Support the troops?

Duh!!!!!!!!!! Killing, raping, pillaging, torturing... Isn't that enough?

Absolutely not. War should be globally illegal. Unacceptable. Then if there is some one or group of people who are completely out of hand, and need to be stopped, it should be no problem to gain support for sending in a group of specially trained people to arrest and jail the offenders. Just think, what if the gangs in California all started a riot with automatic weapons etc., burning large sections of town, killing anyone who came along, their goal being to take over the whole state. Well, they'd bring in the riot police, and they would be arrested, right? What if some moron in power decided to start bombing California instead? Good idea? HAH!

War mongering idiots might be less offensive. War mongering fools would be far more proper. People who think war is an acceptable alternative and support the current wars, would be classified as war mongers, yes.... What would you call them?

 

If i could remove 'war' as a option then i would .. but that is NOT WITHIN OUR REALITY.. I think the Iraq war was not illegal .. so within the reality we live in it was a course of events that could take place.. Saddam was the one who lied to us and his own people also manipulated and killed his own people.
It was perfectly possible for a peaceful solution to be garnered from over ten years of 'negotiations'.

I was not as involved in the first gulf war.. so i can't say i supported that action.. because it would be based on not a lot info.
I missed the 'finer points' the political 'spin' that encircles my thoughst now..
I guess thanks to the internet and a better understanding of these events. I think i can have a opinion now..
I can say i have made a choice honestly and with out blinding myself [i could be wrong-but thats not the point] .. The choice i made was how i feel asbout the situation and how i interpreted what has happened. i did not have my mind made up BEFORE these events took place .. like i reckon earthmother and possibly you did [i don't no how you feel about 'war' in general.

It was necessary because thats what was 'on the table'... i can't say bombing innocent people was necessary.. but that what happens in wars.. harsh sad reality. Was it all worth it ?.. i think in the end it will be. Progress has been made just by removing Saddam, and away from these forums i actually read some good work that is occuring and how lives have changed for the better.. Not ignoring the other side of the coin [car bombs/ abuse etc]... that would be wrong.

Some people are war mongers.. they wanted our troops to go in regardless of any other considerations.
I did not, i wanted a peaceful resolution [pardon the pun] to be made.
We don't live in a world where we can go in pick up the people that caused all the trouble and put them into the docks.
I have no issue with people like yourself advocating 'peace' and 'no military action'.. but you then wade in to my reality where it is a reality and condemn me as a war mongering fool.
I don't wade into your reality and say that you are a deluded fool do i ? .. or say ''wake up to the 'real world' '' etc etc etc ..

I could also say the vast majority of what you have said is not valid because your bias for 'no war' invalidates most of what you have said within this thread... and is a gross distortion of reality..
I was going to ask where you stood [either no war at all or just against this current conflict] it seems 'no war at all' ..
I guess we will be dyemetricaly apposed to one another .. so lets not be rude to each other at least .. how about that ?.

Talk about your 'revolution' .. lets discuss how we can avoid conflict and war.. but don't be a 'peaceful fool' [lets say] and spout stuff that has little basis in fact. It only has validity because you wish for the troops to be poor morons mindlessly being used as pretty much 'cannon fodder'.. That 'claim' could be leveled at those troops in WW2 ... If you think they died for nothing and there lives were meaningless..more fool you.

It is almost 'no shit sherlock' that people apposed to war [al war] would claim this war was illegal and the other stuff that gets spouted .. it puzzles me they feel the need to say half the stuff they do.. just stick to discussing how war can be avoided... i'd love a thread about that.. i reckon we would have something in common.

end of rant

 

About what?



If 9/11 was done by a gang from Texas, would the US attack/bomb Texas? not to mention Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or bin laden. Bin Laden is fundamentalist and Saddam is a secularist they hated each other.

If Iraq is about removing dictators, why does the US ignore Africa?

