Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In the minds of most, we are bad for being on top.

If we allow them to go back to a dictatorship, we will be later accused of doing a half-job.

If we use the resources and help them establish a democracy, we are helping them to enable their own system.

We are there for economic reasons and well as political reasons, just go to the countries that go to war for no economic reason and you'll see a country that has no internet and all the other "benefits" we use everyday but are somehow "ashamed" of the tactics used.

They have been infighting there for a very long time, and part of it is b/c of the Bedouin mentality, which states


"I against my brothers, I and my brothers against my cousins, I and my brothers and my cousins against the world".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin


If people are warring with one another, and cultivate a war like mentality, tribal infighting, how much time do they have to make good of their resources? Exactly. And they've been fighting BEFORE the "empiricist" of the British Empire. The bombers are partially jealous b/c they know that outsiders are going to use the resources they were never able to figure b/c they were too busy fighting. It's as if me and you were fighting for hundreds of years, and then, a third party comes in, sees we aren't using land (gold, diamonds, coal), and starts to make way with it, somehow, this entire thing theme seems familiar, so what we do is get our children to bomb themselves so that we don't let them get away with the goods, as we continue arguing amongst ourselves.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
In the minds of most, we are bad for being on top.

If we allow them to go back to a dictatorship, we will be later accused of doing a half-job.

If we use the resources and help them establish a democracy, we are helping them to enable their own system.

We are there for economic reasons and well as political reasons, just go to the countries that go to war for no economic reason and you'll see a country that has no internet and all the other "benefits" we use everyday but are somehow "ashamed" of the tactics used.

They have been infighting there for a very long time, and part of it is b/c of the Bedouin mentality, which states


"I against my brothers, I and my brothers against my cousins, I and my brothers and my cousins against the world".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin


If people are warring with one another, and cultivate a war like mentality, tribal infighting, how much time do they have to make good of their resources? Exactly. And they've been fighting BEFORE the "empiricist" of the British Empire. The bombers are partially jealous b/c they know that outsiders are going to use the resources they were never able to figure b/c they were too busy fighting. It's as if me and you were fighting for hundreds of years, and then, a third party comes in, sees we aren't using land (gold, diamonds, coal), and starts to make way with it, somehow, this entire thing theme seems familiar, so what we do is get our children to bomb themselves so that we don't let them get away with the goods, as we continue arguing amongst ourselves.

What a stupid post, Iraq is only Iraq because of the borders created there. The three mayor population groups don't get along never did, but normally they wouldn't have too as they weren't supposed to be part of one state. They are now.

The problem in Iraq lies with the three population groups and the borders the western world created for them. The borders back then were perfect they would ensure that the country could never become to powerful because there would always be large groups that would hate each other. A smart idea, something that's coming back to hunt them now. In order to fix Iraq you would need to fix the borders, in order to fix the borders you would have to piss of Turkey and make Iran more powerful.

In other words, it's an impossible situation. The US can't do it right. The only solution is to install another more pro US/western Saddam. Otherwise this situation will just continue, unfortunately for the US installing another person like Saddam would never be accepted because that's the one reason you people have left to justify the war.

Originally posted by Fishy
What a stupid post, Iraq is only Iraq because of the borders created there. The three mayor population groups don't get along never did, but normally they wouldn't have too as they weren't supposed to be part of one state. They are now.

The problem in Iraq lies with the three population groups and the borders the western world created for them. The borders back then were perfect they would ensure that the country could never become to powerful because there would always be large groups that would hate each other. A smart idea, something that's coming back to hunt them now. In order to fix Iraq you would need to fix the borders, in order to fix the borders you would have to piss of Turkey and make Iran more powerful.

In other words, it's an impossible situation. The US can't do it right. The only solution is to install another more pro US/western Saddam. Otherwise this situation will just continue, unfortunately for the US installing another person like Saddam would never be accepted because that's the one reason you people have left to justify the war.



you people??

The US government and all other people that still justify the war.

Originally posted by Fishy
The US government and all other people that still justify the war.



why is fighting against a cause a power play on your part? let me guess: feels kinda nice to tear something down, huh?


war is never a good thing.


we are in this for our benefit and also, we don't want to leave the place like it was the last time, remember? people started complaining that the job wasn't right and should have taken down Sadam then, and once that was done, it was still more people within the same society they benefit from in this war, complaining again and again and again. all complaints but no true blue way of solving anything, just talk.

just for the record:

I can't promote any war, and that includes the war in Iraq b/c war itself is so terrible, so just to clarify, it's a tough situation, as when we were there before, there was a lot of pressure to pull out, and we did. then, we were blamed for pulling out, and should have stayed (even though people were telling us to pull out).

It grieves me to know that this is going on, if someone has a better solution, do tell, and I am not being sarcastic, would really be interesting to read. And sorry if I ever seemed as if I was promoting the war OR any war for that matter!!

actually, the only problem with that explanation is that america's participation is actively making the region worse as opposed to contributing at all to anything resembling DAMAGE CONTROL. if america stays, the situation will surely only worsen. CAN america make it better with staying, YES. WILL IT? absolutely no, that isnt the objective, its quite the opposite, there is no will, nor desire for those in command to make it better, only worse.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
why is fighting against a cause a power play on your part? let me guess: feels kinda nice to tear something down, huh?


war is never a good thing.


we are in this for our benefit and also, we don't want to leave the place like it was the last time, remember? people started complaining that the job wasn't right and should have taken down Sadam then, and once that was done, it was still more people within the same society they benefit from in this war, complaining again and again and again. all complaints but no true blue way of solving anything, just talk.

What the hell are you trying to say here? That the war is benefiting Iraq? That Saddam gone is benefiting Iraq? If so, please explain how, because the situation there absolutely sucks.

If not then what? Because I honestly don't understand.



Now this post I understand, when you were there before you left a country in tact with a leader. Everybody hated that leader that much was for sure, but at least the country was still in tact. If you would retreat now it would leave a destroyed leaderless country, huge difference between the two. Everybody can and could see that.

Now you want a solution? I have two for you.

1.) Split the country in three, one part gets it independance, this group has oil and will accept it. One group goes to Iran, this group becomes part of a powerful country with oil and will accept it, third part goes to the Kurds, this group will love having their own country. Of course there are some huge downsides to this, especially the fact that Iran will become more powerful then before something the US definitely doesn't want, and an independant Kurdistan will piss of the Turks beyond believe, and they are a very important ally to the US and most NATO country's.

Meaning that this will simply never happen.

2.) Install someone like Saddam, a religious and or cultural leader that will work with the US in minor ways, supply him with weapons and troops and let him mercifully kill all opposition while you sit back and do nothing. Thousands will die, be imprisoned and executed but it will likely stabalize the country.

The big problem here is that Iran wouldn't like it if some Sunni guy would take control of the country making it very possible an another enemy for Iraq, and creating the possibility of war the second the US leaves. And they likely wouldn't go back into the region to defend a dictator from the power of Iran. A Shi'ite however wouldn't make the majority of the country happy. And certainly wouldn't make organizations like Al-Qaeda happy who are very powerful in the country at this moment. Meaning that you are going to have a powerful opposition and possibly many years of small civil unrest and bombings.

So your only option here is to create a state that would threaten Iran, and there is a chance that they would soon attack Iraq when the US leaves. But hey you would be gone so not really a problem anymore.

I don't even understand what the hell she is trying to say here. I'm guessing she says we should gone in to Iraq in the first place (although a "dictatorship" or as Bush called it "regime" was not the point in going - it was terrorism; "free the people" came as a ploy later) ...

I'm totally lost after that

Jesus Sez he hates Iraq and trusts his child, Bush, will atomic bomb it!

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
war is never a good thing.
Wrong! World War II as an example to prove the quoted point wrong.

Originally posted by chithappens
... go on
If World War II didn't happen God knows what kind of world we'd be living in now... One run by a fascist dictatorship or something like that maybe?... It'd probably be worse than the current world we live in. Thanks to a jolly old war.

There is diffrence between "good thing" and "lesser evil." I agree that war is never a good thing.

What is happening in Iraq was unavoidable. Even if the U.S had not intervened and unintentionally triggered the guerilla violence, all those groups would have ended up fighting it out eventually anyways, in a possibily much larger and much more terrible battle where no foreign security would be there to stop it.

Saddam maybe saved a few lives with a dictatorship that massacred people and ground up political prisoners, but that doesnt mean the problem was solved. The Islamic faith is at a time where they are fighting thier "crusade" against the world and as always, against themselves (several hundred years too late of course). A dictator could have stopped that from happening eventually, because eventually Saddam would have died before naming one of his sons the next ruler and they would have fought eachother for power, and in time it would have been a REAL civil war and anarchy and all this would have started anyways.

Originally posted by Lord Melkor
There is diffrence between "good thing" and "lesser evil." I agree that war is never a good thing.
War is not evil. It's unavoidable and usually justified. No matter which side you fall on you believe you're doing it for the greater good... That in my opinion is a good thing.

Originally posted by chithappens
Well I don't think there is a universal evil so I follow that. "Unavoidable and justified" - WTF are you talking about?
You honestly believe that War is avoidable? And it's justified in the eyes of the people starting it.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
What is happening in Iraq was unavoidable. Even if the U.S had not intervened and unintentionally triggered the guerilla violence, all those groups would have ended up fighting it out eventually anyways, in a possibily much larger and much more terrible battle where no foreign security would be there to stop it.

Saddam maybe saved a few lives with a dictatorship that massacred people and ground up political prisoners, but that doesnt mean the problem was solved. The Islamic faith is at a time where they are fighting thier "crusade" against the world and as always, against themselves (several hundred years too late of course). A dictator could have stopped that from happening eventually, because eventually Saddam would have died before naming one of his sons the next ruler and they would have fought eachother for power, and in time it would have been a REAL civil war and anarchy and all this would have started anyways.

bull. it was completely avoideable. and your whole argument falls apart cause those GROUPS never fought in the long rule of his and the only fighting was with KUWAIT and IRAN and those internal groups were not included in that. those GROUPS are being made to fight indirectly by the occupiers.

and there was one very easy way to deal with the whole thing. assasinate saddam and his sons. then assasinate any new similar leader that came from the group. furthermore, manipulate the UN, to describe saddam's entire party as terrorists and demand their retrieval, if itwasnt done, sanctions, then more assasination. america is MORE than capable of doing such things. heck israel does em all the time{albiet for more evil perposes than what i mentioned here}.

Originally posted by BlaxicanHydra
War is NEVER justified. Just because the peole who fought in it THOUGHT it was justified doesn't mean it IS jestified. Killing another person is never justified. Saying a war is unjustified is to say that people in them were dying in vein. There is no humain way you can say that WWII was unjustified.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
bull. it was completely avoideable. and your whole argument falls apart cause those GROUPS never fought in the long rule of his and the only fighting was with KUWAIT and IRAN and those internal groups were not included in that. those GROUPS are being made to fight indirectly by the occupiers.

It was avoidable for the moment, but it would have happened anyways- it was a timebomb. No matter if people die now or in 50 years they die all the same.

They are not 'made' to fight -they choose to. A small sad fraction of the population of Iraq that chooses terrorist action to assert control and fear. The only reason they can cause so much damage and death is because of modern warfare. An army of suicide terroirsts -only 100 men- can take out 70 times their number because of explosives. And they fight eachother more than they fight U.S. troops.





What are you talking about? Assassination then framing Saddam's regime as terrorists? Have you ever considered what would have happened to Iraq afterwards? It would have been the current struggle x100. Numbers dead would be far more, and there would be no resolution. That is what we are trying to prevent, but to no avail because of the idiots over there.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
It was avoidable for the moment, but it would have happened anyways- it was a timebomb. No matter if people die now or in 50 years they die all the same.

They are not 'made' to fight -they choose to. A small sad fraction of the population of Iraq that chooses terrorist action to assert control and fear. The only reason they can cause so much damage and death is because of modern warfare. An army of suicide terroirsts -only 100 men- can take out 70 times their number because of explosives. And they fight eachother more than they fight U.S. troops.





