DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: Thoughts For The Day: U Think The Troops Should Come Home?

Forums > The General Forum: Thoughts For The Day

U Think The Troops Should Come Home?

k-smoove	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 3:52 PM This is an article from Yahoo.com as reported by the Associated Press. It involves the House ruling on a pull out date of U.S. Forces from Iraq. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060616/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq U think the minority votes were right?
Distilled1	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 3:57 PM no
AgentMGD	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 4:11 PM yes BRING THEM HOME NOW!!
GeneHilbert	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 4:26 PM No..... not immediately - I like the fact they are thinning the heard. I much rather kill them there than have them kill us here...... Bring the solders home when the Iraqi's have their shit together, at least for the most part. However, we will always have an active regional base there.
shadowself	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 4:38 PM
Distilled1	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 5:23 PM I should say I agree with Gene, not just a forced NO I am a vet I did my time.
K3VIN	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 9:29 PM lol Gene your statement had to have been the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in my life... thin out the herd... kill "them" there before they kill us here... iraq wasnt planning on attacking u.s. thats cold. Once again when the united states can keep its own country together it can start playing the hero.
K3VIN	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 9:49 PM and we are talking about human lives right?
EmpireDay3	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 10:13 PM gene's right K3 - he's not referring to iraqi's specifically - he's talking about the war on terror - let's not confuse the two. we have known for quite some time that northern iraq has always been used by terrorists as a training as staging ground (as proven by the death of the recent head honcho) - we must absolutely fight them there before they try to bring it here (as they did on 9/11). you wanna sit around and wait? not me. I think the troops should stay until every freakin terrorist insurgent is dead dead dead. that'd make it really easy for the first democracy in that region of the world to get off to as good start instead of being undermined by people who hate the fact that other people (iraqi's) have a right to live their lives freely and peacefully. are we talking about human lives when it comes to those (terrorists) who plot to kill innocent people and disrupt the lives of their fellow countrymen and those around the world with whom they do not agree? not hardly. in fact, I think your statement was just slightly more ignorant than gene's - "when the united states can keep it's own country together it can start playing the hero" sounds to me like you really don't appreciate the freedoms this country has to offer you - the freedom to speak your mind on this issue, in fact, without fear of reprisal. This country was founded on the idea of freedom of all kinds for all peoples - and if someone in the world wants to fly planes into our buildings and kill our fellow citizens - we damn straight better hunt them down wherever they are. Iraq was the perfect place to start, and it will not be the last country we visit in the war against hate.
K3VIN	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 10:33 PM when u attack all of iraq lookin for saddam and crap killing onnocent people... america can be seen as terroists in the eye of the other side... walk in other peopels shoes. something may be founded on a idea but improvements can be made... let other contries do them i dotn see shit gonig on in north korea. you just said iraq qas the perfect place to start.. considering it was the taliban and not saddam ur statement was ignorant.. and america having left the al quada with nothing after funding them to keep russia otu of afghanistan.. in different peopels eyes america is the bad guy who shits on the little guys.
K3VIN	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 10:35 PM btw these rules.. yamerica did not lsiten to the un and if the un wasnt so whipped they could have held america charged for war crimes. iraq was an illegal war
K3VIN	Date: June 16, 2006 @ 10:37 PM also when collateral damage occurs and innocent people are being killed... that is soemthing terrible. theres two sides to every story but we fail to relise that. and for eachh innocent person killed by one side there was jsut as many on the other side
EmpireDay3	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 12:10 AM saddam was killing his own people (ask the kurds) - saddam was a ruthless a brutal dictator that the iraqi people are glad is gone (remember the scene of them pulling his statue down in baghdad?) Iraq has long been known as a terrorist breeding ground (see the ABC report where they discovered documents from saddam referring to "the afghani bin-laden") North Korea (and Syria and Afghanistan and Iran for that matter) are actually being resolved peacefully through diplomatic channels (which is a very slow process - don't blink or you'll miss it). Saddam lied repeatedly to the UN and in fact wanted the world to believe he had WMD's in order to intimidate his enemies (see the abc report on the discovered hussein documents that trace the wmd's removal through syria). The UN was caught up in the oil for food scandal and were giving hussein food and money for cheap oil while we were trying to peacefully and diplomatically resolve our issues with him through sanctions and, of course, none of it made it down to the iraqi people who really only suffered for it because hussein was lying to everyone. The war is perfectly legal - that's why congress just voted today (including 40+ fence jumping democrats) to not place a deadline on troop withdrawl. The terrorists and insurgents we are fighting against are the ones going into crowded marketplaces with suicide bombs killing their own people causing "collateral damage". Perhaps one side of the story you need to realize is that now, for the first time in history, we have an ally instead of an enemy in iraq - the message sent to the terrorist community and all that harbor them is that if you let these people do things to our country, we will seek justice. If the world sees america as the terrorists for trying to protect our own country premptively, then someone's view is really skewed. Worried about innocent people? How 'bout those in the twin towers that day - or have we forgotten in our blind raging desire to point the finger at anyone except the real instigators? All things being equal, the simplest explanation is correct: terrorists are to blame for 9/11 - not anything anyone ever did or said in america; iraq is a better country and the world is a safer place without hussein and zarqawi (bin-laden's next); those who hate freedom and blatently and deliberately take innocent human life need to be stopped. That simple.
BIR	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 5:44 AM "terrorists are to blame for 9/11 - not anything anyone ever did or said in america" Yea,..The dipsticks in charge,.running our country into the ground! YES,Bring the troops home!
K3VIN	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 9:34 AM im sure if all of iraq was happy they would keep trying to kill teh troops in the us.
K3VIN	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 9:35 AM see your quick to think about ur people and rselves.. what about the shit afghanistan was left in. They were under taliban control for a long time because of the states and when then left with nothing.. as soon as they do an atack you fimally do something abotu it?
Intergalacti...	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 11:17 AM i think they should come home. I am seein it from a third party however. Britain shouldn't have fallen into this war. We now have troops dead out there when Britain could have stayed away its the simple fact that Tony Blair is whipped by the U.S. not so much the UN. I don't know as much about it as most of you guys my guess is but I think it shouldn't have started in the first place. I'm not tryin to piss on America now but whenever you are challenged for one reason or another the President you have in charge at the time likes to throw his weight around and say hey I don't like anyone pushing us lets push them back. America didn't have to get involved in quite an important war a god couple of years ago hmm I wonder what it was called. Anyway once Pearl Harbour got attacked, aaahh now you know which one, America came out of they're own space and reaked havoc on the world. When a couple of planes crashed into the twin towers -which btw has evidence of America setting that up themselves to get a reason to go blow up some foreigners for oil, i'm still not sure whether I believe all of it or not- America has to go into Iraq and start fighting. Britain get dragged along because Blair doesn't know his arse from his elbow when it comes to foreign affairs and now we have men dying just cos Bush wants a bit of oil. Its gone past America tryin to prove themselves to the rest of the world of how powerful they are, why can't Bush just say hold on I don't want anymore of my coutrymen which i supposedly care so much about dead. Bring them home.
