Well we call it a war on terror, but it will never end. terror is a feeling people recieve therefore it wont go away so i believe this is a pointless war, or as I like to call it Vietnam 2. there have been more deaths over there since weve been there. there wouldve been way less if we just kept to our selves. countries need to help themselves before they can help others.

and who cares that 2 planes crash into the World Trade Towers as long as you keep to yourself.

What he said!


-Pain

I dont know about you but I sat and watched as my beloved city burned and the souls of my fellow Americans 3,000 of them float over my head.A very good friend of mine lost 9 firefighter friends,Softball buddies,a nother good friend lost a family member in world trade 2,and a young lady at my job well her sister got hit in the head with a softball sized chunk of concreat.Shes been in rehab ever since 9/11.
I believe Bush set up house in Iraq simply to attrct all Terrorist to Iraq and deal with them on there turf as opposed to here at home.I"d much rather have them trying to kill a GI with a flack jacket and M16 in there hand then me here at home with what a pocket knife in my hand.Don't forget those Omars they gave Bin Dipshit the religous right to kill 10,000,000 of us Americns if they see fit.Whats next a dirty bomb,or maybe a bio weapon!!
Another thing at the height of the Veitnam war in one week we had 2,000 GI's killed or injured.You do the math..
Being passive is just inviting disaster,no thanks.I'll never forgive and never forget..
And God Bless our men and women in the armed forces,they are my Heros protecting our way of life and freedoms.
just my 2 cents.

TM

You're right on the money Mech.

-Pain

I totally support our troops dont get me wrong on that. and 9/11, theres just nothing to describe it. but people wonder why everyone hates americans its because of who we are as a society. not all of us are the steryotypical fat lazy slobs who cheat on their women and steal money. the other difference between us and the arab nations is religion which is the main reason they attacked us. doesnt all our "gods" want the same thing? im tolerant of religion but i blame it for 90% of wars

War in Afghanistan was/is about 9/11! why say Iaq War is about 9/11 directly as you claim? Noone involved in that directly is in Iraq.



Well you knew I'd get in on this one

I'm with noodles. I agree the war in Iraq is comparable to Vietnam in many ways... It's not all about figures in casualties to take the similarities into consideration. If you really want to look at it in math terms, it's still the same fomula - like 3 is half of 6, 1 is half of 2. Same formula different figures. I think those that still think going into Iraq was to get back at Saddam for 9/11 still miss the point, to put it bluntly. The initial 'reason' to go into Iraq was about WMD - not 9/11, and since Saddam [due to hang very soon] was reluctant to let in UN Inspectors, there was some tension leading to a hasty all systems go into Iraq.
Moving into Afghanistan was about 9/11! get it straight. . And get this sorted too; those of you who also believe in the popular myth the French are fence sitters- 2000 French troops are in Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001-present_war_in_Afghanistan].

I was for the decision to go in for the WMD reasons; remembering how we ignored Japan and Germany being agressive prior to WW2 and ignorong the doomsday predictors. That doesn't mean I'm backing how Bush screwed up a good thing after Baghdad was captured by the hard-work of soldiers and Generals. Bush and neo-con chums masterfully lost the Iraqi public support, as they tsnatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

If you think the pee-on al quaeda insurgent rabble that are creating hell in Iraq are THE threat to the USA I honestly think you are all too easily letting Bush/neo-cons convince you the war of never ending attrition in Iraq are worth patriotic american and allied soldiers lives - isn't it a war that will ultimately only be straightened out by the Iraqi civilians alone going either way- fighting for their own freedom or not.

Al quaeda cross border 'imports' going into Iraq are part of the 'distraction' strategy- a strategy which alot of you seem to overlook too easily in my opinion. Those scumbag terrorist fighters in Iraq are easily disposable cannon fodder- they aren't the majority of insurgents in Iraq there either the coalition are keeping at bay. Al Quaeda knows even if by some miracle their elements got wiped out in Iraq they still can claim no decisive loss there-they exploited the opening of a weak post-invasion Iraq phase 2, to turn around the global support the US had after 9/11 and Afghanistan.

