War In Iraq

[roughrider]

So we all know where Bush stands, and most are largely unsure of Kerry and his "flip-flopping" but where do you stand on the Iraq War?

[BTlaxripper]

I think it was good, but people won't see the positive outcomes for a while

[TheKOB]

Hind Sight is always 20/20. Also, it's interesting that what's become a central issue in this presidential race had both Kerry and Bush on the same side initially.

Either way though...got a dictator out of power who killed his own people, added stability to the region...nothing wrong with that.

[timmy]

Stability? I'm for the war, but there will never be stability in the Middle East. We're concentraiting on the wrong dictator. We should be coming up with ways to Kim Jong-Il (sp) out of N. Korea. BUT, the only way we can go in there is with China's help.

[cannon]

Ok, i understand and wholeheartedly agree that Sadamm was an awful individual and Iraqi's are better without his regime and all its effects. However...THIS IS NOT THE REASON THE US WENT TO WAR!...do any of you even recall that the pretext for war was terror....trying to find Osama...? then the neo-cons in the white house spread the word that iraq had something to do with 9/11 which it did not....and that Iraq had WMD's...which it was told did not!....and then justify killing its own soldiers and iraqi's by saying OH we got Sadamm. Please, too many people have been sucked in.

Sadamm is gone...good
Justifiable war?....hell no

[stegmakk]

we went to war under a false pretense of fighting terrorism...in a country that IMHO has less terrorist ties than Afghanistan...

This war has increased hatred and dislike of the US being a policing country and flexing its muscles without care for anyone else not only in middle eastern countries but other countries as well (Vive la France anyone?)

The terrorist regimes have grown in strength as a result of this war again because they see the oppressive US forcing their ways...

And you cant say this is hindsight...common sense would tell anyone we are not going to round up all terrorists...common sense tells you if you go in guns ablaze and piss of the middle eastern people, and cant totally get all of the terrorists, sympathy for the terrorists and hatred for US will culminate in more terrorists and worse plots than before...common sense tells you when you are thinking of going to war and EVERYONE is balking, that if you go through with it, they won't miraculously change their opinion...

[stegmakk]

Now to confuse you all...
IF the war was just after terrorists AND was not the US flexing its muscles (ie using strike forces and pinpointing terrorist areas/persons) I would have supported it...

[stegmakk]

one last thought...I would like to know the answers to the next three questions...
if the war in Iraq was for terrorism...why go balls out and invade the whole country (we didnt do that in Afghanistan)?
if the war was to unseat a violent dictatorship...why not one of the many other countries?
if it was to get rid of WMD...what about those developing nukes (forget bio weapons)

if it was for Jr. to one up his dad...and do what he couldnt...then its ok
(last remark just in jest...)

[Longest]

You're right, let's go finish what we weren't allowed to finish in Korea b/c of the Democrats. Eerie.

Dan

[Thrillhouse]

Originally posted by stegmakk
one last thought...I would like to know the answers to the next three questions...
if the war in Iraq was for terrorism...why go balls out and invade the whole country (we didnt do that in Afghanistan)?
if the war was to unseat a violent dictatorship...why not one of the many other countries?
if it was to get rid of WMD...what about those developing nukes (forget bio weapons)

if it was for Jr. to one up his dad...and do what he couldnt...then its ok
(last remark just in jest...)

