A question aimed at the anti-war crowd

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Comanche
We should do one of two things. Either get out now, or stop the infighting and let them do thier job over thier. This slow aproach to defunding is only going to make things worse over there, possibly ending the same way that other war ended.

They don't have a job to do, that's the problem. There is no mission that an American force can accomplish that would make Iraq a better place, they need to come home, now.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Isn?t ironic that 70% of the country supported the invasion of Iraq, and yet it seems like no one on this board did.

Even more amazing is how everyone on here KNEW how things would turn out and what a mess Iraq would be.
Maybe the people on P&N should be running the country since they obviously knew what would happen better than all the people in Washington. :roll:

That should be completely obvious. If you question what we say here just search the archives back to the beginning of the war and see if we're portraying our stance accurately. If you can find a thread where I supported it I'll paypal you.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Isn?t ironic that 70% of the country supported the invasion of Iraq, and yet it seems like no one on this board did.

Even more amazing is how everyone on here KNEW how things would turn out and what a mess Iraq would be.
Maybe the people on P&N should be running the country since they obviously knew what would happen better than all the people in Washington. :roll:

That was all the people in the White House. Everyone else in Washington called it a ClusterF**k of mega proportions. But the Bushites said,"If we wanted anyone else's opinion, we will give them one". And it appears they did. 😉

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Isn?t ironic that 70% of the country supported the invasion of Iraq, and yet it seems like no one on this board did.

Even more amazing is how everyone on here KNEW how things would turn out and what a mess Iraq would be.
Maybe the people on P&N should be running the country since they obviously knew what would happen better than all the people in Washington. :roll:

That was all the people in the White House. Everyone else in Washington called it a ClusterF**k of mega proportions. But the Bushites said,"If we wanted anyone else's opinion, we will give them one". And it appears they did. 😉

Apparently those ?Bushites? include former President Clinton who believed there were WMDs. Even Hillary, and John Kerry had voted for the war. Must have only been those ?Bushites? such as them, as everyone else in Washington obviously knew better.

Strange though, how those ?Bushites? consisted of a majority before it became politically convenient in the 2004 elections to turn on a dime and sing a different tune.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r....cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: TallBill
If you do not support the war, why not? Is it under your own opinion, or are you just following along?

Last night a few soldiers were watching CNN in disgust of the way that the news handles the war in Iraq. Our conclusion was that politicians are merely "anti-war" because that is what the news says that general public wants. The news repeatedly shows the "anti-war" politicians because it keeps viewers watching, which leads to a growing rate of population that is "anti-war", merely because that is all that they see on tv! It is a vicious cycle of an uninformed populace. No politician elected into office in 2008 will end the war, because it is growing more and more necessary. Don't be decieved about a pull-out.

Now I'm not saying that everyone that is anti-war hasn't formed their own opinion. And I'm not saying that our thoughts on the subject are correct. However, there was a 30 second piece yesterday on a soldier that threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies and will surely will some award. Then the next 3 hours were about Anna Nicole Smith. Some awesome support that we're getting. Not even presidents dying get that much media.

And the daily death tolls are rediculous. Roughly 4000 soldiers have died in OEF and OIF since late 2001, over 5 years. Look at the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and realize how incredibly high their death tolls were daily.

Lastly, any media depicting a soldier that doesn't want to be over here is completely biased. Who in their right mind would want to leave their family and home to be put in the 115 degree desert for an entire year, regardless of the mission or reason? Well, I do, but its pretty basic human instinct not to.

Anyways, just a few of our thoughts from over here. Life is decent, and its about to get real hot. 6 months left!

Why are you pro-war? what exactly do you think you are accomplishing?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Comanche
I think that it is too bad that all the politicians have got thier hand in the pot. If we wanted to win this we would give the military the means to do it. Kind of like McArthur during and after WWII. But instead, we have battled this fight at home and in Iraq.

This vote today is another example of too many hands in the pot. My dad once said that we could have won the war in Vietnam because we had the means to turn that country into a parking lot. The same is true here. Our troops are over there fighting, trying to stablize the country and we are here saying that we are going to cut the funding.