Remember Sauron'e eye in lord of the rings... our eye[or Bush's ] is watching Iraq but many other 'terror-inspired' events are going on while some of us are letting ourselves be distracted; sleeper cells / Taliban still in Afghanistan / I even bet Bent Laden is involved in Sudan and Somalia's latest flare-ups.
You can persuade yourself the only events to worry about preventing another 9/11 is by what's happening in Iraq-but that's just a dream. Globally it's the Intelligence network that have thwarted some real big nightmares from taking place- if you keep yourself informed- you know this. Other nightmares have not been prevented. So determine for yourself if the war in Iraq is what's really avoiding another 9/11 'in your backyard' of 'in our streets'. Al quaeda intends to use unseen terror in their target nations not via prolonged military open warfare tactics - 'in the streets', or in the countryside like Afghanistan 4 years ago- they know they'll end up running into caves or be blasted off 'the streets'.

Sometimes you need to consider if for whatever ulterior motives those in privileged positions are keeping themselves safe on top by using half of everyone else to be busy fighting the other half. Who do I mean? You decide.

I hope all the troops/police in iraq and iraqi civilians find peace in 2007.

Hellfighter :"And get this sorted too; those of you who also believe in the popular myth the French are fence sitters- 2000 French troops are in Afghanistan"

Do a little research into the French and Russian involvment in Iraq regarding arms trade as well as the oil for food program. Then ask yourself why wouldnt France and Russia want to oust Sadam? They clearly were not sitting on a fence. They were on the other side collecting riches. Follow the money..... that usually answers most questions.

For your reading pleasure in case you don't want to research yourself.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040321-101405-2593r.htm

From Wikipedia regarding terror link to program and thus Iraq and Sadam

The scandal engulfing the United Nations Procurement Department and the Oil for Food Programme involved IHC Services and Al-Qaeda finance operations. IHC was investigated in the summer of 2005 after FOX News broke the story that IHC was involved with Alexander Yakovlev, a Russian official in the UN Procurement Department, who later resigned and pled guilty to corruption charges. One of the shareholders of IHC's holding company was Engelbert Schreiber, Jr., who has been linked to Ahmed Idris Nasreddin, a man designated as a terrorist financier by the US and the UN. The UN has named Nasreddin as a man "belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda." IHC also had connections to Saddam Hussein's former regime through Petra Navigation Group, a company that advertises itself as IHC's agent in the Middle East. Petra Navigation was on the blacklist of firms blocked from doing business with the U.S. for sanctions-busting activities designed to help Saddam's regime. [14]

I don't have time to find sources about Russian weapons in Iraq but I believe that there has been a link between the two. I know for a fact that Russia was fighting to have sanctions lifted from Iraq before 2003 so that they could sell military equipment. For a country that has very little to feed itself with it comes as no surprise that they would look to sell the one thing they do have plenty of.....


So to say that France and Russian among others did not participate in Iraq simply because they didnt agree with the politics of it is short sighted. They were making money hand over fist illegally and didnt want the gravy train to end. Also while there is no direct link from Sadam to Osama there are clear ties from Iraq to terrorist who sponsor al qaeda.

Junkie

6 indisputable facts...

1. UN inspectors allowed back in Iraq under International pressure, led by US which was known to be pushing for invasion
2. After several months, UN weapon inspectors conclude Iraq has no nuclear program or capabilites.
3. Hans Blix and weapons inspectors find no evidence of any other WMD programs at hundreds of sites listed as "suspect" by US "intelligence"
4. Hans Blix begs for more time for inspectors to conclude inspections, noting a week before invasion they were getting real good co-operation from Iraq (Iraq was scared of course, but there it is).
5. US ignores or calls and pleas from UN inspectors, ridicules them as fools for not finding stuff, falsely claims about the WMD's "we know where they are" (Rumsfeld). UN instectors forced to leave because US is about to begin bombing
6. 2 years or more later, Bushes hand picked inspector, who was convinced there were WMD's before invasion, concludes that Saddam had no working weapons or weapons programs.

