MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Hehe oops.
Sorry I meant I was trying to shorten my responses not that anyone else should.
Time to get out of Iraq
Hehe oops.
Sorry I meant I was trying to shorten my responses not that anyone else should.
Rob Henderson
Banned
Ah well...Debating like this always gets me a little tired...Ill go on a big rampage and then not post for a week. LOL
Donkey
Active member
Maybe if we didnt come into this thing thinking it wouldnt work and we would lose things would be diff... But some people with their heads firmly up thier arse can not comprehend such a thing...
The most interesting thing is that the Republican party and others are the ones debating things while the Democrats are just using hate and complaints instead of trying to solve the problems they would rather filibuster it to death becuase they have the our way or the highway approach...
The most interesting thing is that the Republican party and others are the ones debating things while the Democrats are just using hate and complaints instead of trying to solve the problems they would rather filibuster it to death becuase they have the our way or the highway approach...
Marinerhodes
Active member
Has anyone stopped to consider that President Bush told Saddam to let the UN weapons inspectors in and Saddam said no? President Bush said let them in or else. Saddam still said no. President Bush said You have until X:XX and Saddam still said no. So the President of the United States backed up what he said he was going to do and he went in and did it.
All other opinions and theories aside. Isn't this pretty much what it boils down to? We said we were going to do something, Saddam didn't believe it and thumbed his nose at us. We followed through on what we said we were going to do. In any other individual person it would be considered integrity and conviction. In our President it is considered invading a country for "unsubstantiated evidence".
WTF. . . no really, I mean WTF!
Before you say yay, nay, or whatever else. Think back or look back on what was said and when it was said. Then look at when the reasons for this war started popping up.
Take a look at this:
http://transwatch.blogspot.com/2005/08/real-reason-us-invaded-iraq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
All other opinions and theories aside. Isn't this pretty much what it boils down to? We said we were going to do something, Saddam didn't believe it and thumbed his nose at us. We followed through on what we said we were going to do. In any other individual person it would be considered integrity and conviction. In our President it is considered invading a country for "unsubstantiated evidence".
WTF. . . no really, I mean WTF!
Before you say yay, nay, or whatever else. Think back or look back on what was said and when it was said. Then look at when the reasons for this war started popping up.
Take a look at this:
http://transwatch.blogspot.com/2005/08/real-reason-us-invaded-iraq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
MarinerRhodes
There are a couple of possible reasons for that:
1. Saddam liked play games, he liked sticking it to the West even though it wasn't in his interst to do so. So he played shell games with the weapons inspectors, it was more out of spite than out of a general need to hide something. Saddam was extremely cruel, but thankfully, not very bright.
2. Saddam may have might have been lied to himself. Its possible he was told he had a WMD program when in fact he didn't. Therefore he tried to hide the fact he had nothing to hide.
Lastly I dont think it really much mattered. In mid-2002 it was evident Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what happened. I don't feel sorry for Saddam at all, but his government was doomed no matter what he did, the Neocons had wanted to scratch the Iraqi itch for a very long time, they were just looking for an excuse.
There are a couple of possible reasons for that:
1. Saddam liked play games, he liked sticking it to the West even though it wasn't in his interst to do so. So he played shell games with the weapons inspectors, it was more out of spite than out of a general need to hide something. Saddam was extremely cruel, but thankfully, not very bright.
2. Saddam may have might have been lied to himself. Its possible he was told he had a WMD program when in fact he didn't. Therefore he tried to hide the fact he had nothing to hide.
Lastly I dont think it really much mattered. In mid-2002 it was evident Bush was going to invade Iraq no matter what happened. I don't feel sorry for Saddam at all, but his government was doomed no matter what he did, the Neocons had wanted to scratch the Iraqi itch for a very long time, they were just looking for an excuse.
Marinerhodes
Active member
So are you agreeing or disagreeing with my observations? As for your 2nd statement, take a look at the second link I listed. Perhaps so, perhaps not. There is a timeline that I was reviewing that ran from 1997 - present.
Last edited:
Donkey
Active member
[FONT="]So when you tell some one not to do something or else... And the do it and you do nothing and look like a wuss/fool in front of everyone you don’t care....
When you say you are going to do something and then you don’t do it and again make yourself look like a wuss/fool in front of everyone you don’t care...
So what you are saying is that your word means nothing then? That you are unreliable, that you are weak... etc…
I don’t mean this to be aimed directly at you even though I say you; I'm more talking about the logic you are using....[/FONT]
Marinerhodes
Active member
I am not sure of the wuss/fool wording. I would say lack of conviction. Lack of moral courage and commitment to follow through on your given word. If you tell someone you are going to do something, do it. You will otherwise be lying to yourself and anyone that heard you say it.