Intergalacti...	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 11:19 AM "Achieving victory is our only option," declared House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, casting Democrats as defeatists who want to retreat in the face of terrorist threats. "We must not shy away." my point proven. america should learn to back down and not let ego or power get in the way.
zedsalt	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 11:24 AM "we have known for quite some time that northern iraq has always been used by terrorists as a training as staging ground" I'm not quite sure how to take that statement. True enough, Iraq has unquestionably become a major staging ground for terrorist activity over these past few years, an easily predictable result of deposing Hussein. I don't see how that provides any sort of argument AGAINST withdrawl. How could Iraq's relatively newfound status as terrorist headquarters possibly survive a U.S. withdrawl? What would be left to oppose? "I think the troops should stay until every freakin terrorist insurgent is dead dead dead"- that's the greatest recruiting tool a Middle East based terrorist organization could have- the idea that yours is the majority American opinion. As numerous confiscated documents have stated "The first American War gave [them] people willing to go to America and become martyrs. The second gave [them] recruits who have been living in America for GENERATIONS". "the first democracy in that region"? Only if you count "friendly to the U.S." as an essential element of Democracy. "Iraq was the perfect place to start"? I have to say that's the first time I've heard anyone suggest Afganistan wasn't the place to retalliate for 9/11. About the same number of American fighting men and women per capita died in Afghanistan last year as did in Iraq, and the situation in Afghanistan, by all accounts, is worsening. Attacking Iraq was a distraction from the War on Terror that we couldn't afford, at damn nigh the worst time we could do it.
K3VIN	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 11:31 AM zed types things i cant type lol. ^^true enough
GeneHilbert	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 11:48 AM Well then homeboy I would suggest you refrain from calling some ignorant.
GeneHilbert	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 11:50 AM “Typo correction” Well then homeboy I would suggest you refrain from calling someone else ignorant.
zedsalt	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 11:54 AM Juxtapose "saddam was killing his own people (ask the kurds)" with your earlier statement "northern iraq has always been used by terrorists as a training as staging ground". Now please ask yourself the following questions: "What part of Iraq is predominantly Kurdish?" and "What exactly am I trying to say here?" "The UN was caught up in the oil for food scandal and were giving hussein food and money for cheap oil while we were trying to peacefully and diplomatically resolve our issues with him through sanctions and, of course, none of it made it down to the iraqi people who really only suffered for it because hussein was lying to everyone." Who do you think levied and enforced the sanctions? I can't be certain from what you've written whether or not you've made up your mind over whether or not the sanctions worked. "The war is perfectly legal - that's why congress just voted today (including 40+ fence jumping democrats) to not place a deadline on troop withdrawl". Good to hear that it has nothing to do with midterm elections and the belief that a simple majority of Americans are simple enough to believe that our presence in Iraq is a pacifying one. "we have an ally instead of an enemy in iraq"...a few of them, in fact. But they're obviously not going to retain office in any representative democracy in Iraq if they don't come across as progressively more and more anti-American. "if you let these people do things to our country, we will seek justice" for a while, then we'll bog ourselves down in another country in your region long before the job is done in the country you launched your attacks from.
EmpireDay3	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 12:29 PM those people living in northern iraq that did not agree with hussein and were slaughtered and buried in mass graves, most of them the recepient of chemical weapons attacks, share nothing in common with the terrorists breeding grounds hussein allowed to flourish and travel freely between iraq, syria and afghanistan. Simple - 4=2+2. If you think trading cash and food with hussein is an effective way to enforce a sanction, I guess we need to redefine the term. All the while the iraqi people were suffering as a direct result of his deception. How can you not tell that I know the sanctions didn't work when it's obvious hussein was decieving everyone except us? Could it possibly be that other than a strictly political move, striking down a troop withdrawl deadline is actually a good idea, or can you find some other way to read something into it other than what it was, kind of like the 911 attack? Why would iraqi politicians need to become anti-american when america is the one who gave the people of iraq their first democracy? I hope you're not implying that the people of iraq would rather have a brutal, genocidal, tyrannical dictatorial ruler? It actually kind of seems you're hoping that the politicians in iraq end up hating us. Good thing to root for - way to go. "...then we'll bog ourselves down in another country long before the job is done..." - maybe you're right, we should just stage all our troops strategically around our own country and wait until some terrorists strike here (again) and that way we can fight them on our home turf (which is easier to defend, but we have to lose some more american lives to do so).
TameasDust	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 1:32 PM the military has never left anywhere unless the people ask them to get out.
AgentMGD	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 5:41 PM old intel when we should be putting that money to good use here! call me a traitor - i've heard worse but it's time to bring them home - let the Iraqis fight their own civil war and focus our attention here at home. " id="227151">Bring the solders home when the Iraqi's have their shit together, at least for the most part. since when is the US in the business of fighting other ppl's civil wars and imposing our brand of democracy down the world's throats? after occupying Iraq for 3yrs, we caused more damage and murdered innocent civillians than good. this "let's get them before they get us" is a bunch bullocks! the way things look now - we're more like the terrorists than the terrorists themselves. we have spent more time, effort and our own tax dollars for a country that never planned to attack us or had wmds based on old intel when we should be putting that money to good use here! call me a traitor - i've heard worse but it's time to bring them home - let the Iraqis fight their own civil war and focus our attention here at home.