Yet it is France's and Russia's fault for wanting inspectors to finish their work, and Bush and the boys were right to push forward and ignore them? I think that argument is 4 years outta date.

Anyways, the US can fight whatever war it wants, no one has the power to stop them from starting one. It'll be up to Americans and their troops to decide if they want to keep supporting the wars their politicians lead them into. However, I don't think that when the history book is written, Iraq War 2 is going to be celbrated much.

I can't say for sure what was or was not in Iraq before the war. I don't believe anyone really knows for sure now. To think Sadam was cooperating with inspectors fully to me is foolish. He had defied the UN time after time after time. The UN in turn did nothing time after time after time. I don't know who was right and who was wrong but when you have your own intelligence telling you one thing and a corupt and spineless UN telling you another I know who I would have listend to as well. All I was saying was to think about it. It was not simply a political decision for them. They risked embarrasment as well as loosing their corupt money source. I think that played a big role in them not participating. I always say follow the money. In this case the money leads to France and Russia....

By the way I'm all for the US practicing isolationism. Let the rest of the world figure out how to feed itself and protect itself. Sadam killed several hundereds of thousand of people. What does it matter if he did it with or without WMD? Surely if we just left that good man alone everything there would be fine.....

Junkie

I never said France was not chummy with Sadam.... just like I never mentioned the US was not chummy with Sadam when they wanted to use him to thwart the Iranian radicals from spreading their movement across their borders in the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s. Even while Sadam was busy repressing Iraqis not to mention Reagan central american policies were clearly backing dictators employing terror and butchery on innocent civilians too. It seems a matter of convenience to say when a dictator is a friend or foe- and ignore whether or not they are using terror methods on the helpless.

My point is directed at those who fictitiously believe the French are not involved militarily in the 'war on terror'. Because a nation chooses to err on the side of caution and not get mixed up in the 'war on wmds[?]'- doesn't mean they aren't involved in the 'war on terror'- Once again - going into Iraq was never about the war on terror-> or sadam's bone headed support of suicide bombers -It simply never was ....show me where that's what going into Iraq was about! I challenge you

I don't know exactly what the war is about anymore. I'm not sure I ever did. However, I was pointing out that there is more to the French story than that they just disagreed on if Iraq had weapons or not. I think it was probably as much that they had their had in the cookie jar. The leader or ex leader now of the the UN was guilty as can be in the same scandal. Think he wanted us to go to Iraq? What you may or may not have read is that the UN had to turn over the oil for food program to the coalition going into Iraq. Think mr. UN leader and his French, German, and Russian buddies wanted that? No way, not when his pockets were getting lined. There is also a strong sentiment in the UN that because there is no other Super Power they all have to band together to oppose the US. I don't pretend to know what the right answer is. I think it's a complicated situation and simply running away helps no one. I'm not naive enough to think the US gets everything right. But to think that everything was peachy and that money from Iraqi oil was going for food, peace, and education is laughable. Sadam was not going to change his stripes. He was defiant until the very end. If he did not have those weapons it was a matter of time until he did and the UN had proven over and over again they would not enforce anything. I don't think that the US has executed everything in the war the best in the world but do you think if WWII was broadcast on CNN 24/7 that we would have been able to win? I highly doubt it. Now they are forced to fight with their hands tied. As always what I say doesnt matter one bit. I don't have any money to be elected. So I'll keep voting for the person who will cost me the least money and forget the rest....

Junkie

Hey Junkie buddy I don't dispute the French were calculating with the Sadam episode at all, I agree with you I'm just saying they have 2000 troops in Afghanistan and not fighting for the Taliban.

I was hoping the popular republican sentiment relating to WW2 and media to current events wouldn't have been brought up - but I had a feeling. In my opinion there's no comparison. It was the resolve of the people of the free world that won that war. The overwhelming majority of them saw Fascism on their doorsteps and ready to obliterate their democratic lifestyles as they knew it. Politicians, the media, people of different faiths and political beliefs were banded together knowing with a certainty what was coming.

