PDA

View Full Version : Do You Think That This War Has Helped Or Not



Hemp6473
11-28-2006, 06:46 AM
Do You Think That This War Has Helped THE US OR NOT? DO YOU THINK THAT IT HAS HURT OUR PEOPLE OR BROUGHT US TOGETHER?

jmonty
11-28-2006, 06:54 AM
the war on terror? yes. there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11.

Guardian
11-28-2006, 06:59 AM
The War in Iraq has not helped at all. Iraq is producing less oil now then they did under Sadaam which if anything has brought our prices up rather then down (even if by a small margin in comparison). The worlds respect and care for us has went from record highs in the begining of the 21st century to perhaps its worst ever now in a mere 5 or 6 years.

jmonty
11-28-2006, 07:11 AM
so success to you would mean to make oil less expensive and have the world love america.

i don't think those were goals wjhen the war on terror began.

Guardian
11-28-2006, 07:27 AM
so success to you would mean to make oil less expensive and have the world love america.

i don't think those were goals wjhen the war on terror began.

Ok wise one, what were the goals when the war began?



Cause, we certainly didnt achieve them, actually, we cant achieve them because they dont even exist!

jmonty
11-28-2006, 07:28 AM
i don't know exactly, sorry i was just being a smart ass.

jmonty
11-28-2006, 07:33 AM
Ok wise one, what were the goals when the war began?



Cause, we certainly didnt achieve them, actually, we cant achieve them because they dont even exist!
getting rid of saddam was definetly one of the goals, as well as making sure his government didn't have WMD. i'm probably wrong, but didn't it come out that Iraq could have made WMD, but didn't actually have significant amounts?

O/T: have you seen the colbert report on comedy central? that **** was pretty funny today. on the 'word' segment he was saying something like 'stop saying iran is different than iraq', and off to the side there was a message 'soon there won't be'.

EDIT: I totally messed that up. it was on again so i edited for accuracy.

patrotoc
11-28-2006, 09:23 AM
I would have to say yes but apart of me says no also because at first we were all together now its like we aren't and its hard, but as long as we don't back down I think we will be okay.

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 10:05 AM
The War in Iraq has not helped at all. Iraq is producing less oil now then they did under Sadaam which if anything has brought our prices up rather then down (even if by a small margin in comparison). The worlds respect and care for us has went from record highs in the begining of the 21st century to perhaps its worst ever now in a mere 5 or 6 years.


Um, we never bought oil from Iraq as we had sanctions against them. So that did not raise our oil prices. I'm sure the oil companies used it as a reason to hike profits for their shareholders but it's not because we buy our oil there.

Countries like France did go around the sanctions and get oil though, as we found lots of French weapons in Iraq. Also, Kofi Annan, our fearless UN leader, made billions from the sanctions because he's looking out for our interests.

Guardian
11-28-2006, 10:13 AM
Um, we never bought oil from Iraq as we had sanctions against them. So that did not raise our oil prices. I'm sure the oil companies used it as a reason to hike profits for their shareholders but it's not because we buy our oil there.

Countries like France did go around the sanctions and get oil though, as we found lots of French weapons in Iraq. Also, Kofi Annan, our fearless UN leader, made billions from the sanctions because he's looking out for our interests.



Just because you dont trade with a country doesnt mean it wont effect the price you pay. World oil prices are determined as much by supply as they are demand, even if not an oz of iraq oil ever came to us, the production would still effect the price we pay!

So, lets say Iran doesnt trade with us, produces 5 mil more barrels a day and they all go to china, even though they dont trade with us our prices would still likely fall as world supply has risen.

Diana Ball
11-28-2006, 10:14 AM
In the naive, simple manner in which you think about this war as a "war on terror", no it has not helped. It has only helped the Islamic Revolutionaries by rallying part of the world for them and against us; and has not the furthered the cause of peace for the west in any way whatsoever- only harmed it.


But that is not the true goal and orientation of this war. The true goal is to advance the new world order agenda by rapidly escalating tension between the New World Order/Globalists and the anti-New World Order/Globalists; to "bring it on" or "Lets roll" if you will- not against 'terrorism' but against anti-new world order regimes; to increase resources available to the Globalists like oil and natural gas; to increase military capability and spending; to increase the sphere of the empire; to reduce freedoms and rights of those in the west; to increase the police state, socialism, and welfare state; etc.