K3VIN	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 7:12 PM ^
K3VIN	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 7:17 PM the war was supposed to be about womd if we forgot... and to end hussains rule.. there was no womd
K3VIN	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 7:31 PM {D. Omen}'s Avatar Join Date: Oct 2004 Crib: In Bed With Jeff Wifey Posts: 3,904 Points: 100 (Donate) Rep Level: 34684650 {D. Omen} will do you doggie style!{D. Omen} will do you doggie style!{D. Omen} will do you doggie style!{D. Omen} will do you doggie style!{D. Omen} will do you doggie style!{D. Omen} will do you doggie style!{D. Omen} will do you doggie style!{D. Omen} will do you doggie style!{D. Omen} will do you doggie style!{D. Omen} will do you doggie style!{D. Omen} will do you doggie style! Male U.S. Troops Kill PREGNANT Woman In Iraq U.S. troops kill pregnant woman in Iraq BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. forces killed two Iraqi women — one of them about to give birth — when the troops shot at a car that failed to stop at an observation post in a city north of Baghdad, Iraqi officials and relatives said Wednesday. Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, 35, was being raced to the maternity hospital in Samarra by her brother when the shooting occurred Tuesday. Jassim, the mother of two children, and her 57-year-old cousin, Saliha Mohammed Hassan, were killed by the U.S. forces, according to police Capt. Laith Mohammed and witnesses. The U.S. military said coalition troops fired at a car after it entered a clearly marked prohibited area near an observation post but failed to stop despite repeated visual and auditory warnings. "Shots were fired to disable the vehicle," the military said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press. "Coalition forces later received reports from Iraqi police that two women had died from gunshot wounds ... and one of the females may have been pregnant." Jassim's brother, who was wounded by broken glass, said he did not see any warnings as he sped his sister to the hospital. Her husband was waiting for her there. "I was driving my car at full speed because I did not see any sign or warning from the Americans. It was not until they shot the two bullets that killed my sister and cousin that I stopped," he said. "God take revenge on the Americans and those who brought them here. They have no regard for our lives." He said doctors tried but failed to save the baby after his sister was brought to the hospital. The shooting deaths occurred in the wake of an investigation into allegations that U.S. Marines killed unarmed civilians in the western city of Haditha. The U.S. military said the incident in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, was being investigated. The city is in the heart of the so-called Sunni Triangle and has in the past seen heavy insurgent activity. "The loss of life is regrettable and coalition forces go to great lengths to prevent them," the military said. The women's bodies were wrapped in sheets and lying on stretchers outside the Samarra General Hospital before being taken to the morgue, while residents pointed to bullet holes on the windshield of a car and a pool of blood on the seat. Khalid Nisaif Jassim, the pregnant woman's brother, said American forces had blocked off the side road only two weeks ago and news about the observation post had been slow to filter out to rural areas. He said the killings, like those in Haditha, were examples of random killings faced by Iraqis every day. The killings at Haditha, a city that has been plagued by insurgents, came after a bomb rocked a military convoy on Nov. 19, killing a Marine. Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., a decorated war veteran who has been briefed by military officials, has said Marines shot and killed unarmed civilians in a taxi at the scene and went into two homes and shot others. Military investigators have evidence that points toward unprovoked murders by Marines, a senior defense official said last week. In his first public comments on the incident, President Bush said he was troubled by the allegations, and that, "If in fact laws were broken, there will be punishment." Former Iraqi Foreign Minister Adnan Pachachi told the BBC that the allegations have "created a feeling of great shock and sadness and I believe that if what is alleged is true — and I have no reason to believe it's not — then I think something very drastic has to be done." "There must be a level of discipline imposed on the American troops and change of mentality which seems to think that Iraqi lives are expendable," said Pachachi, a member of parliament. If confirmed as unjustified killings, the episode could be the most serious case of criminal misconduct by U.S. troops during three years of combat in Iraq. Until now the most infamous occurrence was the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse involving Army soldiers, which came to light in April 2004 and which Bush said he considered to be the worst U.S. mistake of the entire war. Once the military investigation is completed, perhaps in June, it will be up to a senior Marine commander in Iraq to decide whether to press charges of murder or other violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The incident has sparked two investigations — one into the deadly encounter itself and another into whether it was the subject of a cover-up. The Marine Corps had initially attributed 15 civilian deaths to the car bombing and a firefight with insurgents, eight of whom the Marines reported had been killed. "People in Samarra are very angry with the Americans not only because of Haditha case but because the Americans kill people randomly specially recently," Khalid Nisaif Jassim said. its sad to see a democracy be so strict.
K3VIN	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 7:33 PM uranium bullets are u kidding me?
EmpireDay3	Date: June 17, 2006 @ 9:15 PM unfortunately, it's not a civil war we're fighting for them. it's called an insurgency because insurgents - terrorists if you will, who despise the idea of people actually having the freedom to choose for themselves and run their own lives, belive ethat those who do not agree with them should die. This is why they attacked america in the first place - because they despise our way of life. We have freed the iraqi people from a tyrannical dictator who routinely tortured and murdered his own people for their dissent. Now iraqis can live with freedom. If the iraqi people were fighting against each other over some sort of policy disagreement, then it would be a civil war. But it's not, it's the terrorists who don't want the iraqi people to have freedom attacking and killing anyone who they don't agree with. So, we can stay and help our new allies establish their free country by helping tem try to protect themselves from the terrorists left over from the hussein regime, or we can just turn tail and run and hope it works out for the best. The new iraqi government has made it perfectly clear that they will let us know when they want us gone - but according to you, we should just let this fledgling government fend for itself like a newborn. Good call. And, K3, I don't really think you believe it's the democracy being strict over the pregnant woman. Democracy gave you the freedom to use the language you do in your music in the name of art - whereas the iraqi people under saddam's rule would have been long tortured and dead for expressing a dissenting opinion. Democracy didn't pull the trigger of the gun that shot the pregnant woman. According to the article you posted, it did not stop at a clearly posted prohibited area. Should we just let all cars that don't stop go on through? Even the ones carrying enough explosives to kill american troops? I suppose that'd be your preference. How were the troops supposed to know that they weren't being attacked by a car bomb? We should just let 'em all through and hope they don't kill us.
