War in Iraq

[Duke]

I don't think we have enough political debates. So, is the War in Iraq really that useful? Are there really Weapons of Mass destruction? Are we going to war for the right reasons?

I have taken the side of pro-war. There are obviously weapons of mass destruction Link. Then why are stupid liberals so bitter about going to war? Is it because we are loosing SOOO many troops?! That is hosh-posh, it was documented that there were 40,000 or more casualties at the Battle of Gettysburg. So why are we complaining when our WOUNDED toll is only 17,269, through this whole war. It seems people are complaining more about the deaths of our troops in Iraq who are dieing for a good cause then the innocent deaths of the couple thousand during the 9/11 attacks which was ONE attack.

We are not only trying to find weapons of mass destruction but we are also trying to bring freedom to Iraq. How can this be seen as evil and wrong? Please, clearly announce your standings on this debate weather it be pro-war or con-war.

 

[Mic_128]

why are stupid liberals so bitter about going to war? Is it because we are loosing SOOO many troops?! That is hosh-posh, it was documented that there were 40,000 or more casualties at the Battle of Gettysburg.

I think why they're complaining, is they're losing quite a lot, after Bush has declared the War over.

So why are we complaining when our WOUNDED toll is only 17,269, through this whole war. It seems people are complaining more about the deaths of our troops in Iraq who are dieing for a good cause then the innocent deaths of the couple thousand during the 9/11 attacks which was ONE attack.

Probably because complaining about something in the past isn't going to do anything, but complaining about something that's happening RIGHT NOW they might stop the war and stop having people die.

We are not only trying to find weapons of mass destruction but we are also trying to bring freedom to Iraq. How can this be seen as evil and wrong? Please, clearly announce your standings on this debate weather it be pro-war or con-war.

While Pre-war Iraq certianly wasn't a cheerful place, it's certainly not much safer. And it's seen as "wrong" when the United Nations didn't want to do the attack until they had more evidence, but the US just went and attacked anyway. And now, while this is still going on, they're threatening the neighbour of Iraq, Iran, with an invasion. Isn't one war at a time enough?

 

[3.14159]

I don't think we have enough political debates. So, is the War in Iraq really that useful? Are there really Weapons of Mass destruction? Are we going to war for the right reasons?

I have taken the side of pro-war. There are obviously weapons of mass destruction Link. Then why are stupid liberals so bitter about going to war? Is it because we are loosing SOOO many troops?! That is hosh-posh, it was documented that there were 40,000 or more casualties at the Battle of Gettysburg. So why are we complaining when our WOUNDED toll is only 17,269, through this whole war. It seems people are complaining more about the deaths of our troops in Iraq who are dieing for a good cause then the innocent deaths of the couple thousand during the 9/11 attacks which was ONE attack.

1: We fear WMDs in certain places only. We have more nukes than most of the rest of the world put together. Ever notice how the USA denounces WMDs in the hands of its foes but never its allies? I object to this double standard.
2: The war was not started for a good cause
3: You ignore the tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq since we entered

We are not only trying to find weapons of mass destruction but we are also trying to bring freedom to Iraq. How can this be seen as evil and wrong? Please, clearly announce your standings on this debate weather it be pro-war or con-war.

1: We aren't bringing them any freedom at all. We're imposing a United States value system upon them. Imposing freedom is just as bad as not giving them freedom at all.
2: See above, point 3.

Yes, I am against the war.

 

[Mic_128]

Ever notice how the USA denounces WMDs in the hands of its foes but never its allies? I object to this double standard.

Agreed. It's okay for China to start working on Nuclear power plants, but not Iran?

 

[Duke]

Your right mic, that is a fair arguement against the war in Iraq! Good find!

 

[Mic_128]

Find? I didn't find anything. It's all common knowledge.

 

[pokemonmaster01]

I don't think we have enough political debates. So, is the War in Iraq really that useful? Are there really Weapons of Mass destruction? Are we going to war for the right reasons?

I have taken the side of pro-war. There are obviously weapons of mass destruction Link.

Sorry. Not true.

Then why are stupid liberals so bitter about going to war? Is it because we are loosing SOOO many troops?! That is hosh-posh, it was documented that there were 40,000 or more casualties at the Battle of Gettysburg. So why are we complaining when our WOUNDED toll is only 17,269, through this whole war.

Gettysburg was a battle of the American Civil War, not the affair of another country. Not only that, but since the country was fighting itself (army-to-army on the battlefield), it had double the casualties.

It seems people are complaining more about the deaths of our troops in Iraq who are dieing for a good cause then the innocent deaths of the couple thousand during the 9/11 attacks which was ONE attack.