In the true sense of this war as very briefly outlined above, which is actually opposite of what you and most Americans believe- yes it has succeeded for the NWO cabal so far.

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 10:19 AM
Just because you dont trade with a country doesnt mean it wont effect the price you pay. World oil prices are determined as much by supply as they are demand, even if not an oz of iraq oil ever came to us, the production would still effect the price we pay!

So, lets say Iran doesnt trade with us, produces 5 mil more barrels a day and they all go to china, even though they dont trade with us our prices would still likely fall as world supply has risen.

Yes, but sanctions against Iraq were supposed to be upheld by however many countries that make up the U.N. so their supply should have only went to countries that we're not big trading partners with anyway.

And thanks for the supply/demand class. I understand the concept.

I like to see the fact that this war being good or bad is based on extra 50 cent raise in gas prices too....very American stance there.

"My latte is too expensive, we need to make peace so it's cheaper!"

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 10:20 AM
In the naive, simple manner in which you think about this war as a "war on terror", no it has not helped. It has only helped the Islamic Revolutionaries by rallying part of the world for them and against us; and has not the furthered the cause of peace for the west in any way whatsoever- only harmed it.


But that is not the true goal and orientation of this war. The true goal is to advance the new world order agenda by rapidly escalating tension between the New World Order/Globalists and the anti-New World Order/Globalists; to "bring it on" or "Lets roll" if you will- not against 'terrorism' but against anti-new world order regimes; to increase resources available to the Globalists like oil and natural gas; to increase military capability and spending; to increase the sphere of the empire; to reduce freedoms and rights of those in the west; to increase the police state, socialism, and welfare state; etc.

In the true sense of this war as very briefly outlined above, which is actually opposite of what you and most Americans believe- yes it has succeeded for the NWO cabal so far.


I see nothing has changed with you.

So......have you found out which secret government agency I work for? When you busted me out last time, I lost my job with MIB (Men in Black) so thanks for that. It was getting old shooting aliens anyway.

Now I'm with a new secret squirrel group. You'll never guess who!!!!!

LiftThatWeight
11-28-2006, 10:25 AM
the war on terror? yes. there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11.

Wow... just wow

NO it has done NO good for the U.S. It's flipping this country upside down. Iraq was a stable nation before we invaded, It didn't have hundred's of people dying daily.

Guardian
11-28-2006, 10:26 AM
Yes, but sanctions against Iraq were supposed to be upheld by however many countries that make up the U.N. so their supply should have only went to countries that we're not big trading partners with anyway.

And thanks for the supply/demand class. I understand the concept.

I like to see the fact that this war being good or bad is based on extra 50 cent raise in gas prices too....very American stance there.

"My latte is too expensive, we need to make peace so it's cheaper!"



Adam Smith once said a nations strength is its economics, and I firmly believe this. Yes any significant impact on the economy I will take close note of. If we never went to Iraq chances are avaerage price of gas would be 2$ or less.


World gas prices are a majort determinant of the price we pay, regardless of whether the inidivudal country ever ships directly to us.

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 10:26 AM
Wow... just wow

NO it has done NO good for the U.S. It's flipping this country upside down. Iraq was a stable nation before we invaded, It didn't have hundred's of people dying daily.

Wow, troll much?

Seriously, where do you people come from?

Do you NOT know who Sadaam is?

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 10:29 AM
Adam Smith once said a nations strength is its economics, and I firmly believe this. Yes any significant impact on the economy I will take close note of. If we never went to Iraq chances are avaerage price of gas would be 2$ or less.


World gas prices are a majort determinant of the price we pay, regardless of whether the inidivudal country ever ships directly to us.

I agree that economy is important but I still can't agree with your logic about HOW important.

Every war costs a great deal of money. Just looking at WW2 and people brining in used tires is proof of that. It should never be the deciding factor, or even play a major role in going to war though. (my opinion)

Thank you for being civil though.

LiftThatWeight
11-28-2006, 10:31 AM
Wow, troll much?

Seriously, where do you people come from?