zedsalt	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 11:51 AM So, ED3, you're saying that the chemical and biological weapons used against people of a different religious sect than Hussein could somehow distinguish between such people and Hussein-approved terrortourists? The more you try to justify the doublespeak we have been/are being fed, the more bizarre it becomes. "How can you not tell that I know the sanctions didn't work when it's obvious hussein was decieving everyone except us?" Clarify for me, please: do you think that the sanctions WERE working, meaning there were no WMDs in Iraq, or that they were NOT working, meaning the first justification we were given for the war was valid? "Could it possibly be that other than a strictly political move, striking down a troop withdrawl deadline is actually a good idea, or can you find some other way to read something into it other than what it was, kind of like the 911 attack?" Think about for even the briefest of moments: what does "striking down a troop withdrawl deadline" even MEAN? I've heard our President talk about what an important symbolic meaning it has. While I agree that there's no practical application for such a decree, I disagree with the idea that an official declaration saying "We categorically refuse to seriously consider the facts of the matter" is GREAT for morale. And the 9/11 reference- how does that relate to what you were saying? "Why would iraqi politicians need to become anti-american when america is the one who gave the people of iraq their first democracy?" Oh, I don't know. Do you get the impression that the U.S government is tremendously popular in Iraq? Why do you think the current Iraqi leadership recieves a HUGE boost in popularity every time they do or say anything to suggest they are NOT the puppets of the U.S.? Who exactly do YOU think the Iraqi people want to rule there? The Bush whitehouse, by proxy, or someone who they think might REPRESENT THEM? "I hope you're not implying that the people of iraq would rather have a brutal, genocidal, tyrannical dictatorial ruler?" Rather than what they have now? Seems to me that question is posed to the Iraqi people on a right regular basis. I kinda think their opinion on the matter MATTERS, or at least, it should. "maybe you're right, we should just stage all our troops strategically around our own country and wait until some terrorists strike here (again)" How does my belief that we shouldn't divert military resources away from the staging ground for the 9/11 attacks suggest that we should divert military resources away from the staging ground for the 9/11 attacks? I had a handful of close friends in Iraq at the time when W announced his "better they kill us what's signed up fer bein' kilt than those what ain't" policy. From what I'm told, I get the distinct impression that effectively being demoted from their respective ranks to that of Target First Class was NOT a big morale booster. Not for OUR troops, anyway. I hate to keep restating the obvious, but our presence there is as essential as oxygen for terrorist activity. I know it's an insult to most peoples' intelligence, but it needs to be said, apparently: a constant supply of fuel is not a good tool for putting out a fire.
DeadraveN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 12:15 PM I have this much to say, Zed, I respect you, but I found ED3's post easily understood and well stated. you're attacking the way he is debating rather than the actual points he is making, which really helps no one at all. ... and k3, you pick and choose which facts to look at, and form your opinions based on only partial knowledge. You try to be informed, and that's noble, but you've made it abundantly clear that you haven't gotten all the facts. Your entitled to your opinions of course, but I encourage you to read up more. and agent... of course I respect you, but this: "we're more like the terrorists than the terrorists themselves." is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. I know there have been atrocities in Iraq, and I'm not going to defend them, but they're being committed on both sides. Don't forget that. And I hardly think that the incidents like those (the innocent people being killed in iraq) compare to the loss of Sept. 11th. I'm not advocating violence, or "eye for an eye" but saying the american people are worse than the terrorists because of that is offensive and ignorant. I have many friends and even some family in iraq. I miss them and pray for their safety, but I'm sided with ED3, and Gene, as well as the U.S. governement, and the U.S. people (check the polls) on this. We can not leave iraq until the time is right, which isn't now. definately "thin the herd" as gene said, which I took as him refering to decreasing the amount of troops there, but not an all out abondonement. that's what it would be. the guy with the biggest bombs and the most willingness to kill his brothers would step up to take over, and slaughter anyone in his way. maybe it isn't our business to tell the world what to do, but protecting the right of people to live regardless of their beliefs is a cause I'd gladly stand behind. whatever you feel about why we got to where we are now is irrelevent. this is the situation we're in and we need to deal with it. Pulling out and allowing more genocide is not the answer. now someone please attack this post.
K3VIN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 12:57 PM theirs like 150 other countries that no one gives a shit about.
DeadraveN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 1:00 PM And if anyone did, the media would villify them. The U.S. is doing good things all over the world too. The media doesn't pay much attention to that though. I guess "no one gives a shit" unless it's talk about war, huh?
K3VIN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 1:02 PM they arent as much peace keepers.. look at it this way... put an american flag on ur backpack you may get shot... put another flag and you probably won't... there were bigger things and are bigger things to worry about then iraq. iot was a false war apprently over brining down a bad dictator who h ad womd.
DeadraveN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 1:07 PM Uh-huh. So, I could be shot for displaying my flag, and I'm the bad guy? and yes, k3v, we are indeed acting as peacekeepers in places other than iraq. I agree, there's lots to worry about in the world. Are you suggesting we deal with them all? that seems a large task... and I said, who or what it was about is in the past. Bad intel, blah blah blah.. yeah, mistakes were made, deceptions may have occured, on both sides. the point is we're here now, and pulling out would cost more lives than staying,... for the time being.
DeadraveN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 1:08 PM never let me near html when I'm half awake...
K3VIN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 1:10 PM no its all or nothing!!!!!!!! w00t shooting pregnant women because they were rushing to a hospital and didnt see a sign is not a democracy... tehy are so worried about car bombings and stuff its really sad how bad some areas of america are... the poorer areas... the people getting shot everyday.. but shits being done abotu that... run ur own country and not others.
K3VIN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 1:10 PM i love you deadraven
DeadraveN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 1:15 PM gah.. I laugh and I cry... yeah, what's happening in Iraq shouldn't happen. but bear in mind the actions of a few soldiers should not be viewed as the opinions of the American people. people are killed everyday around the world. it sucks, but it happens. and comparing what the soldiers do to a democracy is also out of place. the point isn't to BE the new government there, but to allow it to form until it can protect itself. and besides, I'm sure a pregnant woman was shot somewhere inside the U.S. today. where's her press coverage?
K3VIN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 1:34 PM I'm sure a pregnant woman was shot somewhere inside the U.S. today. where's her press coverage? exactly!
thesoloer	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 2:00 PM I fully understand the issue but I have seen different sides from both points of view with it. I see that the Iraqis want the US home but I think most of the Iraqis that supported the United States before from then when they came to Iraq have either left or have been captured and killed by suicide bombers. While it may be a really hard thing to see for most people I think we should keep some in there and keep sending more troops in and take the old ones out. This way when our troops lose their own moral support we can send in new reinforments. I'm sure it may sound really sad for us to have to put more troops in Iraq then there already are but still..
EvilPicnic	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 3:58 PM Why don't we just carpet bomb Iraq into the dust? That would get things over and done with! I think it would be irresponsible to leave now - we shouldn't have gone in in the first place, but while we're there we might as well try to do some good, and leave the Iraqi security forces in some sort of fit state. To leave now would leave them in a much worse state than when the troops went in. 'And I hardly think that the incidents like those (the innocent people being killed in iraq) compare to the loss of Sept. 11th.' Sorry to attack your post, DeadraveN, but at least 38000 civilians have been killed in iraq so far, about 12 times the number killed on Sept. 11th. In what way does it not compare?
DeadraveN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 4:02 PM show me where you got that figure.
DeadraveN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 4:15 PM A few minutes worth of research and you'll see (as I just did) that that figure is not only based on biased math (multiplying based on estimates), but it also includes all the car bombings, insurgent gunfire, and other attacks that weren't a direct result of U.S. military action. you're counting all that have died, not what the American forces have actually done.
K3VIN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 4:32 PM yes but 9/11 is based off of terroists that you cant really prove did it cause htey died...