1) We didn’t have to invade Afghanistan because we were able to use the Northern Alliance without risking a large number of American troops. Bush Sr. had hoped that something similar would have happened in Iraq after the first gulf war, but unfortunately it didn’t. The only way to take Saddam out of the power and make sure his weapons never got in the hands of terrorist (unless they already have) was to invade Iraq.
2) It’s true that there are many violent dictators in the world, but as powerful as our military is, we can’t fight all of them. Saddam had the technology and the will to make and use WMD’s. Add the hostility he has shown to his neighbors in the past and most reasonable people will conclude that he was a threat that had to be dealt with. UN weapons inspectors were in Iraq for years and they were never willing to say that Iraq didn’t have stock piles of these weapons. The only way we could have ever been sure that Saddam Hussein would never gas the people of Iraq again was to remove him from power. Hopefully one day everyone in the world will get to choose their leaders, but we can’t do it overnight.
3) Here I’ll assume you are referring to North Korea and Iran, and they need to be addressed one country at a time.
a) North Korea has admitted they have nuclear weapons, but so far are only using it as a chip to get into one on one talk with the United States. Of course it would be foolish to reward starting a nuclear program with a seat at the table and aid so the US has rejected their demands. While this is a big problem, it’s still in the diplomatic stages. When the chips are down, I don’t think the DPRK wants a showdown with the US.
b) Iran is a country rich with oil and natural gas. As a result, it doesn’t have any problems supplying power. It doesn’t have a need to a nuclear reactor, let alone several. Saying that their power plants are peaceful is a joke; they are the first step to being able to produce weapons-grade uranium.

A diplomatic solution is very possible with DPRK. KIM Chong-il is waiting for the November election; he’ll get what he wants from Kerry if he wins. If Bush wins, who knows what he’ll do. He’s a pretty whacky dictator.
Iran is a different story. I don’t think Russia wants to make Iran a nuclear power, but they are getting a lot of much needed money to build those reactors. If democracy takes root in Iraq, the people in Iran might start getting restless and a change will come from within, but it’s not something that could be counted on. Israel might bomb their nuclear sites, which would start a really big poop storm. I think (hope) the US has enough power over Israel to keep that from happening.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

Originally posted by Thrillhouse
KIM Chong-il is waiting for the November election; he’ll get what he wants from Kerry if he wins. If Bush wins, who knows what he’ll do. He’s a pretty whacky dictator.

what are you trying to imply here? that kerry is weak and will back down and give in to korea?

[Thrillhouse]

Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
what are you trying to imply here? that kerry is weak and will back down and give in to korea?

Yes I am. Do you think I'm wrong? Do you think that Kerry will stand up to Korea when all it will take to avoid conflict is giving Korea a seat at the table?

[OcLaxer22]

Honestly who do you think BinLaden would vote for, ****in kerry man cuz he knows that kerry will stop haunting him and let it go.

[OcLaxer22]

I dont even know how kerry played lacrosse hes such a *****

[stegmakk]

Originally posted by LaxMiddie32
I find this really funny.

People think that "Hey, we went in for WMDs, and didnt find any, so therefore we shouldnt be at war and Bush is a rotten liar".


Actually, I felt BEFORE we invaded this was a wrong war.
I don't believe there was any ever credible evidence. Like, if your coach says it is OK to take a baseball swing at someon'e knees. You know you shouldn't but do it anyway and say, "i was relying on wrong information from my coach".
There were more reasons NOT to go to war than there were TO go to war.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

Originally posted by Thrillhouse
Yes I am. Do you think I'm wrong? Do you think that Kerry will stand up to Korea when all it will take to avoid conflict is giving Korea a seat at the table?

well, that just shows your blatant bias, idiocy, and ignorance. the democratss were the ones who were saying korea was more of a threat than iraq. and, the man is going to do what's best for the country. he's going to avoid war until it is absolutely necessary, but he's not going to let korea develop huge weapons systems with a lunatic at the wheel.

Originally posted by OcLaxer22
Honestly who do you think BinLaden would vote for, ****in kerry man cuz he knows that kerry will stop haunting him and let it go.

1. once again, another idot comment.

2. yeah, it seems as though bush's administration is doin a great job of hunting him down... i havent even seen his face in the news for oh... 2 years? what happened to ari fleischer saying "we're two days behind him and closing in"?


i really hope y'all dont become politicians in the president's staff one day, or even worse... president. the government might be in worse shape than it is now...

[HdGLaxWarrior]

New intelligence: Iran has more terrorist ties!

Once again our CIA screws-up! Thanks guys!