Do you NOT know who Sadaam is?

You're telling me Iraq is better now than when it was under Saddam? GTFO -->

benjamin88
11-28-2006, 10:34 AM
imo no it hasnt

iraq was stable under sadam
yes he was a evil dictator - he was that 10 years, 5 years ago when he was killing his people, did we invade then? no! are there other dictators in the world? yes!(why dont we invade them)
did he have nuclear weapons - no!
yes he had chemical weapons - but as (some1 google this quote and youl find who said it) we just had to look at the iran-iraq conflict receipts i.e we sold them
war on terror perspective - iran,syria,pakistan etc can still breed and shore up terrorist activity, except now they can use iraq as an incentive

the only good thing to come from this is one less evil dictator in the world, theres many left and i doubt wel bother than if theres no political/economic gain

this is just my 2 cents, i was previously pro war, and i certainly dont think we should pull out now..

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 10:34 AM
You're telling me Iraq is better now than when it was under Saddam? GTFO -->


Where did I say that?

Please quote me from page 1 of this thread where I said that.

I just called out the bull**** about peopel dying daily now that the big evil US is there. Go read a history book....or any book that talks about Iraq. Sadaam killed thousands of people and this was going on long before we got there.

You know, people existed in Iraq before we got there. We didn't plant them there and start killing them just to piss you off.

Diana Ball
11-28-2006, 10:35 AM
I see nothing has changed with you.

So......have you found out which secret government agency I work for? When you busted me out last time, I lost my job with MIB (Men in Black) so thanks for that. It was getting old shooting aliens anyway.

Now I'm with a new secret squirrel group. You'll never guess who!!!!!

Youve got an aweful big mouth for a PSYOP whose IP came back as an iraq.centcom.mil address (I have the screen captures still) after denying you were located at CENTCOM in Iraq.

So they let you post on the internet all day instead of going out on missions? BIG MAN! At least youre not out killing innocent people.

benjamin88
11-28-2006, 10:36 AM
Wow, troll much?

Seriously, where do you people come from?

Do you NOT know who Sadaam is?

sorry bro, i know hes in the red, but hes right, iraq was stable under sadam

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 10:36 AM
imo no it hasnt

iraq was stable under sadam
yes he was a evil dictator - he was that 10 years, 5 years ago when he was killing his people, did we invade then? no! are there other dictators in the world? yes!(why dont we invade them)
did he have nuclear weapons - no!
yes he had chemical weapons - but as (some1 google this quote and youl find who said it) we just had to look at the iran-iraq conflict receipts i.e we sold them
war on terror perspective - iran,syria,pakistan etc can still breed and shore up terrorist activity, except now they can use iraq as an incentive

the only good thing to come from this is one less evil dictator in the world, theres many left and i doubt wel bother than if theres no political/economic gain

this is just my 2 cents, i was previously pro war, and i certainly dont think we should pull out now..

I agree that we should fight evil dictators.

HOWEVER

What, in your honest opinion, would happen if we went to war with Sudan and removed their government from power? Would people around the world support us?

NOPE

They would say we're there for oil/natural resources and hate us more. Also, if an insurgency started up, Americans would turn on the war so fast that it would make your head spin.

So that's why we don't attack over evil dictators. It's all about public opinion and the fact that we as Americans are complete pussies.

LiftThatWeight
11-28-2006, 10:37 AM
Where did I say that?

Please quote me from page 1 of this thread where I said that.

I just called out the bull**** about peopel dying daily now that the big evil US is there. Go read a history book....or any book that talks about Iraq. Sadaam killed thousands of people and this was going on long before we got there.

You know, people existed in Iraq before we got there. We didn't plant them there and start killing them just to piss you off.

Saddam Killing thousands of people is not gonna be in a history book, it will probably be on the history channel though.

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 10:38 AM
Youve got an aweful big mouth for a PSYOP whose IP came back as an iraq.centcom.mil address (I have the screen captures still) after denying you were located at CENTCOM in Iraq.

So they let you post on the internet all day instead of going out on missions? BIG MAN! At least youre not out killing innocent people.

Woah, you caught me again! You're so clever!

PLEASE, PLEASE don't post the screen shots of my secret Iraqi address.

