If you support the Iraq war you need to watch

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Turbo-Cajun
If you support the Iraq War and President Bush or PM Tony B'Liar consider it your patriotic duty to watch this. (The whole thing)

Victims of the War

WindDancer
And after you watch the video read this (The whole thing)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/intent.htm

Turbo-Cajun
I was hoping ppl would check the link then respond... huh

lil bitchiness
I hate Tony Blair.

Do leaders really care about their people? Nope, not in this day and age.

naybean
well they do - they care about their people as a whole because without them they would not retain their power. but as for the individual...

darktim1
I support the war because their was a mad man over murdering peoples famlies I heard this one where he broke a fathers neck right infront of his kids and then crushed his head with a jeep now does that sound like a good man I'm glad president bush got sadam out of their he deserves the death penalty for all those he killed.

WindDancer
I did and the link was my respond.

Turbo-Cajun
Bush I was a bad guy too. The fact that He imposed the strong economic sanctions he did on Iraq directly correlates to the fact that over 500,000 women and children starved to death or died because they did not have access to proper medicine. Think about the actions of your own president before you start bombing other countries. They are lots of "bad" presidents out there too, like in China, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, Lybia... but we dont really care about those leaders because they dont have oil. The exception to that is Saudi Arabia (15 of the 19 hijackers were saudi), who has a bad, extremist government, but they are complacent and provide us with oil so we look the other way. Learn more before you take sides with a racist, oppressive, and imperialistic perspective.

ElectricBugaloo
The "Saddam was a bad guy" argument is a stupid one.

Yes, he gassed his own people, yes he did all these bad human rights abuses--but guess what? We didn't care for all those years then all of a sudden we decide "Now is the time!"

Meanwhile there is genocide happening in Sudan, war, poverty and rulers JUST AS EVIL around the globe. Heard of Kim Jong Il? I understand invading N Korea would be nearly impossible, but we never even mentioned him (except in the "Axis of Evil" speech). How about Than Shwe? How abotu Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe or our good friend Crown Prince Abdullah from Saudi Arabia?

We went into Iraq because we believed that Saddam had WMDs. Hell, I believed Bush at the time. Why would a President lie to us? the UN begged us for more time to continue their weapons searches. They never found anything or any evidence of any sort of program. We still haven't

So the current administration changed their minds over why we went in.

And the war in Iraq HAS redirected funds from the real War on Terrorism. Funds were taken from the Afghanistan conflict to go towards Iraq. We still haven't found Osama bin Laden. Bush said that bin Laden is "no longer important". Well, Al Qaeda was still strong enough to pull off the Madrid bombings and perhaps alter the elections there.

The war in Iraq was a mistake, and a costly one at that; 1000 dead US soldiers, thousands of injured US soldiers and an estimated 15,000 dead Iraq civilians.

Linkalicious
am I supposed to feel bad for that person?

He knew the risks that he took when he entered that country. If the Iraqi's are as nice as he says they are....then why was he beheaded after pleading for his life on camera for 5 minutes?

Because he was to be made an example of. His fate was determined before he was ever forced to sit down and make that video.

Iraqi's are killing their own Iraqi police and security forces...and it's ALLLLL America's fault. Yah sure...roll eyes (sarcastic)

I would be in favor of removing all US contractors and military personel, if they were the only ones who were getting attacked. But right now, radicals are destroying their own society and taking the lives of their own people. Not a day goes by where you don't hear about an Iraqi police officer getting killed.


I don't feel bad for this person because he is no different than any other person who has died in Iraq. In fact, the idea of begging for your life when it is already lost....is almost disgusting to me. Accept your fate, make your peace with God, and get it over with. The people who taped this cry for help, probably watched it over and over again laughing at how pathetic he made himself seem.

"These are compassionate people Mr. Blair....(they'll be head me once the camera is off)"



I got a great idea. Lets just pack up all of our stuff and leave the country in absolute shambles. Then where would Iraq be? And how much worst would the worlds view of the US be if they just left Iraq after destroying it?

Change is never easy...but change is the one constant that remains inevitable.

ElectricBugaloo
the point is that we had no real reason to go in there in the first place.

Beyonder
No real reason? And how did you come up with that conclusion? Isn't it because we actually went into Iraq through invasion that we we're able to look around at EVERY facility (without interference) we wanted and found out that there wasn't.

Thus you and everyone in the world know for their isn't WMD, instead of just speculations?

Linkalicious
So True.