Saddam Hussein was NOT responsible for September 11th. He and Osama bin Laden are enemies.

We are not only trying to find weapons of mass destruction but we are also trying to bring freedom to Iraq. How can this be seen as evil and wrong?

It is hurting the American economy, and we need to solve the problems of our own country before we help another.

 

[xianfeng]

I don't know how to put this so it sound all pollitaclly correct but, this is another vietnam a war over a stupid reason.

 

[Duke]

Please explain yourself xianfeng. It sounds like your arguement is based on personal opinions. Care to share some proof/reasoning behind this?

 

[xianfeng]

Ye the terrorsts did some bad things over there in the states, but now you guys and some other countries you dragged into this like the UK and Australia are over there making life hell for the people that live there if we want to help them then get out. These terrorists arn't afraid to kill their own people to get us out of their nation. As for bombing Iran, I mean sure they have an evil government that changed them from Persia to Iran what have they done, as far as I know nothing. Bush is just trying to make this into a big war so he'll be more than just another name in the history books he wants to be the next abraham lincoln or george washington, so this is his big publicity thing, same goes with Tony Blair and John Howard, they want to be famous leaders that is why I think they responded to the terroists.

 

[Deleted member]

1: We aren't bringing them any freedom at all. We're imposing a United States value system upon them. Imposing freedom is just as bad as not giving them freedom at all.
.

You seem to forget that the US has implemented democracy in Iraq. Per capita, more people in Iraq went and voted than the US,even when anti-democracy groups threatened voting stations with car bombs, and many followed through. People still went and voted, even with casualties. In 100 years, we will look back and realize that the US rebuilt Iraq, as it does many of the countries it invades. Democracy is not only a US value system.

1: We fear WMDs in certain places only. We have more nukes than most of the rest of the world put together. Ever notice how the USA denounces WMDs in the hands of its foes but never its allies? I object to this double standard.

Why are the police allowed to carry loaded guns? Because we trust them. Like it or not, the US has assumed the role of a world police. No pun intended.

Remember: Hussein's Salman Pak terrorist training camp 15 miles from Baghdad housed an airline fuselage in which Islamic extremists reportedly learned to commandeer jets with in-flight cutlery. We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's dealings with al-Qaeda, and this document shows the extent of the old regime's involvement with the international terrorist network."

http://nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200312150842.asp

Pokemonmaster, I don't have a strong opinion on the question: "Was Hussein involved in 9/11?"
But here is what I believe:

The Iraq war is a war on terror. Hussein supported terrorism. Therefore, the US is going to capture him. And they did. The US looked for him for this reason, there may be others.

Here is what I see:
I found some evidence (quote above) that Hussein may have ties to 9/11. It is fairly plausible. Even if bin Laden and Hussein are enemies, they still share the same views on America. Also, Hussein had previous ties to previous WTC bombings in 1993. That said, I still do not know.

Let me state this perfectly clear, I don't necessarily believe Hussein had ties. I am undecided.

 

[3.14159]

You seem to forget that the US has implemented democracy in Iraq. Per capita, more people in Iraq went and voted than the US,even when anti-democracy groups threatened voting stations with car bombs, and many followed through. People still went and voted, even with casualties. In 100 years, we will look back and realize that the US rebuilt Iraq, as it does many of the countries it invades. Democracy is not only a US value system.

Who imposed this stuff upon them? WE DID. The point of freedom is to make a choice. We didn't give them one. You're still ignoring their dead citizens.

Why are the police allowed to carry loaded guns? Because we trust them. Like it or not, the US has assumed the role of a world police. No pun intended.

The United States made itself the world police by creating stockpiles of nukes. No one needs nuclear weapons, including us. A bomb and a gun are substantially different.

The Iraq war is a war on terror. Hussein supported terrorism. Therefore, the US is going to capture him. And they did. The US looked for him for this reason, there may be others.

Bush originally said we were going for WMDs, not to capture Saddam. We have Saddam now, but we're not leaving. Now he says we went for democracy. Iraq had elections. We're still there with no pullout in sight.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Fool me three times, I become a political dissident.

 

[Duke]

Sorry. Not true.

Too bad they have found evidence of WoMD.

Gettysburg was a battle of the American Civil War, not the affair of another country. Not only that, but since the country was fighting itself (army-to-army on the battlefield), it had double the casualties.

I don't get what you are trying to get at here. I was making a point that; not that many troops have died in Iraq. One battle in the civil war (even if you cut that in half for both sides being the same country) that still is more casualties than there are wounded troops from the war.

Saddam Hussein was NOT responsible for September 11th. He and Osama bin Laden are enemies.