I didn't post all day remember? I went out and killed plenty of innoncent people in my free time.

I believe you're mistaken though, wasn't it a centcom address from Florida that I was routed through?

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 10:40 AM
sorry bro, i know hes in the red, but hes right, iraq was stable under sadam

Stable through torture and murder.

If that's what you mean by stable then yes, you're both right.

Where does your preference fall?

Order and no Freedom
Freedom and no Order

or at the moment

No freedom and no order

benjamin88
11-28-2006, 10:40 AM
I agree that we should fight evil dictators.

HOWEVER

What, in your honest opinion, would happen if we went to war with Sudan and removed their government from power? Would people around the world support us?

NOPE

They would say we're there for oil/natural resources and hate us more. Also, if an insurgency started up, Americans would turn on the war so fast that it would make your head spin.

So that's why we don't attack over evil dictators. It's all about public opinion and the fact that we as Americans are complete pussies.

yup tottaly agree, thats why i dont understand why we invaded iraq, public opinion took a smashing, they must have known this

benjamin88
11-28-2006, 10:42 AM
Stable through torture and murder.

If that's what you mean by stable then yes, you're both right.

Where does your preference fall?

Order and no Freedom
Freedom and no Order

or at the moment

No freedom and no order

yer i agree, and in practise im all for freedom, the fact is like you said, we cant police every evil dictatorship/bad human rights goverments in the world, if we did wed be at war with many many countries, therefore we cant pick and choose who we 'free' and who we leave to the mercy of there dictator

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 10:43 AM
yup tottaly agree, thats why i dont understand why we invaded iraq, public opinion took a smashing, they must have known this

Because we were off a fresh and easy victory in Afghanistan (even though they ****ed it up since I was there and saw Bin Laden escape when we could have got him) and Congress figured it would be the same in Iraq.

Overconfidence in my opinion.

benjamin88
11-28-2006, 10:44 AM
Because we were off a fresh and easy victory in Afghanistan (even though they ****ed it up since I was there and saw Bin Laden escape when we could have got him) and Congress figured it would be the same in Iraq.

Overconfidence in my opinion.


perhaps, we should have known from vietnam though

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 10:52 AM
perhaps, we should have known from vietnam though

We didn't come fresh from a victory from somewhere else right before Vietnam though. Korea was over 10 years old.

It's hard to stop the train once it gets moving...especially when Bush, at the time, could have gotten away with just about anything as his popularity was sky high.

benjamin88
11-28-2006, 10:58 AM
We didn't come fresh from a victory from somewhere else right before Vietnam though. Korea was over 10 years old.

It's hard to stop the train once it gets moving...especially when Bush, at the time, could have gotten away with just about anything as his popularity was sky high.


true, lesson learned imo, finish the job in iraq, fight the war on terror by increaseing internal security and use intelligence services to unearth terrorist cells, 9/11 was an excuse for this war, and its only made the likelyhood of another 9/11 more so

in terms of nuclear weapons, i personally think we knew iraq was no threat to us, why dont we go to war with north korea, they are testing. because we dont want to **** things up with china

i look at it like this, the world has one less dictatorship, and so long as dumbass politicains dont pull out our troops to soon and allow iraq to dissolve into civil war, eventually we will have one more democracy, and improved the lifes of iraqs future citizens

US_Ranger
11-28-2006, 11:02 AM
true, lesson learned imo, finish the job in iraq, fight the war on terror by increaseing internal security and use intelligence services to unearth terrorist cells, 9/11 was an excuse for this war, and its only made the likelyhood of another 9/11 more so

in terms of nuclear weapons, i personally think we knew iraq was no threat to us, why dont we go to war with north korea, they are testing. because we dont want to **** things up with china

i look at it like this, the world has one less dictatorship, and so long as dumbass politicains dont pull out our troops to soon and allow iraq to dissolve into civil war, eventually we will have one more democracy, and improved the lifes of iraqs future citizens

Agree and I'm glad you added the part at the end about us pulling out too soon being bad.

I think all people on both sides should agree that leaving Iraq too soon would be a complete disaster.

I don't know about it making it more likely for another 9/11. I think another 9/11 will happen with or without Iraq.