You can all sit here and say...."we have no business in there, there are no WMD in Iraq"

But what if we found those weapons?? huh?

I'm sure we wouldn't hear you saying a damn thing. Infact, we wouldn't hear a damn thing from anyone on this damn planet except "good job America"

Instead....as usual...it's America's fault "our bad." Big whoop, we were wrong, it's arrogant as hell for me to say this, but what the hell is the rest of the world gonna do about it? We're wrong....oh well.

Kaleanae
I don't support the war, so I don't have to watch the video. I think I know what it is.
darktim1: There is people like that everywhere messed

ElectricBugaloo
We KNOW that North Korea is pursuing nuclear weapons

We KNOW that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons

there was absolutely NO evidence that Iraq was. Yet Iraq was the country we invaded. They were also the country that has no capability of attacking the US on US soil. The UN was looking for years and they never found anything. It's like the red scare all over again only on an international level "I think he's got nuclear weapons!" has replaced "He's a communist!"

Beyonder
And like YOU SAID, you believed him at the time too. Certainly you didn't believe only what Bush said right? 'Cause they're were other infos you based your opinion off of. It wasn't just 'cause Bush said it thus you believed it. You yourself let your opinion sway towards the president.

Seriously, did YOU know for SURE that there wasn't any WMD in Iraq BEFORE we invaded it? You yourself, not the UN cause it was you who believed the president.

MegaHarrison
Hmmm...Iraq still had WMD's when they kicked out weapons inspectors in 1998 and there was never a known Iraqi program to destroy them. Wonder where they went then?

RaventheOnly
eek! oh yeah and the 40% of the economic allocation to private funds, palaces and arms had nothing to do with that.... oh and you should acctually thank Clinton for not dealing properly with Saddam during his presidency even though after we crushed Saddam originally he allowed his helicopter gunships to slaughter the Kurds in the North.... erm

Considering also that 100% were Muslim are you going to blame the entire religion for the actions of gutless mad men?

oh and on the leader issue.... name a country with an actuall "good" leader... i am curious to what you see as a "good" one.

RaventheOnly
God .... you can thank Clinton for the ignoring Saddam... even though every year he defied the UN and US by kicking out our inspectors... we did something finally because sanctions mandated action. Re-directing funds to conventional military operations will have no effect on the forces that we truelly rely on... Spy and Special Forces. Kerry's solution to the problem is enlarging the special forces.... STUPIDEST THING YOU CAN POSSIBLY DO.... special forces are the cream of the crop. the reason they do not except more members is becuase no one can possibly pass thier tests in large numbers. Increasing thier size means lowering thier standards which diminishes effectiveness. Which is Bad. no expression

Begging us? laughing out loud if you remember correctly the UN inspectors were kicked out yet again.... at the time.... roll eyes (sarcastic) i swear everyone has long term memory problems.... we didn't just wake up and say lets invade... it took like 5 months to attack... they had enough altimatums and convining time...

RaventheOnly
Unfourtunetly when we get the good job it will probably be when they release gas in the center of bagdad as a last ditch effort because we are kicking thier asses so bad they are turning to kidnapping.

BackFire
"God .... you can thank Clinton for the ignoring Saddam"


Or, you can thank the person who is actually responsible for Saddam staying in power - Bush Senior. He had the chance to get him out of power after the Gulf war, but his incompetance prevailed once again and allowed him to stay in power. God bless the Bush's, I guess the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.


"You can all sit here and say...."we have no business in there, there are no WMD in Iraq"

But what if we found those weapons?? huh?"

Lets worry about that when/if that happens (Which it probably won't). Keep in mind many of the people in power in this country claimed to have "good ideas" as to where these dangerous weapons were, they even gave us the idea that they knew damn near EXACTLY where they were.

But as soon as we go over there 'Oops, we screwed up, we actually don't know where they are, in fact, we have damn near no idea where these phantom weapons are. But we'll keep fighting because there MAY be some weapons that we can't seem to find. We'll justify all of this by having a vague color coded warning system that is constantly saying that there is a 'chance' of a terrorist attack, orange, or red, or yellow if we're lucky, if we make our country afraid, they will accept our lies and incompetance."

Invading a country on bad information and then continuing to fight said country after completely being wrong in your assumptions of them having weapons of mass distructions is simply poor and sloppy leadership.

