Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: scottish144
THATS why we're in Afghanistan and Iraq people.
Thats right, and anyone that can say both are a mistake and listen to that without feeling anything and still think we shouldn't be there. in my mind are close to the same kind of people that caused this.
very chilling 911 call. like others have said, damn
Iraq had nothing, whatsoever, even in the most indirect sense, to do with 9/11. I am an Operating Enduring Freedom vet and I was proud to serve in a combat zone in prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. That said, I'd say the people who use the rage they feel at a tape like this to rationalize an offensive war with a completely unrelated country are closer to the people who caused this than any anti-war true believer.
This tape is really awful, heartbreaking actually. RIP, Mr. Cosgrove.
Okay, I've ingnored all the flames to this point, but calling me something close to a terrorist gets me. The reason we are in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Good Intel, bad intel, we are there for the same reason initially as Afghanistan. Yes serious mistakes have been made, yes we shouldn't have invaded in retrospect, but we're there, and if we pull out and the insurgents win, terrorism morale will spike off the scale, as will attacks on the US. Regardless of the initial causes, we are now fighting Al-Queada in Iraq, as well as other militant groups. It is now a true part of the war on terror.
terror we helped cause.
Al Qaeda in Iraq.. yeah.. we need 100,000 troops to do it?
The number of Al Qaeda in Iraq is not even significant.
Insurgents are people fighting troops on a foreign land. They were never going to come to the U.S and fight us here.
Have you not heard of Zarkawi? (Spelling?) No the insurgents themselves will not come here, but they will sure as hell get others to come here in their place. Al-Queada's numbers may be negligible, but they're not looking to destroy us. They want to push us out of Iraq, and are manipulatin the insurgents to do it. The insurgency is spread across Iraq, so yes we doo need 100,000 troops to do it.
Originally posted by: Proletariat
Originally posted by: Playmaker
Originally posted by: scottish144
There's an old saying in Tennessee. I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says: "Fool me once...shame on...shame on you...if fooled, you can't get fooled again."
Well, you've been fooled at least once.
The sad thing is that this thread is probably going to degrade into a flamefest...
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: scottish144
Thats right, and anyone that can say both are a mistake and listen to that without feeling anything and still think we shouldn't be there. in my mind are close to the same kind of people that caused this.
very chilling 911 call. like others have said, damn
Iraq had nothing, whatsoever, even in the most indirect sense, to do with 9/11. I am an Operating Enduring Freedom vet and I was proud to serve in a combat zone in prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. That said, I'd say the people who use the rage they feel at a tape like this to rationalize an offensive war with a completely unrelated country are closer to the people who caused this than any anti-war true believer.
This tape is really awful, heartbreaking actually. RIP, Mr. Cosgrove.
Okay, I've ingnored all the flames to this point, but calling me something close to a terrorist gets me. The reason we are in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Good Intel, bad intel, we are there for the same reason initially as Afghanistan. Yes serious mistakes have been made, yes we shouldn't have invaded in retrospect, but we're there, and if we pull out and the insurgents win, terrorism morale will spike off the scale, as will attacks on the US. Regardless of the initial causes, we are now fighting Al-Queada in Iraq, as well as other militant groups. It is now a true part of the war on terror.
terror we helped cause.
Al Qaeda in Iraq.. yeah.. we need 100,000 troops to do it?
The number of Al Qaeda in Iraq is not even significant.
Insurgents are people fighting troops on a foreign land. They were never going to come to the U.S and fight us here.
Have you not heard of Zarkawi? (Spelling?) No the insurgents themselves will not come here, but they will sure as hell get others to come here in their place. Al-Queada's numbers may be negligible, but they're not looking to destroy us. They want to push us out of Iraq, and are manipulatin the insurgents to do it. The insurgency is spread across Iraq, so yes we doo need 100,000 troops to do it.
Zarkawai is one man. What did he have to do with 9.11?
Insurgents are people fighting U.S troops inside Iraq. If we weren't there they would be living their lives doing whatever the hell it is they do besides figthing U.S troops.