Galactus
11-28-2006, 11:02 AM
Well I don't think it has helped. I has definitely cost us a lot which means we pass more debt onto our children. I personally felt no threat from Saddam and removing him I don't think honestly helps the US in any way. Since he was keeping stability there, removing him has actually made things worse for us (maybe not for certain Iraqi's, but the question was did it help us not them) I am a big believer that the US should not "police" the world. Now if someone asks for help that is one thing, but you just don't show up at peoples houses try to run their affairs.

Also I do think it will help terror recruiting greatly which of course is a negative. I love the ass backward logic people use in saying we haven't been attacked again. Well with no war on terror we had no attacks since pearl harbor on our soil until 9/11. It's like saying my magic rock wards off tigers and the fact I haven't been eaten by a tiger yet must prove that!!

The really sad part is that places like North Korea that may potentially become a real threat are basically being ignored. I think after trying to get control of Afghanistan and failing (which is one of the poorest/weakest nations in the world) we realized our military wasn't as all-powerful as believed. Now if it was a real war on something tangible not an ideology than yeah we are still top dogs by far. But our military is not geared toward fighting an idea. Hell our military is not designed to fight in a manner where we try NOT TO KILL!!! Ours troops are doing there best considering their hands are pretty well tied.

Our troops are fighting valiantly the problem is that the top commanders had/have no idea what the are fighting agaisnt, and I think we can all agree they honestly have no plan. I have not heard 1 general or politician who has any concrete ideas as to where to go from here. Getting rid of Rumsfeld was a good first move as the guy was a headcase who had no grip on reality, but we still have the giant problem of where to go from here?!?!

The Experiment
11-28-2006, 11:03 AM
For western powers, the answer is no.

All that has happened from this war is that it is giving radical Muslims zeal that they can slaughter hundreds of thousands of their own people in cold blood but Western, infidel powers get antsy over a couple people who accidentally got shot. Iraq is probably motivating to the Islamic world. Saddam banned radical Islam in Iraq and now, its a hotbed for it.

jmonty
11-28-2006, 12:48 PM
i think the original question was too ambigious.

Lysoloutdajoint
11-28-2006, 01:04 PM
Well I don't think it has helped. I has definitely cost us a lot which means we pass more debt onto our children. I personally felt no threat from Saddam and removing him I don't think honestly helps the US in any way. Since he was keeping stability there, removing him has actually made things worse for us (maybe not for certain Iraqi's, but the question was did it help us not them) I am a big believer that the US should not "police" the world. Now if someone asks for help that is one thing, but you just don't show up at peoples houses try to run their affairs.

Also I do think it will help terror recruiting greatly which of course is a negative. I love the ass backward logic people use in saying we haven't been attacked again. Well with no war on terror we had no attacks since pearl harbor on our soil until 9/11. It's like saying my magic rock wards off tigers and the fact I haven't been eaten by a tiger yet must prove that!!

The really sad part is that places like North Korea that may potentially become a real threat are basically being ignored. I think after trying to get control of Afghanistan and failing (which is one of the poorest/weakest nations in the world) we realized our military wasn't as all-powerful as believed. Now if it was a real war on something tangible not an ideology than yeah we are still top dogs by far. But our military is not geared toward fighting an idea. Hell our military is not designed to fight in a manner where we try NOT TO KILL!!! Ours troops are doing there best considering their hands are pretty well tied.

Our troops are fighting valiantly the problem is that the top commanders had/have no idea what the are fighting agaisnt, and I think we can all agree they honestly have no plan. I have not heard 1 general or politician who has any concrete ideas as to where to go from here. Getting rid of Rumsfeld was a good first move as the guy was a headcase who had no grip on reality, but we still have the giant problem of where to go from here?!?!


Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong...and wrong. You're a ****in moron, a magic rock that wards off tigers? Dude, you wouldve had to have been already attacked by a tiger for that to be even relevant. I bet you didnt give two ****s about the Middle East before the 9/11 attacks, you were probably on your couch, sippin a soda, watchin some stupid **** on tv. "I felt no threat from Saddam whatsoever!"..Lol, I bet. My father is in the Army, so dont be calling our commanders(my father is one, btw) dumb and have no plan.

bulletproofsoul
11-28-2006, 01:53 PM
Um, we never bought oil from Iraq as we had sanctions against them. So that did not raise our oil prices. I'm sure the oil companies used it as a reason to hike profits for their shareholders but it's not because we buy our oil there.