Keep in mind, I'm not against the war, but I'm sick of people throwing around the defense of "well their might be weapons there, so we're justified." It's time to give up on that hope, if you're going to continue fighting over there, just be honest and say you made a mistake. But oh wait, that would involve being honest in a negative way, and that would also involve losing an aproval percentage in this country, and after all, that's all these people care about.

ElectricBugaloo
you remember incorrectly. the inspectors were there and performing random checks in accordance with the sanctions that the UN had put on Saddam. Yet that wasn't good enough for the US who went in on an illegal war without UN or pretty much any international approval. The only major G8 nation that backed us was England.

RaventheOnly
no... the UN inspectors were being ordered to leave just as they were uncovering plans to build a new long ranger rocket of French design. no expression after a few months of debates Sadddam was given i think, its been a while, 52 days to seed power or else, and else happened.

RaventheOnly
Technically it was the UN and the Arab allies fault... that time around the US only comprised of 10% of the funding and 250,000 troops once we completed the goal there was no mandate to further our work and our arabic allies at the time would not allow us to go any further. During Clinton's administration the kicking out of inspectors started.... and the compromises for 8 years and mandate said we invade but in absence we placed an embargo and economic sanctions that strangled the Iraqi population and infrastructure into what it is today. its funny because everyone blames us for destroying the infrastructure were in actuality there never was one to destroy in the first place due to the great work of Saddam... they barely had power and water access eek!

Beyonder
And when has the U.N. done anything right when it comes to conflicts between nations (with the exception of the Korean War)? Even in that war, it mainly consisted of US troops.

It's easy for the U.N. to criticize America and such, but the U.N.'s power is limited to what the nations that it's composed of chooses. The U.N. can do next to nothing when it comes to solving conflicts. And when one actually arises, they come crawling to America and expect us to be the first to jump in, then every other nation MIGHT join. :rollseye:

The U.N. still got nowhere with Saddam. They were given a chance and were complaining that the Iraqis were still interfering. Time? The U.N. had enough time.

If other nations don't want America to police the world, then don't ask America the first to step up and try to solve the conflict.

When parts of the world is in crisis (whether it be floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, famine, diseases, etc.), Americans are among the first to arrive to assist. They hate us yet aren't against us aiding them - hypocrites. mad

Darth Revan
Errr... yeah, it is What the f**k? Obviously it's our fault, because we set it up. See, just because the "Iraqi" police force is made up of Iraqi people does not make it Iraqi. It was set up by the American forces, and whatever you may see it as, that makes it American to them. The "Iraqi" government does not represent the Iraqi people because it was not created by the Iraqi people. You can try and call it a people's democracy all you want, but that won't change the fact that it's an authoritarian, foreign-imposed load of crap.

RaventheOnly
no one understands that really we have no say at all anymore in any part of the Iraqi government anymore... it is totally independant... our money just allows them to opperate till they have an income from taxes.

Darth Revan
I never said we still had a say in it, what I said was that we were the ones who went in there, got rid of the old government, and set up a new police force and government. And again, no matter how little "say" we have in it, it will always be American to the Iraqis.

ElectricBugaloo
the reason that hte UN inspectors were ordered out was because the US insisted on invading despite the utter lack of evidence of WMDs.

And the 'long range' rockets that you speak of went 70 miles farther than the prescribed limit by the UN.

BackFire
So, I'm expected to believe that Bush had the power to send troops and wage a war with Iraqi, but by the time the war had finished, he no longer had the power needed to take Saddam out of office, just because the UN said not to? Since when do the Bush's listen to the UN? GW Bush directly ignored suggestions from the UN NOT to go start this current war with Iraq, but his fater DID listen to them and allow Saddam to stay in power. If GW can disregaurd suggestions from the UN, so can his father, and he should have when it came to taking Saddam out of power after the Gulf war. I really find it hard to believe he couldn't have just said 'Nah, we're taking Saddam out" and do so. If his son could do it, so could he.

Regaurdless, how is it Clintons fault that Saddam stayed in power? From what you've just told me it was the UN's fault for disallowing the take out of Saddam. This was all before Clinton was even president.

RaventheOnly
The US was too afraid to advance without support from the allies. our logistics and fuel and ammo supply was dependant on the UN. as i said our funding was only consisting of 10% of the total operation. Our aircraft was using German airfields unlike our operation this time around was out of Turkey and Kuwait.

hysterical everyone says that GW is his daddy's lackey when in actuality he is as different as they come laughing out loud

UN sanctions mandated direct military Intervention in response to non-compliance with sanctions after the embargo. Clinton exahausted all negotiations and played the UN negotiation game for 8 years... he launched numerous tomahawk strikes at SAM sites painting and firing onto our fighters in the "no fly zones" (alone mind you is enough to declare war) Bush senior and Clinton failed in dealing with Saddam and unknown numbers were slaughtered after numerous forgotten uprisings in Iraq after the first gulf war. There are mass graves stll being uncovered to this day of the carnage he unleashed after we humiliated him.