EvilPicnic	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 4:42 PM http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq: Min: 38475 Max: 42889 Quoting from the site, the count is of 'media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention by the USA and its allies'. Here: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/bodycount.php?ts=1150661343 you can see their database, and the sources for each reported incident. Not biased maths. 'You're counting all that have died, not what the American forces have actually done.' That's a pedantic argument. The count is of those who have died, directly or indirectly as a result of the 2003 invasion. Just because we didn't pull the trigger doesn't mean we're not at least partly to blame. If the coalition forces hadn't invaded, those Iraqis wouldn't have died.
DeadraveN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 9:24 PM so we're to blame when a terrorist drives a car bomb into a crowded city block? is that what you're saying? and that's the first website I looked at actually.. the one you're quoting. review their database. look at their figures. you'll see the majority of those deaths were either car bombs or other terrorist or insurgent activity. I agree those people wouldn't have died if the coalition forces hadn't invaded, at least not in those times, and at those places, but it's still the fault of the people who killed them, not the people who were trying to protect them. and as far as my arguement being "pedantic" well, you're post was implying that we Americans are responsible for more innocent civilian deaths than the terrorists who commited the murders of 9/11. I still don't believe that, until I'm shown otherwise. correction.. until I'm shown otherwise by an objective and reputable source. and kev, "yes but 9/11 is based off of terroists that you cant really prove did it cause htey died..." I'm sorry, but the statements (bragging) by al-qaeda, as well as the in court testimonies of it's members, and documents seized by the us government are enough proof for me. I don't think we need to hold a seance to ask the terrorists if they did, in, fact do it...
K3VIN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 9:26 PM what does 9/11 have to do with iraq then again
DeadraveN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 10:04 PM and we've come full circle. K3vin, I'll now direct you again to ED3's first post in this thread.
K3VIN	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 10:10 PM it has been proven that saddam and the al quda had no real ties.
AgentMGD	Date: June 18, 2006 @ 11:54 PM We have freed the iraqi people from a tyrannical dictator who routinely tortured and murdered his own people for their dissent. Now iraqis can live with freedom. Hooray that we freed them from a dictator that the CIA (and there's proof, sheeple)put into office ...yeah the US did some moronic things back in the 80s ...the US knew about what he was doing back then and didn't do anything about it ...but oh 9/11 happens and we are so f-ing concerned that he's murdering his own ppl?!?! shouldn't we be concerned that our own government murdered its own too? or should we just sweep it under the rug like we do with other dictatorship nations who murdered their own?? - something to think about, sheeple. but according to you, we should just let this fledgling government fend for itself like a newborn. Good call. correct my American history if i'm wrong but wasn't this nation AFTER the revolution a fledgling government fending for itself like a newborn baby? Did we ask Spain or/and France to help assist us in creating our government ...our democracy for us ...did we ask them to set up our US Constitution ...elect our representatives and president for us? The US shouldn't be in the business of creating their own puppet governments so our new ally (as you put it) will bend to the will and way of the US demands especially since the Middle East does serve only one purpose to us - O I L!
hate9wicket	Date: June 19, 2006 @ 12:34 AM Yes we should leave Iraq, there are some interesting theories out there concerning why we and the UK are there. One of those theories is that Saddam was increasing oil production, thus cutting into the profits of the Saudis and Iran. Chevron, BP, Mobil Exxon, et al. do not want to see their profit margins decrease. Without Iraq trying to put the oil market into balance, more and more we are becoming accustomed to paying higher and higher at the pump. We don't have to try this shit w/ Saudi Arabia, they are in our pocket,( Kissenger threatening Nuclear strikes during Vietnam?) they were willing to pay for the first Gulf War almost entirely. ( I can't say the same of the Saudi population, they despise the Royal family, they are the terrorists, when they target America, they spit in the face of the ruling class) Throughout the Middle East, you are seeing the resentment of The Saudi Government(all the people sourced into the country to do the work the Saudis do not want to do) and every one of them know the USA props them up, keeps them in power, so we have the fuel in ready enough supply for the really big wars we are overdue to fight in the next 50 years or so. One other thing, some of the Iraqi "insurgents", all they are doing when they attack us with IED, is really a form of Desert Justice, when a family member is killed, they cannot be properly mourned until their killer is avenged.
hate9wicket	Date: June 19, 2006 @ 12:35 AM Oops, sorry, I forgot Poland. my bad.
DeadraveN	Date: June 19, 2006 @ 6:46 AM K3v, Iraq isn't just about saddam. you have to get past that way of thinking and see the bigger picture. In case you hadn't noticed, al-qaeda in iraq is one of the major insurgent groups there. Ousting Saddam was only part of the reason we went into Iraq. and Agent, you're rehashing the past. yes, there have been a lot of fuck ups along the way, for decades. I don't disagree with that. The U.S. Government has done a lot of bad things in the past, as have most governments in the world. But that is beside the point. We're there now. We've created this situation of chaos by toplling a government.. it would be incredibly irresponsible of us to just leave it to others to resolve without at least our help. And yes, btw, as a "fledgling government" the U.S. did have a lot of help along the way. The French Navy wasn't there to just watch the revolutionary war.
AgentMGD	Date: June 19, 2006 @ 8:54 AM Au contrarie, mis ami Raven you missed the point of that statement - the French government didn't help us elect George Washington as president. i don't dispute their assistance during the revolutionary war even though they did arrive later but just in time. of course i rehash the past because history tends to repeat itself ...especially when it involves the US. we put Saddam into office and then we decide to depose him out of office. the harder we try resolving this situation of chaos the worse things get ...it's time to get the fuck out - whether the Iraqi government is ready or not ...it's time for them to start defending themselves.
DeadraveN	Date: June 19, 2006 @ 9:10 AM well, that's the idea. As soon as the Iraqis can defend themselves, we will get out. leaving now would just get them all slaughtered. Then everyone would be in here on these forums asking why the U.S. didn't do more to prevent the mass murders...