Of course they want to push us out of Iraq. If the Chinese invaded and tookover the U.S you wouldn't want them to leave?
You have yet to give me one good reason why I should risk my life fighting in Iraq. Al Qaeda was never popular in Iraq. So why are we there?
You expect the Iraqis to cheer us on while we invade their country. Their country is worse now than when Saddam was ruling it. Democracy in Iraq? Yeah, right.
For those of you who're calling people out for getting political, what did you expect? This had flamefest written all over it.Originally posted by: Toasthead
Originally posted by: lilcam
Originally posted by: scottish144
Nah, more like Mr Bush and company wants their oil.
it REALLY makes me sad that people are still soo ignorant as to believe this.
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: scottish144
Thats right, and anyone that can say both are a mistake and listen to that without feeling anything and still think we shouldn't be there. in my mind are close to the same kind of people that caused this.
very chilling 911 call. like others have said, damn
Iraq had nothing, whatsoever, even in the most indirect sense, to do with 9/11. I am an Operating Enduring Freedom vet and I was proud to serve in a combat zone in prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. That said, I'd say the people who use the rage they feel at a tape like this to rationalize an offensive war with a completely unrelated country are closer to the people who caused this than any anti-war true believer.
This tape is really awful, heartbreaking actually. RIP, Mr. Cosgrove.
Okay, I've ingnored all the flames to this point, but calling me something close to a terrorist gets me. The reason we are in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Good Intel, bad intel, we are there for the same reason initially as Afghanistan. Yes serious mistakes have been made, yes we shouldn't have invaded in retrospect, but we're there, and if we pull out and the insurgents win, terrorism morale will spike off the scale, as will attacks on the US. Regardless of the initial causes, we are now fighting Al-Queada in Iraq, as well as other militant groups. It is now a true part of the war on terror.
terror we helped cause.
Al Qaeda in Iraq.. yeah.. we need 100,000 troops to do it?
The number of Al Qaeda in Iraq is not even significant.
Insurgents are people fighting troops on a foreign land. They were never going to come to the U.S and fight us here.
Have you not heard of Zarkawi? (Spelling?) No the insurgents themselves will not come here, but they will sure as hell get others to come here in their place. Al-Queada's numbers may be negligible, but they're not looking to destroy us. They want to push us out of Iraq, and are manipulatin the insurgents to do it. The insurgency is spread across Iraq, so yes we doo need 100,000 troops to do it.
Zarkawai is one man. What did he have to do with 9.11?
Insurgents are people fighting U.S troops inside Iraq. If we weren't there they would be living their lives doing whatever the hell it is they do besides figthing U.S troops.
Of course they want to push us out of Iraq. If the Chinese invaded and tookover the U.S you wouldn't want them to leave?
You have yet to give me one good reason why I should risk my life fighting in Iraq. Al Qaeda was never popular in Iraq. So why are we there?
You expect the Iraqis to cheer us on while we invade their country. Their country is worse now than when Saddam was ruling it. Democracy in Iraq? Yeah, right.
Zarkawai != 9/11, but he is still a high up part of Al-Quaeda and that makes him a priority target. He was also high-up in Saddam's former regime.
I we left, the insurgents would start fighting each other, and there would be civil war across Iraq (there almost is now, and probably would be if it weren't for our presence) which would be easily exploted by terrorists.
Al Quaeda Terrorist : Iraq != US Citizen : USA
Actually, 60% of Iraquis now have cell-phones, and about that same percentage say the general quality of life is better (taken from ABC poll). We arn't making mass graves and imprisoning anyone who disagrees with us. Dmocracy may be difficult to obtain, but it is possible. There are many Iraqi politicians who are coming around to this viewpoint.
Originally posted by: Ranger X
For those of you who're calling people out for getting political, what did you expect? This had flamefest written all over it.Originally posted by: Toasthead
Originally posted by: lilcam
Originally posted by: scottish144
Nah, more like Mr Bush and company wants their oil.
it REALLY makes me sad that people are still soo ignorant as to believe this.