We should do one of two things. Either get out now, or stop the infighting and let them do thier job over thier. This slow aproach to defunding is only going to make things worse over there, possibly ending the same way that other war ended.

Their mission of WHAT?

Remove Saddam?

Check.


We aren't there to fight, destroy, and kill their people. You speak of turning Iraq into a "parking lot" as if that was out objective in the first place - to absolutely destroy the people who live there.

 

[eilute]

The war was started on false pretenses, and it continues on false pretenses.

 

[eilute]

Originally posted by: ntdz
You're living in a fantasy world. Anyone who uses chemical weapons on his own people is brutal. Oh, and there is no other region in the world more important for the US to be more involved in. Our entire country relies on oil, and if we were to lose our oil supplies our country would be crippled.

I would reason that the brutality of Saddam's rule was better than anarchic verge-of-bloody-civil war situation we are in now. Our actions in the Middle East may ultimately lead to a disruption in this oil supply.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Isn?t ironic that 70% of the country supported the invasion of Iraq, and yet it seems like no one on this board did.

Even more amazing is how everyone on here KNEW how things would turn out and what a mess Iraq would be.
Maybe the people on P&N should be running the country since they obviously knew what would happen better than all the people in Washington. :roll:

Wasn't it you who stated he used the search function to counter Red Dawn's accusation of you being a previously banned member? Can you not use the same search function to support your claim of irony?

Would you call the supporters amazing if Iraq turned out beautifully as they predicted? (flowers, etc)

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Arcex
I don't support the reasons we went into war, now that we're there we are stuck in it, no doubt about it. I wish I knew of a way to resolve this quickly and easily but we are obviously way past the point of no return.

I just wish we could do something about Bush and Company and how they forced the war upon the U.S., the more I read about it the more convinced I am that they did this just to make money for themselves. I don't have an exact statistic on this but the Bush family has made a fortune since he went into office from oil sales alone, add on the money I'm sure he's getting from other sources...

Back to the original topic, yeah, anti-war is the popular thing now so that's all we're gonna hear about, but there is no feasible way for us to leave Iraq anytime soon. I think we will be looking at a permanent peace keeping force there, it's just a question of how many troops will be required in the long run for that peace keeping force.

The US is the only country I can think of where being responsible for the deaths of thousands of it's soldiers isn't a reason for impeachment, while stains on an Intern's dress are.

Instead of wanting to follow in his daddy's footsteps he should have been harder against Pakistan, and he should have demanded US troops to be allowed to hunt Al Qaida into the Pakistani mountains. All the Taliban warriors that fight in Afghanistan travel between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and all their leaders (as well as a lot of Al Qaida members) are sitting safely in Pakistan's mountains.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Apparently those ?Bushites? include former President Clinton who believed there were WMDs. Even Hillary, and John Kerry had voted for the war. Must have only been those ?Bushites? such as them, as everyone else in Washington obviously knew better.

1.) So let me get this straight, you're going to quote Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to support your position? 2.) When are you people going to stop lying about the resolution that was voted on? It wasn't a "vote for war," rather it was a directive to exhaust all political and economic avenues and to use military force only if those methods fail, to defend the national security of the U.S., or to enforce UN Resolutions authorizing military action. The White House never lived up to their end of the bargain.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Isn?t ironic that 70% of the country supported the invasion of Iraq, and yet it seems like no one on this board did.

Even more amazing is how everyone on here KNEW how things would turn out and what a mess Iraq would be.
Maybe the people on P&N should be running the country since they obviously knew what would happen better than all the people in Washington. :roll:

That was all the people in the White House. Everyone else in Washington called it a ClusterF**k of mega proportions. But the Bushites said,"If we wanted anyone else's opinion, we will give them one". And it appears they did. 😉

Apparently those ?Bushites? include former President Clinton who believed there were WMDs. Even Hillary, and John Kerry had voted for the war. Must have only been those ?Bushites? such as them, as everyone else in Washington obviously knew better.

Strange though, how those ?Bushites? consisted of a majority before it became politically convenient in the 2004 elections to turn on a dime and sing a different tune.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r....cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? BUSH LIED, CHENEY LIED, EVERYONE IN THE WHITEHOUSE LIED.