The Allies were sustaining heavy casualties and prisoner losses early on in the war; tht changed nothing about continuing the war against the Fascists. People knew about the losses via the media and through personal loss- despite the tragic events the people knew they needed to sacrifice to stay free. The media back then openly criticized politicians and Generals when snafus were made. Our society is blessed by having an openly critical atmosphere. Isn't that what seperates us from N.Korea, Iran and other repressive states? Some of us need to acknowledge what we think are our weaknesses are actually our strengths-even cnn and 'balcony reporters in Iraq' as some repubs in the past quipped. And the idea liberals are chummy with the 'bad guys' makes no sense at all. To the bad guys the liberals are the worst heathens and biggest threat to their ideals of conformity. I'm sure the libs would be first on the bad guys 'hitlist' of who to make disappear wherever they take over.


So in my opinion that republican 'idea' the media can turn freedom loving people into squeamish cowards is a cheapshot that fools only themselves into thinking others won't stand up for themselves when push really comes to shove.

First let me say that I hope you don't take our discussion personally as I do not. I won't be calling you names and even though we may not agree I'll still treat you with respect. I enjoy open discussions about things. Now.

I don't believe that the media can turn anyone into squeamish cowards. I believe it is human nature to have a disdain for death and destruction. The U.S. didn't get into WWII because it saw facism on it's door step. They actually were isolationists who only entered the war after being attacked by Japan and then having Germany declare war on us.

Regarding Iraq and 9/11 there was no connection made by Bush before the war. In fact he made sure to clarify that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.

Hellfighter Quote: "Saddam [due to hang very soon] was reluctant to let in UN Inspectors, there was some tension leading to a hasty all systems go into Iraq. "

Sadam was a little more than reluctant to let UN Inspectors in. In fact inspectors were removed due to being denied access in 1998. At this time we mounted an attack for 3 days by air and inspectors were not allowed to return to Iraq for 4 yrs.

Quote From Henry Waxman (D-CA) Sept 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.

And now, time has run out. It has been four long years since the last UN weapons inspectors were effectively ejected from Iraq because of Saddam’s willful noncompliance with an effective inspection regime."

For some reason I have a hard time believing in that 4 years Sadam was kniting us a quilt. There were intercepted communications dicussing movement of banned items. In addition there are tapes of Sadam and his buddies discussing weapons, deception, and how to hide their programs.

Everyone points to WMD's and says that because we have not found them we have not met the burden of proof to justify the war. However, the UN resolutions were not mandates for inspectors to scour Iraq to find weapons. They were mandates for Iraq to disclose fully and completely any and all weapons and abilities. The burden was on Iraq to show that they were in fact complying with the mandates. Inspectors were not detectives. Similar cases in South Africa and the Baltics were examples of how to disarm and showing a governments intentions to follow UN resolutions. Sadam did the opposite of this doing his best to deceive the UN and hide programs and intentions.

In my opinion the UN was in danger of (and possibly still is) becoming an irrelevant organization. In Feb'03 Hans Blix reported that Iraq had not accounted for huge stocks of WWMD's and that they had missles that exceeded the limits impossed by the security council. This was in direct defiance of Resolution 1441 which was to be one final last chance for Iraq. This was not the first resolution ignored, nor was it the second. This was the SIXTEENTH resolution broken by Iraq. This was a pattern of behavior and defiance for 12 years. Hardly a rush to action.

How many more resolutions can the UN ignore? They are now showing that they are willing to do nothing yet again. Iran is still in defiance of yet another resolution to hault it's nuclear program. They have been in violation of this for several months and show no signs of ending their defiance. Why would they? The UN has proven that they are unwilling and unable to act.