Anyway, the US is obviously in it for the oil and the other benefits that comes with having a war. I don't see why the US would enter a foreign country if the US had absolutely nothing to gain except to 'fight terror'. You know what's even more sad? Those people who believe we're in Iraq to liberate the people who've all been oppressed under Saddam's regime. Well, Saddam has been dethroned (and let's not forget who put Saddam in power) and there were no WMD to begin with so why are we still in Iraq? Zarqawi and Bin Laden aren't even in Iraq, and while it may appear that we're making progress by killing and capturing high ranking officials, this fight will never end. When one vacates a position, there are 10 others ready to fill that position. What's next, Iran ... Syria?
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Ranger X
For those of you who're calling people out for getting political, what did you expect? This had flamefest written all over it.Originally posted by: Toasthead
Originally posted by: lilcam
Originally posted by: scottish144
Nah, more like Mr Bush and company wants their oil.
it REALLY makes me sad that people are still soo ignorant as to believe this.
Anyway, the US is obviously in it for the oil and the other benefits that comes with having a war. I don't see why the US would enter a foreign country if the US had absolutely nothing to gain except to 'fight terror'. You know what's even more sad? Those people who believe we're in Iraq to liberate the people who've all been oppressed under Saddam's regime. Well, Saddam has been dethroned (and let's not forget who put Saddam in power) and there were no WMD to begin with so why are we still in Iraq? Zarqawi and Bin Laden aren't even in Iraq, and while it may appear that we're making progress by killing and capturing high ranking officials, this fight will never end. When one vacates a position, there are 10 others ready to fill that position. What's next, Iran ... Syria?
You sir, are a tool of Cindy Sheehan. Might I point out that Iraq is at about 50% oil production, and that that rate hasn't increased much since we invaded? And what other benefits come from having a war praetel? Bush's approval ratings are in the ditch as is.
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: scottish144
Thats right, and anyone that can say both are a mistake and listen to that without feeling anything and still think we shouldn't be there. in my mind are close to the same kind of people that caused this.
very chilling 911 call. like others have said, damn
Iraq had nothing, whatsoever, even in the most indirect sense, to do with 9/11. I am an Operating Enduring Freedom vet and I was proud to serve in a combat zone in prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. That said, I'd say the people who use the rage they feel at a tape like this to rationalize an offensive war with a completely unrelated country are closer to the people who caused this than any anti-war true believer.
This tape is really awful, heartbreaking actually. RIP, Mr. Cosgrove.
Okay, I've ingnored all the flames to this point, but calling me something close to a terrorist gets me. The reason we are in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Good Intel, bad intel, we are there for the same reason initially as Afghanistan. Yes serious mistakes have been made, yes we shouldn't have invaded in retrospect, but we're there, and if we pull out and the insurgents win, terrorism morale will spike off the scale, as will attacks on the US. Regardless of the initial causes, we are now fighting Al-Queada in Iraq, as well as other militant groups. It is now a true part of the war on terror.
terror we helped cause.
Al Qaeda in Iraq.. yeah.. we need 100,000 troops to do it?
The number of Al Qaeda in Iraq is not even significant.
Insurgents are people fighting troops on a foreign land. They were never going to come to the U.S and fight us here.
Have you not heard of Zarkawi? (Spelling?) No the insurgents themselves will not come here, but they will sure as hell get others to come here in their place. Al-Queada's numbers may be negligible, but they're not looking to destroy us. They want to push us out of Iraq, and are manipulatin the insurgents to do it. The insurgency is spread across Iraq, so yes we doo need 100,000 troops to do it.
Zarkawai is one man. What did he have to do with 9.11?
Insurgents are people fighting U.S troops inside Iraq. If we weren't there they would be living their lives doing whatever the hell it is they do besides figthing U.S troops.
Of course they want to push us out of Iraq. If the Chinese invaded and tookover the U.S you wouldn't want them to leave?
You have yet to give me one good reason why I should risk my life fighting in Iraq. Al Qaeda was never popular in Iraq. So why are we there?
