowa.

2 countries? Ah mate, have you seen the reports on Afghanistan. The local war lords still have all the power. Khazai controls Carlos ****. He barely gets out of his compound, and when he does he is surrounded by an entourage of security befitting of one trillion dollars in gold. Women are still beaten and abused in Afghanistan. Services are still terrible and they are still the world's largest producer of heroin. Liberated? No, I think not. The Northern Alliance are just as hard line as the over publicised Taliban. The Lawya Jurka (terrible spelling of the name of the Afghan Parliament) is full of dispute and reperesentatives who are squabbling - ie. the war lords.

Also, like I care how some American state's (is it a state) democrat voters and who they voted for in some presidential pre-seclection committee. Your country has been flooded by propaganda, so it is believable that an anti-war candidate got so little of the vote. He could of lost the vote for many other reasons though, he might just be a crappy politician, or is on the wrong side of the media, or people don't like him, so I think your last comment about Iowa is irrelevant.

 

[Luis Ah-Hoy]

Originally posted by Elder
Well, the US government has "liberated" 2 countries from oppressive, backwoods regimes in 3 years. Maybe the rest of the world should step up and do something for once. Maybe Europe can take care of the AIDS issue. : ) But I forgot that Europe just talks and talks about doing things, but never actually does anything about them.

The Iraq war would never have happened if it were not for September 11th. The 45 minute thing was pretty silly. But I don't think it was the US who made that argument. And always keep in mind, the UN voted for war... like 15 times. But yes, we disagree... oh well.

And the person who was running for president in this country who agreed with you the most got 1 percent of the vote last night in the Iowa primary. So I guess you know where your opinion stands with people in Iowa.

Talkin' about worn-out and repetitive arguments......

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by ?uestlove
Disqualification!!! This statement of yours goes to show that you dont really know what you are talking about.

The Iraq war was already being planned by monsieur Bush as he took office. Or have you forgotten that a certain sacked secretary of treasury named O'neill brought this to light. And it wasnt denied by Bush. Said he (Mr. Bush): It has always been a policy of regime change in Iraq, since the Clinton administration. Where have you been? Or is this another piece of propaganda?

The UN DIDNT vote for war. Why do we have the "Coalition of the Willing", made up of such prestigious countries as the Solomon Islands, the Philippines, and Ukraine(No offence), and not a collection of armies under the banner of the UN. So when did the UN vote for war? Has it been forgotten that Chirac promised to veto any resolution that declared outright war with Iraq? A veto does mean that a resolution will not see the light of day, my freind.

Get your facts right and change or add to your staple diet of FOX news and CNN for more objective opinions to be formed.

It was known that war would come when the last resolution regarding Iraq was passed. "Serious Consequences" was WAR. Saddam knew it, whiny France knew it, and so did everyone else when they voted for it. It wasn't until France realized it was about to lose alot of money and influence that they tried to throw a monkeywrench into the works. It wasn't until Schroeder was about to lose his reelection campaign to a right wing Bavarian in Germany that he opposed the war.

The Iraq war was being planned when Bush took office? How shocking! Considering I bet the US government has plans drawn up to go to war with most major nations. That is part of national security, and the FIRST job of the US government is to provide for national security. Sorry, but I bet Clinton also had war plans drawn up, as did the Bush before him, and Reagan before him.

It's funny when one person comes out with a book, everyone jumps on it as "Evidence" of the evil Bush plotting to take over the world. If you didn't know, O'Neill had to back off many of his statements.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by JTNY
2 countries? Ah mate, have you seen the reports on Afghanistan. The local war lords still have all the power. Khazai controls Carlos ****. He barely gets out of his compound, and when he does he is surrounded by an entourage of security befitting of one trillion dollars in gold. Women are still beaten and abused in Afghanistan. Services are still terrible and they are still the world's largest producer of heroin. Liberated? No, I think not. The Northern Alliance are just as hard line as the over publicised Taliban. The Lawya Jurka (terrible spelling of the name of the Afghan Parliament) is full of dispute and reperesentatives who are squabbling - ie. the war lords.

Also, like I care how some American state's (is it a state) democrat voters and who they voted for in some presidential pre-seclection committee. Your country has been flooded by propaganda, so it is believable that an anti-war candidate got so little of the vote. He could of lost the vote for many other reasons though, he might just be a crappy politician, or is on the wrong side of the media, or people don't like him, so I think your last comment about Iowa is irrelevant.

Yeah I know, we live in the movie age when a problem arises and in 2 hours there is a solution. You tend to forget that Afghanistan was a wasteland for over 20 YEARS! And you expect immediate change in 2 and half, and white picket fences, and skyscrapers. You live in a fantasy world.

Women are beaten? Oh ****! You know, they are beaten in America, Australia, Russia, Germany.. every country in the world. At least they can go to school now... but who cares about that.

The Loya Jurga is full of dispute? Man, than sucks. Considering how well all of our governments work together, I thought they would be perfect like us! Give it time. 10 years at least. But it's easy to criticize now when all the results aren't in.