The next thing everyone is going to say is "Bush lied" to everyone to start a war. There have been three independant bi-partisian councils who have looked into this and all came to the same agreement: "That the intelligence was not manipulated or cohearsd (sp?) to meet specific needs." Others say that the rest of the world was saying our intelligence was wrong. To them I offer these quotes:

French Foreign Minister Dominique De Villepin: "Right Now, Our Attention Has To Be Focused As A Priority On The Biological And Chemical Domains. It Is There That Our Presumptions About Iraq Are The Most Significant. Regarding The Chemical Domain, We Have Evidence Of Its Capacity To Produce VX And Yperite. In The Biological Domain, The Evidence Suggests The Possible Possession Of Significant Stocks Of Anthrax And Botulism Toxin, And Possibly A Production Capability." (United Nations Security Council, 4701st Meeting, New York, 2/5/03)

German Ambassador To The United States Wolfgang Ischinger: "I Think All Of Our Governments Believe That Iraq Has Produced Weapons Of Mass Destruction And That We Have To Assume That They Still Have That They Continue To Have Weapons Of Mass Destruction. We Have Not Yet Seen Evidence Produced By The Inspectors." (NBC's "Today," 2/26/03)

These were not simply made up assumptions. Other nations (the two above) actually opposed deposing Sadam. Yet still confirmed the intelligence. Again I ask "Why would they oppose this if they believe there are weapons there?" I still say it goes back to money.

It amazes me how many people believe that Bush claimed Iraq was connected to 9/11. Or that he lied about the intelligence. It goes to show that the media does have a huge influence on what people think and believe. Perhaps if they looked for something good to report we might have a different perception. And don't tell me they havent done anything right to report on.

Enough of this I'm getting a headache. Time to go shoot some people on the aim server.

Junkie

Trust me Junkie my chum, I don't take this personally or any discussion I get into in these forums.
I for one am not getting a headache from this- I look forward to seeing your concise viewpoints in this thread.
If you already know how much I ramble in these forums you know I love debating things and I'm not intentionally out to make enemies- I express my views and see if there's something new I can learn from others, or see if there are plausible disputes to my own point of view. It's a pleasure discussing this issue with you.

Like I said I agree with quite a few of your points. Bush was somewhat of a fall guy for Cheney and other neo-cons, and I think the stubborness trait in his personality was taken advantage of. It didn't help that exiled Iraqi dissidents were swearing there was a threatening WMD program going on in Iraq either. I agree the UN council are too laid back in many cases too ;namely Darfur and Rwanda, and they are corruptable too.


To me, the whole fiasco would have been averted if Sadam simply let in the Inspectors to show nothing was amiss. Instead his 'game of bluff' has been catastrophic. My whole point in this thread of Noodle's is reminding some respondants that the ongoing Afghanistan War was in direct response to 9/11. With the exception of Cheney even most repubs in Bush administration stated that . Like you, I think that it's about time to stop those ongoing misconceptions.

Anyways Junkie I hope we get to chat in a future topic

Sure man. I enjoy discussing most anything. Just have a hard time putting it all down in these forums. It gets tedious to actually put together a response that has fact rather than just an opinion or supposition. I tend to post a good bit too and probably drive some people nuts. Oh well

Junkie

I disagree with that, because Saddam did eventually let them in and despite 6 months of intrusive inspections and the UN inspectors begging for more time to finish the job, the war went ahead. It did not matter what inspectors said or did, the Bush administration was ignoring every one of their discoveries and recommendations. If the UN had come out and said definitively there were no WMD's, it looks pretty obvious to me the Bush team would have just said those dumb inspectors were too dumb to find them and attacked anyway.

Oh, and one more point. Saddam didn't kick inspectors out. they left when the US did it's frst bombing campaign in 1998, back when the US inspectors who worked for the UN were arguing Saddam was hiding stuff, which we now know he wasn't. Saddam didn't let them back in, but is that much of a surprise when you get bombed anyway, and there wasn't anything being hidden?

Saddam was a bad guy, but on this WMD situation, he could not win. One cannot prove a negative. One cannot prove that one does not have something. That's why the WMD was used as the excuse for the war. No matter what happened, you could launch it by claiming Saddam's WMD's just had not been discovered yet, which is exactly what happened. In the end, he had nothing. He had nothing in 1998, and nothing in 2003. But even in this little debate, GJ can still express his doubt and voice concern that Saddam MUST have been up to something, just because that was his nature. But just because something could happen, or because someone would have liked something to happen, does not mean it did happen.

Anyway, I congratulate you both on a respectful debate.

You think that Saddam would just have WMD just hanging around just waiting for the UN to find them. I bet you he knew ahead of time and moved them.

Just an observation, but wasn't Bill Clinton president in 1998?

-Pain

Yes Clinton was pres in 1998 and MOD some of what you said is incorrect. I will post tomorrow with info showing why and documentation for the sources.

Junkie

Actually not really the case- I'm just going by memory here,
but there was a definate reason the UN couldn't give a definitive 'all clear' declaration.
The whole issue was balanced on the edge of a knife. If the inspections were allowed to have full access to wherever was considered a suspected wmd site, the US would have had no reason to go to war on the basis of wmd threats- which ties in with Barkmanns opinion.
Sadam would not let Inspectors in certain areas he deemed intrusive- like his array of huge Palaces... which only added more doubts to the thoroughness of former UN 'all- clear' Inspections.

No, that's not true. In the last 2-3 monthes they had full, complete access, even the palaces as I remember it.

Just read some "timeline" stuff on lead-up to war. The problem was Britian and the US's conditions were that Saddam "give up his weapons". Blair even had a lit of 6 conditions that included Saddam going on TV and admitting he had WMD. You see, that is a classic "no win" situation. He had to admit he had weapons he didn't have then give up weapons he didn't have!

Also, Blix was giving Iraq a hard time for a long time because documents they produced were no different than what they produced 12 years ago. But since they hadn't produced anything in 12 years, that meant they were completely accurate! LOL

I remember a commentator at the time, a guy who actually was in the US military and worked in the Middle East, said that all they were going to find in Iraq were a few "old cans of musterd gas buried in the desert". In other words, a few relics, but that Saddam has absolutely bupkiss. The other 3 experts acted like he had horns in his head, but in the end he was bang-on right. There were several experts that were bang on right, but at the time way too many people were just going by the assumption that since Saddam was more evil than Bush, and Iraq was more evil than the US, then everything Iraq said had to be a lie. But even evil people running evil regimes can tell the truth, and generally good counties with democratically elected leaders can lie. That why those counties have elections, so they can kick those leaders when caught lying.

Well good things about a debate are various opinions being heard and actual facts made clear... lol, I must've been fixed on the Palace situation of 10 years ago and overlooked mistakingly as you folks pointed out, the actual recent realities. Anyway I found this timeline link as a good read to actual factual events leading up to the outbreak of war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmam...eline_2001-2003

my thoughts is simple. NOT TO OFFEND ANYONE, but kill them all. At a young age, they teach there children that we are the bad people and i agree that religion is a big part of it. A friend of mine in the army was telling me a story of how a bunch of them became friends with the kids, giving them candy and toy's. One day one of the kids come to them and throws something, turns out it was a nade. What pissed him off the most was they tnew his parents and his teacher but still, was trying to kill them, he was no older then 7. It kind of reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers i saw. It said: If you could read this, thank your teacher, if you could read english, thank the military.

Remember that press and wikipedia isn't free from bias or agenda. Timeline accuracy sure! Please don't ever give up the opportunity to form your own opinnion in lieu of a wikipedia article.

You miss the point of why I put that timeline link there then. I clearly stated that post was only posted as an interesting read through - FREE of any opinions; As you should see I deliberately never based an opinion for or against that link. It's ONLY a factual article - Do you see THAT Wikpedia article as biased or with an agenda? And in reading through the thread from start to finish you'll see opinions were concisely given by myself and others-using links at times to back up statements- and in seeing some of the fellow opinions supported with their links, I did change a few of my initial opinions/viewpoints based on those unarguable facts.




