When will it end?

[BattleCookiee]

People who try to claim that the Iraq Invasion is the CAUSE of terroism and not a RESULT of terrorism need to do some learnin'.

 

It is indeed the CAUSE. Many people join the so called "Jihad" because of your arrogant actions all over the world. And why would Iraq be a RESULT of Terrorism? Were there terrorists in Iraq before the Americans came in, or did Iraq launched a terroristic attack on your soil? No...

 

 

 

Oh, come on.  I don't remember the Swedes running endless sorties in the no-fly zones.  The French did, until '96, when they got bored and went home.  The Middle East is unstable; how much more unstable do you think it would be without the threat of a MEU swinging on down to stymie any land-grabs not performed by Israel?  Terrorists hit American servicement overseas these days, it's true; it's been true for decades.  Nevertheless, American military presence still ensures stability like no other nation can.

 

"The Middle-East is unstable"

How can that be? OMG... did leaders just get "couped" without any plan for the civilisation to have peace and security?

And terrorists hit the US for decades? Not just terrorists. Or did you think Timothy McVeigh was a Middle-Eastern?

 

A bigger concern for you?  In what way?  We don't own Europe through our military prowess, we own you lot through our economics.  Walk out your door and buy a Coca-Cola, or a Big Mac at McDonalds.  For better or worse, those are the tools of American dominance in most parts of the world.  We're not going to take you guys over; you're generating too much cash.  Why not worry about the idiots running around blowing up planes, trains, and automobiles at random?

 

Well, I am not talking about your commercial companies. Just about your *awesum* government...

DON'T tell me that Coca-Cola or McDonalds are governmental companies...

Well, maybe we don't deal with these idiots because we have more problems with idiots who think their country is the r0x0rs and are arrogant they think they control the world. We haven't forgotten how Nazi-Germany was born, ya know.

 

You still haven't answered my question about who broke the Abu Ghraib story.  You probably smelled a setup, though I doubt you actually knew the answer.  It was the US Army.  Anyone heard the story of that German guy who got picked up by the CIA in Macedonia, flown to Afghanistan, and interrogated for six months?  I'm amazed you heard that story.  How many other countries would let that guy live instead of just shooting him in the back of the head?  Nobody knew he was there except the spooks.  They made a mistake, and they let him go when they figured it out.  Bitch all you want about how it took six months, I'm serious: think long and hard about how many other countries would let him go in the first place.

 

You really sure the US-Military leaked that out as a whole and such, if it was the US-Army at all (I don't believe a bit that that is true)?

I remember how "The British Army" had some video-material proving that their soldier had a mean newbie-initiation existing of naked free-fighting. Ever thought the British Army would have made it public if a SOLDIER didn't put it online?

 

Why not?  Don't you want to contribute to the future stability of Iraq?  Haven't you been complaining about US wanton destruction and murder for at least six different threads?  If your boys can do it so much better, why not send 'em over?  I mean, beyond the fact that there are only three of them, and they're not allowed to carry ammunition or anything sharp?

 

Yes, that is exactly why I don't wan't more of our soldiers there, who are not allowed to shoot violaters (let stand those of the US that don't take it with the international rules ), and should listen to the commands of the US-Oppressor.

 

 

 

No vietnam comparsions please this is completely different, we are not fighting armed forced we are fighting idiots who delight in death

 

Eh, may I remind you the Vietcong wasn't a "Armed Force", but a guerilla bunch, much like the Iraqi Insurgents right now. Stealth is their way to victory, not brute force (like a "Armed Force")...

[Volourn]

"It is indeed the CAUSE."

 

Falsehood. Terrorism occured before Iraq. Long before Iraq. How many terrorist attacks against US soil prior to Iraq, and how many after? Game over.

 

"Many people join the so called "Jihad" because of your arrogant actions all over the world."

 

Oh please. 'Jihad' has been occuring for centuries. And, oh, did you know, once again that European countries have long been a target for Islamic terrorists? Do you even know your country's own history and ties with the Islamic world?

 

"And why would Iraq be a RESULT of Terrorism?"

 

Bush never would have gone on his Grand War Tour if it wasn't for the actions of terrorists on 9/11.