[Thrillhouse]

Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
well, that just shows your blatant bias, idiocy, and ignorance. the democratss were the ones who were saying korea was more of a threat than iraq. and, the man is going to do what's best for the country. he's going to avoid war until it is absolutely necessary, but he's not going to let korea develop huge weapons systems with a lunatic at the wheel.



1. once again, another idot comment.

2. yeah, it seems as though bush's administration is doin a great job of hunting him down... i havent even seen his face in the news for oh... 2 years? what happened to ari fleischer saying "we're two days behind him and closing in"?


i really hope y'all dont become politicians in the president's staff one day, or even worse... president. the government might be in worse shape than it is now...


Wow. Name calling. We have had some pretty spirited arguments here but I think this is the first time someone has lowered themselves to that level. I’m not hurt because while I’m sure I’m bias, I know I’m not an idiot or ignorant; I’m just disappointed because I thought you were better than that.

Korea wants aid from the United States. Instead of asking for it he starts making nuclear weapons thinking that we will give him the aid if he agrees to stop. It’s blackmail. If we give in it would be an open invitation for any other country to start doing the same thing. Libya is a perfect example; they stopped their weapons programs and settled with the Lockerbie victims families before any talk about aid began. There was no quid pro quo.
I’m not saying that Kerry won’t do what he thinks is best for the country, I’m sure he will. What I am saying is what Kerry is campaigning on leads me to believe that he will not stand up to Korea alone if that’s what it takes. He feels that before we act, we need to have a “real” coalition of government supporting us. Do you think that France, Germany, and Russia’s problem was only with Bush and just because Kerry is president all of these countries are just going to go along with us? They are going to have to get something in return. Also, to do anything in Korea’s part of the world is going to require the blessing of China. Are we going to stop supporting the people of Taiwan to get China’s backing, because that is what they are going to want? I just don’t feel that these other countries have America’s best interest in mind and whatever compromise they reach will hurt us in the long run. We’re not talking about trading tea here, we’re talking about protecting our country, and when we do that there is no compromising.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

im not even gonna argue about your denial of idiocy and ignorance with that statement, because i just dont wanna get into it

as for, we're not gonna stand up alone... i dont think thik we should. if we do, we'll end up picking fights with everyone over nothing looking like bullies... just like we do now. sorry bud, but the UN was right on this one... we should have stayed the hell out of Iraq. if we didnt want to be part of the UN and listen to what they say, then why are we in the UN? Why don't we get out of the UN if we're just going to do everything ourselves and not listen to what the rest of the UN has to say?

[Thrillhouse]

I have every right to express my opinion about a man who is running for president. I think that rather than confronting a conflict, he will find a way to appease all of the parties involved. I think that this, while preventing conflict in the short term, will only put off bigger problems down the road. I made these arguments without attacking him personally, only using what he is saying in his campaign and statements coming from North Korea.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/9486820.htm

After I made the statement that Kerry would probably give North Korea what it wants, you asked me if I though Kerry didn’t have a backbone. While the term “no backbone” is a bit insulting, it did fit what I was saying, I just said it in a nicer way. I confirmed that it is indeed what I though.
For that you made the attack personal. You called me bias, an idiot, and ignorant. I let you know I didn’t appreciate that, but I hoped it was just a temporary lapse of judgment. You last post let me know that it was not.
I have never attacked you or anyone on this board personally, and I’m not going to lower myself to your level now. You seem like a smart guy who stands by his convictions, but personal attacks are uncalled for.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

well, then we would we waste our time with such a useless organization, if they havent ever done anything successful. Staying out of Iraq was something they did right... maybe the US should have actually followed their advice...

[roughrider]

Originally posted by LaxMiddie32
Because the UN has never actually sucessfully done anything useful.

if you forget a couple of things like bosnia and chechnia(sp?)