How old are you? What do you mean by 'they teach'? A 7 year old in your opinion can't be easily manipulated or know if he's being tricked or not, or has a real awareness of the concept of life and death, killing. You have to wonder if the heinous individual who manipulated that kid into tossing that nade had a 'kill them all' attitude to the brave, well-meaning troops over there. That 'kill them all' attitude by disturbed people/groups have all over the world against entire groups of people is indeed 'simple thoughts'. Geez, why would some of 'they', 'think' WE are the bad people when they read how some of WE wants to 'kill them all'.
I wonder if you like this bumper sticker too ...
"I'm looking for the right pedestrian to run over."

just and opinion, and if your wondering, soon the be 27. im not going to say all of them are bad, but i would rather them killed before they hijack another plane or bring a dirty bomb. you see hamma coming with the heavy over the hill on kursk, you going to take him out or wait till he gets set up. oh, and i drive a truck for a living so that bumper stick made me chuckle, not bad.

I have quite a few good friends who are Iraqi and they all have family they are worrying about over there- people trying to live a normal life like the majority of normal people everywhere else in the world -it's sad to hear anyone pick on any group as a whole and fantacize THEY are ALL conspiring 24/7 to destroy civilization. 99% of THEY are just trying to get by day-to-day -just like us. So now -Tell me who these Iraqis are who are plane hijackers or are bringing dirty bombs over here- or even threatening to?


Put it this way if me and Hamma are both ruskys and I see him in the Elephant coming over the hill I wouldn't pester him by being a noob and start shooting at him because I want to make him an enemy just because he's in an enemy tank. Next match he might change sides and then you'd be sorry......If you get my parralel.

stupid me, i like being on the other side and trying to kill hamma, bit of a challenge. Hellfighter, im not trying to argue with you, you make very good points and I understand what your trying to say. Maybe i missled you. no, not all iraq's are bad, not all are good, and that goes for every country. I read another post where you were talking about the terrorist and getting them out, alqida(can't spell) thats what im talking about. im not in the military, i play way too much video games, do i wish for world peace, sure, and i also wish for a million bucks. Peace isn't going to happen until either everone is killed or armageddon witch we probably won't see in a million years. Yea, war sucks, especially when we have soldiers coming home in body bags, but that is war if im not misstaken. Civil war, family members killing family members, i just wonder if it was talked about back then like war is today(granted different time frame). In all seriousness, what are you thought on them hanging Sadam today, i would be interested to read your thoughts on it.

The phrase "War on Terror" is stupid. Terror is a tactic, not an enemy. How do you make war without a defined enemy? That's how we ended up in Iraq. No defined enemy so everyone is fair game. If we make the whole world our enemy, then we are the terrorists.

DaN

Maybe we should try to negotiate with these people instead. I'm sure someone willing to strap explosives to themselves and go into a market is a reasonable person willing to compromise.

Junkie

[/quote]

Maybe we should try to negotiate with these people instead. I'm sure someone willing to strap explosives to themselves and go into a market is a reasonable person willing to compromise.

Junkie
[/quote]

Who are "these people"? Many people faced with a seemingly hopeless situation will lash out in anger at whoever they perceive to be responsible. BTW there were no suicide bombings in Iraq before we got there, and none of the terrorist attacks against Americans were done by Iraqis. We should be at war with Al Qaeda not with "these people".

Well reading my every other post you know I have a "no prisoners" attitude to terrorists. My only issue is the lashing out at people who have zilch to do with terrorists- and lashing out at people who have done no harm to those lashing out- no I'm not talking about those in war mistakenly tragically caught in the midst of bombs striking a military target as lashing out. Like I said my kind Iraqi friends have equally kind family members fretting if the next day will be their last. 'Kill them all' is genocide... look at pics of piles of bodies/mass graves from genocides in Rwanda, Balkans, Cambodia, Holocaust... I can only believe those events could only happen with a detached 'kill them all' de-humanized mentality.

I'm not trying to argue with you too either cero or make spiteful personal attacks since I think you said your remark out of frustration perhaps, and not out of a sincere wish that should actually happen. But I like to interject whenever I hear anyone make a comment like that about any group either online, or in real life.

Regarding Saddam hanging... I've seen many people being really hanged on tv/online, some 'civilised' executions and others ruthless. Most made me naturally repulsed but a few like the Nuremberg hangings of Nazi War criminals didn't stir an ounce of pity from me. With Saddam, initially I reflected on the chaotic scene and a gang of informally burly figures sending him to his drop. Initially the scene looked pathetic and wretched for a 70 year old to end his days. But I balanced that by thoughts of seeing on tv the mass executions by Saddam of his former generals, civilians, peasants... they too had a wretched end- often with onlookers forced to applaud after! So I multiply those scenes by over 300,000 - the # of Iraqi lives he and his sons directly had a hand in grinningly ordered being put to death. And none of them had the luxury of a trial- not to mention their only crime was being Shiite, kurd, or someone considered a threat to the State and their executions/murders were instant- no time to say goodbye to loved ones.

What really shook me out of the sombreness of the hanging happened recently. We learned about the secretive phone movies taken of the execution and the taunts before the drop. While that repulsed many in the world to me, one taunt clarified the whole thing for me. I'll quote the scene
[I think the cleric's sister was murdered at the same time too] note I have no symphathy for the nephew who is currently acting like a warlord, but I'm focusing more on the uncle who was brutally murdered.

With that I felt justice was served... Saddam dropping down not with cocky last thoughts, but thinking of how he was getting a fitting end for at least one person of his hundreds of thousands of victims who he likely laughed at about murdering. So what do I think-> Justice served with a side dish of deserved belittling by those he once terrorised.

what i don't understand is one thing. ok, we are at war and are in iraq trying to get/kill the terrorist. In the process, got sadam out of power and then handed him over to the iraq's. They did there trial thing and hung him. Then in the paper, im reading how some Iraq's( it did say iraq's, i checked to make sure it didn't say something else) are are saying that they are going to do what ever it takes to do harm to america. We are not the one's who hung him. Granted, we found him, and for the fact that he was hiding in that little hole of his, he did something really wrong. If he didn't, why would he hide. Someone before said it based on religion and the more i read, the more i think its true.

I was bothered by the way the execution was conducted. This should have been done by individuals who would have said or done nothing except to read him what ever is required and let him have his final say. Then they should have hung him, taken down the body, and had him burried. The dancing and carrying on makes it look like revenge instead of justice. No matter the reality perception is reality.

Junkie

I personally think he got off easy in comparison to all the killings and torture he did. As far as I am concerned those related to the one's he killed should have got to do the same to him first...stick him with tiny pins....pull off his finger nails then his fingers one by one. He did not suffer... hanging, he probably was dead within 2 mins. The only thing I am sure of is that he went straight to hell!!!!

I agree that's what he deserved but that's not what is going to help bring peace and stability to that region. It needed to be done with the same indifference you would have smashing a bug. The rest only brings more questions and resentment to an already tense situation. However, this was the business of the IRAQI'S not the U.S. so they are free to conduct themselves as they see fit. I just wish it wasn't at our expense.

There's no doubt he's already spent eternity over eternity over eternity burning in hell and still has no less time there. Unfortunately it doesnt take being a dictator bent on genocide to get to hell. I have no doubt he's paying for his sins.

Junkie

Well Cero I think we have to remember Iraq was a nation whose boundaries were drawn up by the colonial Brits way back irregardless of the major group ethno-religious divides and issues they had with each other. The 'some Iraqis' you refer to aren't the majority in my opinion from what I see- even though they may be a very significant number of Iraqis who 'threaten' to harm America. I think much of it is brow-beating comments and they have no intention of actually coming here to do violence- or getting vapourized in the process. I think as a whole these individuals want to run/ruin there own 'nation' without the presence of coalition forces to interfere with their fundamentalist goals over their majority of fellow Iraqis who I think prefer a western-IZED-style society.
I always thought a nade dropped in Saddam's spiderhole at that time would've been more appropriate to clean things up. Now he has some martydom attached to him since he didn't go kicking and screaming to the gallows, and in fact counter-taunted the guards.


ps. Pardon my fussiness , but like the saying goes in an old Western I saw,
'Meat gets hung... People get HANGED.' Hanged is the term for those who were executed by hanging.

Like 6-pak says he got off 'lightly'... that 'snapping drop' hanging is instant unconsciousness and near instant death. That being said and not wanting to appear too cold-blooded [too much] I do wish everyone in the world just got along and live and let live.