RaventheOnly
NO they were ordered to leave because Saddam kicked them out and then we went to the UN

YES just in range of Isreal and nearby neighbors capitals. 70 miles is a lot and any weapon specification outside of limits mandated are ILLEGAL, testing directly the UN. considering that the SCUDs are cheap in comparison to the newer model being introduced.

BackFire
I still fail to see how anyone other then the UN and Bush is responsible for Saddam staying in power. From what you've told me, it seems that sole responsability lies with the UN, and Bush for not just saying "piss off, this guys bad news" and taking him out.

I'm sure he could have gotten plenty of ammo and arms without them if he really wanted to.

The perfect time to take Saddam out was after teh Gulf war, and both Bush and the UN botched that opportunity up. Thus, the blame is squarely on them. No amount of rhetoric will make me believe that Clinton is in any way responsible for Saddam.

Whatever the case, it's the one good thing the current Bush has done is actually get Saddam out of power.

MegaHarrison
You can thank Europe and the U.N. really for Saddam STAYING in power. The French were provided the Iraqis with weapons to put down the Kurds in exchange for oil. Not to mention the "oil for food program"...lol.

Turbo-Cajun
wtf?

We have no right to invade sovereign nations to inspect for possible possesion of WMDs.

Do you think America is upfront to the international community with our weapons cappacity or technology development?

Turbo-Cajun
Isreal is also in poccession of WMDs, they had a nuclear program a while ago and test detonated a prototype in 1979 with the South African government.... why doesn't Bush invade Israel or doesn't insist on UN weapon inspecters having unrestricted searches of their arsenal? Its obvious but, its important to know that it hypocritical for them to allow some nations to have nukes and others to bomb sam sites and radar faccillites along the no fly zone, impose harsh economic sanctions that dont greatly affect weapons production, and insist on inspection on and off for 11 years after their last major conflict.....

MrSpangle
all the sides of this arguement have good and bad points. although that video at the start slightly annoyed me. cos yes its sad but hostage negotiations should have a standard answer. no. if we begin to make deals for hostages then people will merely take more hostages. they dont see the hostages as people. they are objects used at their captors discretion to gain things that they want. if they cannot obtain those fings through hostages then its not worth the effort. (and dont fink im being naive cos even i know a whole lotta hostage situations are not about getting stuff but making a point.) Infact what these people have done has been a pretty good job cos now we dont trust our leaders. make a nation not support its leader and it has a hell of a lot of problems

anyway...

ive read a lot your arguements people and ive learnt a lot. the facts are.... yes we went to war. yes we removed a tyrant (finally after it being botched up already) and yes there were no weapons of mass destruction. those are all facts.

the problem is we as the public are not told everything. there can be no winning arguement in this. if there was then we are all more naive than i thought. i know your intelligent people which is why i dont doubt that u realise that the secret services of america and the uk do stuff that we never hear about. a huge problem with this war was that there were no WMD. the original government reason for entering this war was through fear of weapons of mass destruction. the information was however incorrect. but thats the deal with the secret service game. you cannot always be sure. so we made a mistake. i agree with that. but lots of people thought there were WMD and we needed to be sure. Saddam wouldnt have been a nice guy to face if he did have them. The fact is decisions cant always be nice. we dont live in a world where its possible. therefore if (and i hope its the case although im not sure) our nations went to this war to stop Saddam having WMD or hell even just to get rid of the "bad man" (would have inserted profanity) then i dont think it was wrong. however if the others of you are right and its about oil n shit then our nations are in a sad state of affairs.

sorry for the long post and im merely giving a point. if im wrong then f*** it im wrong. il deal with it. im just adding to this already interesting debate.

p.s. backfire.... your avatar and sig disturb me

MrSpangle
wow megaharrison did france really do that. lol i remember a loada peeps at my college supportin france for not agreeing with the war and these people at my college were saying we were going to war for oil! laughing

ElectricBugaloo

lil bitchiness
thumb up Excellent article!

Turbo-Cajun
thats good stuff

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.