If dictators are bad why does the US support dictators when they serve it's interests? If you don't know Saddam was fine with the US until he stopped being their bitch and started questioning the US. He never killed his own, it is like saying white Americans slaved their own people. Iraq is a multiethnic country.

You cannot force democracy and social change.

 

Have you not read the reports ? his weapons his capability his knowedge of his stockpiles.. or lack of stock piles.
It can safefuly be concluded he was not doing all he should have been..to avoid the action that was taken.

I appreciate it is a bit convoluted.. but resolution 1441 was about Iraq.. Go read it if you have not already. You say it was illegal ? on what basis do you think it was ? .. It is easy to say.

It is all hypocritical, international Geopolitics is.. I have no delusions about that..

You think Saddam is the 'good guy' ?... He is a innocent in all of this.. ?
Not true..

What do you think he was questioning ?..

Americans did slave their own people [not as engrained as other nations] ... So did Africans .. so did the Brits.

As in those in his country ... he was 'nice' those that supported him..
I am talking about those that apposed him and his rule.

Articulated better than me.. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saddam/interviews/aburish.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

True.. but you can remove a hurdle that stopped vast swathes of people from having any say at all.. millions of people voted that would have no opportunity before.. women have a greater role and social change can occur with a greater scope for diversity of opinion. Hopefuly eventualy removing the threat of getting killed because you happen to disagree or are 'collaborating' daily car bombs prove it is not about the 'Iraqi people' just certain elements within Iraq.

We seem to muddle history and rewrite it and ignore certain things..or we are just not aware. Nobody really can say they 'know it all'.. we can all spot flaws in our opinions.. but thats life.

From what i know and have learnt i have based my opinions on that.. if i am wrong.. point it out and inform ME.

 

I hear this quite often but what I do not hear is the source of this information. I'm not necessarily denying it, but I would like to know the source. To the contrary, there were intelligence reports dating back to early 90's that suggested "relationships" between members of the Iraqi government and members of various terrorist networks. Whether or not these reports were "data-mined" to justify an Iraq invasion is another story, but just because bin Laden is a fundamentalist and Saddam is a secularist does not mean they are enemies.

If we were in military conflict with Sudan or Nigeria, the same question would be asked about other African nations, or Middle Eastern, or South American. I don't really need to ask you to think a little deeper on that question do I?

Actually the US was fine with Saddam when he was fighting Iran (which was seen as a larger threat at the time) and until he invaded Kuwait (which threatened the stability of the middle east and two of the world largest oil producers). Saddam did kill his own people, personally, through his two offspring, through his death squads, and through his abuse of the Oil For Food program.

 

Lets clear all the misconceptions and misinformation. Americans are the most entertained people in the world but the most misinformed and least informed.

Iraq WMD?

Iraq 9/11 connection?

Al Qaeda-Hussein?

Iraq war illegal?

Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441:

In their own words:

Hans Blix

Saddam killed his own people?

Saddam killed his own people is misleading. He did kill people but it wasn't his own people. That is like saying white Americans slaved their own people meaning black people back in they day. People may live in the same country but it doesn't mean they are one. Iraq is a tribal and a multiethnic country. The people he killed were Kurds and he is a Sunni. It might sound silly to us because we live in a multiethnic society but you got to remember Iraq was still socially backward.

Was his government totalitarian?
No doubt but was it necessary? yes, Iraq wasn't ready for social change or democratic change. His autocratic style leadership was necessary to keep such a vast and diverse nation united, which is on track of turning into a civil war now.

Saddam Hussein as a secular leader:

It is amazing how fast people forget.

As a rational human being all the evidence and facts tell me the Iraq war was unnecessary and pointless. The reasons that were presented to the public to go to war weren't actually the reasons why there is a war.

 

Will Iraq be better off in the long run? maybe, maybe not
But it still doesn't justify the current war, deaths, and billions wasted.

The US lead Iraqi war opened the doors wide open for al-Qaeda , terrorists, Muslim fundamentalists, and other anti US groups to flood the country. In their eyes the US is an imperialist nation.

Why is there anti US groups?

http://www.alternet.org/globalaffairs/13356/

The terrorists you see now in Iraq didn't exist before the war. They exist now because the country is wide open.

Gay marriage, abortions, and exaggerated terrorism are just distractions from real issues/problems and just political tools to prey on people's ignorance and naiveness to gain political power.

 

Are they brainwashed? Heres the scoop .....

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006
* Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed”
* While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy
* Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown
* Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks
* Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation
* Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment


An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

The continuing insurgent attacks have not turned U.S. troops against the Iraqi population, the survey shows. More than 80% said they did not hold a negative view of Iraqis because of those attacks. About two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis with very few non-Iraqi helpers. “There appears to be confusion on this,” Zogby said. But, he noted, less than a third think that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end. A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency.

The survey shows that most U.S. military personnel in-country have a clear sense of right and wrong when it comes to using banned weapons against the enemy, and in interrogation of prisoners. Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous. And, even as more photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq surface around the world, 55% said it is not appropriate or standard military conduct to use harsh and threatening methods against insurgent prisoners in order to gain information of military value.

Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees. Only 35% said basic civil infrastructure in Iraq, including roads, electricity, water service, and health care, has not improved over the past year. Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

 

I'm just starting to read this thread, so I hope that I'm not opening old wounds on this one, but anyways...

Granted, there are a lot of people who join the military because of the circumstances they lived beforehand. However, the military is not the ONLY method of getting off the streets, out of gangs or away from abusive homes. There are hundreds of other institutions that accept and welcome people of poor circumstances. Rehabilitation centres, monestaries and convents, hospitals, colleges, missionaries, non-profit organizations, homes... all of these places welcome people who are in unfortuneate circumstances. Many stories are told of the druggie who went into rehab and now works as a councellor. Or the gang member who went to his church and now is helping AIDS victims in Africa. Or the prostitute who now works in a shelter for abused and battered women. These people had rough starts, and were able to find peaceful, positive solutions to their problems. The military is not the "be all and end all" for the abused and poorly off.

 

I support the Troops. I didn't say the military. I said the Troops.
After all. They ARE our sons and daughters, husbands/wives and mothers/fathers.
WE want them to come home safely, and intact.
But, we must remember they were ordered to go there,
and they are protecting our safety.

 

Sad but true, your sons, daughters, husbands, and wives are just tools protecting corporate interests not American interests.

 

Does this mean that if my country refuse to extradite a person wanted by the US authorities then it should be considered an enemy and attacked?

 

If you read your own link you could if you wish interprete this situation very differntly.. It is a question of interpretation so don't claim you are 'clearing up' anything.. you are not.

Read your own link again [stop cherry picking].. what is it you are implying ?.. it was a misconception perpetuated by some quarters .. dismissed by the inteligence community.. a long time ago.

On Sunday, Cheney revived the possibility that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer five months before the attacks, saying, "We just don't know" whether the allegation is true. But an FBI investigation concluded that Atta was apparently in Florida at the time of the alleged meeting, and the CIA has always doubted it took place.

Bush, while seeing no link between Hussein and the attacks, said yesterday that Iraq was linked to Osama bin Laden's terror organization. "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," he said. Some terrorism experts dispute the extent of those ties, but the ties are not disputed as vigorously as the link between Hussein and the Sept. 11 attacks.

The claim in part was what the 'people' thought.. not a actuality.. Post a source where Bush claimed there was a link ?.

So killing other ethnic groups is ok ?.. It is alright he kiled other ethnic groups but possibly not his own ?.. well thats alright then.

This is a re-hash of your last accusation and implication... read your own link in context..

"Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Is the view i posted earlier [in this link] .. it is a question of opinion.. KA was coy enough to say ''if you wish'' wich indicated he feels it was illegal.. but it is his opinion. you can't claim it as a fact and 'end of story'... it is a opinion [just like The Attorney-General ].

