This is inclusive of all elements (WMD, human rights, etc...).
This is not to determine which direction you went.
This is not to determine which direction you went.
Have you changed your stance about Iraq since the war began?
- Thread starter Rastus
- Start date
the post-war period has always been my chief concern.
there are many players on the ground who may not with work a transitional iraqi gov't that is midwifed
by american officials, and its going to be interesting to see u.s. contingency plans for this eventuality.
shiites are whipping up a shyte-storm, with or without iranian intervention.
there are many players on the ground who may not with work a transitional iraqi gov't that is midwifed
by american officials, and its going to be interesting to see u.s. contingency plans for this eventuality.
shiites are whipping up a shyte-storm, with or without iranian intervention.
I never bought the WMD excuse for intervention but I believe in intervention for human rights. Unfortunately, I doubt the Bush admin really believes in intervention for human rights. As for stability in the Middle East, removing Saddam will probably benefit the long term assuming the US does not excessively interfere with the Iraqis' right to self determination.
Human rights was never high on the list of real motivators for Bush et al but the potential benefits to the people of Iraq can't be dismissed.
Never supported the President on his decision to go to war, never will. I agree that if this was done for humanitarian reasons it would be somewhat more palatable, but if Afghanistan is any example (and regardless of what the US Aid website says, the situations is really bad), then I don't have too much fate in a massive improvement for Iraq. I hope for the best.
(and regardless of what the US Aid website says, the situations is really bad),
I think that was directed at me, a pre-emptive strike at my first usual link to anyone who asks what happened to the US helping afghanistan, but that only covers after the recent war. Most of the sheep look that over and go ok without digging any deeper. they do still have problems, but by next year they will hold country wide free democratic elections and many reforms have already taken place. Woman are allowed to be educated and work again, recieving pre-natal care is no longer punishable by death, what a novel concept.
Lil, Iraq is a different animal altogehter. Educated people, intact mostly modern infrastructure, an immediately viable economy based on a huge reserve of one of the worlds most coveted commodities, and a level of oppression and tyranny even those under the Taliban did not endure. Remember the Taliban were welcomed becasue they enforced Islamic law and restored order and offered protection in the wasteland after soviet occupation. Iraq before Saddam was still a world class country, and can quickly be restored to this level.
I think that was directed at me, a pre-emptive strike at my first usual link to anyone who asks what happened to the US helping afghanistan, but that only covers after the recent war. Most of the sheep look that over and go ok without digging any deeper. they do still have problems, but by next year they will hold country wide free democratic elections and many reforms have already taken place. Woman are allowed to be educated and work again, recieving pre-natal care is no longer punishable by death, what a novel concept.
Lil, Iraq is a different animal altogehter. Educated people, intact mostly modern infrastructure, an immediately viable economy based on a huge reserve of one of the worlds most coveted commodities, and a level of oppression and tyranny even those under the Taliban did not endure. Remember the Taliban were welcomed becasue they enforced Islamic law and restored order and offered protection in the wasteland after soviet occupation. Iraq before Saddam was still a world class country, and can quickly be restored to this level.
Have you changed your stance about Iraq since the war began?
i havent even changed my underwear:Q
i havent even changed my underwear:Q
phillyTIM
Golden Member
- Jan 12, 2001
- 1,942
- 10
- 81
I have not changed my stance - if anything, the events have strengthened my feelings against this sham of invasion by the Bush Regime
it's been well over a month now, and the reason for Bush's invasion has not even been found - WMD's
now that nothing has been discovered, and still no sign of them, Bush has to play the "liberation for the people" card.
the REAL reason for this invasion has become clearer - Bush just wanted to drive his "freedom" knife in the heart of the middle east (read: establish a resemblance of a democracy) and have his cancer spread throughout the region
but back to the main picture: the closer we got to this invasion, the less it became about WMD's and the more it became about "liberating the people"
and that's just wrong - lets see Bush back up his claim about the horrid, imminent threat of Iraq's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
plus: the events that took place in this invasion, with the Iraqi military falling apart so quickly (big in part because of its deterioration in the money-lean past 12 years), just shows that all this force against Iraq was frivilous and unnecessary.
there was no justification for the so-called "shock and awe" campaign
it all comes down to Bush trying to legitimize himself
but now that this campaign is over, the real test of Bush lies with where his responsibility should be focused: the American homeland and it's economy.
if WMD's are not found in Iraq, the anti-war people will have been vindicated
it's been well over a month now, and the reason for Bush's invasion has not even been found - WMD's
now that nothing has been discovered, and still no sign of them, Bush has to play the "liberation for the people" card.
the REAL reason for this invasion has become clearer - Bush just wanted to drive his "freedom" knife in the heart of the middle east (read: establish a resemblance of a democracy) and have his cancer spread throughout the region
but back to the main picture: the closer we got to this invasion, the less it became about WMD's and the more it became about "liberating the people"
and that's just wrong - lets see Bush back up his claim about the horrid, imminent threat of Iraq's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
plus: the events that took place in this invasion, with the Iraqi military falling apart so quickly (big in part because of its deterioration in the money-lean past 12 years), just shows that all this force against Iraq was frivilous and unnecessary.
there was no justification for the so-called "shock and awe" campaign
it all comes down to Bush trying to legitimize himself
but now that this campaign is over, the real test of Bush lies with where his responsibility should be focused: the American homeland and it's economy.
if WMD's are not found in Iraq, the anti-war people will have been vindicated
I really hope you understand that your vindication is against the interests of the entire world, your safety, and US interests no matter what political party you associate with. I would hope that the anti-war crowd would admit that they cannot be vindicated because the war already happened, and for vindication to occur it would be harmful to everyone involved.