You expect the Iraqis to cheer us on while we invade their country. Their country is worse now than when Saddam was ruling it. Democracy in Iraq? Yeah, right.
Zarkawai != 9/11, but he is still a high up part of Al-Quaeda and that makes him a priority target. He was also high-up in Saddam's former regime.
I we left, the insurgents would start fighting each other, and there would be civil war across Iraq (there almost is now, and probably would be if it weren't for our presence) which would be easily exploted by terrorists.
Al Quaeda Terrorist : Iraq != US Citizen : USA
Actually, 60% of Iraquis now have cell-phones, and about that same percentage say the general quality of life is better (taken from ABC poll). We arn't making mass graves and imprisoning anyone who disagrees with us. Dmocracy may be difficult to obtain, but it is possible. There are many Iraqi politicians who are coming around to this viewpoint.
Saddam's regime was not a threat to the U.S. Sorry, but he was never once a threat to the U.S. Saddam shouldn't even be on trial right now. Like I said before in other threads he was good for Iraq. Put the man on the streets let Iraqis deal with him and let us get out. We gave him weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians (knowing he would do it) yet we are charging him for some mass killing of a handful of people. You show me an Iraq that is stable without a cruel dictator and I will be surprised. Until then, people can keep killing each other until nobody else is left.
Saddam banned cell phones. So obviously the people have cell phones now. So we invaded Iraq because they didn't have cell phones? This is 2006. Every part of the world has cell phones. I bet you they have better cell phones in Iraq than we do in the U.S. That proves what? Nothing.
Democracy in Iraq will not happen. You don't understand the difference between the different sects inside Iraq. Each part of Iraq is split. How the hell are they going to come together when their beliefs and culture is different from each other?
There are more Iraqi troops now than when Saddam was in power. Time to get out or invade Iraq all over again because their massive troop buildup is a threat to Israel... yep..
You want democracy inside Iraq? Make Iraq a non-Islamic state. Saddam's govt was not run off of Islam. It was run by fear which kept the different groups together.
I want to see current pictures of Iraqi women inside Iraq walking around without a head scarf. Saddam's Iraq women were free. Today they are scared for their lives. Better quality of life, yep.
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Ranger X
For those of you who're calling people out for getting political, what did you expect? This had flamefest written all over it.Originally posted by: Toasthead
Originally posted by: lilcam
Originally posted by: scottish144
Nah, more like Mr Bush and company wants their oil.
it REALLY makes me sad that people are still soo ignorant as to believe this.
Anyway, the US is obviously in it for the oil and the other benefits that comes with having a war. I don't see why the US would enter a foreign country if the US had absolutely nothing to gain except to 'fight terror'. You know what's even more sad? Those people who believe we're in Iraq to liberate the people who've all been oppressed under Saddam's regime. Well, Saddam has been dethroned (and let's not forget who put Saddam in power) and there were no WMD to begin with so why are we still in Iraq? Zarqawi and Bin Laden aren't even in Iraq, and while it may appear that we're making progress by killing and capturing high ranking officials, this fight will never end. When one vacates a position, there are 10 others ready to fill that position. What's next, Iran ... Syria?
You sir, are a tool of Cindy Sheehan. Might I point out that Iraq is at about 50% oil production, and that that rate hasn't increased much since we invaded? And what other benefits come from having a war praetel? Bush's approval ratings are in the ditch as is.
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/PAPRPIQ.gif
....
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: scottish144
Thats right, and anyone that can say both are a mistake and listen to that without feeling anything and still think we shouldn't be there. in my mind are close to the same kind of people that caused this.
very chilling 911 call. like others have said, damn
Iraq had nothing, whatsoever, even in the most indirect sense, to do with 9/11. I am an Operating Enduring Freedom vet and I was proud to serve in a combat zone in prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. That said, I'd say the people who use the rage they feel at a tape like this to rationalize an offensive war with a completely unrelated country are closer to the people who caused this than any anti-war true believer.
This tape is really awful, heartbreaking actually. RIP, Mr. Cosgrove.
Okay, I've ingnored all the flames to this point, but calling me something close to a terrorist gets me. The reason we are in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Good Intel, bad intel, we are there for the same reason initially as Afghanistan. Yes serious mistakes have been made, yes we shouldn't have invaded in retrospect, but we're there, and if we pull out and the insurgents win, terrorism morale will spike off the scale, as will attacks on the US. Regardless of the initial causes, we are now fighting Al-Queada in Iraq, as well as other militant groups. It is now a true part of the war on terror.
terror we helped cause.
Al Qaeda in Iraq.. yeah.. we need 100,000 troops to do it?
The number of Al Qaeda in Iraq is not even significant.
Insurgents are people fighting troops on a foreign land. They were never going to come to the U.S and fight us here.
Have you not heard of Zarkawi? (Spelling?) No the insurgents themselves will not come here, but they will sure as hell get others to come here in their place. Al-Queada's numbers may be negligible, but they're not looking to destroy us. They want to push us out of Iraq, and are manipulatin the insurgents to do it. The insurgency is spread across Iraq, so yes we doo need 100,000 troops to do it.
Zarkawai is one man. What did he have to do with 9.11?
Insurgents are people fighting U.S troops inside Iraq. If we weren't there they would be living their lives doing whatever the hell it is they do besides figthing U.S troops.
Of course they want to push us out of Iraq. If the Chinese invaded and tookover the U.S you wouldn't want them to leave?
You have yet to give me one good reason why I should risk my life fighting in Iraq. Al Qaeda was never popular in Iraq. So why are we there?
You expect the Iraqis to cheer us on while we invade their country. Their country is worse now than when Saddam was ruling it. Democracy in Iraq? Yeah, right.
Zarkawai != 9/11, but he is still a high up part of Al-Quaeda and that makes him a priority target. He was also high-up in Saddam's former regime.
I we left, the insurgents would start fighting each other, and there would be civil war across Iraq (there almost is now, and probably would be if it weren't for our presence) which would be easily exploted by terrorists.
Al Quaeda Terrorist : Iraq != US Citizen : USA
Actually, 60% of Iraquis now have cell-phones, and about that same percentage say the general quality of life is better (taken from ABC poll). We arn't making mass graves and imprisoning anyone who disagrees with us. Dmocracy may be difficult to obtain, but it is possible. There are many Iraqi politicians who are coming around to this viewpoint.
Saddam's regime was not a threat to the U.S. Sorry, but he was never once a threat to the U.S. Saddam shouldn't even be on trial right now. Like I said before in other threads he was good for Iraq. Put the man on the streets let Iraqis deal with him and let us get out. We gave him weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians (knowing he would do it) yet we are charging him for some mass killing of a handful of people. You show me an Iraq that is stable without a cruel dictator and I will be surprised. Until then, people can keep killing each other until nobody else is left.
Saddam banned cell phones. So obviously the people have cell phones now. So we invaded Iraq because they didn't have cell phones? This is 2006. Every part of the world has cell phones. I bet you they have better cell phones in Iraq than we do in the U.S. That proves what? Nothing.
Democracy in Iraq will not happen. You don't understand the difference between the different sects inside Iraq. Each part of Iraq is split. How the hell are they going to come together when their beliefs and culture is different from each other?
There are more Iraqi troops now than when Saddam was in power. Time to get out or invade Iraq all over again because their massive troop buildup is a threat to Israel... yep..
You want democracy inside Iraq? Make Iraq a non-Islamic state. Saddam's govt was not run off of Islam. It was run by fear which kept the different groups together.
I want to see current pictures of Iraqi women inside Iraq walking around without a head scarf. Saddam's Iraq women were free. Today they are scared for their lives. Better quality of life, yep.
Saddam was GOOD for Iraq? So Hitler was good for Germany, and Stalin was good for Russia? I am no longer taking the time to respond to any of your posts after this. Saddam made mass graves (400,000 civilians have been discovered so far), his sons went down the streets and raped women as they saw fit for pleasure. You sir are a... not worth it.
Also, put it this way. You are a megalomaniac in charge of Iraq. The US came and kicked ur ass a decade ago. Would you NOT attempt to pursue weapons of mass destruction? All dictatorships that do not have nukes want nukes. Its that simple. Nuke are the one deterrent that can completely secure one's borders from military invastion. We were hesitant to go into Desert Storm initially due to Saddams chemical and biological weapons.
Islamic states are never Islamic. This is well known. They are too easily corrupted by the ruling members. And here's the issue: Islam is a primative religion.
Christianity has had its enlightenment. Before then it looked much like modern Islam. Ex: You are a good christian night in mideval Europe. You're wife is killed by another man. You are honor bound to kill that man, his family, and his extended family. In an interview on Dateline a few days ago, they interviewed a terrorist in an Israelie prison. He pretty much repeated said code of honor. Many muslums still believe in the "Eye for and Eye" rule, which, I must point out, was first presented in the Neolithic age.
Christianity has also evolved. Where there were only Catholics, there are now Protestants, and many sub-sets of each. Islam only has several.
Islam is a good faith that is easily corruptable. The Middle East would not even be acknowledged on the world stage if it weren't for its oil.
As for a stable muslum country without a cruel dictator, try Turkey.
The cell phone example was to illustrate a point that Iraquis are freer now than they were before we invaded.
Originally posted by: lilcam
Originally posted by: scottish144
Nah, more like Mr Bush and company wants their oil.
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: scottish144
Thats right, and anyone that can say both are a mistake and listen to that without feeling anything and still think we shouldn't be there. in my mind are close to the same kind of people that caused this.
very chilling 911 call. like others have said, damn
Iraq had nothing, whatsoever, even in the most indirect sense, to do with 9/11. I am an Operating Enduring Freedom vet and I was proud to serve in a combat zone in prosecution of the war in Afghanistan. That said, I'd say the people who use the rage they feel at a tape like this to rationalize an offensive war with a completely unrelated country are closer to the people who caused this than any anti-war true believer.
This tape is really awful, heartbreaking actually. RIP, Mr. Cosgrove.
Okay, I've ingnored all the flames to this point, but calling me something close to a terrorist gets me. The reason we are in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Good Intel, bad intel, we are there for the same reason initially as Afghanistan. Yes serious mistakes have been made, yes we shouldn't have invaded in retrospect, but we're there, and if we pull out and the insurgents win, terrorism morale will spike off the scale, as will attacks on the US. Regardless of the initial causes, we are now fighting Al-Queada in Iraq, as well as other militant groups. It is now a true part of the war on terror.
terror we helped cause.
Al Qaeda in Iraq.. yeah.. we need 100,000 troops to do it?
The number of Al Qaeda in Iraq is not even significant.
Insurgents are people fighting troops on a foreign land. They were never going to come to the U.S and fight us here.
Have you not heard of Zarkawi? (Spelling?) No the insurgents themselves will not come here, but they will sure as hell get others to come here in their place. Al-Queada's numbers may be negligible, but they're not looking to destroy us. They want to push us out of Iraq, and are manipulatin the insurgents to do it. The insurgency is spread across Iraq, so yes we doo need 100,000 troops to do it.
Zarkawai is one man. What did he have to do with 9.11?
Insurgents are people fighting U.S troops inside Iraq. If we weren't there they would be living their lives doing whatever the hell it is they do besides figthing U.S troops.
Of course they want to push us out of Iraq. If the Chinese invaded and tookover the U.S you wouldn't want them to leave?
You have yet to give me one good reason why I should risk my life fighting in Iraq. Al Qaeda was never popular in Iraq. So why are we there?
You expect the Iraqis to cheer us on while we invade their country. Their country is worse now than when Saddam was ruling it. Democracy in Iraq? Yeah, right.
Zarkawai != 9/11, but he is still a high up part of Al-Quaeda and that makes him a priority target. He was also high-up in Saddam's former regime.
I we left, the insurgents would start fighting each other, and there would be civil war across Iraq (there almost is now, and probably would be if it weren't for our presence) which would be easily exploted by terrorists.
Al Quaeda Terrorist : Iraq != US Citizen : USA
Actually, 60% of Iraquis now have cell-phones, and about that same percentage say the general quality of life is better (taken from ABC poll). We arn't making mass graves and imprisoning anyone who disagrees with us. Dmocracy may be difficult to obtain, but it is possible. There are many Iraqi politicians who are coming around to this viewpoint.
Saddam's regime was not a threat to the U.S. Sorry, but he was never once a threat to the U.S. Saddam shouldn't even be on trial right now. Like I said before in other threads he was good for Iraq. Put the man on the streets let Iraqis deal with him and let us get out. We gave him weapons to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians (knowing he would do it) yet we are charging him for some mass killing of a handful of people. You show me an Iraq that is stable without a cruel dictator and I will be surprised. Until then, people can keep killing each other until nobody else is left.
Saddam banned cell phones. So obviously the people have cell phones now. So we invaded Iraq because they didn't have cell phones? This is 2006. Every part of the world has cell phones. I bet you they have better cell phones in Iraq than we do in the U.S. That proves what? Nothing.
Democracy in Iraq will not happen. You don't understand the difference between the different sects inside Iraq. Each part of Iraq is split. How the hell are they going to come together when their beliefs and culture is different from each other?
There are more Iraqi troops now than when Saddam was in power. Time to get out or invade Iraq all over again because their massive troop buildup is a threat to Israel... yep..
You want democracy inside Iraq? Make Iraq a non-Islamic state. Saddam's govt was not run off of Islam. It was run by fear which kept the different groups together.
I want to see current pictures of Iraqi women inside Iraq walking around without a head scarf. Saddam's Iraq women were free. Today they are scared for their lives. Better quality of life, yep.
Saddam was GOOD for Iraq? So Hitler was good for Germany, and Stalin was good for Russia? I am no longer taking the time to respond to any of your posts after this. Saddam made mass graves (400,000 civilians have been discovered so far), his sons went down the streets and raped women as they saw fit for pleasure. You sir are a... not worth it.
Also, put it this way. You are a megalomaniac in charge of Iraq. The US came and kicked ur ass a decade ago. Would you NOT attempt to pursue weapons of mass destruction? All dictatorships that do not have nukes want nukes. Its that simple. Nuke are the one deterrent that can completely secure one's borders from military invastion. We were hesitant to go into Desert Storm initially due to Saddams chemical and biological weapons.
Islamic states are never Islamic. This is well known. They are too easily corrupted by the ruling members. And here's the issue: Islam is a primative religion.
Christianity has had its enlightenment. Before then it looked much like modern Islam. Ex: You are a good christian night in mideval Europe. You're wife is killed by another man. You are honor bound to kill that man, his family, and his extended family. In an interview on Dateline a few days ago, they interviewed a terrorist in an Israelie prison. He pretty much repeated said code of honor. Many muslums still believe in the "Eye for and Eye" rule, which, I must point out, was first presented in the Neolithic age.
Christianity has also evolved. Where there were only Catholics, there are now Protestants, and many sub-sets of each. Islam only has several.
Islam is a good faith that is easily corruptable. The Middle East would not even be acknowledged on the world stage if it weren't for its oil.
As for a stable muslum country without a cruel dictator, try Turkey.
The cell phone example was to illustrate a point that Iraquis are freer now than they were before we invaded.
The U.S gave Iraq WMD to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians.
I didn't read the rest of your post after the first paragraph since you do not understand the history behind any of this.
We allowed Saddam to kill hundreds of thousands of people. We gave him the means. Now we blame him? HAH.
It did, we've got plenty of oil. Just can't refine it quickly enough.Originally posted by: Acanthus
Yeah, that obviously worked.Originally posted by: lilcam
Nah, more like Mr Bush and company wants their oil.Originally posted by: scottish144
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: scottish144
Thats right, and anyone that can say both are a mistake and listen to that without feeling anything and still think we shouldn't be there. in my mind are close to the same kind of people that caused this.
very chilling 911 call. like others have said, damn
Facebook
Twitter