 

Before 9/11: Bush went to ar with 0 countires (unless I'm missing something).

 

After 9/11: Bush went to war with 2 countries.

 

"Were there terrorists in Iraq before the Americans came in"

 

Yes.

 

"or did Iraq launched a terroristic attack on your soil? No..."

 

No. And, it didn't launch one on US soil as well.

 

 

 

If you ahven't figured it out yet, I'm not Amerikan so stop being a bigot and assuming anyone who doens't support Hussein remaining in power being an Amnerikan since we all know you bigotry for Amerikans is huge depsite the fact you continue buy, play, and use Amerikan products,

 

Once again - I AM NOT AMERIKAN!

[thepixiesrock]

Oh man, Volo just tore you apart Battlewookiee.

[Darth_Schmarth]

Zing, as they say.

[213374U]

Yep. There's no real arguing with BW. It's more like just telling him the facts he should have researched before even getting into the discussion. Oh well.

 

 

Because of that attitude right there, arrogant yankee bull****... isn't it obvious?

Arrogant? Most certainly. However, you fail to understand that it's precisely the arrogance of the dominating power of the moment (be it the US or the Roman Empire) that insures the stability you live so well off. I guess unintentional hypocrisy isn't completely to blame on the hypocrite, but it's hypocrisy all the same.

 

 

Besides, terrorists haven't done anything to my country or region.

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement, but I'm going to grant you the benefit of doubt and assume you are referring to the supposedly adverse effect that taking an active role in the ME has in terrorism. If that is what you mean, then you are just wrong.

 

Because the alternative is assuming you mean that if terrorists don't bother you, you don't bother 'em, in which case you would be not only a dummy, but a yellow-bellied coward as well.

[Judge Hades]

My probelm with the war on Iraq is that we went in their on false pretenses. Either he lied to us or was incompetent. Those are the only two options I see. You just don't go to a pre-emptive war and kill thousands of people on faulty intelligence. There has to be absolutely 100% correct intelligence and physical evidence that is current. What he or she had 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 1 year ago, or even 1 month ago is irrelevant. What he or she has, whoever is in power, in the here and now matters.

 

Now with the war in Afganistan, against Osama I am 100% for. He attacked us and I have no problem in killing people who attack us first. Bush should have "stayed the course" and wiped out every AQ cell and not stop til Osama is dead. He should have focused all our military resources on that than split it and invade Iraq, a country that was pretty much castrated from the world.

[Darth_Schmarth]

Oil. Black, sticky oil.

[Delta Truth]

My probelm with the war on Iraq is that we went in their on false pretenses.  Either he lied to us or was incompetent.  Those are the only two options I see.  You just don't go to a pre-emptive war and kill thousands of people on faulty intelligence.  There has to be absolutely 100% correct intelligence and physical evidence that is current.  What he or she had 20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 1 year ago, or even 1 month ago is irrelevant.  What he or she has, whoever is in power, in the here and now matters.

 

Now with the war in Afganistan, against Osama I am 100% for.  He attacked us and I have no problem in killing people who attack us first.  Bush should have "stayed the course" and wiped out every AQ cell and not stop til Osama is dead.  He should have focused all our military resources on that than split it and invade Iraq, a country that was pretty much castrated from the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Wow something I agree with you on , if the U.S actually put in a bit of the money that was diverted to Iraq , there is no question Afganistan would be a country 100x better than now- Most people in Afganistan do support the coalition troops and want a better life- but building a country costs money -

If only the U.S. stayed the course then Al Qaeda top leaders wouldn't be around anymore

 

and the U.S would actually might have had support for Iraq if they accomplished Afganistan first

[moreKOTORplz]

For better or worse, those are the tools of American dominance in most parts of the world.  We're not going to take you guys over; you're generating too much cash.  Why not worry about the idiots running around blowing up planes, trains, and automobiles at random?

Because of that attitude right there, arrogant yankee bull****... isn't it obvious?

 

Besides, terrorists haven't done anything to my country or region.