The war is all but finished and its about time for everyone to hope for the best, anti-war or those in support. What's best is that we find the WMD's they've admitted to having or at least good evidence of their destruction so that the US won't be loathed by the entire rest of the world. Then we stay on and do whats right for the Iraqi people and we help until the chaos starts to fade away and order comes back to Iraq. I don't see how anybody would wish otherwise. If you are truly anti-war for humanitarian efforts than you should be hoping that Bush does well with this. If not than you are anti-Bush not anti-war and your anger at Bush is only to the detriment of the Iraqi people and US interests.
Its time to hope for the best! I'm not saying its bad to be critical but I would hope that it would be constructive, not just for a selfish vindication.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
I have not changed my stance, as I followed the information from the start,
and all the lies from the Bush administration
I saw how Governments lied during 'Nam, and saw the Bushies do it again.
They felt that Patriotism would be a cover, and too few would remember from the past.
Half the population wasn't even alive when we went through 'Nam, nearly 1/3 were childeren during Gulf-1.
They never lived that part of history, and faithfully bought the story, hook, line, and sinker.
and all the lies from the Bush administration
I saw how Governments lied during 'Nam, and saw the Bushies do it again.
They felt that Patriotism would be a cover, and too few would remember from the past.
Half the population wasn't even alive when we went through 'Nam, nearly 1/3 were childeren during Gulf-1.
They never lived that part of history, and faithfully bought the story, hook, line, and sinker.
I wasn't alive during Nam, but from my limited knowledge, this is quite a different affair than Nam. At least we can be greatful that the Bush administration didn't lie about the number of US casualties as compared to Nam.
phillyTIM
Golden Member
- Jan 12, 2001
- 1,942
- 10
- 81
This is a major reason why this is an illegitimate war
How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order
"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.
A time for war, a time for peace - Wil Wheaton beautifully sums up a popular sentiment
I don't support this war.
I believe that Mr. Bush's justifications for it are based on lies.
I believe that he has lied to the American people, and to the world.
I believe that there is a small group of people within Mr. Bush's administration who have wanted to invade Iraq since the mid-1990s. The horriffic terrorist attacks on September 11th, which have nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with Saudi Arabia, have been exploited by this small group of people to justify this invasion.
While I believe that Saddam Hussein is a terrible despot, I do not believe that this action is worth one American life, and I hope for the speedy return of all military forces to their families.
May Peace Prevail On Earth.
How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda -- and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order
"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.
A time for war, a time for peace - Wil Wheaton beautifully sums up a popular sentiment
I don't support this war.
I believe that Mr. Bush's justifications for it are based on lies.
I believe that he has lied to the American people, and to the world.
I believe that there is a small group of people within Mr. Bush's administration who have wanted to invade Iraq since the mid-1990s. The horriffic terrorist attacks on September 11th, which have nothing to do with Iraq and everything to do with Saudi Arabia, have been exploited by this small group of people to justify this invasion.
While I believe that Saddam Hussein is a terrible despot, I do not believe that this action is worth one American life, and I hope for the speedy return of all military forces to their families.
May Peace Prevail On Earth.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
More Bush-it
We got involved in 'Nam under Eisenhower in the early 50's - to protect French investments in the Rubber Plantation (Michelin)
as synthetic rubber was not a common commodity at the time. All through Kennedys time in the early 60's we maintained the
supportive presence of a corrupt, by politically allied government to safeguard the French investments, under the guise of holding
on for democracy against the Communists (Domino Effect)
Early in the 60's OIL was discovered by reasearch teams, and the Rockerfellers quickly staked claim to the findings.
After the assination of Diem in Vietnam and Kennedy, Johnson continued with the policies that were in place.
McNamera reported to LBJ that a us warship had come under attack in the Tonkin Gulf (Tonkin Gulf Resolution) and LBJ
added to the advisory capacity of our present by starting the escallation that put over 500,000 U.S. troops into 'Nam starting
in late 1964 - early 1965, with additional troops being sent in through 66 and later.
Only 1 problem - the 'Tonkin Gulf Incident' never happened, it was fabticated by the Pentagon and McNamera to force LBJ
into commiting our troops. Pretty big lie wasn't it.
When Johnson found out anout the lying, he had no confidence in our Intelligence department, and refused to run for re-election,
it would have been into a 3rd term, as the first was his replacing Kennedy after the assissanation, and he had been seated for
a second tearm with his first election. Either way he dropped out.
Nixon became president, continuing the policies, and decided to increase the bombing and authorized invasion of Cambodia.