[LaxGoalieLZ]

Im more neutral but if i had to choose i would be against it, but i will support whatever our country decides to do. As long as we are there soldiers are going to die everyday. I think that is why there havnt been another attack on the states becasue there are still americans to kill over there. That is what they want to do kill americans, it doesnt matter if it is a soldier or a civilian an american is an american to them. If there arent americans in iraq than they might come to america and try and kill people. This is just a thought and im not saying that having our young soldiers out there dying everyday somethign good because it may be keeping us away from danger. I am really torn between the subject of if we should have soldiers in iraq or not. The death toll is going up everyday but we do need to help them reorganize ther goverment untill it is stable (i doubt even then we will leave).

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

wait... you're neutral and would be be against the war, yet you have bush as a superhero?... i dont get it...

[roughrider]

I think now that we are in we cant leave. You cant **** something up then leave and pretend it wasnt you who did it. So far, all coalition deaths have numbered 1109 for an unjust war.

[Thrillhouse]

Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
as for, we're not gonna stand up alone... i dont think thik we should.

You got mad that I said Kerry won’t stand up alone to Korea, but then you said “as for, we're not gonna stand up alone... i dont think thik we should.” [SIC] Which is it? You’re arguing in circles here. Or are you saying Kerry would stand up to them, but you disagree with him?
If you’re going to lower yourself to name calling, at least try to be consistent.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

i dont remember you saying Kerry wont stand up ALONE. I just remember you saying Kerry wouldnt stand up to N Korea. If you did, I misse dit, my bad

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

and, wow, please... lots of people here have called others ignorant... just drop it. i thought we ended that in another thread. if you wanna talk about lowering yourself, what are you doing now?

[Thrillhouse]

Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
and, wow, please... lots of people here have called others ignorant... just drop it. i thought we ended that in another thread. if you wanna talk about lowering yourself, what are you doing now?

I'm standing up for myself. If you don't like it, don't call anyone names in the first place. If you are going to say those things, be man enough to back it up.

[Thrillhouse]

Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
i dont remember you saying Kerry wont stand up ALONE. I just remember you saying Kerry wouldnt stand up to N Korea. If you did, I misse dit, my bad

Now you’re just arguing semantics.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

1. no, you arent standing up for yourself... if you were standing up for yourself, you'd prove to me why i shouldnt have called you ignorant. you're just being childish by bringing it up over and over again when it's unnecessary. plenty of people have done it in here. in fact, im pretty sure that you've probably called someone something that wasnt so happy and pretty in here once or twice. get over it.

2. no, im not arguing semantics. and i quote... "You got mad that I said Kerry won’t stand up alone to Korea, but then you said 'as for, we're not gonna stand up alone... i dont think thik we should.' [SIC] ". your agument is that i "flip flopped", as y'all like to say about us, about Kerry standing up alone to korea. but, in fact, you said earlier, "Yes I am. Do you think I'm wrong? Do you think that Kerry will stand up to Korea when all it will take to avoid conflict is giving Korea a seat at the table?" So, now you have no argument.

[Thrillhouse]

Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
1. no, you arent standing up for yourself... if you were standing up for yourself, you'd prove to me why i shouldnt have called you ignorant. you're just being childish by bringing it up over and over again when it's unnecessary. plenty of people have done it in here. in fact, im pretty sure that you've probably called someone something that wasnt so happy and pretty in here once or twice. get over it.


Well, you skipped over the fact that you also called me and OcLaxer22an idiot. Nonetheless…


Main Entry: ig•no•rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED

If you go back, you’ll see that I explain my views with facts and cite anything that I don’t consider common knowledge. In the past, if anyone questioned something that I’ve stated as fact, I’ve found an article to support it. Of course everything I post is not fact; much of it is my opinion, which I use facts to support. Anytime anyone has questioned my opinions or did not understand them, I’ve done my best to explain them. In regards to the issues we have discussed in this thread, I believe I have done a sufficient job in explaining the circumstances that led me to my opinion. On top of all of that, I majored in Political Science. I feel I am well qualified to discuss these issues without being personally attacked.
In regards to your statement that you are ‘pretty sure” that I have said things along similar lines, I’m assuring you that I have not. I’m putting the onus on you to prove otherwise. In the future sir, I’ll ask you not to make such accusations without proof.