 

I don't remember the Swedes running endless sorties in the no-fly zones

 

you know only 2% of your population is muslim, so i don't think you have to worry about insurgent activity do you!! ****!!! and you know **** us for trying to help and do something about ****ed up situations. and if the nordic region was anything more than a ski resort and mail order bride service maybe you would have to worry about oil too

 

MOD EDIT-Fixed quote. tarna

[Krookie]

Besides, terrorists haven't done anything to my country or region.

 

I am in no way standing up for Bush when I say this but:

 

That is by far the most stupid thing I have ever heard on these forums. What happens if they did? Just because people around the world are dying, as long as it's not your people it's okay? What if something happens like the attack on the World Trade Center happens near you? Then you'll stop inviting the terrorist over for tea, won't you? You are by far the most self centered person I have ever had the inconvinence of coming in contact with.

[Judge Hades]

I think he has the right idea. If people just minded their own store and not bother anyone and be content where they are and make the best of it, in their view, in their own corner of the world the human race as a whole would be better off. If we didn't interfere in their lives and they didn't interfere in ours, there wouldn't be terrorists. Instead we went in after WW2 and made a huge ass mess in the Middle East that pissed off a lot of people to whom we had no right to piss off and now we are paying for that interference by people who are fighting the only way they can see how.

 

It all comes down to interfereing and sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

[213374U]

It all comes down to interfereing and sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

And that is what hegemonic powers need to do in order to stay in power.

 

You keep going on about your autarchic ideas, and I'll keep remarking that autarchy doesn't work.

 

Everyone's happy.

[Judge Hades]

A person in power only stays in power if the people he lords over lets him stay in power.

[213374U]

Right. And what does that have to do with anything?

[Judge Hades]

Meaning if Saddam's people really wanted him out of office they would have done it themselves.

[213374U]

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. Nobody really knows.

 

However, that has nothing to do with the US protecting their interests. And that is what this was about.

[Judge Hades]

If the US has to depend onoutside countries to perserve its own interests then it is weak.

[Commissar]

"The Middle-East is unstable"

How can that be? OMG... did leaders just get "couped" without any plan for the civilisation to have peace and security?

And terrorists hit the US for decades? Not just terrorists. Or did you think Timothy McVeigh was a Middle-Eastern?

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the Middle East has only been unstable since we invaded Iraq?

 

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, as was the Unabomber. I'm not sure what your point is. I do suggest you check out what happened on October 23, 1983, though.

 

Well, I am not talking about your commercial companies. Just about your *awesum* government...

DON'T tell me that Coca-Cola or McDonalds are governmental companies...

Well, maybe we don't deal with these idiots because we have more problems with idiots who think their country is the r0x0rs and are arrogant they think they control the world. We haven't forgotten how Nazi-Germany was born, ya know.

Ah, another Nazi comparison. You win the thread, Battlewookiee. Because the situation is the exact same; we're in the middle of a huge depression, laboring under an unfair treaty agreement, and generally down in the dumps, looking for a strong leader to return us to glory. Please.

 

Why not just tell the truth? You don't care about terrorists because you dislike America more than them. You would probably dislike America more than them even if they attacked Dutchland or wherever it is you're from. You dislike America because you're well aware that you can't step outside your house without seeing some sign of it. You dislike America because America has the guts to saddle up and go out and do things in the world, and all you can do is sit within a stagnant, gutless society and bark about how we're destroying the world. If that's the case, stand up and do something about it. You dislike America because we're the sole superpower in the world, and we remind you of it. You think it's arrogance when we're dealing with the cold, hard facts. Europe is economically profitable; we're not going to invade Europe. But that's your big fear, huh? Because we're just like Nazi Germany, despite being in exactly the opposite situation.

 

You really sure the US-Military leaked that out as a whole and such, if it was the US-Army at all (I don't believe a bit that that is true)?

No, they didn't leak it out. They officially announced that they were investigating abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, and that is the first time that anyone was ever aware of it. The Army broke the story, not some investigative journalist, but nobody remembers that anymore, do they? They didn't get caught red-handed, they announced that they were investigating their own soldiers for misconduct.

 

Yes, that is exactly why I don't wan't more of our soldiers there, who are not allowed to shoot violaters (let stand those of the US that don't take it with the international rules  ), and should listen to the commands of the US-Oppressor.