WHO IN THE HELL THOUGHT THAT THE PEOPLE ELECTED TO LEAD US WOULD TURN OUT TO BE A BUNCH OF FRICKIN LYING SCUM?

WE BASED OUR BELIEF IN OUR LEADERS, NOT ON ANY EVIDENCE THAT WE HAD FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF

WE HAD FAITH

I BELIEVED IN THIS WAR, UNTIL NO WMD WERE FOUND

ITS UNFORTUNATE FOR YOU THAT YOU CANT ACCEPT YOU WERE DUPED

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TallBill
If you do not support the war, why not? Is it under your own opinion, or are you just following along?

Last night a few soldiers were watching CNN in disgust of the way that the news handles the war in Iraq. Our conclusion was that politicians are merely "anti-war" because that is what the news says that general public wants. The news repeatedly shows the "anti-war" politicians because it keeps viewers watching, which leads to a growing rate of population that is "anti-war", merely because that is all that they see on tv! It is a vicious cycle of an uninformed populace. No politician elected into office in 2008 will end the war, because it is growing more and more necessary. Don't be decieved about a pull-out.

Now I'm not saying that everyone that is anti-war hasn't formed their own opinion. And I'm not saying that our thoughts on the subject are correct. However, there was a 30 second piece yesterday on a soldier that threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies and will surely will some award. Then the next 3 hours were about Anna Nicole Smith. Some awesome support that we're getting. Not even presidents dying get that much media.

And the daily death tolls are rediculous. Roughly 4000 soldiers have died in OEF and OIF since late 2001, over 5 years. Look at the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and realize how incredibly high their death tolls were daily.

Lastly, any media depicting a soldier that doesn't want to be over here is completely biased. Who in their right mind would want to leave their family and home to be put in the 115 degree desert for an entire year, regardless of the mission or reason? Well, I do, but its pretty basic human instinct not to.

Anyways, just a few of our thoughts from over here. Life is decent, and its about to get real hot. 6 months left!

Why are you pro-war? what exactly do you think you are accomplishing?

The reconstruction of Iraq, but you couldn?t care less about that. You?re more than happy to fulfill these claims of defeat, so long as you can credit Bush for your lack of will to see the job done.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TallBill
If you do not support the war, why not? Is it under your own opinion, or are you just following along?

Last night a few soldiers were watching CNN in disgust of the way that the news handles the war in Iraq. Our conclusion was that politicians are merely "anti-war" because that is what the news says that general public wants. The news repeatedly shows the "anti-war" politicians because it keeps viewers watching, which leads to a growing rate of population that is "anti-war", merely because that is all that they see on tv! It is a vicious cycle of an uninformed populace. No politician elected into office in 2008 will end the war, because it is growing more and more necessary. Don't be decieved about a pull-out.

Now I'm not saying that everyone that is anti-war hasn't formed their own opinion. And I'm not saying that our thoughts on the subject are correct. However, there was a 30 second piece yesterday on a soldier that threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies and will surely will some award. Then the next 3 hours were about Anna Nicole Smith. Some awesome support that we're getting. Not even presidents dying get that much media.

And the daily death tolls are rediculous. Roughly 4000 soldiers have died in OEF and OIF since late 2001, over 5 years. Look at the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and realize how incredibly high their death tolls were daily.

Lastly, any media depicting a soldier that doesn't want to be over here is completely biased. Who in their right mind would want to leave their family and home to be put in the 115 degree desert for an entire year, regardless of the mission or reason? Well, I do, but its pretty basic human instinct not to.

Anyways, just a few of our thoughts from over here. Life is decent, and its about to get real hot. 6 months left!

Why are you pro-war? what exactly do you think you are accomplishing?

The reconstruction of Iraq, but you couldn?t care less about that.

You?re more than happy to fulfill these claims of defeat, so long as you can credit Bush for your lack of will to see the job done.

Why is it the job of the U.S. to "reconstruct" Iraq?

