Photos from Iraq
- Thread starter rinard
- 489 comments
- 12,613 views
- 2,281
cant say fairer than that i spose, i know some of my accusations in the past were rather confrontational but its only because i know i will be shot out of the sky if i take a stance that differs from what your current government favours...regardless of validity or not.
- 2,767
I stated actions from The UN, the coalition during Desert Storm, (which includes EU countries and my country), that I don't agree with. And what does the Clinton administration have to do with the validity of my comments? Do you think I would base my opinions on the action of the US government on my on some partisanship for the democrats or the republicans?? What's your point? Is not agreeing on the actions of the candidate you voted for is your definition of an insult? Or is it that you want everyone to accept your government's actions no matter what they are? And by the way I stated that I was 100% with the Enduring Freedom operation in Afghanistan, I don't disagree with every actions of Bush administration...
So could you tell what is more insulting to you: calling the president of your country an idiot for some of his actions, or calling your opinions a "wad of crap"?
So what caused their hatred towards the occidentals to reach such levels in the 20th century, according to you?
Don't be sorry... everyone knows that some radical fundamentalists just wants the western world to be destroyed, but with our recent actions in palestine, and Iraq, my points is we just provide a lot of muslims with arguments to turn on their side. I think that without these mishaps, maybe some muslims group would have already taken care to eradicate these extremists groups by themselves, or at least without support, they wouldn't be a significant threat to us. A Jihad doesn't get much followers without a cause.
Yes, It would change the topic... It would show to the muslim world that we are not their ennemy. It would invalidate the main argument used by fundamentalists to start a Jihad. Better way to stop violence than to keep ignoring it and invading Iraq.
For real, I'll restate what I see as an example of serious inconsistancy...
- Not taking actions against Saddam for the atrocities that occured during the war with Iran (in fact, fighting Iran was in our interests, so too bad for them...)
- Push some of the ethnic groups from Iraq to a revolution against Saddam during the Gulf War
- Leave Saddam in power after the war, knowing very well how he would deal with these ethnic groups.
- Choke the whole country on economic sanctions, causing thousands of deaths... sanctions for Saddam's actions, of course.
- Finally invade Iraq 14 years later to remove Saddam's, claiming that we're doing it to free the Iraqi people and punish Saddam for his crimes against humanity, and actually believing that they (or the muslim world) will believe us and see us as their great saviors...
I don't believe that an imminent genocide or an attack with WMD was about to happen in Iraq. That's why I say the energy would have been better spent in solving the root of the modern crisis between the occident and the muslims instead of throwing some oil on the fire. That would make us more credible as "liberators" for them...
PS: I Frequently use the term "us" to state the fact that most of these actions were taken by the western world (UN, NATO, EU and US), not only the US. I'd be glad if we leave the pointless anti-Bush, pro-Bush, anti-American and pro-American rhetorics out of this debate as they don't bring any constructive arguments to it. The fact that a statement contradicts or not Bush's politics doesn't validate, nor does it invalidate any point at all.
- 2,767
Another point I'd like to mention here...
Remember what happened in the cold war? Was a nuclear disaster avoided by using the hard line? There were two opposite ways of solving the issue at the White House and the Pentagon, and I'm very glad that we're still here to discuss it because some the US leaders took a rational approach to this threat instead of acts based solely on pride, fear and anger.
Don't you?
Remember what happened in the cold war? Was a nuclear disaster avoided by using the hard line? There were two opposite ways of solving the issue at the White House and the Pentagon, and I'm very glad that we're still here to discuss it because some the US leaders took a rational approach to this threat instead of acts based solely on pride, fear and anger.
Don't you?
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
Ok, I didn't mean to come across wrong, but I did have a very important point about the Clinton administrations actions in Iraq (Operation Desert Fox) as well as the clinton actions to combat the current terrorist elements. (The lack of efforts as well as the unsupported & unilateral efforts) (However, in ways I support those efforts since they were in fact, trying to take apart Saddams ability to operate as a danger in the world)
A "wad of crap" was an uncalled for expression. To try and express why a comment like this came from me, I could only point you towards the growing expressions of frustration throughout the past 6 or so replies I have posted in this thread. I apologize.
I truely do believe that the heart of the fundamentalist movement is based in an age old religious racism. It may be from something like Mohhamed's (sp?) exile from his home town upon his "enlightenment." It could also be based on more indepth Islamic views than a christian westerner like myself knows of.
However, for the sake of truely trying to be open, I suppose the heart of the fundamentalist movement could be based out of palestine's gripe with Israel. ( Note: I find that difficult to accept since Britian would be a more responsible party for the creation of Israel than the "Jews." )
To me, this point is valid, but only if you are willing to accept the validity of the Palestinian's current plea for equality.
I use the term "current plea" because of the fact that the actual Palestinian people have a legitimate reason for strife. ( I think we all know what that reason is.)
But I feel that the argument and cause of the Palestinians people has been compramised due to the long term support of terrorism and not a political solution.