What are you talking about? Assassination then framing Saddam's regime as terrorists? Have you ever considered what would have happened to Iraq afterwards? It would have been the current struggle x100. Numbers dead would be far more, and there would be no resolution. That is what we are trying to prevent, but to no avail because of the idiots over there.

one basic thing we need to realise is that unless ur predicting a conflict in the very near future, you cant use the pretext to justify anything. and just for your info, there were no significant number of TERRORIST acts while saddam was president. even people who were in JAIL due to him for over 10 years say that his time ws far better and safer than the current enviornment. atleast rule of law wasnt arbitrary. and no, they fight each other because they are insinuated to fight each other by america directly or indirectly. if they wanted to fight each other so badly, they wud have done it in the last 50 years and in saddam's rule, they didnt. they do now as a direct result of america's direct and intentioned interference.

not framing, saddam's regime was terrorising the kurds. and yes assasinations, the same way israel does. yes i have considered what wud happen in iraq afterwards, sumwhat more liberal and less evil tyarnts wud rule the country from the same post. theyd atleast be scared enough of the west to not openly insinuate action against it{or they might be targetted} and the entire infrastructure and level of order of the country would still be present, itd just be a substituion of leadr and the mechanism{the couyntry} wud still be no more damaged thaan the last regime. heck easier way, set up a puppet government which is pro west and on america's parole{its easy, i live in one where the entire ruling party is on the bush administration's parole}, america can has and continue to do that, in many places like south america, africa etc. thatd be nearly perfect in the situation. and no what u suspect wudnt happen at all, and ive given u reasons why. they are not fighting for no reason, its cause america is covertly encouraging tensions in between em.

War is never justified, period. If we wanted to justify it then let the "leaders" go duke it out instead of the many "little men" who have no personal beef with them in the first place.

Originally posted by chithappens
War is never justified, period. If we wanted to justify it then let the "leaders" go duke it out instead of the many "little men" who have no personal beef with them in the first place.
No, war can be perfectly justified. Its just not always right how it is handled. Iraq was mishandled, but the cause was just.

For example, if someone beats up a friend of mine, I can go help him fight him or whatever.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
one basic thing we need to realise is that unless ur predicting a conflict in the very near future, you cant use the pretext to justify anything. and just for your info, there were no significant number of TERRORIST acts while saddam was president. even people who were in JAIL due to him for over 10 years say that his time ws far better and safer than the current enviornment. atleast rule of law wasnt arbitrary. and no, they fight each other because they are insinuated to fight each other by america directly or indirectly. if they wanted to fight each other so badly, they wud have done it in the last 50 years and in saddam's rule, they didnt. they do now as a direct result of america's direct and intentioned interference.

not framing, saddam's regime was terrorising the kurds. and yes assasinations, the same way israel does. yes i have considered what wud happen in iraq afterwards, sumwhat more liberal and less evil tyarnts wud rule the country from the same post. theyd atleast be scared enough of the west to not openly insinuate action against it{or they might be targetted} and the entire infrastructure and level of order of the country would still be present, itd just be a substituion of leadr and the mechanism{the couyntry} wud still be no more damaged thaan the last regime. heck easier way, set up a puppet government which is pro west and on america's parole{its easy, i live in one where the entire ruling party is on the bush administration's parole}, america can has and continue to do that, in many places like south america, africa etc. thatd be nearly perfect in the situation. and no what u suspect wudnt happen at all, and ive given u reasons why. they are not fighting for no reason, its cause america is covertly encouraging tensions in between em.

First of all, I am from America, but I do not support every action they take across the globe. The U.S. like any power, wants to use its power to spread its power...I dont know of any powerful country that hasnt done that.

About the assassinations, I wasnt talking about being afraid of a dictator leader being in place, it was the fact that that could have been the spark of civil war. Although a conflict definately is going on, Iraq is not in the middle of real civil war. It is fighting a gurellia war between its radical fundamentalists for power. In an assassination, the same thing might have happened, except worse. When you go in and kill a countries leaders, especially a dictatior, there is a power struggle in its wake. Unfortunately it happened anyways. No one cared about Iraq much until the causualties started mounting.

Could Iraq have existed under Saddam's rule forever? No. Therefore it is safe to assume that there was no stopping what was not forseen in the war. Saddam was a murderer, a criminal who killed his own people, therefore he needed to be deposed. Although many people beleived the same, it is unfair to now come back after other events have taken place and change the statement about the war being important or not.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
No, war can be perfectly justified. Its just not always right how it is handled. Iraq was mishandled, but the cause was just.

For example, if someone beats up a friend of mine, I can go help him fight him or whatever.



First of all, I am from America, but I do not support every action they take across the globe. The U.S. like any power, wants to use its power to spread its power...I dont know of any powerful country that hasnt done that.

About the assassinations, I wasnt talking about being afraid of a dictator leader being in place, it was the fact that that could have been the spark of civil war. Although a conflict definately is going on, Iraq is not in the middle of real civil war. It is fighting a gurellia war between its radical fundamentalists for power. In an assassination, the same thing might have happened, except worse. When you go in and kill a countries leaders, especially a dictatior, there is a power struggle in its wake. Unfortunately it happened anyways. No one cared about Iraq much until the causualties started mounting.

Could Iraq have existed under Saddam's rule forever? No. Therefore it is safe to assume that there was no stopping what was not forseen in the war. Saddam was a murderer, a criminal who killed his own people, therefore he needed to be deposed. Although many people beleived the same, it is unfair to now come back after other events have taken place and change the statement about the war being important or not.

Your argument is ridiculous at best. If Saddam would have died it would have left the country in tact. Perhaps there would have been a civil war to get power back, but that's very unlikely seeing as all those that followed Saddam were still alive and his generals and soldiers were still there. His sons could have taken over. What we have here is something far different. There is no clear Iraqi leader, there are dozens of groups trying to take control over the country. The only reason we don't speak of a civil war yet is because we don't have two army's facing each other. But it's as close as it can come to that. The second the US leaves there will be a civil war. More so then now. Still a civil war is the only way that this entire situation can be stopped from continuing. A clear powerful leader is needed, something that Saddam was like him or not. Something that his sons could have been like them or not, something that Saddam his generals and government officials could have been.

Of course the reign would end one day, and it would possibly be very bad, or not. But does that mean we should invade country's just because they might have leadership problems in the future? If that's the case we should probably invade the US as well, there might be problems in the future when a new president is elected. There is a chance that a civil war will happen there, perhaps we should just nuke them to be sure tht doesn't happen.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
No, war can be perfectly justified. Its just not always right how it is handled. Iraq was mishandled, but the cause was just.

For example, if someone beats up a friend of mine, I can go help him fight him or whatever.



First of all, I am from America, but I do not support every action they take across the globe. The U.S. like any power, wants to use its power to spread its power...I dont know of any powerful country that hasnt done that.

About the assassinations, I wasnt talking about being afraid of a dictator leader being in place, it was the fact that that could have been the spark of civil war. Although a conflict definately is going on, Iraq is not in the middle of real civil war. It is fighting a gurellia war between its radical fundamentalists for power. In an assassination, the same thing might have happened, except worse. When you go in and kill a countries leaders, especially a dictatior, there is a power struggle in its wake. Unfortunately it happened anyways. No one cared about Iraq much until the causualties started mounting.

Could Iraq have existed under Saddam's rule forever? No. Therefore it is safe to assume that there was no stopping what was not forseen in the war. Saddam was a murderer, a criminal who killed his own people, therefore he needed to be deposed. Although many people beleived the same, it is unfair to now come back after other events have taken place and change the statement about the war being important or not.

the CAUSE was anything but JUST. the pretext was, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. this was further aided by INVOLVEMENT WITH AL QAEDA. "BOTH" have been proven COMPLETELY untrue, so no, those CAUSES, were given to cloud the judgement of the population. saddam was not in any way a threat to the united staes, let alone, an illegal threat.

and just because you dont KNOW of any country that hasnt doen that doesnt make it any more RIGHT. and doesnt mean it shud be condemned any lesser.

and no, saddam never was in his long years of rule, a spark for civil war, sumthin that cud POSSIBLY have happened in the unseen future{not near future} without any pressing reason for believing it is not reason enough at all to take measures against it and justify it. there was no reason to believe that civil war wud have erupted anywhere near the time the usa attacked. also remember that PREVENTING civil war was not why bush attacked, he isnt altruistic and had completely other motives. also, the situation right now is not guerrilla war, its a TEXT BOOK definition of a civil war, just cause u have an american puppet government SEEMINGLY running the country doesnt mean thye acually have any power. that whole argument is illogical. and if u kill a leader there is a power struggle, but its a political one with far lesser violence. however, once a foreign agressor has already killed whole number percentages of the population, destroyed practically the entire infrastructure, and is actively creating situations which cause tensions among groups, then a power struggle becomes the worst kind of civil war.

and no, the correct statement wud be "NO AMERICAN{talkin about the average} cared much about iraq until the number of AMERICAN casualties started mounting". even now, a single american casualty is given 8 times more air time than 100 iraqi ones. most often, the iraqi numbers are often not show, seen as insignificant. even of the people in america complaining about the war, the reason is always, BRINGING "OUR" TROOPS HOME cause theyr dying. no1 really argues{even among the democrats/liberals/population} that we ought to stop the war because countless more IRAQI CIVILIAN than american troops are dying. thats practically a no factor.

and yes, saddam needed to be deposed, but so do many, MANY others in south america/africa/mexico etc. yet america doesnt do it to BETTER the lives of the people under those tyrants, it just pics the ones who are advantageous to ITSELF{without being positively branded as evil or otherwise} and makes em a scapegoat, and rationalises it infront of its impressionable public by saying, it was trying to LIBERATE the region. when the objectives are completely differet.

furthermore, no country can exist under a single ruler forever. shud that be my cue to attack america next???????????/ completely illogical. iraq had existed under saddam longer than america had existed under any of its preseidents. it was stable, there had not been any signs or history of civil wars. hence theres no justification of the scenario u put up. and really if taking HIM out was so important, why not just assasinate him??????? simpe, this wasnt about him or any threat to america, it was about destabilising the region and stealing oil and turning the world fuel market on its heals {the correlation between high gas prices and the iraq war, cronologically is uncanny}.

Originally posted by Fishy
Your argument is ridiculous at best. If Saddam would have died it would have left the country in tact. Perhaps there would have been a civil war to get power back, but that's very unlikely seeing as all those that followed Saddam were still alive and his generals and soldiers were still there. His sons could have taken over. What we have here is something far different. There is no clear Iraqi leader, there are dozens of groups trying to take control over the country. The only reason we don't speak of a civil war yet is because we don't have two army's facing each other. But it's as close as it can come to that. The second the US leaves there will be a civil war. More so then now. Still a civil war is the only way that this entire situation can be stopped from continuing. A clear powerful leader is needed, something that Saddam was like him or not. Something that his sons could have been like them or not, something that Saddam his generals and government officials could have been.

Of course the reign would end one day, and it would possibly be very bad, or not. But does that mean we should invade country's just because they might have leadership problems in the future? If that's the case we should probably invade the US as well, there might be problems in the future when a new president is elected. There is a chance that a civil war will happen there, perhaps we should just nuke them to be sure tht doesn't happen.

Except the invasion was not about stopping a future leader/civil war it was about the Iraqi government/Saddam. I was saying that the fact that it happened and the fact that is was unpredicted would not have affected the outcome. Hitler had order in Germany and much of his conquered territory, but was that reason not to stop him?

Hooray for more pointless threads.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Except the invasion was not about stopping a future leader/civil war it was about the Iraqi government/Saddam. I was saying that the fact that it happened and the fact that is was unpredicted would not have affected the outcome. Hitler had order in Germany and much of his conquered territory, but was that reason not to stop him?

Hitler conquered enemy country's, much of the country's taken back could soon become somewhat stable and the population wasn't about to enter a Guerrilla war, the two can not be compared. And don't start acting like America was trying to do the Iraqi's a favor, the US installed Saddam in the first place.