Show me where it says in the Constitution we have any business being there.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: bctbct

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Isn?t ironic that 70% of the country supported the invasion of Iraq, and yet it seems like no one on this board did.

Even more amazing is how everyone on here KNEW how things would turn out and what a mess Iraq would be.
Maybe the people on P&N should be running the country since they obviously knew what would happen better than all the people in Washington. :roll:

That was all the people in the White House. Everyone else in Washington called it a ClusterF**k of mega proportions. But the Bushites said,"If we wanted anyone else's opinion, we will give them one". And it appears they did. 😉

Apparently those ?Bushites? include former President Clinton who believed there were WMDs. Even Hillary, and John Kerry had voted for the war. Must have only been those ?Bushites? such as them, as everyone else in Washington obviously knew better.

Strange though, how those ?Bushites? consisted of a majority before it became politically convenient in the 2004 elections to turn on a dime and sing a different tune.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r....cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS? BUSH LIED, CHENEY LIED, EVERYONE IN THE WHITEHOUSE LIED.

WHO IN THE HELL THOUGHT THAT THE PEOPLE ELECTED TO LEAD US WOULD TURN OUT TO BE A BUNCH OF FRICKIN LYING SCUM?

WE BASED OUR BELIEF IN OUR LEADERS, NOT ON ANY EVIDENCE THAT WE HAD FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF

WE HAD FAITH

I BELIEVED IN THIS WAR, UNTIL NO WMD WERE FOUND

ITS UNFORTUNATE FOR YOU THAT YOU CANT ACCEPT YOU WERE DUPED

It was Congress that made the vote, not you. Are you saying the President can openly lie to and control both the Senate and the House? Apparently you think they must place faith in the President and do not share in the same intelligence and are apparently incapable of making their own decisions.

To think Congress is a puppet of the President is a gross misrepresentation intended to solely put the blame on Bush, instead of both him and his supporters. It?s a fairly narrow minded view.

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
1.) So let me get this straight, you're going to quote Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to support your position?

It wasn?t just two of them, the majority of Congress should be recognized for what they did. To lay claim that ?Bushites? supported the war and the rest of Washington knew better is an outright lie.

2.) When are you people going to stop lying about the resolution that was voted on? It wasn't a "vote for war," rather it was a directive to exhaust all political and economic avenues and to use military force only if those methods fail, to defend the national security of the U.S., or to enforce UN Resolutions authorizing military action. The White House never lived up to their end of the bargain.

The House:

BILL TITLE: To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 81 126 1
Independent 1
TOTALS 296 133 3

The Senate:

Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Vote Counts:
YEAs 77
NAYs 23

My purpose in this quote from Congressional record is to simply reply to this outrageous lie.

Originally posted by: bctbct
That was all the people in the White House. Everyone else in Washington called it a ClusterF**k of mega proportions. But the Bushites said,"If we wanted anyone else's opinion, we will give them one". And it appears they did. 😉

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas


My purpose in this quote from Congressional record is to simply reply to this outrageous lie.

Originally posted by: bctbct
That was all the people in the White House. Everyone else in Washington called it a ClusterF**k of mega proportions. But the Bushites said,"If we wanted anyone else's opinion, we will give them one". And it appears they did. 😉

You attribute that quote to me, I never said that so you might want to correct that.


You are still going to deny that Bush and Co, manipulated the intelliegnce on Iraq and sat in meetings lying to the senate and congress to bolster his invasion?

Bush calls it bad intel but I call it lying. Same thing with the exception of who needs to take responsibility.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TallBill
If you do not support the war, why not? Is it under your own opinion, or are you just following along?

Last night a few soldiers were watching CNN in disgust of the way that the news handles the war in Iraq. Our conclusion was that politicians are merely "anti-war" because that is what the news says that general public wants. The news repeatedly shows the "anti-war" politicians because it keeps viewers watching, which leads to a growing rate of population that is "anti-war", merely because that is all that they see on tv! It is a vicious cycle of an uninformed populace. No politician elected into office in 2008 will end the war, because it is growing more and more necessary. Don't be decieved about a pull-out.