You seem to have not known much a few days ago.. now you claim 'it is amazing how people forget'... It seems you have hurriedly cherry picked snippets to seem like you are informed .. clearly a little overstated with the staggering lack of joined up thinking ... All the evidence and facts ??? erm well clearly you have missed out swathes of information .. i appreciate it is your POV.. I apologise for being rude.. but you have to use that inquiring mind a little more criticaly and honestly [maybe even with a little humility]..

What do you think the reason was.. ?.. let me guess - OIL *sigh*

Personaly i shifted my POV many times over the last few years.. i can't go through the myriad of reasons and rationales i had.. from one opinion too another ... swaying your way and mine .. back and forth.. It would take too long. It is all a question of opinion.. I might have been slightly rude in response .. it was your attitude that got me.. it was so well ..... mmmm moving on.

 

I support the troops. At least they are doing what they believe in, rahter than just bitching and living on welfare.

 

I'm ashamed of you all... This sounds like Terrorist talk to me... You guys must be terroists.. See, you have two choices... your either with us, or your against us.. there is no middle ground.. and since your against us... you must be a commie terrorist...

We will beat you and all your monkeys...

See, the day will come when man and Phish can co-exist... but until then.. we won't get fooled again.

Sincerley
Dubay!

 

Interesting logic. You say Iraq is a multiethnic country, we are a multiethnic country, were is the difference? Saddam was the president of Iraq, not just the Sunni countrymen. Being Sunni does not give him the right to kill Kurdish, Shi'ia, Christian, Aethiest, or any other religion. Nothing sounds silly about the Iraqi culture and they were not socially backward.

About the Iraq-al Qaeda connection..... I didn't realize that the Washington Post was the final word. I will repeat. Throughout the 90's the US government received intelligence reports from foreign governments (Pakistani, Sudanese, Saudi, Israeli, etc...) regarding a relationship between officials from the Iraqi government and members of terrorist organizations. These reports are sent to Langley and are studied, cross checked, and verified by intelligence analysts. This intelligence is then recorded and filed in a mainframe system. The extent of the relationships at this point is irrelevant to this converstion. Data-mining is when old intelligence (in this case the Iraq-al-Qaeda intelligence reports from the 90's) is resurfaced and reanalyzed to come up with a different conclusion. Data-mining intelligence does mean the intelligence did not exist or the threat did not exist. The point of this rant is that there is evidence, sparse as it may be, that the Iraqi government had to some extent a relationship with terrorist organizations, namely al-Qaeda. Common sense would tell you that this relationship would be fruitful, as Iran and Hezbollah and Syria and Hamas has been. The only information that leads people to believe that there was no relationship and they hated each other is that "Saddam is a secularist" and "bin Laden is a fundamentalist". Pretty flimsy. I'm not saying there was enough evidence of a Iraq-al Qaeda tie to justify a war with Iraq, but to there was no relationship is unsubstantiated. Short of breaking non-disclosure, there were "events" witnessed at Salman Pak in Iraq that were, to say the least, interesting. Cannot say any more but if you can do the math it should not be too hard to figure out.

 

Actually Bro,

Nearly 3 out of 4 Troops in Iraq support a pullout within a year.
29% Of troops think we should pull out immediatly.
42% of troops say the mission is unclear.
+ or - 3.3%
(DMN... Conducted by Zogby International... Center for Peace and Global Studies)

You'd be suprised at how many troops don't really belive in what their doing right now.

 

I give up, believe what you like. You have to understand the history, the politics, economics, Iraqi culture, Iraqi society, and world affairs to understand the Iraqi war. If you are interested educate yourself. Don't like the sources find your own and verify the information, which isn't too hard to do. Almost the whole world thinks the Iraqi war is unnecessary, it cannot be wrong.

 

I am not debating whether or not the Iraq war is necessary. I am debating the relationship between members of the Iraqi government and known terrorist groups.

 

How does that relate to the Iraq war or justify the Iraq war?

The US had links and connections with terrorists groups in the past, should the US be attacked?!