Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
CNN Airs U.S. Soldiers Being Killed in Iraq
Topic Started: Oct 23 2006, 02:34 PM (1,182 Views)
etphonehomeyo
Member Avatar
baba booey!
i do most definitely think the people of the u.s. were deceived by the bush administration about the reasons for going to war. they made it sound like saddam had something to do with september 11th. even if they didn't come out and say it, it seemed to be implied. also, the reasons for the war seem to change whenever people get sick of one reason. weapons of mass destruction. oh, there weren't any? okay, we went to liberate. yeah, right. i really don't know what the real reason we went was for, but i know it wasn't for any reason they gave us. if we really went over there because of weapons of mass destruction, then how do we explain north korea? if we went over there for terrorism, why did we pretty much drop the country where the terrorists who attacked the u.s. came from and focus on a completely unrelated place?
also, going over to "liberate" the people of iraq (even though that is totally not the real reason) would have been a terrible idea, anyway. a country can't go into another country, overthrow their government, put one to it's own liking in power, and expect it to work, no manner how bad the previous one was. if a country is going be reformed, it needs to reform itself. the people need to have the passion to overthrow the government and only then, when they are that passionate about it will it work.
at some point, people are going to get fed up and we're going to leave iraq just like vietnam. we will never, ever win this. and the thing that is really sick is how bush still acts like it was the right thing to do. why can't he just admit he was wrong? he doesn't want to look like an idiot, so he'll just keep letting more people die.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheSmashedGuitar
Member Avatar
Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again
heybulldog
Oct 24 2006, 01:58 PM
TheSmashedGuitar
Oct 24 2006, 12:06 PM
Ok, point one; It's really not clear why we're in Iraq in the first place. First it was WMD's, but we haven't found any. This is because a) We haven't found them yet. a) They were shipped out of the country, so they're no longer in Iraq. c) There never were any. I vouch for option b or c. Why? I really don't trust our government, and they have lied to us many times before. (And I mean the government in general, not just the Bush administration.) I think their objective was to take out Saddam as an act of revenge for the first Gulf War, to obtain Oil and maintain another base of operations to better prepare ourselves to deal with Iran or Palestine. However, saying to Americans "We're going to war to overthrow a dictator and help the Iraqi people," America wouldn't buy it. If we were to do that, people would say "We should go around and overthrow every dsictator." That is of course, an insane task for America to do on its own and considering conflicting interests with countries like Saudi Arabia, we probbaly wouldn't do so. So, they either lied or depended on faulty evidence to persuade the American public to support them. Now, I jave no problem with us overthrowing Saddam, that was good, but we don't do anything about current situations like Darfur. Plus, we really didn't come in with a  plan or enough military power, so we're having our fair share of prob;ems there.


Rebuttal?

why would the Iraq war be an act of "revenge" for the first gulf war? that was an overwhelming and sweeping victory on our part. why would we NEED "revenge" from them. the only mistake made? we didnt take out Saddam THEN. If by revenge you mean....we are finishing the job, then yes. i agree.

WMD-- see we know they had them. we KNOW. this is not just "oh Bush said they had them" type crap. They were used on the Kurds, and during the first gulf war. WHEN we invaded Iraq (mind you we waiting an AWFUL long time with all those damn sanctions beforehand) some MWD's were found (Scud missles, some small quantities of biological/chemical weapons, other weapons that were banned by the UN resolutions) Yes there were pre-war blunders on the part of UK/US intelligence, but i just want to know what the alternatives would be? more UN resolutions? more toothless rules and regulations with nothing to back them up? So, basically my point is, we know Saddam had/used WMD's in the past. The way i see it, intelligence failures made it seem like more of a problem than it was (but it was STILL a problem). They could very probably be in another country right now, given that the regime under Saddam had plenty of time to stash them. SOOOOO.... YES there were prewar blunders, but NO going into Iraq wasnt a mistake, and the current administration did not completely fabricate the justification for war.
Plus, besides all that, i think that taking out Saddam is good for the US and the people of Iraq anyway. In the 90's he was killing and torturing political opposition and gassing thousands of Kurdish women and children....now he's sitting in a jail cell awaiting the noose.

Iraq is unlike Darfur. With Darfur there is no opressive regime that is brutalizing its own people and threatening the security of other nations... Darfur is more or a war of all against all. so i dont really see how that fits in to the argument.

I also dont really see how we "didnt come in with enough military power". i mean obviously this kind of warfare is going to be different that the likes of WWII. Since there is no clear enemy its not like there will be decisive victories. I think the invasion of Iraq showed a lot of military strength on our part, but of COURSE door to door fighting isnt going to be as glamourous and awe-inspiring... of course there are problems there, but not enough military power?? We are spending an awful lot and have plenty of troops over there.


i know i'm EXTREMELY outnumbered here, and i'm going to get jumped on immediatly, but remember..these are my opinions, based on the research IVE done, and my view of the world. I'm obviously biased because I have lots of military personel in my family who are fighting there right now, but just be KIND with your criticisms...aka....dont make me ;_; cry ;_;

I meant revenge for Bush as like a personal vendetta, as a way to "finish the job." After all, he did gdet very personal about it with satements such as "he tried to kill my daddy!"

Yes, I am aware of the weapons you found, and just as you said the intelligence failures were exagerrated, the amount of nuclear weapons was vastly exagerrated as well. The Bush Admistartion made it seem like they had 100,000 some nukes which is obviously not the case. Plus, we tried to make aconnection between Al Queda and Saddam's Regime, which didn't exist. The two despised each other.

Yea, I know it;s differen warfare, but obviously we didn't bring enough ideas going in. The area is in chaos, and I agree with you we don't need large amoutns of troops like WW2, but I believe we should have gone in with a better strategey for keeping the region stable. Though I think we're spending money in the wrong places; we're buying so much advanced weaponry when not all of our soldiers even have adequate body armor.


On Darfur, I agree. The point I was trying to make was that we act like we have the right to intervene in everything, and then we don't when it counts.

Having friends/family in the military I don't think creates bias at all. I know two people in Iraq at the moment and one died last week, so don't confuse Anti-War with Anti-Troops. They are totally different.


Second rebuttal?


Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
donnacorleone
Member Avatar
Maxwell
1.) I nominate TheSmashedGuitar for president.
2.) I agree with a lot of the things you, etphonehomeyo, said but we can't forget that we do still have troops in Afghanistan as well.
If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
etphonehomeyo
Member Avatar
baba booey!
donnacorleone
Oct 24 2006, 02:14 PM
1.) I nominate thesmashedguitar for president.
2.) I agree with a lot of the things you, etphonehomeyo, said but you can't forget that we do still have troops in Afghanistan as well.

oh, i know. i think the fact that we're in iraq is wrong, so that's what i'm focusing on. it actually makes sense to be in afghanistan.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heybulldog
Member Avatar
Elmore James
I'm not saying that anti-war = anti troops
i was just putting it out there that i get my families point of view quite frequently (which is obviously very pro-war in iraq) since they decided to go fight there for multiple tours of duty. no attack on you zachy :)

About not being well equipped: i think its HILARIOUS that most soldiers dont seem to think they are lacking correct body armour/ armoured cars, etc... yet politicians think they are. i guess i just dont trust how the media blows things out of proportion like that.

and to whoever said this: "country can't go into another country, overthrow their government, put one to it's own liking in power, and expect it to work, no manner how bad the previous one was. "
ummmm....huh??
japan after WWII? working pretty well. Its done all the time. we can NEVER go into another country and overthrow them??
AND, we did not "forget about afghanistan". there are still troops there fighting. i know people love to throw the whole "we havent caught osama" thing in bush's face...but who's to say we would have caught him had we not invaded Iraq anyway?

oh, and i dont believe this, but i just wanted to throw it out there. what would machiavelli say about the war in Iraq? perhaps if the act accuses the result excuses? ends justify the means type thing?? (again, i think there WAS a legitimate reason to invade Iraq, but for those who dont...what do you say to ol' Mach's philosophy on that)?
When it rains and shines, it's just a state of mind
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
donnacorleone
Member Avatar
Maxwell
etphonehomeyo
Oct 24 2006, 02:15 PM
donnacorleone
Oct 24 2006, 02:14 PM
1.) I nominate thesmashedguitar for president.
2.) I agree with a lot of the things you, etphonehomeyo, said but you can't forget that we do still have troops in Afghanistan as well.

it actually makes sense to be in afghanistan.

Oh I agree completely.
If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheSmashedGuitar
Member Avatar
Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again
The ends justifying the means thing I disagree with.


On the equipment thing, I will look more into it. If you are right, I will heed to that point.

Now what are your rebuttals towards my positions on US strategey, the exagerration of weapons and false connection between Saddam and Al Queda?