Not to mention that there are people out there far worse then Saddam and they are left alone.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
In the minds of most, we are bad for being on top.

Wrong, right off the bat. In the minds of many, we are bad for being on top at the expense of far too many other nations in the world.

I've gone ahead and put a couple of key points in your post in bold print.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Except the invasion was not about stopping a future leader/civil war it was about the Iraqi government/Saddam. I was saying that the fact that it happened and the fact that is was unpredicted would not have affected the outcome. Hitler had order in Germany and much of his conquered territory, but was that reason not to stop him?

Originally posted by Fishy
Hitler conquered enemy country's, much of the country's taken back could soon become somewhat stable and the population wasn't about to enter a Guerrilla war, the two can not be compared. And don't start acting like America was trying to do the Iraqi's a favor, the US installed Saddam in the first place.

Not to mention that there are people out there far worse then Saddam and they are left alone.

Please don't forget that we also armed Saddam.

Observation: Iraq was a quagmire, not because it was an impossible mission, or that it wasn't noble, but rather unesscary. The concerns of Iraq do not relate to the concerns of America. And the taxpayer should not have to pay the differance.

Reaction: The Iraq war disturbs me in the relization that our government cares more about a couple of opressed sandrats who would given half the chance set you on fire, then concern themself with the eroding middleclass American who struggles not to go bankrupt and be out on the street.

Conclusion: Iraq's democracy is already more straightfoward and honost then our's. We should all move to Iraq.

Observation: You are a myopic istolationsist reactionary that has zero analytical capability and needs to get his head out of an effing game.

Query: What's wrong with isolationism?

besides the fact that the world is now integrated to a level where every country is inexorably networked with others?

Originally posted by HK47
Observation: Iraq was a quagmire, not because it was an impossible mission, or that it wasn't noble, but rather unesscary. The concerns of Iraq do not relate to the concerns of America. And the taxpayer should not have to pay the differance.

Reaction: The Iraq war disturbs me in the relization that our government cares more about a couple of opressed sandrats who would given half the chance set you on fire, then concern themself with the eroding middleclass American who struggles not to go bankrupt and be out on the street.

Conclusion: Iraq's democracy is already more straightfoward and honost then our's. We should all move to Iraq.

It was unnecessary it wasn't noble in the least, and the US government certainly doesn't give a flying **** about the Iraqi citizens, there concerns are oil and more power. That's all.

My favortie part was "Iraq's democracy is already more straightfoward and honost then our's"

Originally posted by HK47

Conclusion: Iraq's democracy is already more straightfoward and honost then our's. We should all move to Iraq.

appraisal: fail

suggestion: terminate self

Originally posted by Alliance
My favortie part was "Iraq's democracy is already more straightfoward and honost then our's"

That part actually destroyed a bit more of my faith in humanity...

Originally posted by leonheartmm
dude, i have NO idea, how you can even make that ridiculous claim. england didnt enter that war due to altruistic reasons to free the germans. it entered because hitler was agressive against it and it had to defend itself. same with america, america entered near the very end when the fighting was apparently reaching its shores{and it did in pearl harbour}. the allied troops too commited many atrocities{most are not there in american history books, but for gods sake, open a german/russian one} and didnt give a second thought to the people who were actually suffering due to hitler under him. in an effort to disable the enemy, the allied forces indiscriminately carpet bombed factories/power stations etc, without thinking twice about the majority of innocent workers/slave workers employed there. entire dams were destroyed and the predicted ensuing water destroyed THOUSANDS of homes downstream and killed thousands of people, not to mention destroyed thousands if not millions of acres of farm land used to fead the poor. americans also EXECUTED an insanely large percentage of prisoners of war, all this goes for the british too. they allies were openly cruel to even civilians who supported the third reich. in america itself japanese were rounded up and kept in condentration camps for a significant part of the war. furthermore the alies practically BROKE UP whatever was of the german empire and redistributed its stolen resources/leading scientists/intellectuals/gold/raw materials/reaearch hungrily amon each other and made different countries which each suited one of the allies purposes in the way they were laid out. also the main reason for the war, was the treaty of versailes, which was made BY the selfish allies to disadvantage geramany extremely unfairly and was the REASON why extremely frustrated and hence extremely ambitious psycho nationalistic leaders like hitler were given birth to in the repressive atmosphere. really u think the entire nation was mad to follow a man who shunned and wowed revenge on the wrest of the world like a lunatic????? no they were ANGRY.

and lets NOT forget what america did to the japanese empire, continuously carpet bombing its CIVILIAN areas which killed hundreds of thousands. in the napalm raid, nearly half a million people REPORTEDLY died, all civilians, all purposely targetted. and oh my what happened next, america invaded the nearer islands, and committed as much atrocities on foreign ground as hitler did on his own. civilians and militants included, indiscriminately. and really, just because japan REFUSED TO SURRENDER{which was too much for the american ego to take}, americans NUKED THEM, "TWICE" and cause the single greatest loss of life{actually sumwhat less then the earlier napalm bombings} in history, not to mention suffering on the civilians. the abonimable weapons were used to TEACH JAPANESE A LESSON, and to break morale, NOT to try n put down the "evil people". and what were the targets?????????? hiroshima and nagasaki, two of the greatest CITIES in japan, FILLED with innocents. any idea how many CIVILIANS that killed????????????????????? and has killed even now to due radiation posinong, on top of mutated births etc. oh hey, did they actually try to SUPPORT the people who had suffered during the war after the war ended???????????/ NO, they just left em there, their own interest met, they cudnt give more of a damn about the victim.
and before i forget, in the period leading upto the occupancy, due to psuedo IQ TESTING by a known eugenics supported{forgot his name}, he was, falsely, able to show to the government how the nordic people were the most superior in intelligence and how the slavs,gypsies were exceedingly dummer. this lead to immigration QUOATAS being formed which barred{guess how many................} a little over 6 MILLIION immigrants from entering the country due to the passed immigration act. a number of some significance in the history of europe. just goes to show how NON ALTRUISTIC america and its ally's purpose for entering the war were.

any1 who calls the second world war as justified or humane in the long run needs to have his head examined by a neurologist. ignorance has its limits.