You don't know the personal vendettas of Saddam Hussein. You don't know weather they worked together or not. Enemies or not they are both enemies to Iraq, itself, and the US. In fact, Sadam Hussein has killed more people than the US has. So how about we stop Hussein and the terrorist who are the bigger problem. Oh wait, that's what we are doing.

It is hurting the American economy, and we need to solve the problems of our own country before we help another.

How is it hurting the American economy? And don't give me that crap because the economy goes up and down all the time. If you look at word war one the economy SOARED because of war.

 

[Deleted member]

Pi, I'm not ignoring their dead citizens. Many of them that the US had no part in killing. Imo, more people would die if the US was not there to mediate. I realize a bomb and a gun are different, but so are countries and cops. If you think of the world as a city, and the US as the police, then it makes a little more sense.

 

[Eor]

Too bad they have found evidence of WoMD.

Hey Duke, it’s a debate. You have to have things called evidence. But that has never really been a rule you've followed.

I don't get what you are trying to get at here. I was making a point that; not that many troops have died in Iraq. One battle in the civil war (even if you cut that in half for both sides being the same country) that still is more casualties than there are wounded troops from the war.

That was one country trying to preserve a nation from being ripped in two. It was also a real conflict, which had actual large amounts of troops fighting in one spot. This is us against a technologically inferior country, which we have already beaten. If the American civil war and the Iraq war was anywhere similar, then you would have a point. But its not.

You don't know the personal vendettas of Saddam Hussein. You don't know weather they worked together or not.

This is where that little thing called evidence comes into play.

http://meaindia.nic.in/bestoftheweb/2002/09/30bow1.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

And Osama has compared the US to Iraq and said we are no better.

Enemies or not they are both enemies to Iraq, itself, and the US.

Saddam was not an enemy of Iraq, "itself" doesn't even make sense and seems like you just threw it in there so you could have extra words, and while Saddam doesn't like our intervention, he had no plans to invade, attack, or interfere with us at all.

In fact, Sadam Hussein has killed more people than the US has

Over 34,500 Iraqi civilians have been killed since we started the war. That’s a single war. Do we want to include the Vietnamese in that count too? Or any other war we have had?

So how about we stop Hussein and the terrorist who are the bigger problem. Oh wait, that's what we are doing.

Hussein was never a big problem in our War on Terrorism, and we are not after ever terrorist, but Al-Qaeda. Having a full war on every Terrorist is like having a war on sadness.

So how about we stop our war on terrorism so we can conquer a country so we can replace the leader with a pro-US government to secure out oil deals. Oh wait, that's what we are doing.

.

 

[MikeMan445]

It's pretty sad when there are living, breathing people out there who find nothing wrong with President Bush's description of the "War on Terror" and his justification of suspending civil rights because we are in a "time of war."

So, pray tell, how does one win the War on Terror? Yay, no more terrorists? Is that it?

It never occurs to people that a war on a concept is unwinnable? That it could last forever?


Fun fact: Vice President Cheney still owns over 433,000 stock options from Halliburton, which has meant he has made over $8 million on this war in 2005 alone. But, that couldn't possibly be a conflict of interest, could it?

Nah. The war is to free the Iraqi people! Go freedom!

Except that there are far worse dictators all over the world that we haven't touched. Wonder why that is? Hint: it has to do with the glaring lack of decaying dinosaur fossils underneath their soil. See, they don't have oil, so their oppressed peoples are significantly less worth "liberating."

 

[Mic_128]

I don't get what you are trying to get at here. I was making a point that; not that many troops have died in Iraq. One battle in the civil war (even if you cut that in half for both sides being the same country) that still is more casualties than there are wounded troops from the war.

I'm pretty sure that Civilians weren't injured, or killed as much as they have in the Iraq war.

If you think of the world as a city, and the US as the police, then it makes a little more sense.

Not really. Try comparing the world to a city and the US as a vigilante
group, going around making sure everyone does everything they say, ignoring the police (The United Nations)

 

[Deleted member]

The UN is not police. It's a conscious second thought. It has little power.

 

[rounder_nk]

The UN is not police. It's a conscious second thought. It has little power.

The UN in the ideal scenario should be the decisive power as to these issues. Regarding the war it seems as though there was no real hard hitting incentive besides oil and the WMD's which weren't even found and bush knew this all along. The polls on his presidency have gone down to 30% approval and his staff is slowly one by one stepping down due to scandals over in iraq and with the patriot act. Also he is now talking of attacking Iran who has recently become a world nuclear power. These factors for sure have lowered his credibility.

 

[3.14159]

Questions for DeLoRtEd1: Why do you assume that the United States will act in the world's interest rather than its own? Why has the president changed his reason for starting the war repeatedly? Why should our subjective view of freedom be valued over Iraqi lives?