Svensta	Date: June 19, 2006 @ 9:20 AM 1. The iraqi government IS defending itself. There are no far more operations and attacks upon it and its fledling defense forces presently than US-stationed troops. In fact, the situation is being deliberately moved in that direction. Iraqi goverment forces are positioned as a buffer betwixt problems and the international forces. I'll find the link that describes such tactics. It was in the Times. 2. The attitude of the US first installing then removing a leader is so childish its frightening. Indeed we support factions that are friendly to us and our ideals. Indeed we stand against people who stand against the same. Saddam curried our support to rise up and tople the excessively brutal and backward religious hegemony that the US and most liberal-thinking nations gave up on. Once Saddam rescinded his previous commitments and resorted to the selfsame behaviors of his precedessants, we stood against him. Just like we will frown on any oppressive dictator. This is our main failing, I think. We should give up on world policing. If a people tolerate a barbarian in power, then let them suffer. 3. Iraq did indeed foment dangerous anti-American beliefs and movements (call this supporting terrorist organizations). Now there is nothing wrong with hating us, but there is something distinctly wrong with abetting the practice of terrorism. Such infrastructures need to be taught that we will not allow such to be condoned. If you turn a blind eye to such activities in your nation, we will NOT turn a blind eye to you, you will be made to pay for it. 4. I don't think we should invade or liberate these places. I feel this is secondary, a guilt reaction to the true, merciless goal. What needs to happen is that the country needs to be rendered incapable of supporting/abetting movements that have the intent of attacking us, without equivocation. We are trying to do the noble thing. The 'Teach him to fish and he will eat for his lifetime' thing. We don't want to just rip our their infrastructure and punish them, because we know we will be flying bombers again in 20 years. We'd rather make them partners, teach them to build, create, grow, and not to hate us so much. We don't want to be their parents, just partners. 5. In war, there will be deaths. If you place an armed group in a land where they are reviled and feared, there will be unfortunate deaths. If one side of a conflict does not care about bystanders, to the point of including them PURPOSEFULLY, there will be huge numbers of unfortunate deaths. 6. We did not create these problems, even if we exacerbated them. Stop blaming, and take accountability, its your world, your nation, your future. 7. Every time another attack is launched on the United States, there will be bloody reprisal. Never, ever mistake this. It is necessary, the people demand it. In a way, we're all alike, aren't we?
DeadraveN	Date: June 19, 2006 @ 9:30 AM well said.
K3VIN	Date: June 19, 2006 @ 12:08 PM One other thing, some of the Iraqi "insurgents", all they are doing when they attack us with IED, is really a form of Desert Justice, when a family member is killed, they cannot be properly mourned until their killer is avenged. interesting... saddam pjut to pwoer by the u.s. jsut liek al quada in afghanistan interesting..
zedsalt	Date: June 20, 2006 @ 11:28 AM Svensta, statements such as "Such infrastructures need to be taught that we will not allow such to be condoned. If you turn a blind eye to such activities in your nation, we will NOT turn a blind eye to you, you will be made to pay for it."; "What needs to happen is that the country needs to be rendered incapable of supporting/abetting movements that have the intent of attacking us, without equivocation.", and "Every time another attack is launched on the United States, there will be bloody reprisal." all seem to suggest that some sort of threat to the U.S. existed in Hussein's Iraq. What evidence have you seen or heard of such activity that Hussein supported, condoned, or even purposefully ignored? For that matter, let's forget for Hussein for a moment, and if I may ask, what evidence exists that anyone in Iraq at the time posed any sort of threat to the U.S.?
K3VIN	Date: June 20, 2006 @ 1:33 PM
thesoloer	Date: June 20, 2006 @ 4:46 PM agent does have a point. If we keep putting up dictators from other countries that we know we wont like and the government lies to us and says that they still dont put them up we wont have a very prosperous era and it will be filled with lots of wars if we keep on continuing our own actions. Saying we're terrorists would be wrong, but if we put him up, he is doing exactly what they said for him to do, so therefore, we could technically be terrorists. All of the war on terror was a result of what the CIA did. They have put up both Osama and Saddam in power, they put up most of the ruling casts there, and all that they are fighting for is power, once they are over this fight, they want a new era of piece, some speculate that the new world order may come to power and others speculate different things may happen.
Svensta	Date: June 21, 2006 @ 10:05 AM I can't go and quote chapter and verse because to seek out sources on the internet would be to run around looking for cheese to stick in holes in the dike. These aren't reputable sources, and I don't have a subscription to the Times Online. Suffice it to say that any nation ruled in part or totally by factions that preach of the need, even the outright nobility of guerrilla warfare as the proper response to global event not to your liking, is a nation that needs to be corrected. Iraq, ironically, was one of the quietest of these nations. Not because they were the most forward-thinking and sane, but because their fundamentalist factions were kept in check by the outright ruthless tactics of hussien. He buried them in mass graves. Be that as it may, it was clearly establish that Al Queda was openly based within Iraq with what amounts to at least tacit approval (nothing was done to stop them, when dozens of other factions were being exterminated). If you condone a group's behavior, you are guilty. And in the humanitarian sense (which again, I don't agree with globally), Hussien was a powermad lunatic who was killing an awful lot of people, including the people who MIGHT be able to save Iraq one day.
Svensta	Date: June 21, 2006 @ 10:07 AM And to refute Thesoloer. The US is not of the policy of "putting up dictators from other countries that we know we won't like". We attempt to find the most reasonable of factions, extract promises in good faith that they will better things, then assist them to overthrow the current horrendous regime. Again, this is not my idea of wisdom, but the US' heart is in the right place.
Orion	Date: June 21, 2006 @ 10:35 AM how many wars has canada been in 0 do you know how many people die by guns in canada in a year like 147 and in the US like a 100,000 do you know y its because pot is legal!!!
K3VIN	Date: June 21, 2006 @ 11:09 AM new york is also the population of all of canada... think that might be a factor? how many wars has canada been in? quite a lot, not recently because theirs reasons canada would go to war, they are peace keepers now. They didnt wait until they were in danger to join the world wars.
K3VIN	Date: June 21, 2006 @ 11:10 AM also guns ARE legal in the u.s.
shadowself	Date: June 21, 2006 @ 11:27 AM Orion: how many wars has canada been in 0 do you know how many people die by guns in canada in a year like 147 and in the US like a 100,000 do you know y its because pot is legal!!! If you are actually serious and not trolling, that has got to be the most uninformed, ignorant statement I have ever seen on DMusic. And I have seen a lot of uninformed and ignorant statements. If you think that Canada has not been in any wars, I suggest you put down the bong and go to school for a couple days this year.
zedsalt	Date: June 21, 2006 @ 11:34 AM "Be that as it may, it was clearly establish that Al Queda was openly based within Iraq with what amounts to at least tacit approval (nothing was done to stop them, when dozens of other factions were being exterminated)..." WHAT?!?! WHERE?!? WHEN?!? The only relationship I've ever heard of between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda was the mountain of intercepted communications regarding Al Quaeda's plans to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Al Quaeda was in its infancy and Bin Laden was barely a blip on our intelligence community's radar when Al Quaeda issued a fatwa against its second set of government officials. The only government that has spent more time on Al Quaeda's hitlist is Saudi Arabia. I mean, sure, there was that ONE report by ONE Bush staffer about "a man with demonstrable ties to Al Quaeda" meeting with "three, possibly four officials from Hussein's government", but that was debunked almost before it was released! That man lost his job before the end of the week, and the Whitehouse press team went into overdrive in an attempt to control the damage done by his pathetic attempt at drawing ties between Al Quaeda and the Hussein regime.