Countries like France did go around the sanctions and get oil though, as we found lots of French weapons in Iraq. Also, Kofi Annan, our fearless UN leader, made billions from the sanctions because he's looking out for our interests.Um, the US was the biggest consumer of Iraqi oil via middlemen, which is something Bush was highly critical of before his election.

Also, American companies are making billions in reconstruction efforts whilst paying kickbacks to Iraqi middlemen in the process, at the expense of American taxpayers.

The US isn't any less corrupt than other European countries and I frankly wonder why people would imagine we are. Human nature is what it is, in the end, and money talks. The corporations rule this country, not the voters or taxpayers. Blaming Kofi Annan, et al, is a diversion for failed American policies, US_Ranger, and the US military has been one of the biggest victims...unfortunately.

Edit: I see too many yes votes with no names to match. Cheating?

Hemp6473
11-29-2006, 01:43 AM
You're telling me Iraq is better now than when it was under Saddam? GTFO -->

ACTUALLY IT IS, THE PEOPLE HAVE FREEDOM NOW AND USING IT TO F*UK UP THE IRAQ CIVIL DEFENCE CORPS AND ALL MILITARY GROUPS OVER THERE BUT BEFORE THAT THEY NEVER DONE IT, LOOK AT WHEN PRESIDENT BUSH SAID THAT THE WAR WAS OVER AFTER WE CAUGHT SADAAM RIGHT? WELL RIGHT AFTER THAT THEY STARTED BOMBING US AND OTHER MILITARY PERSONAL AND GOVERNMENT AGENTS, MOST OF THE KILLINGS NOW ARE FROM OTHER INSURGENTS THAT COME TO IRAQ TO FIGHT US, THERE ARE NO GROUPS OF THESE GUYS FIGHTING US ANYMORE, IT IS LIKE ONE GUY THAT CAN SHOOT BECAUSE WE TAUGHT THEM HOW AND THEY ARE USING IT, I THINK WE DID A FINE JOB, BUT WHAT DID YOU WANT TO HAPPEN WHEN WE WENT THERE? TO CATCH SADAAM AND HIS SONS AND JUST LEAVE IT ALONE? LET SOME OTHER DUMB F*UK TAKE OVER AND DO THE SAME ****? WE HAVE TO TRAIN THEM TO BE SOME WHAT CIVIL. WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO BE A GOOD WAR? TELL ME?

Hemp6473
11-29-2006, 01:54 AM
sorry bro, i know hes in the red, but hes right, iraq was stable under sadam

REALLY YOU KNOW YOU ARE PROBABLY RIGHT ABOUT IT BEING STABLE BUT THINK? I WOULDN'T REALLY **** WITH SADAAM AND HIS FAMILY CAUSE THEY WOULDN'T JUST KILL YOU THEY WOULD KILL YOU FAMILY COUSINS EVERYONE IN YOUR FAMILY. PEOPLE WAS SCARED OF HIM, WELL MOSTLY HIS SONS CAUSE THEY DIDN'T PLAY. THEY WOULD RAPE WOMEN AND LEAVE THEM TO GO HOME JUST SO THAT THERE FAMILY WOULD KILL THEM BECAUSE THEY WASN'T PURE ANYMORE. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IRAQ AND THEY PEOPLE IF YOU WAS THERE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED, THE IRAQI PEOPLE WAS MORE HAPPY WHEN HIS SONS DIED THEN WHEN WE CAUGHT SADAAM, THEY SHOT IN THE AIR WHEN WE KILLED HIS SONS AND THE WHOLE SKY LITE UP WITH TRACERS, I THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE COMING TO F*UK US UP REALLY.

Dr.Strange
11-29-2006, 04:59 AM
I think the war in Afganistand was 100% correct. I have to give credit to Bush for reacting proper here.

In Iraq, I think it was poorly planned. It was definitely not well thought out in terms of what it would take and what would be the cosequences. I also dont think the intelligence (CIA) was scrutinized enough. Bush may have biased due to the current situation and some others.