Now I'm not saying that everyone that is anti-war hasn't formed their own opinion. And I'm not saying that our thoughts on the subject are correct. However, there was a 30 second piece yesterday on a soldier that threw himself on a grenade to save his buddies and will surely will some award. Then the next 3 hours were about Anna Nicole Smith. Some awesome support that we're getting. Not even presidents dying get that much media.

And the daily death tolls are rediculous. Roughly 4000 soldiers have died in OEF and OIF since late 2001, over 5 years. Look at the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, and realize how incredibly high their death tolls were daily.

Lastly, any media depicting a soldier that doesn't want to be over here is completely biased. Who in their right mind would want to leave their family and home to be put in the 115 degree desert for an entire year, regardless of the mission or reason? Well, I do, but its pretty basic human instinct not to.

Anyways, just a few of our thoughts from over here. Life is decent, and its about to get real hot. 6 months left!

Why are you pro-war? what exactly do you think you are accomplishing?

The reconstruction of Iraq, but you couldn?t care less about that. You?re more than happy to fulfill these claims of defeat, so long as you can credit Bush for your lack of will to see the job done.

There is nothing you can do but prolong the inevitable. There is no iraqi nation, why must we mandate that there be an iraqi state, especially when its inevitably doomed to fail?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

It was Congress that made the vote, not you. Are you saying the President can openly lie to and control both the Senate and the House? Apparently you think they must place faith in the President and do not share in the same intelligence and are apparently incapable of making their own decisions.

To think Congress is a puppet of the President is a gross misrepresentation intended to solely put the blame on Bush, instead of both him and his supporters. It?s a fairly narrow minded view.

I believe that that is the case, an that it is neither the first nor the last time that it has happened.

 

[DealMonkey]

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.?The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to?

(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

Had U.N. Inspectors been able to complete their job, it would have been determined that Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. nor did they possess any of the WMDs we claimed they had. Instead Bush called out the inspectors prematurely and launched his war. Probably due to his frustration that nothing was being found and his BS case for war was unraveling every day that he waited.

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

There was never a UN Security Council Resolution authorizing force against Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.?In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that?

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq

Again, there was no security threat from Iraq, no attack on the US on the part of Iraq ever happened, and should the UN Inspectors been able to complete their mission, this would have been substantiated along with the fact there were no WMDs.

or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and

Once again, no UN Resolution ever authorized military force against Iraq. It never happened.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ntdz
It's hard to blame anyone for being anti-war, war is an ugly thing, a very ugly thing. When you start thinking about the brutality of it, it's amazing the west, as civilized as it is, participates in such things.

It should be, but the fact is that people are removed enough from it that they romanticize it. Even those who have seen war used to, but that's less common now.

You can find a century ago quotes from people like Teddy Roosevelt or the British about how a war was needed and a fine thing. WWI's trench warfare, mass slaughter, and gas attacks begans to sour people a bit on it. But nonetheless, people are still pretty easy to get to agree to war, sadly.

Remember the all too correct statement from the Nazis' Goering:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war...but, after all it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce thre pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Gustave Gilbert interviewing Hermann Goering in his cell at the Nuremberg trial

A marvelous, unique and important book on the topic of why people keep agreeing to war is Chris Hedges' well-titled
"War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning"

 

[chusteczka]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: TallBill
If you do not support the war, why not? Is it under your own opinion, or are you just following along?...

Why are you pro-war? what exactly do you think you are accomplishing?

The reconstruction of Iraq, but you couldn?t care less about that.

You?re more than happy to fulfill these claims of defeat, so long as you can credit Bush for your lack of will to see the job done.

Why is it the job of the U.S. to "reconstruct" Iraq?

Show me where it says in the Constitution we have any business being there.

America will rebuild Iraq because we wish to be on friendly terms with the new government and people of Iraq. Put another way, America will put a puppet in power to ultimately have a controlling influence over the new Iraq.

There are two examples in recent history that I am immediately aware of that provide good reason to rebuild a conquered nation.