K3VIN	Date: June 21, 2006 @ 11:37 AM ^^ thats what i thought
K3VIN	Date: June 21, 2006 @ 11:38 AM america had more contact with the taliban over the years?? gonna bomb itself its a threat?
Svensta	Date: June 21, 2006 @ 9:56 PM America has more contact with EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. That's irrevelant. So you're saying Al Queda does not work within Iraq? You are saying that the dog and pony show of endless numbers of Al Queda members either arrested or blown to smithereens is not an indication that Iraq harbors a definitive Al Queda infrastructure? They have no members, no backing, no resources within Iraq? Even that insipid deck of 'cards' included no members within Iraq? I'm not saying Hussein was Al Queda, in fact, if you read my earlier, I never said the government overtly supported them whatsoever. I'm saying the government tacitly approved of it, by allowing it to act and prosper in its confines. A sin of ommission, if you will. You have known fundamentalists and lunatics in great numbers in your country and refuse to do something, rejecting aggressively all overt tenders of assistance. (which was due to his own history of barbarism and wrong-doing and powermongering). So, after a certain amount of time was allowed to elapse, with him frothing at the mouth the entire time, it was decided to go and get these men and smash their infrastructure ourselves. The only problem came in when they decided we needed to 'save' Iraq as well.
K3VIN	Date: June 21, 2006 @ 10:52 PM not everyone who blows themself up is al quada
zedsalt	Date: June 22, 2006 @ 11:33 AM "So you're saying Al Queda does not work within Iraq?" No, I'm saying, yet again, that there's no evidence that Al Quaeda operated in Iraq DURING THE HUSSEIN REGIME. Svensta, you keep repeating that Al Quaeda was operating in Iraq while Iraq was under Hussein's rule. What I'm asking, yet again, is where did you get that idea?
hate9wicket	Date: June 23, 2006 @ 12:20 AM If you got 90 minutes, go watch this Frontline, Mr. Cheney is featured prominently throughout. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/
EmpireDay3	Date: June 23, 2006 @ 12:31 AM zed - c'mon - al quaeda during the hussein regime was in america; they were in england; they were in spain; they were in saudi arabia afghanistan and syria - but they weren't in iraq? for real?
hate9wicket	Date: June 23, 2006 @ 12:55 AM They interview Ron Suskind in that Frontline piece, here are excerpts from his book http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1205478-1,00.html
zedsalt	Date: June 23, 2006 @ 11:15 AM "zed - c'mon - al quaeda during the hussein regime was in america; they were in england; they were in spain; they were in saudi arabia afghanistan and syria - but they weren't in iraq? for real?" Don't you think there has been quite an effort made to find something...anything...to suggest that Al Qaeda operated in Hussein's Iraq? What has that effort produced? I AM posing this as a challenge and a means of supporting my argument, but that does NOT mean that I am unwilling to consider any such evidence. Where is it?
zedsalt	Date: June 23, 2006 @ 11:23 AM And when it comes right down to it, I think the notion that we lacked justification in attacking Iraq isn't THE core issue we should be considering when answering the question posed by the title of this thread. Just one slob's opinion here, but I really think the primary question we should be asking at this point is this: what is our presence there achieving? In arguing over whether or not we should've invaded in the first place, we're ignoring the question of what effect our presence there NOW is having NOW.
K3VIN	Date: June 23, 2006 @ 12:25 PM ElectronicEmpireDay3 Date: June 23, 2006 @ 12:31 AM zed - c'mon - al quaeda during the hussein regime was in america; they were in england; they were in spain; they were in saudi arabia afghanistan and syria - but they weren't in iraq? for real? so lets attack all these crazy countries
DeadraveN	Date: June 23, 2006 @ 12:35 PM Our presence there now is helping to prevent or at least stall an all out civil war between Sunnis and Shiites, not to mention the other "insurgent" groups. The Iraqi government, and it's military and police, are gaining more control and more power slowly, but they still need us. maybe not in the capacity we are there, but a complete withdrawal is still just not feasible. I still say we should decrease the amount of troops there, and begin on the path to getting them all home, but not completely withdraw. not yet. and I believe Gene is right on this one.. we're always going to have an operational military base there.
DJEV	Date: June 23, 2006 @ 6:26 PM hmm, Ok my 2cents in this one.. Should they come home? Yes ..BUT not all at once! By now? ALOT of Iraqi people are dependant on our troops for saftey, (lets think of the children there for a few, ok?) My fear? Is what this entire war has done to vets, I.E from Viet Nam, those with PTSD, and the ones that will have it now (anyone watch Bagdad ER on HBO?) those were REAL stories!! Those frightened me! I also think at times, it is NOT up to us, as Americans to go into other countries and tell them HOW to live! Now if they ask us for help? Different! What bothers me, on a personal level is how America spends the MOST MONEY on its MILITARY, anyone watch those numbers on 60 minutes???? something like 423 BILLION dollars? Who pays that? WE ALL DO!! The government, is now taking that away from Medicare, special programs IN NEED! THAT is what scares me; I need my medications!!! Ok I got off track! Sorry! I just look at things, and although I HATE WAR As others in this thread have said, THIS is the PRESENT situation, WHAT do we do NOW?? I say MAKe sure the people are safe! The Water they drink is CLEAN! Bring the troops home A LITTLE AT A TIME! We can't go back and undo what is already done, but we CAN do something about what is going on NOW! Thats my 2 cents!