He wanted to use Nukes, but Kissinger talked him out of it. We finally withdrew, after setteling for for less under Nixon than
we could have gotten during Johnsons tenure. Lot of good it did, as while we were pulling out of 'Nam, the North Vietnam Army
was invading from the north, and we just plain left. All of this because of a history of political lying for a decade.
Everone now knows how honest and respectable the Nixon Era polititions were - look around they are still here.
Only this time they are members of the Bush Administration.
Which brings us to todays Middle East involvement - more lies about U.S. Policy, from the same liars.
If you are under about 45 to 50, you didn't live the history, except as a child - which means you don't remember.
And studying it in History Class? - Who wasted their time studying history.
We got involved in 'Nam under Eisenhower in the early 50's - to protect French investments in the Rubber Plantation (Michelin)
as synthetic rubber was not a common commodity at the time. All through Kennedys time in the early 60's we maintained the
supportive presence of a corrupt, by politically allied government to safeguard the French investments, under the guise of holding
on for democracy against the Communists (Domino Effect)
Early in the 60's OIL was discovered by reasearch teams, and the Rockerfellers quickly staked claim to the findings.
After the assination of Diem in Vietnam and Kennedy, Johnson continued with the policies that were in place.
McNamera reported to LBJ that a us warship had come under attack in the Tonkin Gulf (Tonkin Gulf Resolution) and LBJ
added to the advisory capacity of our present by starting the escallation that put over 500,000 U.S. troops into 'Nam starting
in late 1964 - early 1965, with additional troops being sent in through 66 and later.
Only 1 problem - the 'Tonkin Gulf Incident' never happened, it was fabticated by the Pentagon and McNamera to force LBJ
into commiting our troops. Pretty big lie wasn't it.
When Johnson found out anout the lying, he had no confidence in our Intelligence department, and refused to run for re-election,
it would have been into a 3rd term, as the first was his replacing Kennedy after the assissanation, and he had been seated for
a second tearm with his first election. Either way he dropped out.
Nixon became president, continuing the policies, and decided to increase the bombing and authorized invasion of Cambodia.
He wanted to use Nukes, but Kissinger talked him out of it. We finally withdrew, after setteling for for less under Nixon than
we could have gotten during Johnsons tenure. Lot of good it did, as while we were pulling out of 'Nam, the North Vietnam Army
was invading from the north, and we just plain left. All of this because of a history of political lying for a decade.
Everone now knows how honest and respectable the Nixon Era polititions were - look around they are still here.
Only this time they are members of the Bush Administration.
Which brings us to todays Middle East involvement - more lies about U.S. Policy, from the same liars.
If you are under about 45 to 50, you didn't live the history, except as a child - which means you don't remember.
And studying it in History Class? - Who wasted their time studying history.
A like to visit this forum every now and again to remind myself of the ignorance in this world.
ANYONE who is not now a supporter of this war, after seeing/reading/hearing of the atrocities by Saddam; of the thousands who have been tortured, mutilated and/or executed, should be given the chance to experience those injustices first hand.
Your mind reading of Bush's intentions are irrelevent. We have rid the world of a brutal mass murderer.
Get your heads out of youe arses and realize it.
ANYONE who is not now a supporter of this war, after seeing/reading/hearing of the atrocities by Saddam; of the thousands who have been tortured, mutilated and/or executed, should be given the chance to experience those injustices first hand.
Your mind reading of Bush's intentions are irrelevent. We have rid the world of a brutal mass murderer.
Get your heads out of youe arses and realize it.
JoeBaD, are you volunteering to end all brutal mass murders in Africa?
This was an opportunistic war, a war based on goals of money and power and not (some say sadly) on human rights issues. Hell the U.N. wasn't even concerned about that...if they were '91 would have went down much differently.
No doubt the war will greatly enchance the safety and freedom of the Iraqi people but you kid yourself if you think that's why Bush and Friends invaded.
This was an opportunistic war, a war based on goals of money and power and not (some say sadly) on human rights issues. Hell the U.N. wasn't even concerned about that...if they were '91 would have went down much differently.
No doubt the war will greatly enchance the safety and freedom of the Iraqi people but you kid yourself if you think that's why Bush and Friends invaded.
I'm not kidding myself or anyone.
I'm just saying the end most certainly justifies the means!!!!!
...and we couldn't end strife in Africa even if we wanted to. You mindless liberals would never allow it.
I'm just saying the end most certainly justifies the means!!!!!
...and we couldn't end strife in Africa even if we wanted to. You mindless liberals would never allow it.
LOL, I'm not a liberal. You are a conditioned, programmed being; a pawn in a game you don't understand. I hope someday you become aware of that.
Anyway, I respect your opinion but I do wish you'd answer the question, are you in favor of democratizing Africa by any means necessary even if it takes 50 years? Please elaborate.
Anyway, I respect your opinion but I do wish you'd answer the question, are you in favor of democratizing Africa by any means necessary even if it takes 50 years? Please elaborate.
LOL! My God, what are you some throw back to the 60s.
And would I be in favor our democratizing all of Africa/Mid East/Asia/etc. -- If the rest of the "free" world was on board, sure thing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter