Forums | MacLife

No Res, I'll not concede that, since they were targeting Iraq as another godless state, much as they targeted the Saudi Government. Iraq was a secular state, a nationalistic state, not an Islamic State. Thus they and Al Queda had no common goals. And since it was a dictatorship, Saddam wasn't interested in letting armed groups that he didn't control into the country. Pure politics.

yes, res, we've all been tapped. Do you know for a fact that YOU haven't been 'surveilled'?

do you know where your mouse has been?

edit:
Besides, if not already, all these keystokes 'b*mb' 'terr*r' and 'ab*rtion clinix' will trigger some algorithm, I'd bet.

Last edited by daemon (2008-11-18 5:38 am)

OBL got pissed off at us just because we cut off his allowance?

Yeah, but that was just what he used to rile up the idiots with. We had our heathen feet all over the place looking for oil and they were all just peachy with that.

Weren't the activities pretty much confined to the base, though? Weren't female soldiers forbidden from driving off base and sitting with male personnel?

It's not like they were landing helicopters on that stupid block.

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

So you are conceding that Al Queda was in Iraq before we went in.

My analogy depends on the yellow-jacket insects leaving the human alone until the human uses violence on their hive.  Is that so uncommon ?

How many unaffiliated civilians in Iraq joined Al Queda or became sympathizers as a result of the American-led invasion ?


(Also, can we bring back the Coalition of the Willing jokes ?  Micronesia !  )

When we struck Iraq, it was not hitting the wasp nest.
It was taking out a dictator who no one can claim was good for his people, a dictator who repeatedly sought weapons of mass destruction, a dictator who used them in the past.

The terrorism that resulted in Iraq was terrorists trying to set up a similar system in a country that was likely to accept their rule because they had lived under brutal rule for so long before.

The future of Iraq can't be predicted, but things actually look good right now, and the people of Iraq have more of an opportunity to shape their future than they have had in a very long time - the same opportunity you and I enjoy, the same opportunity that you and I would object to having taken away from us.

Even if you believe this, it doesn't justify manipulating intelligence and lying to the American people as well as the rest of the world, in order to get support for a war.

Especially when you do it after the biggest terrorist attack in US history.

And the argument that we did it mainly to remove a dictator also doesn't hold water, when you consider the dictators around the world, that were killing MORE people, more brutally than Saddam.

We invaded because Iraq has oil, and we needed a sympathetic entity controlling it.

mo' wrote:

We invaded because Iraq has oil, and we needed a sympathetic entity controlling it.

And Iraq was isolated and vulnerable after their invasion of Kuwait was repelled (with our help). The neo-cons were upset that Poppy held to his UN agreement didn't swoop in and claim the prize of Iraq then.

Last edited by user (2008-11-18 9:42 am)

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

So you are conceding that Al Queda was in Iraq before we went in.

My analogy depends on the yellow-jacket insects leaving the human alone until the human uses violence on their hive.  Is that so uncommon ?

How many unaffiliated civilians in Iraq joined Al Queda or became sympathizers as a result of the American-led invasion ?


(Also, can we bring back the Coalition of the Willing jokes ?  Micronesia !  )

When we struck Iraq, it was not hitting the wasp nest.
It was taking out a dictator who no one can claim was good for his people, a dictator who repeatedly sought weapons of mass destruction, a dictator who used them in the past.

The terrorism that resulted in Iraq was terrorists trying to set up a similar system in a country that was likely to accept their rule because they had lived under brutal rule for so long before.

The future of Iraq can't be predicted, but things actually look good right now, and the people of Iraq have more of an opportunity to shape their future than they have had in a very long time - the same opportunity you and I enjoy, the same opportunity that you and I would object to having taken away from us.

Even accepting your flawed ideas, the fact that there were too few Coalition troops for years after the invasion meant Iraq was much more hospitable and likely to spawn terrorists.  Fixing the problem years too late is good, but you shouldn't deny that President Bush didn't hit the wasp nest hard enough, and then occupied it incorrectly.

On top of that, don't throw your "more opportunity, don't take it away from Iraqis" stuff at me while people in Congo, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, and Palestine (etc) could benefit more with less use of American troops and money.

sturner wrote:

[...] over 3000 dead, [...]

Make that somewhere between five hunderd thousand and a million dead.

Thanks, guys!

.tsooJ

JakeTheTall wrote:

resedit wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

My analogy depends on the yellow-jacket insects leaving the human alone until the human uses violence on their hive.  Is that so uncommon ?

How many unaffiliated civilians in Iraq joined Al Queda or became sympathizers as a result of the American-led invasion ?


(Also, can we bring back the Coalition of the Willing jokes ?  Micronesia !  )

When we struck Iraq, it was not hitting the wasp nest.
It was taking out a dictator who no one can claim was good for his people, a dictator who repeatedly sought weapons of mass destruction, a dictator who used them in the past.

The terrorism that resulted in Iraq was terrorists trying to set up a similar system in a country that was likely to accept their rule because they had lived under brutal rule for so long before.

The future of Iraq can't be predicted, but things actually look good right now, and the people of Iraq have more of an opportunity to shape their future than they have had in a very long time - the same opportunity you and I enjoy, the same opportunity that you and I would object to having taken away from us.

Even accepting your flawed ideas, the fact that there were too few Coalition troops for years after the invasion meant Iraq was much more hospitable and likely to spawn terrorists.  Fixing the problem years too late is good, but you shouldn't deny that President Bush didn't hit the wasp nest hard enough, and then occupied it incorrectly.

On top of that, don't throw your "more opportunity, don't take it away from Iraqis" stuff at me while people in Congo, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, and Palestine (etc) could benefit more with less use of American troops and money.

People are always going to be suffering. You can hardly expect an entity to take on every problem at once.

DevoDoc wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

People are always going to be suffering. You can hardly expect an entity to take on every problem at once.

Nope.  Just the ones that involve big oil reserves.

Those countries are getting attention, just not as much as one which was a destabilizing force in a strategically important part of the world.

Two words, "HELL" and "NO!!"