Iowa was flooded with propoganda by democrats. Bush wasn't there. I just think American voters are a bit smarter than you think, and can see right through your type of arguments.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by ?uestlove


I assure you I have the benefit of a variety of media feed and not the propaganda propagated, by and large, by the US media. How often is the "other side" of the story explored? How often is opposing views to that of the government emphasized or given as much media spotlight? Dont talk rubbish my friend; a simple case will be the Israeli-palestinian conflict. If a suicide bomber goes off in Israel Western media outlets arent reserved in calling it a terrorist act without elaboration on the conditions that make one to pursue such calling. But when Israeli soldiers gun down children and women - ordinary bystanders - no recriminations from the US government or media outlets. Palestinians dont have a land; dont have an army to protect their national interests; dont have a viable economy. And what does Washington do to show that it is dealing with the issue fairly, in its self-appointed role of World leader? Token pressure. Sharon has the guts to state that the US government will look after the sovereign interests of Israel. I hope you arent even thinking of saying that the US is fair in its relationship with Palestine.
Dont tell me about propaganda. I have to ask: where do you get most of your information? 70% of all media outlets is controlled by 5 percent. Go figure.

So tell me if it isnt an imperialist regime that the US government is. Where you informed of the the catastrophic war in the D.R.C.? Was it given the enough media coverage or political emphasis? No, but as I said this is the most disastrous conflict since WWII. Or is it simply that African lives arent as important or that there is no strategic geopolitical advantage to be had?

Mr webster on Imperialism:
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

The adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan more than supports this definition of imperialism.


What does the US stand for, in light of its recent global gallivanting? True global justice, equality, and Freedom, or self interest? We dont need to beat this issue restlessly; It is either in the sole and specific self interest of the US or world peace.

Mr. Bush is answering your question from last night speech.

"America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. "

The Israeli Palestinian conflict.. ay yay yay. It always shifts to this subject too. The evil Jews killing and oppressing the angelic palestinians. The Palestinians could have anything they want, besides the complete destruction of Israel, if they just quit blowing up people at bus stops, cafes, dance clubs, and schools. Since you love to talk about PROPOGANDA, maybe you should point the finger at the palestinians and how they indoctrinate their children with hate for Jews. It's too bad, because it's those same children who end up getting killed in the streets and become posters on a wall in Gaza.

I feel bad for the children who are killed. But I don't blame the Israelis, I blame their parents for letting their children go out in the streets for photo ops to throw rocks and other things at tanks.

The DRC is a sad story. But wasn't the UN overseeing that?

 

[Luis Ah-Hoy]

Originally posted by Elder
Mr. Bush is answering your question from last night speech.

"America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. "

"Our most basic beliefs" - So when he says "our" he's included in the list ?? Ahahaha, o.k.a.y. Mr. President ..... albeit my father told me that Bush may not be so bright, but he sure knows how to make a speech. And his counselors are very clever allright.... what a "touchy" speech...... well, at least for those who actually go along with it (like yourself)....


1) It's fine for me that the US President worries about national security and take measures on that matter.... not arguing about that.....

2) It's fine for me that Saddam is no longer in the commanding seat of a country, and that someone finally took a step forward to remove him from there.....


So what's our prob. with all the bashes on Bush ???

Elder: can you tell us for sure if either that was the only (and main) reason (besides the "will" to free the opressed Iraqi people), that was behind Bush's decision to go on war ?? Can you tell us what kind of threat was Saddam representing to the US at that time (since this was one of Bush's arguments) ?? Can you tell us, if those were the only (and main) reasons to justify the war, why would Mr. Bush and Co have to invent some other stupid and fake arguments ....... to later come with that crap about being worried with national security bla, bla..... so do you really think that some of your american fellows here in this forum (who are actually standing against your ideas), aren't as much worried as you about their security ??? What, you think they're naives and your posts are full of wisdom, insight and maturity???? 'Coz that's what it looks like.....

Also, stop calling everyone "lefty"..... 'coz nobody here needs to be a lefty to bash at sucky Bush.... personally I'm not and I don't even want to be.....

You're from that group of americans (and I know their the majority), that had that "Pro-war" mentality. You're a conservative guy regarding the aspects we're debating here, so even if you're proven wrong someday, I guess you'll never quit defending your thoughts......

So you're actually defending a guy whose arguments to go on war were absolute fake, whose external handling is a complete mess.... and etc, etc..... juss because you were always backing the decision to go on war...... you have your eyes completely blinded, otherwise you wouldn't write so many posts defending things and people who are actually villains and how da hell a guy like you who says that is open-minded don't f*****g know about that and even thinks that Mr. Bush is a DECENT man??????

 

[JTNY]

Originally posted by Elder
Iowa was flooded with propoganda by democrats. Bush wasn't there. I just think American voters are a bit smarter than you think, and can see right through your type of arguments.

No they are not, if they cannot see through your governments rhetoric.

Let me write down a simple equation even you might understand.

US government claims there were weapons in Iraq + Saddam linked to Al Qaeda + Plus weapons to be deployed in 45 minutes = Threat to the USA = Invasion.