How have we oppressed you? We're back to the argument, "I don't like America, and therefore anything it does is wrong."

 

Eh, may I remind you the Vietcong wasn't a "Armed Force", but a guerilla bunch, much like the Iraqi Insurgents right now. Stealth is their way to victory, not brute force (like a "Armed Force")...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could be wrong, since you're the obvious expert on the military here, but weren't the NVA involved in that little fracas, too?

[Commissar]

For better or worse, those are the tools of American dominance in most parts of the world.  We're not going to take you guys over; you're generating too much cash.  Why not worry about the idiots running around blowing up planes, trains, and automobiles at random?

Because of that attitude right there, arrogant yankee bull****... isn't it obvious?

 

Besides, terrorists haven't done anything to my country or region.

It was to make a point, but yes, that's why you don't have anything militarily to fear from us. Besides, democracies don't go to war with each other, supposedly. The Germans hadn't done anything to the Brits when the UK declared war on Germany back in '39, either. The Iraqis hadn't done anything to the coalition of nations who fought Desert Storm. You're apparently advocating Hades' policy of isolationism, which is interesting, since it essentially states that as long as you're left alone, people elsewhere can do whatever the hell they want to each other. I think that's a rather cowardly stance.

 

I don't remember the Swedes running endless sorties in the no-fly zones

And pray tell, why the hell should they?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should anyone? Someone had to do it. No one aside from the US and Great Britain seem willing to take on these international peacekeeping jobs that everyone tacitly acknowledges must be done but refuses to do themselves. Sure, the French or the Dutch will stand around in little blue helmets somewhere, but if the bad guys cross the line, they pull back and pull out. Everyone likes hopping on the US for not engaging in Rwanda or, more recently, the Sudan, but I have to ask...where were you guys? There are plenty of places where an armed group of well-trained men can make a difference in the world, and whenever the US isn't in any of those places, it gets condemned, nevermind the fact that nobody else is moving so much as an inch to go. I fully agree with the premise that we ought to go into those places, but I have to wonder; if we did, how much louder would you scream about how we're interfering in another country's affairs once again? North Vietnam was invading, with the intent to take over, South Vietnam; everyone loves pointing out our involvement there as evidence of American stupidity. We fought the war wrong, and we did it for the wrong reasons (containment of communism), but the premise itself is still quite acceptable. When another country or a people are in trouble, the nations of the world who even pay basic lip service to the ideals of freedom and self-determination are obliged to help them out.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Commissar

[Krookie]

I think he has the right idea.  If people just minded their own store and not bother anyone and be content where they are and make the best of it, in their view, in their own corner of the world the human race as a whole would be better off.  If we didn't interfere in their lives and they didn't interfere in ours, there wouldn't be terrorists.  Instead we went in after WW2 and made a huge ass mess in the Middle East that pissed off a lot of people to whom we had no right to piss off and now we are paying for that interference by people who are fighting the only way they can see how.

 

It all comes down to interfereing and sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You say that now, but if someone in your family dies in an accident like the WTC, you'd be pretty mad. What if the Americans, the British, and the Russians didn't get involved in WWII? Hundreds of thousands more Jewish, gypsies, and others would have died. After that, Hitler probably would have taken over Europe, then the Americas. The US got involved to save lives.

 

Look what happend with Rwanda. The UN left 200 peacekeeping soldiers to take care of the entire country. The US, and any other country that was involved pulled their troops out, and thousands of Tutsies were killed. It was a genocide. Now, I'm not saying that this will happen if we don't take care of the terrorists, but what if it did? What if hundreds of thousands of people died? Then would you care?

[213374U]

If the US has to depend onoutside countries to perserve its own interests then it is weak.

Autarchy doesn't work.

[BattleCookiee]

Falsehood. Terrorism occured before Iraq. Long before Iraq. How many terrorist attacks against US soil prior to Iraq, and how many after? Game over.

 

Iraq hasn't even ended yet. And there were plenty of attacks on US-soil before 9/11 weren't there? I mean it was a "daily occassion" of some sort .

Hell, how many US-soil attacks where there between Afghanistan and Iraq. 0? Then how can you blame Iraq for terrorism...