You are absolutely wrong. There was no aggression toward England. England and France Declared War on Germany when they Took back The port city of Danzig from Poland (Which they lost in WW1). Hitler made exhaustive diplomatic efforts to keep peace between England and Germany. When England and France declared War , they were not ready for it. Germany was not going to wait for them mass and equip an Army , so they Attacked . And i think its funny how our Pres. uses terms like Preemptive strike....Isn't that another term for Blitz Krieg?

Originally posted by Alliance
My favortie part was "Iraq's democracy is already more straightfoward and honost then our's"


Franklin D. Roosevelt

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
You are absolutely wrong. There was no aggression toward England. England and France Declared War on Germany when they Took back The port city of Danzig from Poland (Which they lost in WW1). Hitler made exhaustive diplomatic efforts to keep peace between England and Germany. When England and France declared War , they were not ready for it. Germany was not going to wait for them mass and equip an Army , so they Attacked . And i think its funny how our Pres. uses terms like Preemptive strike....Isn't that another term for Blitz Krieg?

England and France both declared that they would protect Poland even at the cost of war. Hitler decided to attack anyway, they were just protecting their ally.

Not to mention that Hitler blatantly ignored the limits given to Germany by the treaty of Versailles and far more important he ignored the Munich Agreement by attacking Poland, you can not blame the French and English for starting the war.

They don't want Democracy , they want Tribal rule , and they want their boundaries back that were segmented by England in WWI. We can not win over there. We let Israel get away with exactly what we smack them around for. Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Yes because we gave them to Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. Iraq had missiles that would reach over 300n.m. Israel has missiles that will reach Iran. Iraq Tries to take back Kuwait(which was Iraq territory until the British segmented it for the oil after WWi) But Israel is building walled Cities in Palestine and putting up road blocks on Palestinian roads. Palestine fight back with what they can (Suicide bombers) and they kill a handful of people. In retaliation Israel attacks Cities and kill 3,000 people and confiscate all currency in their banks. We will never win.

Originally posted by Fishy
England and France both declared that they would protect Poland even at the cost of war. Hitler decided to attack anyway, they were just protecting their ally.

Not to mention that Hitler blatantly ignored the limits given to Germany by the treaty of Versailles and far more important he ignored the Munich Agreement by attacking Poland, you can not blame the French and English for starting the war.

Danzig was the only Port City Germany had. The people had no Import/Export trade which is vital for any country to survive. Even before Hitler ,The German Govt. begged for this City back and to allow them in to the world trade market . The League of nations would not. If you remember Germany took back what was German before the treaty of Versailles and the RUSSIANS took the rest. It was a matter of survival. Hitler had no interest in France or England. What was threatening Germany were the Communist Bolshevik Unions that were taking over. This is why the(National Deutches Arbeita Parti) German workers party ,was formed. Because Communism was taking over. Hitler had his eye on Russia. And if you remember Russia and communism was a thorn in the U..S.' side for 50 years.

KReAQkaHJUA

Originally posted by Devil King
KReAQkaHJUA

LMAO!!!!!

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
Danzig was the only Port City Germany had. The people had no Import/Export trade which is vital for any country to survive. Even before Hitler ,The German Govt. begged for this City back and to allow them in to the world trade market . The League of nations would not. If you remember Germany took back what was German before the treaty of Versailles and the RUSSIANS took the rest. It was a matter of survival. Hitler had no interest in France or England. What was threatening Germany were the Communist Bolshevik Unions that were taking over. This is why the(National Deutches Arbeita Parti) German workers party ,was formed. Because Communism was taking over. Hitler had his eye on Russia. And if you remember Russia and communism was a thorn in the U..S.' side for 50 years.

If that's the case then why would they give the half of Poland to Russia if they feared Communism above all else? Why would they invade in three places at once if they just wanted one port city? Hitler wanted war, he had building an army for war he had constantly pushed the League of nations as far as possible. Of course there would be a limit. He just pushed to far.

And if Hitler wanted peace he wouldn't have signed the Munich agreement he knew damn well what the result of this war would be.

Originally posted by Fishy
If that's the case then why would they give the half of Poland to Russia if they feared Communism above all else? Why would they invade in three places at once if they just wanted one port city? Hitler wanted war, he had building an army for war he had constantly pushed the League of nations as far as possible. Of course there would be a limit. He just pushed to far.

And if Hitler wanted peace he wouldn't have signed the Munich agreement he knew damn well what the result of this war would be.

I don't mean to be rude to a brother "Empire" fan , but you are very much in the Dark when it comes to early 20th Cen. History(which is understandable history is written by the victors) and i don't want to take up any more time on this thread. If you would like to discuss this in depth, i would be glad to PM and i could give you recourses to research and you will understand

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
I don't mean to be rude to a brother "Empire" fan , but you are very much in the Dark when it comes to early 20th Cen. History(which is understandable history is written by the victors) and i don't want to take up any more time on this thread. If you would like to discuss this in depth, i would be glad to PM and i could give you recourses to research and you will understand

Just because the winners write history doesn't mean it's incorrect. Hitler started the war no matter how you twist or turn it. He attacked Poland knowing it would start a war with France and England.

The treaty of Versailles may not have been a nice treaty and definitely a cause for war and a good reason why the German people liked it, but that doesn't all of a sudden mean that Hitler had no alternative.

Originally posted by Fishy
Just because the winners write history doesn't mean it's incorrect. Hitler started the war no matter how you twist or turn it. He attacked Poland knowing it would start a war with France and England.

The treaty of Versailles may not have been a nice treaty and definitely a cause for war and a good reason why the German people liked it, but that doesn't all of a sudden mean that Hitler had no alternative.


There was no alternative. Furthering my point of your lack of understanding of the History.

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
There was no alternative. Furthering my point of your lack of understanding of the History.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand history. And there were plenty of alternatives. Like not attacking Poland for one.

Hitler wanted a war he created an army for a war, if he just wanted to get one more port why did he attack the Netherlands for instance? A country that wanted to be neutral in the war and didn't choose any side in the conflict?