( Please don't take these words to mean only the Palestinians are guilty of inappropriate efforts towards a solution, Israel does bear a burden in that problem as well)
I should also point out that the causes for a religious Jihad are fluid. When the Jews are booted from Palestine, there will be a new topic, cause or reason, to frankly, Hate The Jews.
Hatred is at the heart of the Jihad, not equality through political action.
Now, to me, we have not been igoring the violence. I also feel that invalidation of "the Palestinian cause" will not have a positive affect on the violence surrounding the middle east.
I honestly believe that with an independant Palestinian state, you will not see an end to the "Anti-Jew" violence.
Indeed this is bad for them, but the political atmosphere of the mid-late eighties was entirely different than it is today. Supporting Saddam was the better choice.
However, this does not justify the actions of Saddam, so I will have to support you criticisms of American foriegn policy. Saddam committed legitimate war crimes and should have been punished.
It should be noted that I have long oppossed Saddams use of chemical weapons. (As I've said before, it is a problem that the US was involved with the sale of certain chemical/ biological agents... but it is not entirely the responsibility of the US once those weapons have been used. ) (When a person buys a gun and uses it, the dealer does not bear the burden of guilt for any actions taken with that firearm.)
This was a mistake, but it was also not known at the time, that Saddam would actually do what he did. Believing the good of man is a weakness, and the American president was willing to believe in Saddams cease fire agrements... Part of those argrements was the end of hostilities to any and all people, foreign or not.
The US was not alone in this. It is true that other nations such as france and germany continued commercial & military (mirage fighter jets) trade with Saddam's Iraq, but the UN was also a leader in the sanctions against Iraq.
Well, we are indeed removing Saddam for various reasons, including the liberation of Iraqis as well as the enforcement of international law. However, thinking the Iraqis would appreciate being liberated from a dictator that would actually use "rape rooms" and chemical weapons on his own people.
I guess you've got me there, I fell victim to this mistake as well as many in my nation; I really did believe Iraqis would appreciate freedom from Saddam in their own democratic Iraq.
Many of us (Americans) believed that an imminent thread could have been possible. (It was the "aims, iowa strand of anthrax that was sold to bahgdad Univ. in the 80's, which is by coincidence the same strand of anthrax used in the letters to more than one American Official.) (It is also coincidence that a miami doctor claims to have seen, as a patient, one of the 9/11 hijackers, claiming that he was suffering skin aggitation) (note that this is all still coincidence and in many ways unsubstantiated.)
However, this is still a situation where the United States saw Saddam as a threat to not only the long term and possible short term safety of the US, but also as an immediate and continuing threat to the stability of the middle east. (indeed a war is trouble, but it is not the same level of long term instability and danger that allowing Saddam's rouge nation to continue existing as we had known it.)
Don't worry about the use of "us" and I will be glad to leave the anti stuff out too. Or atleast I will try.
I guess I just want to close with the statement that...
You and I disagree on some issues, but not all issues.
We disagree about the validity of various reasons and justifications for various nations' reasons for war, and we will never really be able to change the other person's mind.
I feel like it would be best left said that we both want the better of mankind... How we go about may differ, but in the end, I believe we both want something better.
I'm out for now, but man-o-man, I gotta say, it sure is nice to repsond to post like this compared to post like that of the other people I had been responding to... K_speed, Rallyf1, etc.
Well,
Later.
btw, I forgot... the hardline approach was used in the cold war... that's why President Reagan held strong in the face of a nuclear freeze and disarmament.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Oh sure, the cold war was fought and won differently. Good point. How is that the same as whats going on here. How is a cold war going to work against terrorists exactly? I didnt prevent them from knocking down our buildings. The cold war was a completely different animal, I dont see how you can draw a parallel.
This is one reason why Bushs answer for why to invade Iraq is a bad one. The other reason is that other dictators around the world are committing atrocities now and we dont invade them. However, justification for the war doesnt rely upon this reasoning, I wish Bush would give it up because his argument is inconsistent. It sits well with lots of voters who dont care to think about it very long though.
I does deserve mentioning, however, because it is a supporting reason, it just can't be the determining factor.
Try to get the Iraqis to solve their own problems with a little nudge in the right direction without invading a country so that the rest of the world doesnt claim that we acted unilaterally and that were have no right to invade Iraq. In otherwords this kind of misguided action is to avoid all the misguided criticism that youre perpetuating. In a way, you could say that this the fault of people like yourself. Oh, I forgot, you would suggest that we do nothing.
Again, didnt want to go to war with him because people whine and criticize about whether he was an eminent threat not whether he refuses to comply with the UN. There are lots of reasons not to go to war and we decided it wasnt worth it at the time.
One of the few things we can do to a dictator short of the military action you hate so much. Saddam had a choice where he could use the money he had and he chose to stockpile weapons and generate chemical weapons for testing on his own people. He even chose to skim money off of the oil for food program which was an attempt to get around the negative results from economic sanctions.