 

[Mic_128]

Ignore this

 

[Bowser87]

I'm pretty sure that Civilians weren't injured, or killed as much as they have in the Iraq war.

To support this, just think about how many civilians die everyday from bombings: 10-20. That's significantly higher than under Saddam, especially during the 90s when he calmed down a bit.

 

[Rici]

The UN is not police. It's a conscious second thought. It has little power.

It could have great power. If one nation does something wrong the others could (and should) oppose it. I also think that it's wrong that the US is acting like they are the police for the rest of the world.

 

[HMWii22]

Don't kid yourself, the last thing the US government cares about is "freeing" the Iraqi people, since it doesn't care about people from any other country. And they're equally apathetic about protecting their own people from so-called weapons of mass destruction. The war in Iraq is a business venture for oil, although it doesn't seem to be going so well. But I guess when you get a semi-******** Texan to spearhead such an expedition you can't expect the greatest results.

 

[Zero Beat]

Don't kid yourself, the last thing the US government cares about is "freeing" the Iraqi people, since it doesn't care about people from any other country. And they're equally apathetic about protecting their own people from so-called weapons of mass destruction. The war in Iraq is a business venture for oil, although it doesn't seem to be going so well. But I guess when you get a semi-******** Texan to spearhead such an expedition you can't expect the greatest results.

I'd rather give that Texan hotdog the benefit of the doubt when it comes to WMD and pretend to be agreeing on "helping" these people than sit and get pwned by the sheer power of probability. I don't really like the idea of some psycho guy running around with biological weapons. But that's just my own individual opinion.

 

[Bowser87]

The only psycho guy who was running around with any dangerous weapons recently is GW actually. Maybe you could say that of Kim Jong-Il too, though it's not certain he has weapons, and he's safe from any US invasion right now.

 

[rounder_nk]

The only psycho guy who was running around with any dangerous weapons recently is GW actually. Maybe you could say that of Kim Jong-Il too, though it's not certain he has weapons, and he's safe from any US invasion right now.

we happen to know that he has nuclear weapons. Since they're on very hard times economically they have threatened to sell these weapons to terrorists for ther needed money. That's why we have made a deal with them and as of now they are basically leeching money off of us.

 

[Zero Beat]

The only psycho guy who was running around with any dangerous weapons recently is GW actually. Maybe you could say that of Kim Jong-Il too, though it's not certain he has weapons, and he's safe from any US invasion right now.

Iran is the one that we have to watch out for, despite the silence.

 

[Sandy]

My thoughts:

First we extract 6 guys and 6 girls from the country.

2nd we bomb Iraq like there's no tomorrow.

3rd The 12 people reproduce to make a new country

4th Problem solved.

 

[AltF4]

Lol, almost a year delayed bump. Nice.

But, wouldn't Iraq just be all inbred then?

 

[Sandy]

How would they be inbred? And before people go saying that this is a crazy idea, consider this, we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki after Pearl Harbor. An estimated 70,000 people died there..

 

[AltF4]

It's essentially the Adam and Eve problem: If you only start out with a small group of people and procreate only inside that gene pool, you get inbreeding. At some point, someone's got to have a kid with their cousin.

Also, SandTiger, you're allowed to start a new thread instead of resurrecting ones started 2 years ago. The people you're posting to are long gone.

 

[Sandy]

Oh well. Inbreeding might already be going on now.
This article: (http://www.isteve.com/cousin_marriage_conundrum.htm) expands on the cousin theory

 

[Rici]

Sand Tiger, are you serious? Please tell me that you're not, because if you were it would be simply inhuman. Killing a country full of innocent civilians just to get a few terrorists is the dumbest idea I've ever heard.

I'm pretty sure you are kidding, but it's not even funny, so I wonder, where in earth did you find the urge to post that?

 

[Sandy]

Yes I'm serious. We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki to pay back the **** that attacked Pearl Harbor. Plenty of inhuman acts there >_>

 

[Rici]

So because it was done then, it is allowed to do now? Don't you find that a little ridiculous? Dude, use your mind. Just sit down a minute and think about what you are saying here.

 

[lonejedi]

My thoughts:

First we extract 6 guys and 6 girls from the country.

2nd we bomb Iraq like there's no tomorrow.

3rd The 12 people reproduce to make a new country

4th Problem solved.

Wow, worst idea possible, how would that solve anything? Not only would that make the U.S look like barbarians, which we already are, but that would defeat the whole purpose of one of the main reasons we are in Iraq, for the spreading of democracy.

And secondly don't say ****, thats a very derogatory word to describe a very close ally to the U.S. as of now.