U.S losing focus on terriosm by going into Iraq? - Page 3




 
--
Boots
 
February 15th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gingerbeard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
The planes weren't flying over Baghdad but an agreed upon no-fly zone. I don't think you have delved deeply enough into this subject to make a qualified statement. I don't think the USA has been defeated and put under UN sanctions so, yes, right now, a bird would be suspect flying over DC.

http://www.news10.net/news-special/war/un-687.htm
US is not defeated yet. but its finding very hard to cope in iraq.
I don't think the world, except you, sees that as a true statement.
February 16th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
Quote:
Originally Posted by gingerbeard
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
The planes weren't flying over Baghdad but an agreed upon no-fly zone. I don't think you have delved deeply enough into this subject to make a qualified statement. I don't think the USA has been defeated and put under UN sanctions so, yes, right now, a bird would be suspect flying over DC.

http://www.news10.net/news-special/war/un-687.htm
US is not defeated yet. but its finding very hard to cope in iraq.
I don't think the world, except you, sees that as a true statement.
it seems that is ture that U.S is facing difficulties in Iraq, although not serious difficulties,

i believe U.S is capable of dealing with insurgents and other all sort of problems in rebuilding Iraq, just need some more time
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
if its coping well, then why bush need to increase the funds so much and send more men into iraq? u got to know there is at least 250 attacks each day by iraqi resistance. dun u really think 1-2 soldiers died from all those attacks?

urban gurilla warfare is very hard to fight in.

so u r saying in coping well? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer


Additional war spending this year will push the federal deficit to a record $427 billion for fiscal 2005, effectively thwarting President Bush's pledge to begin stanching the flow of government red ink, according to new administration budget forecasts unveiled yesterday.

That $80 billion would come on top of $25 billion already appropriated for the war this year, pushing the total cost of fighting to $105 billion, up from $88 billion in 2004 and $78.6 billion in 2003.

The latest war request would push the total cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other efforts since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to $277 billion, according to the CBO. That figure well exceeds the inflation-adjusted $200 billion cost of World War I and is approaching the $350 billion cost of the Korean War, according to Commerce Department figures.
--
Boots
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chocobo_Blitzer
Remember, Saddam was giving sanctuary to the likes of Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, and Al Zarqawi (the lattter of which is a direct ally of AQ) and trained hammas executioners. Not to mention his self-admitted stocks of anthrax and other chemical and biological weapons. He was in a position to arm any terrorist group with substances.

Then the whole, democracy throughout the middle-east deal, with honest governments around, the terrorist would be under siege and could not spread their idealogy of hate.

That's the "war on terror" side of it. Throw in the facts that he violated the first gulf war treaty, and then 1441. The UN did not hold their deal.

So bam.
not honest gov, US want a pro-US gov. but US did not find that Saddam was actually linked with AQ. also how many anthrax and chemical biological weapons us has? so right, us can have them, but other countries cant.

Saddam was dishonest anyway in the 80s but not to US, it was pro US in the 80s that's why us didnt remove him, if US want a honest gov it could of removed him in the 80s, not to say how many anthrax and chemical weapons it used on Iran and killed alot of innocent civilians? did US care? then make excuse saying Saddam abuse human rights while it already abusing it when in powers in the 80s.

remember the excuse US use? right, going into a third world defenceless country to remove the WMD to save the world and to enter a place with nothing else except oil. sounds logical. well done bush. then make up stories afterwards about the truth of the war, well if US did really think these reason u read after teh war started is true, why dun they use those reason before they declare war?

and also, if US is really concerned, why dun they like UN to check it first, u can still go into iraq if there is trace of WMD. but US simply dun want the UN to tell the truth.
February 16th, 2005  
Peter Pan
 
From a purely morally altruistic view point, the invasion of Iraq may appear improper.

Yet, solely from the US national interests, it was not immoral and presumably the national imperatives left no choice.

It is also a fact that most countries have sometime or the other expanded her boundaries for her national interest, which internationally or regionally have not been viewed in favourable light.
February 16th, 2005  
gingerbeard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
From a purely morally altruistic view point, the invasion of Iraq may appear improper.

Yet, solely from the US national interests, it was not immoral and presumably the national imperatives left no choice.

It is also a fact that most countries have sometime or the other expanded her boundaries for her national interest, which internationally or regionally have not been viewed in favourable light.
finally! we can agree on something!

politics is all about national intrests. the media is just a tool to support its fake claims.
February 16th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
From a purely morally altruistic view point, the invasion of Iraq may appear improper.
How can you say that? From a purely morally altruistic point of view it was the most selfless act the U.S. has done, ever. In a purely morally altruistic point of view the U.S. went in to liberate millions from the opression of the most evil regime that was currently alive in the world at that time. They liberated millions from torture chambers, rape rooms, random execution, and domineering tyrany to give them freedom, democracy, and a chance for every Iraqi to pursue happiness. Instead of open arms, flowers, and kisses, our troops where met with AK47s and roadside bombs. Yet, America didn't waver and two years later is still trying to save the Iraqi people not from Saddam, now, but from an anarchy. Thousands of Americans and billions of dollars financed by the American people are going to help these Iraqis.