We shouldnt claim that were doing it for the Iraqi people because we wouldnt be doing it if it werent in our best interest for long term diplomacy in the region (not to mention diverting terrorist attacks). The Iraqi people get their freedom in return. They should (and many do) see us as saviors.
- 29,985
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
The book. Although I don't buy into all that hyped, extremist opposition, I may not be a Bush fan but I can still see when people are taking their opposition to the extreme which is as pathetic as supporting to the extreme imo.
- 10,832
I think FDR was the worst president, ever. I mean, Pear Harbor was attacked by Japan on his watch! What a failure! And to think we went to war for four years over it. What a waste.
Incedentally, just as there is currently an inquiry into September the Eleventh, there was also an inquiry into Pearl Harbor, only in those days it seems politicians had a shed of decency left and saved it for after the war.
Incedentally, just as there is currently an inquiry into September the Eleventh, there was also an inquiry into Pearl Harbor, only in those days it seems politicians had a shed of decency left and saved it for after the war.
- 5,677
Yup, your 100% right, whenever anybody is elected into office they cease becoming human and stop feeling nervous
You do realize that your second statement completley contradicts your first.....Yeah, I'm really going to listen to michael moore
Your sheer stupidity shocks me, congratulations on making yourself look stupider than you already have (It's hard to belive that was possible). Please take yourself back to 8th grade, where stupid immature statements like that belong and quit wasting our time.
Thinking about the future is exactly what we are doing, the future of the iraqi people. The only person here not thinking is you.
- 1,823
K_Speed, you are by far the single dumbest, most useless member I have ever seen on GTPlanet to date, outranking some of the past idiots I've seen on here by far, and that's including myself.
Oh, and by the way, I think Bush is doing a great job, all things considered. You don't like him? **** you, catch the next boat out of the US, you won't be missed.
I think a local person put things into perspective better than I can.
Oh, and by the way, I think Bush is doing a great job, all things considered. You don't like him? **** you, catch the next boat out of the US, you won't be missed.
I think a local person put things into perspective better than I can.
- 29,985
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
The scale of the wars are vastly different, his point in the lower number of lost lives, the issue is the morality of the war, and the legality of the war. Although I agree about K Speed, we don't need to complicate this matter even more.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I disagree. I think that the Iraq war is one of enormous scale. We invaded a country, dismantled its government, act as its government in the interim and are handing over power to the people. Iraq is no small country either. The reason the scale doesn't seem big is because we were so much better at it than the Iraqi military.
The difference here is that the US has gained technology and knowhow since the 60s dispite many objections about throwing the money away on people who don't want to work.
- 5,677
Whats up with that saraja person? Is it the same person as the person who started this thread? The wording is exactly the same....Anyway it looks like these bums have resorted to scripted posts on internet chat rooms
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168706
http://www.amiga.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16514&forum=33
http://forums.invisionpower.com/index.php?showtopic=120743&mode=threaded
http://www.carforumz.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1970&view=new
http://www.poemzone.com/f/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000419
http://www.glassrattler.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=004228
No rhyme or reason to where they post, looks like just a spam campaign by anti war freaks....
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=168706
http://www.amiga.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=16514&forum=33
http://forums.invisionpower.com/index.php?showtopic=120743&mode=threaded
http://www.carforumz.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1970&view=new
http://www.poemzone.com/f/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000419
http://www.glassrattler.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=004228
No rhyme or reason to where they post, looks like just a spam campaign by anti war freaks....
- 5,677
It also shows why they never come back to defend the posts they make. Apparently they don't care enough about the cause they are supporting to defend it, or even enough to make orignial posts instead of just copying and pasting.
- 5,677
Sweet, Surprise is getting really nice, now is a good time to move, prices are already going up on houses because of plans to build a mall and high priced housing developments. They want to make surprise the scottsdale of the West valley. ADOT did a report a while ago and the intersection of Bell and Grand is the most used intersection in all of Arizona. 6 flags owns some land in the desert, no word yet but if the population keeps rising the way it has been there is a good posibility of them putting one in, great for property value. I live in Kingswood parke right across from the post office and new ballpark on bell road. When we first moved here there was nothing but desert
Let me know which subdivision you are looking at, I'll ask my father about it, he should know about the quality since he's a building inspector for Surprise
- 29,985
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
I may be a little off on my info here, but they were still all differnt scale wars, more armies involved or more soldiers, like there were different Vietnamese factions in Vietnam and the French, and the US although the French pulled out early, and the number of soldiers was higher.
- 5,677
- 10,832
I have long been a hater of subdivision names. But faced with having to actually pick a floorplan and a location, I'm forced to compromise. My subdivision I live in now is called, get this... Marlborogh Country 👍GTR_guy, that would be sweet if they built a Six Flags. No more trips to LA for a roller coaster ride!
- 5,677
Season tickets would be great! you could stop by any day you wanted with it so close!
Speaking of subdivision names....why the hell did they name it kingswood parke? what the hell is up with that e? I've always wanted to take a hammer and knock it off the sign....