The first example is the Confederate States of America. When General Sherman took his army through North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, he stripped his army of its provisions and forced them to live off the conquered land as they traveled through it. Food provisions and crops were eaten, animals used and slaughtered, towns torn down, cotton confiscated, and railways dismantled with the iron rails left twisted around trees. The lands were literally devastated in the wake of Sherman's army as a means to dissipate the South's resolve to continue the civil war. This treatment humiliated the people of the south and hurt their pride, which led to extreme resentment towards those damned Yankees that can still be recognized in certain aspects of Southern culture today.

The second example is that of Germany after the first World War. The terms of surrender that Germany was forced to accept were purposely harsh in an attempt to teach Germany a lesson and prevent them from recovering and creating more problems. See Treaty of Versailles. The conditions Germany was forced to accept humiliated the people of Germany and hurt their pride, which allowed someone like Hitler to rebuild the pride of the German people as he led them right back into war.

Similarly, the American Army swept through Iraq so quickly in its initial invasion that the people of Iraq may have been humiliated and had their pride hurt. By extension, this humiliation may have extended to Arabs or Muslims in general. This possible humiliation of the Arab or Muslim people may be a contributor to some of the resistance fighting currently experienced in Iraq. This is pure speculation at this point but it is logical speculation. Time will tell.

History has shown that it is important to rebuild a conquered nation to prevent humiliation of the conquered people and their attempt to recover pride through resistance.

 

[crzyjackel69]

god bless tallbill and thanks for your everyday sacrifices to this country. i dont care if you dont like iraq, america, or this president, what you are doing right now is making all the difference and im here to say right on. were all here for you back in the states and wish you best of luck and to keep safe.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: crzyjackel69
god bless tallbill and thanks for your everyday sacrifices to this country. i dont care if you dont like iraq, america, or this president, what you are doing right now is making all the difference and im here to say right on. were all here for you back in the states and wish you best of luck and to keep safe.

I'd thank the peope who make the moral choice not to let the government make them commit unjustified violence.

The Iraqis are largely defending themselves against an occupation that has a lot more to do with the interest of foreigners than with Iraqi interests.

Killing them is largely killing innocents, just as if the US were occupied and people fought the occupiers, the resistance would be innocent, not 'enemy combatants' ok to kill.

Service to our country is an empty phrase better used to descrbie refusing the military now.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Aimster
There is no reason for us to be inside Iraq.

Saddam was not a brutal man (the way the media portrayed him). The U.S made him brutal. They signed off on him to become brutal. If Saddam needed to be removed from power because of his brutality then the entire Regan administration should be hanged as well.
Unfortunately , Regan is honored in this country and he is highly respected.

Also Saddam never armed anyone to begin with so the first claim of WMD was total bogus B.S. Every Middle Eastern nation has a chemical weapons program. Might as well invade the entire M.E, including Israel as well. Call up the draft.

Sure, Saddam was a bad man in 1991 by invading Kuwait. The world bitch slapped him for it and his army was turned into dust. He learned he was an idiot and he felt ashamed. His generals felt like idiots. However, I guess it is OK for Saddam to invade Iran but not OK for Saddam to invade Kuwait.

U.S should have never got involved in the M.E, but for some reason the U.S feels a need to be the M.E govt. police. As a result the entire region is poop.

You're living in a fantasy world. Anyone who uses chemical weapons on his own people is brutal. Oh, and there is no other region in the world more important for the US to be more involved in. Our entire country relies on oil, and if we were to lose our oil supplies our country would be crippled.

We use them on people. So we're brutal. You're the one living in a fantasy world.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: crzyjackel69
god bless tallbill and thanks for your everyday sacrifices to this country. i dont care if you dont like iraq, america, or this president, what you are doing right now is making all the difference and im here to say right on. were all here for you back in the states and wish you best of luck and to keep safe.

If by difference, you mean adding to the defense industry's bottom line, you're 100% correct. Industry profits for companies like Raytheon, Northop-Grumman, McDonnell-Douglas, Boeing and KBR were up 25% after the war started. We're spending serious cash in Iraq, and nothing speaks more clearly in Washington than crisp, new taxpayer money.

As long as war is that profitable, the US will always find ways to wage it. Whether that means a long, drawn-out occupation of Iraq, or a renewed interest in conflict versus Iran.