But hey why don't you just post the links and so called sources you have that make Hitler look like nothing more then an innocent bystander without a choice in the matter.

Originally posted by Fishy
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand history. And there were plenty of alternatives. Like not attacking Poland for one.

Hitler wanted a war he created an army for a war, if he just wanted to get one more port why did he attack the Netherlands for instance? A country that wanted to be neutral in the war and didn't choose any side in the conflict?

But hey why don't you just post the links and so called sources you have that make Hitler look like nothing more then an innocent bystander without a choice in the matter.

No I make him a Leader of a country Like Washington ordering the Small Pox infested blankets to the Seneca Indians in order to wipe them out or The British Empire Conquering India for the trade(East India Company) or Us Invading Mexico in 1840s to acquire the Mexican held territory in North America. Or America forcing Trade upon the Japanese with the use of War ships. Or like The U.S. invading Cuba and Philippines to take it from Spain. I could go on.

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
No I make him a Leader of a country Like Washington ordering the Small Pox infested blankets to the Seneca Indians in order to wipe them out or The British Empire Conquering India for the trade(East India Company) or Us Invading Mexico in 1840s to acquire the Mexican held territory in North America. Or America forcing Trade upon the Japanese with the use of War ships. Or like The U.S. invading Cuba and Philippines to take it from Spain. I could go on.

I completely fail to see your point here, you said Hitler didn't have a choice. He had plenty of choices. You said he didn't want a war, when he did everything he could to prepare and create it including invading neutral country's, and signing treaty's knowing full well he would brake them not much later.

Originally posted by Fishy
I completely fail to see your point here, you said Hitler didn't have a choice. He had plenty of choices. You said he didn't want a war, when he did everything he could to prepare and create it including invading neutral country's, and signing treaty's knowing full well he would brake them not much later.

The point is He had no choice to preserve Germany. The League of Nations wanted them to all die and He could not let that happen. The Germans were starving to death man THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY were starving to death. There was no choice. The point was any Nation will do ANYTHING to perpetuate their existence. Just like th U.S. , Hence my examples. You don't know what you are talking about. Your spewing the same tiered Rhetoric that Western High schools teach.

Originally posted by Devil King
I've gone ahead and put a couple of key points in your post in bold print. SADDAM WAS NOT HITLER.

Well not numerically in his killings, but he was up there for his attacks on the Kurdish civilian population, and his use of gas to massacre civiilains. He hated them many others, he solidified a strong authoritarian power, and he started an invasion to capture kuwait (which was all they could hope to accomplish).

He was a little hitler.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
He was a little hitler.

Well, everyones got to have a role-model...

Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
The point is He had no choice to preserve Germany. The League of Nations wanted them to all die and He could not let that happen. The Germans were starving to death man THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY were starving to death. There was no choice. The point was any Nation will do ANYTHING to perpetuate their existence. Just like th U.S. , Hence my examples. You don't know what you are talking about. Your spewing the same tiered Rhetoric that Western High schools teach.

As I already said, the League of Nations certainly gave Hitler a reason but Hitler did plenty to annoy the League of Nations and he could have gotten away with it. Instead he plunged his country into a war that he did want. Something you have claimed he didn't. He wanted a war, he wanted a war with England and France and he got it, and as a result he died and the Germany he build was destroyed again. You are stupid if you really believe that he couldn't have done anything else and that he really did not want a war. He desperately wanted a war.



He was nowhere near as bad as Hitler, funny though that you don't mention him using those same weapons supplied by the US against Iran, funny that you don't even mention that war as a bad thing though. The reason Saddam was attacked during Gulf War I, or II depending on how you look at it, was Kuwait. Not because he attacked his own people not because he used chemical weapons that was all okay with the US.

Now again, removing Saddam was not done because he was a bad man, it was done for entirely different reasons, if the US wanted to remove bad people they would have attacked other far worse dictators out there. They should have gone into Darfur instead of Iraq that's a place they could have a made a difference. The attack on Iraq had nothing absolutely nothing to do with the faith of the Iraqi people.

Originally posted by Fishy
He was nowhere near as bad as Hitler

When people say that about Saddam, are they comparing the two's bodycount or their mentality/goals?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
When people say that about Saddam, are they comparing the two's bodycount or their mentality/goals?

All of them...

Bodycount does mean a lot though, but the mentality of Hitler and his goals were far different then that of Saddam as well. People compare way to many dictators to Hitler anyway.

People just compare anything bad to Hitler...
Originally posted by Versyn Gaul
The point is He had no choice to preserve Germany. The League of Nations wanted them to all die and He could not let that happen. The Germans were starving to death man THE PEOPLE OF GERMANY were starving to death. There was no choice. The point was any Nation will do ANYTHING to perpetuate their existence. Just like th U.S. , Hence my examples. You don't know what you are talking about. Your spewing the same tiered Rhetoric that Western High schools teach.

Woah. Its one thing to say that her was perfectly right to strengthen Germany...its quite another to say he had to take over the Western World to keep Germany alive.

Observation:

The military complex is nothing but a brutal sermon of men and women who go out to die for shadey and complex governmental causes that none of us can completely answer too..


Conlusion:

The taxpayer should not have to be responsible for the bloodfeuds between nations and the military should be privatized.

Originally posted by HK47
Observation:

The military complex is nothing but a brutal sermon of men and women who go out to die for shadey and complex governmental causes that none of us can completely answer too..


Conlusion:

The taxpayer should not have to be responsible for the bloodfeuds between nations and the military should be privatized.

A privatized military? Are you insane? The military is the only thing that forces a democracy to stay a democracy. It's the reason why your country isn't attacked and conquered. Privatize it and you would give a few select people the power of the armed forces and the protection of an entire country. It would end the democracy in minutes.

Observation:

We don't have a democracy. We have selective-fascism. Untill every single man and woman and child can vote on an issue instead of the elite few such as the supreme court and congress, a democracy will never exsist.


Statement:

The threat of a foreighn enemy in this day of age is ridicoules. To attack a country that you trade with would be economical suicide, and not even the likes of Jim Kong Il are that stupid!