Now, there were no weapons and there was no imminent threat. Therefore, the basis for the war was false. Hence, all this other claptrap about freedom and liberation is irrelevant.

 

[rhizome17]

I go away for a week, I come back and I find I am not needed

?uestlove, JTNY, Luis, Inter... great job.

Anyway, what Elder lacks in facts, he makes up for with conviction. So he deserves credit for that.

 

[Paul]

Originally posted by JTNY
Therefore, the basis for the war was false. Hence, all this other claptrap about freedom and liberation is irrelevant.

maybe not when the country will be better off for it.

go ask iraq's sports persons.. (thats a good enough example)



I'm sure they didnt find it irrevelant

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
I go away for a week, I come back and I find I am not needed

?uestlove, JTNY, Luis, Inter... great job.

Anyway, what Elder lacks in facts, he makes up for with conviction. So he deserves credit for that.

Who needs facts when Bush is President?!?! haha, just kidding of course, but even I wonder sometimes.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by JTNY
No they are not, if they cannot see through your governments rhetoric.

Let me write down a simple equation even you might understand.

US government claims there were weapons in Iraq + Saddam linked to Al Qaeda + Plus weapons to be deployed in 45 minutes = Threat to the USA = Invasion.

Now, there were no weapons and there was no imminent threat. Therefore, the basis for the war was false. Hence, all this other claptrap about freedom and liberation is irrelevant.

I think it has more to do with this equation..

Us government claims weapons in Iraq(so does rest of the world) + Saddam linked to Al Qaeda(if not Al Queda, at least other terrorists, and the US isn't at war with just Al Qaeda) + Threat to the USA(maybe there wasn't such a huge threat) + Everyone feels happy anywya because Saddam is gone.

= Maybe there are still weapons to be found. As many conspiracy theories I hear from the anti war crowd, there are many more fromt he pro war crowd that could make sense too. Like, the weapons are buried in the sands of the desert (they buried their planes and we couldn't find them) or that the weapons were shipped to Syria.

To me, those theories are just as plausible as anything else that could be bantered about. I am justwilling to tgive it more time since we are stuck there anyway. HOWEVER, if by November nothing is found, Bush might be in trouble.

But who knows what election tricks are up his sleeve.. how's that for consipiracy?! I don't discount it.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Paul
maybe not when the country will be better off for it.

go ask iraq's sports persons.. (thats a good enough example)



I'm sure they didnt find it irrevelant

We need to set up a footie tournament...

How about an 8 way tourney for the "who gives a **** what our countries went to war for, lets just kick some goals cup"

Participants

Iraq
Iran
USA
England
France
Germany
Russia
Afghanistan

Could be interesting.. Let's throw Israel in there too. We all need a good game with missles being thrown at the players while taking corner kicks.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
I think it has more to do with this equation..

Us government claims weapons in Iraq(so does rest of the world)
HOWEVER, if by November nothing is found, Bush might be in trouble.

But rest of world thinks that the best way of finding out if there actually ARE weapons is by maintaining UN Inspection teams, who themselves say that assistance is increasing and that they need more time. And despite having teams bigger than the UN ones, nothing is yet to be found by the US. Getting rid of Saddam is not the only reason for the US to be there, otherwise they would have accepted his offer to stand down in the days before war began.

But even if none are found by November, I doubt it will hurt Bush. Most polls show that a large number of Americans think WMD already have been found. And domestic issues will probably be most pertinent to his reelection chances.

Having said that, the last president who went to war and presided over a jobless recovery lost the election, so there may be a family tradition.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
But rest of world thinks that the best way of finding out if there actually ARE weapons is by maintaining UN Inspection teams, who themselves say that assistance is increasing and that they need more time. And despite having teams bigger than the UN ones, nothing is yet to be found by the US. Getting rid of Saddam is not the only reason for the US to be there, otherwise they would have accepted his offer to stand down in the days before war began.

But even if none are found by November, I doubt it will hurt Bush. Most polls show that a large number of Americans think WMD already have been found. And domestic issues will probably be most pertinent to his reelection chances.

Having said that, the last president who went to war and presided over a jobless recovery lost the election, so there may be a family tradition.

We are in agreement. Except that the last Bush who lost his reelection campaign lost because it was a 3 way race. The 2 conservative candidates had more than 50 percent of the vote, while Clinton had in the low 40's somewhere.

This election will be one to watch. but I think if the dems keep going the way they are going, it might be a landslide for Bush just because the dems can't quit lying about their positions. BUt the funny part is that the media don't call them on it.

 

[JTNY]

If in the small chance a democrat was elected would they pursue the "War on Terror" campaign, and continue the massive military spending? It would be difficult to suddenly call an abrupt halt to the campaign, no matter how opposed to it you are... but then spin doctors and speech writers could use terms like, "danger averted"... "scaling down".... "remain wary".






Though, unless I am mistaken, don't many Democrat candidates support the War on Terror? Especially seeing some are military affiliated, ie. Wesley Clark?

 

[Glorious]

The democrats are renowned for not going on big "Roman" style campaigns but smaller flashpoints like the Balkans in 1999.

I see the democrats scaling down the 'war'