If that is your idea of something that is morally wrong then you and I, sir, have nothing to talk about.
February 16th, 2005  
Peter Pan
 
Whisper,

I am afraid you have not read my earlier posts. Possibly because they were too detailed to hold the attention span.

However, you may like to read the Defence Policy Guidelines and the National Energy Policy of the US govt and the Proceedings on the Caspian Sea Area in the Congress.

An analytical reading of these would give you the rationale for not only Iraq but also for Afghanistan, Iran and the Caspian Oil Reserves; as also the need to have quick reaction strategically based around the world or at least the critical areas. The quest for light and rapid reaction like the Stryker Brigade is a case in point.

At the risk of repeating, the contention of 'liberation from oppression' or 'Freedom and Democracy' appears a trifle uncomfortable a proposition to accept, when there are genuine genocides galore in Darfur, Rwanda and even today at the Congo border there was another 'cleansing' reported, where the 'forces of liberation should devote attention but are conspicuous by their absence. Iraq should ahve been liberated in the 1980s when Saddam gassed the Iranians and his own.

This paradox naturally leads to the view that the moral issues are not quite what they are being stated.

I do regret if my post has caused you distress, but may I, at the same time state, that what the US did was in hernational interest and I presume that sentiment (if one can call national interest so) is her birthright.
February 16th, 2005  
Sexybeast
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
From a purely morally altruistic view point, the invasion of Iraq may appear improper.
How can you say that? From a purely morally altruistic point of view it was the most selfless act the U.S. has done, ever. In a purely morally altruistic point of view the U.S. went in to liberate millions from the opression of the most evil regime that was currently alive in the world at that time. They liberated millions from torture chambers, rape rooms, random execution, and domineering tyrany to give them freedom, democracy, and a chance for every Iraqi to pursue happiness. Instead of open arms, flowers, and kisses, our troops where met with AK47s and roadside bombs. Yet, America didn't waver and two years later is still trying to save the Iraqi people not from Saddam, now, but from an anarchy. Thousands of Americans and billions of dollars financed by the American people are going to help these Iraqis.

If that is your idea of something that is morally wrong then you and I, sir, have nothing to talk about.
history will judge U.S's action in iraq is invasion or a liberation.....

but i am sure U.S go into there not just to help iraqs, unless there are something there for americans, i doubt U.S will want to go into there
February 16th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Pan
Whisper,

I am afraid you have not read my earlier posts. Possibly because they were too detailed to hold the attention span.

However, you may like to read the Defence Policy Guidelines and the National Energy Policy of the US govt and the Proceedings on the Caspian Sea Area in the Congress.

An analytical reading of these would give you the rationale for not only Iraq but also for Afghanistan, Iran and the Caspian Oil Reserves; as also the need to have quick reaction strategically based around the world or at least the critical areas. The quest for light and rapid reaction like the Stryker Brigade is a case in point.

At the risk of repeating, the contention of 'liberation from oppression' or 'Freedom and Democracy' appears a trifle uncomfortable a proposition to accept, when there are genuine genocides galore in Darfur, Rwanda and even today at the Congo border there was another 'cleansing' reported, where the 'forces of liberation should devote attention but are conspicuous by their absence. Iraq should ahve been liberated in the 1980s when Saddam gassed the Iranians and his own.

This paradox naturally leads to the view that the moral issues are not quite what they are being stated.

I do regret if my post has caused you distress, but may I, at the same time state, that what the US did was in hernational interest and I presume that sentiment (if one can call national interest so) is her birthright.
Uh oh, now you are backtracking and dancing around the issue.

YOU SAID "in purely moral and altruistic terms" that it was bad. Oh, no no no, when you look at the morals of the situation it was the morally correct thing to do. The morally incorrect thing to do was let the people suffer. You just wrote 3 paragraphs about the Geo-Politics of the situation which are irrelevent since we are talking "purely in moral and altruistic terms."

But your 4th paragraph is quite the eyebrow raiser. From someone who tries to assert himself as the intellectual superior by an "attention span" quip, your argument is parodoxical and might I opine, quite illogical. You are trying to rubuke my assertion that purely on morals, going into Iraq was the correct thing to do by countering "well, US didn't help in Rawanda and Darfur." Really? So you are saying that what the U.S. did in Iraq is so correct that the U.S. should be doing it all over the world and you kindly give examples of places the U.S. could help out. Well thank you for bringing to light the moral obligation of powerful nations to help the weak like in Rawanda, Darfur, and Iraq. Now that you have established that, in purely moraly altruistic terms you cannot disagree that going into Iraq was the perfectly correct thing to do.

Unless of course your attention span is too short to read the entirety of my writing.