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heybulldog
Member Avatar
Elmore James
i'm not stupid, i know there was exaggeration of the Iraq as a threat. I just believe that even without that, it was still a major threat to the US and the world. I mean there were legitimate concerns with having a man in power who was capable of the things Saddam and his regime did. :fear: I also dont see what the alternatives would have been?? more resolutions? sanctions?? nothing?

i'll get to strategy later :tongueaction: legal studies class!!!! :sleep1:
When it rains and shines, it's just a state of mind
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
etphonehomeyo
Member Avatar
baba booey!
well, world war ii is an exception, i mean look at germany. i did generalize too much with that. but, with the middle east specifically, it just doesn't seem to work. they have been under too much control by the western world for so long that they don't trust us. this has been going on for a long, long time. a western country (used to be the british) will go in and try to shape the people. at first, they went along with it, but when they see the motives aren't really to help them and that they end up helping the other power more than their own people, it changes. the middle east didn't have a problem with the u.s. for a long time. of course, the resentments begin to form because the west is so over bearing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
donnacorleone
Member Avatar
Maxwell
heybulldog
Oct 24 2006, 02:18 PM
and to whoever said this: "country can't go into another country, overthrow their government, put one to it's own liking in power, and expect it to work, no manner how bad the previous one was. "
ummmm....huh??
japan after WWII? working pretty well. Its done all the time. we can NEVER go into another country and overthrow them??

I think, and I could be completely wrong here but it's what I got out of what she said, that Aarika was talking more about the arrogance of our government when she said that. And I think that's what a lot of these countries' problems are with us; that we can be so damn arrogant a lot of the time.
If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheSmashedGuitar
Member Avatar
Love Will Tear Us Apart, Again
I agree with you. It was a still a threat, I just have a problem with them sortof of "half-lying" to get us in. It just makes me feel icky, though their intentions were/are good.

Can't wait to hear the rest of your arguement.

(So far, no statistics on armor in Iraq-so I'll take your word for now.)

Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
etphonehomeyo
Member Avatar
baba booey!
i would also like to add that i really, really don't like the idea of striking first like we did with iraq. it's almost like giving someone the death penalty because they could commit a murder. i just don't like it. remember shock and awe? imagine all the people who died. all of the innocent people in iraq who die every day because we were doing something "just in case."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ChouxPastryHeart
Member Avatar
Pot-Smoking FBI Member
This is why people originally say that "war is bad and it is wrong", because NO GOOD COMES OF IT. iTS ALL PETTY!! Especially now that people are litigating about whats right and wrong about screw screw, and the different degrees of offending. FUCKING HELL the war and the terrorism is GROSS ENOUGH!!!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heybulldog
Member Avatar
Elmore James
etphonehomeyo
Oct 24 2006, 02:35 PM
i would also like to add that i really, really don't like the idea of striking first like we did with iraq.  it's almost like giving someone the death penalty because they could commit a murder.  i just don't like it.  remember shock and awe?  imagine all the people who died.  all of the innocent people in iraq who die every day because we were doing something "just in case."

ok, but the people we were attacking IN Iraq had ALREADY committed murder. it wasnt just speculation. HENCE, why Saddam and other Iraqi leaders are on trial now for murder/torture/etc. they have already killed thousands of iraqi's, coalition troops during the first gulf war, ..invaded kuwait, etc. its not just speculative is all im saying.

and yes innocent people die in war, but unlike WWII "blanket bombings", this is more precise target bombing, so dont spin it like we are just killing innocent people randomly.
When it rains and shines, it's just a state of mind
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
etphonehomeyo
Member Avatar
baba booey!
heybulldog
Oct 24 2006, 05:46 PM
etphonehomeyo
Oct 24 2006, 02:35 PM
i would also like to add that i really, really don't like the idea of striking first like we did with iraq.  it's almost like giving someone the death penalty because they could commit a murder.  i just don't like it.  remember shock and awe?  imagine all the people who died.  all of the innocent people in iraq who die every day because we were doing something "just in case."

ok, but the people we were attacking IN Iraq had ALREADY committed murder. it wasnt just speculation. HENCE, why Saddam and other Iraqi leaders are on trial now for murder/torture/etc.

and yes innocent people die in war, but unlike WWII "blanket bombings", this is more precise target bombing, so dont spin it like we are just killing innocent people randomly.

1. i never said we were randomly killing innocent people. i don't think it's on purpose, but it's obviously happening and i refuse to ignore that.
2. yes, saddam killed a lot of people, but a lot of people we killed would still be alive if we would have never gone there. i know that happens in every war, but i see more of a point to other wars. world war II had to happen. this one didn't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The News Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply