[elflord9d]

http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/...nsurgency.html

He has convinced me. I have suspected foul play by the american governemt(Yes I'm american) and I think we have lost all forms of patriotism. I think that the government has deluded americans into thinking that what they are doing is just, but I don't belive it. This has just added to my hatred of my government. If I was over there I would join the Iraqi's. Why? Because they know what it is to be patriotic. They fight for freedom from the USA and from the USA steeling oil from them.

I think that Saddam was a bad man and that those who fight for him are bad too, but the ones that are not fighting for saddam and for their country are mor Honourable that then the US.

Whay are your guys thought on this?

[Commissar Elvis]

Well, while your heart is somewhat in the right place, you've rather oversimplified the situation there. Before I left for Russia I made a lot of lengthy posts regarding the injustice of the war, etc. If you want to dig them up, they're here.

But on the other hand, the insurgency is not just guys fighting for freedom from an imperialist aggressor (alas, that's us now ) - these guys are often religious fanatics, Islamists. While they certainly have the right to follow whatever religion they want, in the way that they want it, Islamism is rather dangerous and regressive rather than progressive. Islamism and Islamic Fundamentalism are similar, but not exactly the same. I don't really have the time or desire to get into it right now, but there's plenty of information available.

Now, what I don't understand is what any American (and I mean ANY) was thinking when they thought that becoming an aggressor nation by invading a nation that really posed no threat to the US (no, it didn't) was somehow not abhorrent, much less admirable! The only WMDs Iraq ever possessed were the ones the United States sold them in the 1980s to use against Iran (and they did). Everyone mentions the atrocities Saddam committed against the Kurds, which he did (although there is soft evidence that Iran was involved), but no one ever wants to mention that these atrocities were in committed in 1989.

Pop quiz kids - what year was the first Gulf War? Right...nearly three years later. But somehow it wasn't as big an issue then. When we were already there. Why? Because we had already re-secured our oil source in Kuwait. Moreover, Saddam actually asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait! The diplomatic response was basically a shrug of the shoulders and a mumbled sentence, which he took to mean, "Yeah, go ahead." And we wonder why he got so pissed off post-1992?

Saddam wasn't a good guy and perhaps Iraq will be better without him. But no one has killed as many Iraqis as the US has, and that's a fact (we've beaten the Iranians by now).

Corporate greed has gotten so out of control in America that we're willing to engage in naked aggression to attempt to sate our thirst not only for oil, but for money as well.

Flame away, I'm running out of steam. I'll dig around/work up new posts/shut the opposition down later. It's after midnight in ol' Moscow.

[Ge. Stankov]

Have to admit, I can see right through that. Sure, the guy talking may want the best for thw world, but they would attempt peaceful negotiations if thye really wanted peace. They have the right to fight, but I find it stupid they fight for 'peace' when the best path to peace is halting teh insurgency, waiting for the troops to pull out, and then continue. We ousted a warlord for the purpose of peace, and they are only prolonging the eventual withdrawal. The sooner the insurgents eitehr surrender or die, the sooner we can establish a peaceful democracy in Iraq, and then the sooner they get what they want. They are eitehr misled or very ignorant, for the world realizes the only path to peace is peace.

[elflord9d]

Maybe it just depends on the USA president.

I saw a bumber sticker that said
"No-one died when Clinton lied"

I think thats true

[Ge. Stankov]

Yes, but the US was considered a land with no integrity.

Anyways, who says Bush lied? Honest to goodness, he didn't lie. I'll tell you what he did wrong. Sure, he acted a little quick. Harsh? No. Quick? Yes, and maybe it wasn't really the right thing to do, but in hindsight, I'm all for stripping a mass-murderer of power and attempting to put in a democracy.

[elflord9d]

Personnally I think he had it planned. not 9-11 but he knew it was going to happen then his dad or him mase the plans for everythng.

I think that because when asked a little while ago abuot the location of Osama bush said something along the lines of I don't care. It was Osama that started this whole thing!!! He should be #1 on the list of things to do!

Just IMO.

[the_vilest_worm]

Originally Posted by Lt. Cmdr. Stankov

Yes, but the US was considered a land with no integrity.

Anyways, who says Bush lied? Honest to goodness, he didn't lie. I'll tell you what he did wrong. Sure, he acted a little quick. Harsh? No. Quick? Yes, and maybe it wasn't really the right thing to do, but in hindsight, I'm all for stripping a mass-murderer of power and attempting to put in a democracy.

As is any sane human being. The real question is whether or not there were other dictators who needed to be removed first. Saddam Hussein is a horrible person and can rot in non-existent hell for all I care, but there are much worse ones out there. Wouldn't those troops have been of more use in, say, the Sudan? Or maybe N Korea?

[Commissar Elvis]

Bush didn't lie?!! Last time I checked he told us there were WMDs in Iraq and they could have a nuclear weapons program within months. All of it untrue. Then it was because Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Except his own 9/11 Commission said "No way in hell, Georgie." And anyone capable of reading could find all the facts for themselves. Saddam was out for himself - he has no use for religious fanatics, and never did.

Saddam was never a "warlord," either. If you've read anything about his career and his path to power, he played it just like so many other dictators have on their rise. You can use all the buzzwords you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

And since when did the US get the right to decide what sort of government other countries can have? Furthermore, did we ever check with the Iraqis to see if they wanted us bombing the hell out of their country and killing their relatives to install a so-called "American-style" democracy? Well, no, we sort of forgot about that. : Not to mention the fact that no one bothered to do any sort of real cultural research before the invasion, hence many of the problems we have now that quagmire. We don't even have enough interpreters!

And saying the US had no credibility under Clinton is just flat untrue. I'm no Clinton fanboy, I'm not even a Democrat (still registered as a Republican, as a matter of fact). But the US had respect and the trust of other nations. The Neocons have severely damaged our relations not only with our Middle Eastern allies, but incredibly badly with our European allies. Now we're hated by far more than we used to be, our allies are incredibly wary about helping us now and because the war is NOT going well (you can spin it however you like, but we've been there for three years with very little progress) our reputation is not improving.

The US is being forced to try to broker a ceasefire with many insurgent groups, and they're willing to do just that. Agreed, to say they're fighting for peace is just naive, if not outright foolish, but to try to continue to make the administration look like some good guys with good intentions who just made a few bad decisions is wrong. These greedy bastards knew exactly why we were going in, and exactly how much they were going to make off of it.

I'm angry, so angry, that all these chickenhawks continue to squawk about staying the course at the expense of nearly 3000 American lives, and it'll be more than that by the time we withdraw. Iraq went from a non-threat to the US (don't try to tell me it was without serious linkage to facts - I can provide the contrary very easily) to a breeding ground for American-hating terrorists. Thanks for keeping us safe, King George! :

***EDIT: Worm, there are UN troops in Sudan (agreed, not enough), but we don't have the right to just decide on regime change whenver it suits someone's fancy. Besides, Sudan is our ally, they have oil. And we can talk about North Korea, but in a different thread. We won't win that war.

[azr9]

Originally Posted by Elf boy

Maybe it just depends on the USA president.

I saw a bumber sticker that said
"No-one died when Clinton lied"

I think thats true

true but he did weaken our armed forces screwing us over. and not true he also neglected intelegence of terrorist attacks which got people killed and he also was tolled that 911 might happen.


i'm sorry but that video served no point. they are glorifying our foe and dissing us thats stupid. i dont like the war but i dont like terrorists.
we arnt supposed to be in iraq anyways the real war was with the terrorists in afganastan which leads me to belive a little what elf boy said earlier. you notice how theres a decline of improtance in afgan?

[Ge. Stankov]

Elvis: As I like to say, 'Just because you didn't find it, didn't mean it wasn't there.'

Millions of pounds are smuggled across the Mexican-US border, and it honestly would be that hard to bring a few trucks into the moutains just before an invasion on an unprotected border. The mroe I think about it, the more I'm sure that its extremely possible the weapons were smuggled out.
In such case, its a large possibility that our mission was accomplished... we set out to stop Saddam making or using nukes... worked out pretty well I'd say.

The notion that Saddam was, as you implied, 'a dictator'. Dictators like Saddam often times kill otehrs to get their policies across. Are all dictators like that? No. Are most of them? Yeah. It really doesn't matter what 'title' he went under. He killed innocent people, and lots of 'em. I'd take action. The reason we went in is to stop him killing even more innocent civilians. If he wasn't able to use nukes, bio, or chemical weapons, he will end up killing less innocent people. Thats the whoel goal. We weren't just trying to find WMDs for the fun of it! We were attempting [and successfully] to halt the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent civilians. If we find 'em doesn't make too much of a difference. If we stop thier use, or prevent manufacturing, well, mission accomplished.

And, for the whole Clinton matter, it doesn't matter if countries like France hate us... the problem is that when the president is a documented liar, and Bush is not, teh nation can't be all that great. Bush didn't lie, because there is no concrete evidence against him. Bush had sex with a secretary, told people he didn't, and then ended up being found out. That makes one wonder... what otehr sorts of stuff was he lying about? All I know is that Bush was doing what's best for those people in Iraq, you know, the innocent ones, who don't kill people because they apparently want 'peace'.

I will admit I never belived tehre was a link from 9/11 to Saddam, but as far as us deciding the government...

Seeing as it works fine for the rest of the world, and so far, its the best way, why not start it in a land of opression and absolute monarchy, or even outright dictatorship? [aka, the Middle East]