Galactus
11-29-2006, 09:38 AM
Lysoloutdajoint

Relax for a second. In my post the word dumb was never used. I said there was no plan. Very intellegent people can not have a plan. I you disagree with me why don't you explain to me what the US exit strategy is??? or even what our initial goal was.

Also you obviously feel Saddam was a threat to the US?? Please elaborate why.

Finally what benefit can this war have for the US population. I/E how are we more secure of prosperous because of it. I am open minded and would love to hear your opinions.

majortrepak
11-29-2006, 10:42 AM
Wow... just wow

NO it has done NO good for the U.S. It's flipping this country upside down. Iraq was a stable nation before we invaded, It didn't have hundred's of people dying daily.

130 a day under saddam, no from 2003 there have not be hundreds dead every day in Iraq.

majortrepak
11-29-2006, 10:45 AM
true, lesson learned imo, finish the job in iraq, fight the war on terror by increaseing internal security and use intelligence services to unearth terrorist cells, 9/11 was an excuse for this war, and its only made the likelyhood of another 9/11 more so

Nope, saddams violation of the cease fire was the justifiable reason for this war.

majortrepak
11-29-2006, 10:49 AM
Well I don't think it has helped. I has definitely cost us a lot which means we pass more debt onto our children. I personally felt no threat from Saddam and removing him I don't think honestly helps the US in any way. Since he was keeping stability there, removing him has actually made things worse for us (maybe not for certain Iraqi's, but the question was did it help us not them) I am a big believer that the US should not "police" the world. Now if someone asks for help that is one thing, but you just don't show up at peoples houses try to run their affairs.

Also I do think it will help terror recruiting greatly which of course is a negative. I love the ass backward logic people use in saying we haven't been attacked again. Well with no war on terror we had no attacks since pearl harbor on our soil until 9/11. It's like saying my magic rock wards off tigers and the fact I haven't been eaten by a tiger yet must prove that!!

100% FALSE


Our troops are fighting valiantly the problem is that the top commanders had/have no idea what the are fighting agaisnt, and I think we can all agree they honestly have no plan. I have not heard 1 general or politician who has any concrete ideas as to where to go from here. Getting rid of Rumsfeld was a good first move as the guy was a headcase who had no grip on reality, but we still have the giant problem of where to go from here?!?!
The military doesn't make policy.

majortrepak
11-29-2006, 10:51 AM
Lysoloutdajoint

Relax for a second. In my post the word dumb was never used. I said there was no plan. Very intellegent people can not have a plan. I you disagree with me why don't you explain to me what the US exit strategy is??? or even what our initial goal was.

Also you obviously feel Saddam was a threat to the US?? Please elaborate why.

Finally what benefit can this war have for the US population. I/E how are we more secure of prosperous because of it. I am open minded and would love to hear your opinions.
Do you know who is at the top of the military chain of command?

Galactus
11-29-2006, 01:10 PM
I'm honestly not sure, but I think it is
1)president
2)secretary of defense
3)joint chiefs of staff

followed by ranking officers in each military branch. You pointed out that I was wrong about the attacks, which I may be, but you failed to fill us in as to the specifics. Also no one has attempted to address how our nation is safer or better off in any way because of the war. Again I am open minded and willing to admit I am wrong, but no one has even attempted to answer these questions.

Thy_Kingdom
11-29-2006, 01:24 PM
We didn't come fresh from a victory from somewhere else right before Vietnam though. Korea was over 10 years old.

It's hard to stop the train once it gets moving...especially when Bush, at the time, could have gotten away with just about anything as his popularity was sky high.

Do you believe Iraq is in a state of civil war atm?

I agree with not pulling out of Iraq, but the first thing to do is acknowledge the problem, yet this administration keeps denying it is a civil war.

xer0xed
11-29-2006, 02:17 PM
the war on terror? yes. there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11.

People use a similar argument in stating that since there hasn't been a world war since WWII, that the UN is effective. You can see how flawed that one is.

Correlation != causality.

It's now pretty clear the war has been a waste of time, has no clear link to our national security, and serves no practical benefit to the American people.

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_10_09/cover.html