I’m not going away. You said some things that were uncalled for. I call on you to own up to what you said. As far as I can see, the only reason you said the things you did is because you don’t agree with me. Why can’t you argue the issues you don’t agree with instead of insulting the people you don’t agree with?

[Thrillhouse]

Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
2. no, im not arguing semantics. and i quote... "You got mad that I said Kerry won’t stand up alone to Korea, but then you said 'as for, we're not gonna stand up alone... i dont think thik we should.' [SIC] ". your agument is that i "flip flopped", as y'all like to say about us, about Kerry standing up alone to korea. but, in fact, you said earlier, "Yes I am. Do you think I'm wrong? Do you think that Kerry will stand up to Korea when all it will take to avoid conflict is giving Korea a seat at the table?" So, now you have no argument.

It was my mistake for inserting “alone” in my second statement when I did not do so in my first statement. I apologize for the confusion, although I’m surprised you expected more from an arrogant idiot.
I still stand by original statement. Kerry will give in and send aid to Korea in exchange for ending its nuclear programs. If we were to do that, don’t you think it would an invitation for other countries to blackmail us in a similar way?

[OcLaxer22]

Originally posted by roughrider
I think now that we are in we cant leave. You cant **** something up then leave and pretend it wasnt you who did it. So far, all coalition deaths have numbered 1109 for an unjust war.

I agree that they didnt have to die, this isnt even our war. But they knew what they were getting into when they signed up. You can only see so many american troops being dragged through the street dead before you want all those sons of *****'s dead man.

[GIattack]

i think we should have just listened to what goerge washington said before he left office, which was to stay out of forien affairs. if it wasnt for some of the stupid presendts before bush there would have never been a problem. we need to mind our own business

[MassLax25]

Totally against the war, any war at all. I never really realized why my friends called me a hippie lol.

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

Originally posted by GIattack
i think we should have just listened to what goerge washington said before he left office, which was to stay out of forien affairs. if it wasnt for some of the stupid presendts before bush there would have never been a problem. we need to mind our own business

although i wish i could agree with you, the US george washington lived in and the US we live in are two different countries. the world wasnt as internationally connected as it is today. back then, the US could almost depend entirely on itself. today, the world is so interconnected that no country can just "mind their own business". China tried it almost half a decade ago. And, it turned out to be a hideous mistake. We have to get involved in world affairs or else we wont be able to survive in this world.

[TheKOB]

Originally posted by roughrider
I think now that we are in we cant leave. You cant **** something up then leave and pretend it wasnt you who did it. So far, all coalition deaths have numbered 1109 for an unjust war.

If removing dictators from power is ****ing something up, I think we should do it more often. Also, you might want to ask the people in iraq if the war was unjustified. No matter what their response, we won't gas 'em....

[LaxGoalieLZ]

Originally posted by GeorgiaMiddie2
wait... you're neutral and would be be against the war, yet you have bush as a superhero?... i dont get it...

I found it and put it as my avatar becaue i dont like bush and i thought it was kinda funny. I am in no way a bush supporter.

[roughrider]

Originally posted by LaxMiddie32
In that case we need to cut off all foriegn aid to all countries. Why should we still be giving food to people in third world countries anyway?

George Washington wanted America to run a role of nuetrality, which we did for hundreds of years. It was only really in WWI that we went and fought in a foreign war.

[roughrider]

Originally posted by LaxGoalieLZ
I found it and put it as my avatar becaue i dont like bush and i thought it was kinda funny. I am in no way a bush supporter.

excellent, you are my kind of man LaxGoalieLZ!

[GIattack]

georgemiddie we could mind our own business. that dosnt mean ignore all the other countries, we could still trade and what not. im talkin bout wars. why should we fight someone elses war?

[GeorgiaMiddie2]

because someone will eventually drag us into war... just like pearl harbor... we need allies. and allies help each other out, so we have to help out our allies when they're in need.