 

Oh please. 'Jihad' has been occuring for centuries. And, oh, did you know, once again that European countries have long been a target for Islamic terrorists? Do you even know your country's own history and ties with the Islamic world?

 

Well, they did attack you first with 9/11 didn't they. And if you refer to the Crusades, I think they rather prefer to remind Israel and their main ally...

 

Bush never would have gone on his Grand War Tour if it wasn't for the actions of terrorists on 9/11.

 

Before 9/11: Bush went to ar with 0 countires (unless I'm missing something).

 

After 9/11: Bush went to war with 2 countries.

 

It was no secret Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the day he was elected. Just because there were 2 wars after 9/11 doesn't make both wars a result of this attack... Hey, there have been hundreds of wars since WW II, guess Hitler is a damn nasty guy for making so many people warmongering...

 

"Were there terrorists in Iraq before the Americans came in"

Yes.

 

If there were, did they attack the US? No

 

"or did Iraq launched a terroristic attack on your soil? No..."

No. And, it didn't launch one on US soil as well.

 

And still you connected Iraq to 9/11 before, and now you say it had nothing to do with it... you contradict yourself...

 

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the Middle East has only been unstable since we invaded Iraq? 

 

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, as was the Unabomber.  I'm not sure what your point is.  I do suggest you check out what happened on October 23, 1983, though.

 

No, but a large reason for unrest in the Middle-East is American Involvement, with Iraq and Israel...

 

And the point of Timothy McVeigh was that you can blame Terrorism on the Moslim (like you do), but even without them you keep terrorists. Yes, even American on, like the Unabomber...

 

Hey, didn't he tried the same thing with the WTC (blow it up), why didn't you start a war with those damn "terrorist nation of a USA" then???

He lived in your country, he was a terrorist. In Osama's case that was enough for an invasion...

 

Ah, another Nazi comparison.  You win the thread, Battlewookiee.  Because the situation is the exact same; we're in the middle of a huge depression, laboring under an unfair treaty agreement, and generally down in the dumps, looking for a strong leader to return us to glory.  Please.

 

I ain't saying that the US is the same as Nazi-Germany. Due to advanchments like internet, stealth, nukes and such that isn't possible anymore anyways. But we know how dictatorial warmongering countries are born, and the US looks pretty warmongering to me...

 

Why not just tell the truth?  You don't care about terrorists because you dislike America more than them.  You would probably dislike America more than them even if they attacked Dutchland or wherever it is you're from.  You dislike America because you're well aware that you can't step outside your house without seeing some sign of it.  You dislike America because America has the guts to saddle up and go out and do things in the world, and all you can do is sit within a stagnant, gutless society and bark about how we're destroying the world.  If that's the case, stand up and do something about it.  You dislike America because we're the sole superpower in the world, and we remind you of it.  You think it's arrogance when we're dealing with the cold, hard facts.  Europe is economically profitable; we're not going to invade Europe.  But that's your big fear, huh?  Because we're just like Nazi Germany, despite being in exactly the opposite situation

 

Oh, they did do some terroristic attacks here. Minor, far more minor than in the UK/Spain/US, but they still did some. Not that I really care about that, if their is a reason they do that, namely our government supporting the US' illegal war...

 

No, they didn't leak it out.  They officially announced that they were investigating abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, and that is the first time that anyone was ever aware of it.  The Army broke the story, not some investigative journalist, but nobody remembers that anymore, do they?  They didn't get caught red-handed, they announced that they were investigating their own soldiers for misconduct.

 

I think you are wrong. How many times did somebody "investigate a case" when there was no case. It was leaked to the press, so ofcourse they had to investigate it then. Like I said before, the British Nude Fights never came under investigation if there wasn't a soldier leaking it, nor did Abu Ghraib was if there was no leakage.

 

Hey, isn't there an investigation right now into illegal East-European Torture chambers by the CIA. Carefully investigated after a leakage.

There is no way that they would actively investigate an unknown case if it wouldn't be known already...

Edited December 30, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[BattleCookiee]

How have we oppressed you?  We're back to the argument, "I don't like America, and therefore anything it does is wrong."

 

The "US-Oppressor" was aimed at your position in Iraq. That *seemed* clear enough, guess not.

 

I could be wrong, since you're the obvious expert on the military here, but weren't the NVA involved in that little fracas, too?

 

Just like Saddam has its Army.

I compare the NVA with Iraqi's army

I compare the Vietcong with the Insurgents

Because that is what each group is when you compare it...

 

but I have to ask...where were you guys?

 

Guess what, we don't try to project ourselves as "Peacekeepers and Democracy-bringers of the World".

If you try to gain a specific image, keep to that image...

 

You say that now, but if someone in your family dies in an accident like the WTC, you'd be pretty mad. What if the Americans, the British, and the Russians didn't get involved in WWII? Hundreds of thousands more Jewish, gypsies, and others would have died. After that, Hitler probably would have taken over Europe, then the Americas. The US got involved to save lives.

 

May I comment that it are 2 different wars. In WW II we asked for help (thus, there was a need for military intervention). Was this request there in Iraq?

 

The Russsians weren't in the War (Molotov-Von Ribbentroppact) untill Hitler decided to attack them

The British were in the war because their ALLY was attacked, which was Poland (is Iraq an Ally of the US, or did they attack an allied?)

The US kept out of the War untill Pearl Harbor...

 

So they all were already into the war and fought the war they were presented. All 3 didn't MADE was like the US now, or Japan and Germany in WW II...

[Meshugger]

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. Nobody really knows.

 

However, that has nothing to do with the US protecting their interests. And that is what this was about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sadly, you're right. The world is divided into several different geo-political spheres, with the bigger ones (Russia, China, India, EU + US as the unquestionable #1) doing as they please. The UN is used as a tool for their own interests and their goverments political agenda.

 

What buggers me though, is the hypocrisy of the US claiming to be the shining lighthouse of freedom and equality, but they still use the same tactics as those with less democratic goverments. Either you be cynical, realistic a**hole like the rest, or try doing some good(almost impossible).

[Volourn]

"Well, they did attack you first with 9/11 didn't they."

 

Um. No they don't attack me at all, actually.

 

However, AQ (the ones who are responible for 9/11) have been around a long while ebfore and have attacked many countries even before 9/11. The US was not their first target. Nice try though.

 

 

"It was no secret Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the day he was elected."

 

Don't make things up by using 'plans for a posisble war' as proof solid that he had planned from the get go to attack Iraq.

 

 

" Just because there were 2 wars after 9/11 doesn't make both wars a result of this attack"

 

Bottom line is chances are Bush wouldn't have gone to war with either country regardless of his plans if 9/11 hadn't occured. Anyone saying otherwise has nothing but their 'gut'. Prior to 9/11, Bush's Presdiency (as short as it was) was as peaceful as a Presidency could be considering the US's place in the world.

 

Afterall, one of the reasons why AQ committed 9/11 is because they believe that Amerikans were weak, and cowardly and they would just sit and take it. He has been proven wrong, and nbow hides in a cave fearful of being killed much as Saddam hid in a hole.

 

No 9/11 ; no Afghanistan or Iraq War.

 

btw, Just to make sure it's udnerstoof, I am not saying or implying that Iraq had any diretc involvement in 9/11. They didn't. However, in the post 9/11 era, Saddam Hussein was deemed too much of a threat to just let him stay in power in the opinion of the US, and their Coalition Partners.

 

That's another thing. You seem to defend Europe here yet you seem to forget that a good number of European Countries were and are involved in the Iraq War and those who refused did so on slefish grounds because they supported Saddam's tyranny and murder of the Iraq people.

 

 

"And still you connected Iraq to 9/11 before, and now you say it had nothing to do with it... you contradict yourself..."

 

Nope. No contradiction here. read above. I answered why there's a connection.

 

 

"Hey, didn't he tried the same thing with the WTC (blow it up), why didn't you start a war with those damn "terrorist nation of a USA" then???

He lived in your country, he was a terrorist. In Osama's case that was enough for an invasion..."

 

That's just silly. A country can't start a war with itself outside of civil war. Exactly who would the US attack? The US had a 'war' with McVeigh. They won. War over.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Volourn