Conclusion:

The idea of needing a military is founded on false pretenses, poor logic, and fearmongering. We don't need a military anymore then we need a president. Who serves as nothing more then a glorified ambassador.

Originally posted by HK47
Observation:

We don't have a democracy. We have selective-fascism. Untill every single man and woman and child can vote on an issue instead of the elite few such as the supreme court and congress, a democracy will never exsist.


Statement:

The threat of a foreighn enemy in this day of age is ridicoules. To attack a country that you trade with would be economical suicide, and not even the likes of Jim Kong Il are that stupid!


Conclusion:

The idea of needing a military is founded on false pretenses, poor logic, and fearmongering. We don't need a military anymore then we need a president. Who serves as nothing more then a glorified ambassador.

Obviously you don't understand the concept of a democracy. Or international economics.

A democracy is a place where the people elect who rule, not where the people rule. That would be idiotic because the people can't rule themselves. They don't know enough about issues to decide on them. To let the people make decisions based on law books is idiotic at best, you need to have educated people who know how that shit works examine the evidence and then make a ruling based on that. You need officials to look at all issues and then go from there, if the people would be involved in everything you would have a bankrupt country where nothing is done.

Conclusion: Your logic sucks, if you honestly think you have a chance in hell of surviving without the so called political elite and the military.
And yes there is a very real threat of foreign invasion for the US if it would remove it's army. The US it's biggest market is still it's internal market. That's a market with 300 million + people suddenly gained, people you can suddenly tax. The army is very much needed.

Originally posted by Fishy

He was nowhere near as bad as Hitler, funny though that you don't mention him using those same weapons supplied by the US against Iran, funny that you don't even mention that war as a bad thing though. The reason Saddam was attacked during Gulf War I, or II depending on how you look at it, was Kuwait. Not because he attacked his own people not because he used chemical weapons that was all okay with the US.

Now again, removing Saddam was not done because he was a bad man, it was done for entirely different reasons, if the US wanted to remove bad people they would have attacked other far worse dictators out there. They should have gone into Darfur instead of Iraq that's a place they could have a made a difference. The attack on Iraq had nothing absolutely nothing to do with the faith of the Iraqi people.

Ideologically, just as bad. It wouldnt really matter if it was one person or a million, just the numerical difference that would gain attention.

It was partly a reason, but since it cannot justify a war, the other reasons were used instead....only they were almost entirely incorrect. They did a bad job justifying the war, but it was a neccessary war anyways. They should have gone into Darfur, but their inconsistencies are admittedly part of the government's failure.

And the U.S. has never supplied weapons to Iraq or against Iran. Iraq was a Soviet ally.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Ideologically, just as bad. It wouldnt really matter if it was one person or a million, just the numerical difference that would gain attention.

It was partly a reason, but since it cannot justify a war, the other reasons were used instead....only they were almost entirely incorrect. They did a bad job justifying the war, but it was a neccessary war anyways. They should have gone into Darfur, but their inconsistencies are admittedly part of the government's failure.

And the U.S. has never supplied weapons to Iraq or against Iran. Iraq was a Soviet ally.

Saddam and Hitler had completely different goals in life, and completely different ways of achieving them. The only thing they have in common is that they were both dictators, but you can't go out and compare every dictator out there to Hitler. Most of them aren't even close to as bad. That includes Saddam.

You are however right on one thing in this post there, that reason couldn't justify a war. And it wasn't even a real reason for Bush to go into Iraq in the first place, an added bonus to get more support, but Iraq was not invaded because Saddam was an evil bastard.

Funny thing though, seeing as it's the only remaining excuse for the war, it's also the one thing the US can't recreate in order to create a peace. When somebody like Saddam could fix this entire situation for them.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Ideologically, just as bad.
Apparently you've never read their ideologies. Maybe thats why you don't understand the situation.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
And the U.S. has never supplied weapons to Iraq or against Iran. Iraq was a Soviet ally.
Holy shit you are ignorant. See: IRAN IRAQ WAR. We put Saddam in power and then armed him.

http://www.ministryoftruth.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/rumsfeld_saddam.gif

Originally posted by Alliance
Apparently you've never read their ideologies. Maybe thats why you don't understand the situation.

Have you? Please enlighten.




I stand corrected. I read a lot of articles and had no mention of the U.S and I didnt read about the Iraq-Iran war. Relations with Iraq were somewhat tense though before that war, and became even more tense afterwards with Kuwait, where he betrayed any remained U.S support.

Iraq was a soviet-american struggle for power, and U.S won eventually. The soviet union supplied more military stuff to Iraq than we did. But before the Iran-Iraq war sides switched and it became U.S and Iraq vs. Russia and Iran.

The U.S itself did not wholly supply weapons material, it was private companies for the most part, many who were caught and forced to pay fines for supplying without government consent. Those were a minor amount of the supplied weapons that went to Iraq, the most chemicals came from France and Germany.

The only military provisions we sold to them were some helicopters, although our help in the war really made up for everything else.







Well this is off-topic, but I think it is funny.

"Details of his interrogations remain unclear.

U.S. guards watching Saddam revealed that during incarceration, Saddam developed a taste for Raisin Bran Crunch cereal, but detested Fruit Loops, and would snack during the day on Doritos corn chips (which he preferred to Cheetos). He would also dole out advice on women to willing listeners, advising one soldier to find a woman not too smart, not too dumb, not too old, not too young."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/20/saddam.behind.bars/index.html

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Have you? Please enlighten.

Hitler wanted to create an Aryan utopia a super society where he and his descendants would govern the world for a thousand years. Where there would be no Jews, none-whites, none-Christians, cripples, homosexuals and everything else that did not fit his perfect world image and he did everything he could to make that happen. Saddam just wanted power.

Statement:

Adolph Hitler also assimilated women to be incubators who were to submit thier bodies and or marry and pretty much become property to nazi soldiers.


Observation:

Adolph Hitler knew how to get people to join the army instead of with retarded commercials like we got. Even I wouldn't passup the chance to have any woman I wanted because she wanted a nazi-baby!

Anaylsis: Master, you forgot to make a conclusion. Carrying out termination now.