Donkey
Active member
You must read the entire post....For I stated that towards the end...
I use the term wuss/fool loosely and for...oh...I dont know poetic justice
Young Winston
Banned
Most of the killing is by Iraqis killing other Iraq's. I think Bush is in big trouble.
Senior Chief
Banned
I think you are misguided. I don't believe that the President is ordering Iraqi people to kill other Iraqi people. You can't blame that on him.
As for your claim that it is indeed Iraqis killing other Iraq's (I think I understand even though you don't state it plainly.) If you have the identification of those responsible for the bombings why don't you go over there and identify them. Can you tell the difference between a Syrian, or Iranian or someone from Saudi? You must have some great insight that the rest of us don't have.
You read reports from a media that will not report the truth unless they can make it fit their agenda. Your sources might be suspect.
Try talking to some of the Marines and Soldiers that have been there and witnessed the acts.
Marinerhodes
Active member
You must read the entire post....For I stated that towards the end...
I use the term wuss/fool loosely and for...oh...I dont know poetic justice
I did read the entire post. I was not in any way referring to anyone on this forum. I was speaking in generalities in regards to your use of wuss/fool. Not who or what you were talking about.
The words wuss/fool are a schoolyard description. If you wish to be taken seriously then you need to point out the faults with more appropriate words.
Donkey
Active member
[FONT="]Apparently it went over your head....[/FONT]
To be honest I could care how seriously someone takes me on the internet, if you are stuck up on the use of the term wuss/fool then you have blinders on and missed the entire point of my post...
Marinerhodes
Active member
Apparently it did go over my head. It seemed to me that you were making a generalized statement. I was as well.
warhappy100
Active member
Sorry to burst everyones bubble but GWOT can never be won terrorsim will always exist no matter what.
Senior Chief
Banned
So what you are saying is that it is inevitable that terrorist groups are going to take over the world and we should all just sit back and let it happen?
I think you need to rethink your logic there. We are all engaged in a GWOT. The fact that we are hunting down the terrorists and their leaders tends to make me think that if we are keeping them on the run we are lowering their ability to attack anyone. If we were to do as you inferred we would all be open targets from an unfettered enemy.
I say that we need to keep the Global War on Terrorism going full tile regardless fo where it might take us. If we do as you say and just sit back we might save some soldiers lives in the short term but lose millions of lives in the long term.
You have missed a point of fact that I think everyone with an ounce of common sense has not missed. We all know that finatical groups will always be out there, the GWOT is meant to slow them down as much as possible to save lives and to maintain our right to live with fear of terrorist attacks that are fully unwarranted from an enemy that has zero value on life. My life, your life, your families lives, the lives of innocents where ever they may be. They don't even have a value of life of their own unless you might want to count OBL and in that case he is intent on getting others to die for his cause but unwilling to do so himself! Think about it for a while.
Last edited:
fingolfin361
Active member
Makes perfect sense. Radicalism and hate will always be around and always have. But in the present context, the propogators of this filth can be found and crushed.
Strongbow
Banned
So who are you actually fighting against in Iraq? I don't think you have a clue.
Hey, if you want to kiss Nigerians that's Ok by us :smile:
mmarsh
Active member
Bulldogg
2 weeks ago You asked me if I'm for cut and run, I only just saw it. Allow me to reply.
I think the Bush plan for Iraq is dead and buried. Its evidently clear that Iraqis do not want a democracy. As I said the Sunni want a Sunni dictator like Saddam, then Shiites want to become part of Iran, and the Kurds want Kurdistan. 'Iraq' is in fact was an invention of the British Colonial Empire in the 1930's, the Arabs themselves never really subscribed to it. They have hated each other for hundreds of years. Its extremely naiive on our part to think we can change that.
So what to do? I think there is only possible chance to stop an all out war. That is to split it into its 3 ethnic parts and to make Baghdad a sort of free-city that belongs to no-one and prey for the best.
If that fails, then yes its time to leave ASAP.
2 weeks ago You asked me if I'm for cut and run, I only just saw it. Allow me to reply.
I think the Bush plan for Iraq is dead and buried. Its evidently clear that Iraqis do not want a democracy. As I said the Sunni want a Sunni dictator like Saddam, then Shiites want to become part of Iran, and the Kurds want Kurdistan. 'Iraq' is in fact was an invention of the British Colonial Empire in the 1930's, the Arabs themselves never really subscribed to it. They have hated each other for hundreds of years. Its extremely naiive on our part to think we can change that.
So what to do? I think there is only possible chance to stop an all out war. That is to split it into its 3 ethnic parts and to make Baghdad a sort of free-city that belongs to no-one and prey for the best.
If that fails, then yes its time to leave ASAP.