EmpireDay3	Date: June 23, 2006 @ 7:46 PM March 28th 06: http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20060327-091533-2648r.htm excerpt: ..."Three years in, we are hearing from the summer soldiers. The pacification of Iraq is proving more difficult than anticipated. Even some on the right are throwing in the towel. But as the Wall Street Journal wisely editorialized, the consequences of failure -- by which they mean capitulation on our part -- would be utterly catastrophic. The radical Islamists will claim that they defeated the United States and chased us out of Iraq just as they defeated the Soviets and chased them out of Afghanistan. And every moderate-leaning Arab and Muslim in the world will shrug his shoulders and give up. It will embolden the terrorists tremendously to see the U.S. withdraw from Iraq. The corresponding plunge in morale at home will rival if not exceed post-Vietnam syndrome. Iran will seize the opportunity to impose a Shi'ite theocracy on Iraq, and Afghanistan will feel the reverberations and tremble on its still shaky foundations. Oh yes, the documents. One shows that an official from Iraq's government met with Osama bin Laden on Feb. 19, 1995, with the explicit permission of Saddam Hussein. When bin Laden was forced to leave Sudan, the Iraqi documents contain a handwritten note saying, "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location" (Afghanistan). The notes also reveal that Osama bin Laden suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. The documents further disclose that the Iraqi intelligence service issued detailed instructions to directors and managers of weapons sites regarding U.N. inspections. They were to remove files from computers, "remove correspondence with the atomic energy and military industry departments concerning the prohibited weapons" and "remove prohibited materials and equipment, including documents and catalogs and making sure to clear labs and storages (sic) of any traces of chemical or biological materials that were previously used or stored." This Week: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html excerpt: "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon. Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist." but somehow, Zed and K3, I get the feeling nothing short of a picture of Saddam and Osama shaking hands will do for you - your mind seems pretty made up, and I'm sure you'll do your best to blast whatever source anyone throws at you - so the last thing I have to say on the matter is that whatever you have yourself convinced of, keep telling yourself that.
hate9wicket	Date: June 23, 2006 @ 8:09 PM So basically, we should stay until we win? What do we get when we win? The only reason I bring up the links I put up earlier was to remind everyone, that yes, this war was bullshit to begin with. The War we should have stayed the course with, was not. Had Rumsfeld not dragged his feet and committed more troops earlier in Afghanistan, we might have trapped Bin Laden in Tora Bora. It was like an excercise in how to humiliate the CIA from the beginning, and continues to be. Ok, let's keep the troops there, Let's see if we can somehow get more than 1/3 of all the soldiers stationed there to start experiencing Migrane headaches. Let's have more incidents where we dole out Vigilante justice on the SPOT when IED's go off. Yes, let's continue with the Stop loss policy, since it will be impossible for any branch to meet their recruiting quotas...unless we start shipping off felons, lessen their sentences, of course they will be paid their prison wages of 20 cents an hour, I'm sure we can fit that into the next reauthorization of the Patriot Act, somewhere, Like any congressman actually reads any bills they vote on.
K3VIN	Date: June 23, 2006 @ 11:52 PM OtherDJEV Date: June 23, 2006 @ 6:26 PM hmm, Ok my 2cents in this one.. Should they come home? Yes ..BUT not all at once! By now? ALOT of Iraqi people are dependant on our troops for saftey, (lets think of the children there for a few, ok?) My fear? Is what this entire war has done to vets, I.E from Viet Nam, those with PTSD, and the ones that will have it now (anyone watch Bagdad ER on HBO?) those were REAL stories!! Those frightened me! I also think at times, it is NOT up to us, as Americans to go into other countries and tell them HOW to live! Now if they ask us for help? Different! What bothers me, on a personal level is how America spends the MOST MONEY on its MILITARY, anyone watch those numbers on 60 minutes???? something like 423 BILLION dollars? Who pays that? WE ALL DO!! The government, is now taking that away from Medicare, special programs IN NEED! THAT is what scares me; I need my medications!!! Ok I got off track! Sorry! I just look at things, and although I HATE WAR As others in this thread have said, THIS is the PRESENT situation, WHAT do we do NOW?? I say MAKe sure the people are safe! The Water they drink is CLEAN! Bring the troops home A LITTLE AT A TIME! We can't go back and undo what is already done, but we CAN do something about what is going on NOW! Thats my 2 cents! take it from me, i know a few dudes from the army, and one has told me he has killed children before.. because once ur out there everyone is an enemy, and some extremeists will use their kids.. so as a precaution children and women may be shot alnog with men
zedsalt	Date: June 24, 2006 @ 12:18 PM "Our presence there now is helping to prevent or at least stall an all out civil war between Sunnis and Shiites." This, I think, is getting more to the core issue. I can't claim any expertise in this area, but I've been paying a great deal of attention to those who can- people who...due to their careers in the military, the press, or in the oil industry...have lived in the region for decades. The consensus among these folks appears to be that, as ugly as it sounds, such sectarian violence needs to "play out" before Iraq can hope to function as a sovereign nation. It sounds brutal to me, but as I said, it comes from people with a much deeper understanding of how the region works. Of course, many of these same people are saying that our presence there is not only prolonging the violence, but is also making it much more intense and deadly. It would be impossible, I would think, to assess just how much of the violence is sectarian vs. how much of it is attacks directed solely at coalition forces. I DON'T believe, however, that we shouldn't be trying to, that it's wrong to set benchmarks- gradual and flexible- for withdrawl, such as the proposal that was supported by only thirteen senators this past week.
zedsalt	Date: June 24, 2006 @ 12:36 PM Wow, ED3, you haven't really read ANYTHING I've been typing, have you? Of COURSE I'll look further into the documentation mentioned in the Washington Times article you cited! You're right, though, to think that I'll be doing so with a bit of bias. After all, I get a little suspicious anytime the Oval Office decides to publicize such good news...or rather, news that makes them look so good...through one of their prepackaged news releases. You have to admit, this administration has been "caught" SO many times blatantly lying in this manner. The mere fact that W didn't call a big press conference to celebrate the declassification of these documents...I mean, can you blame me? So, documents declassified about two weeks before 3/28/06...
zedsalt	Date: June 24, 2006 @ 12:44 PM And I'm begging you, please stop with all of this "they had WMDs before the sanctions, so they must've had them afterwards" garbage. It's SO insulting when people like Ms. Charen and Mr. Santorum act like none of us are aware of the timetable.
Bluenevus	Date: June 24, 2006 @ 3:22 PM Bring em' home...
K3VIN	Date: June 24, 2006 @ 3:33 PM the article about the weapons being found is fake.. i saw it on another site. no small time guy in congress or w/e would ahve announced it.. it would have been big.. expesically with such low ratings bush has now.
K3VIN	Date: June 24, 2006 @ 3:35 PM not to mention those weapons are from way before the first gulf war andcant do shit.
EmpireDay3	Date: June 24, 2006 @ 9:59 PM well, there ya have it - 'nuff said. I had about 6 paragraphs typed out in response - forget it - I'm not gonna play the petty liberal "anything I don't agree with must be a lie" game. You guys would rather we had done nothing after 911 or based on any intelligence we were given about iraq at all. When russia calls you up and says "saddam's got something up his sleve" and you believe them because you just caught them in an oil for food scandal - you don't sit around and wait! If we had spent time getting 6 or 7 or 8 verifications of pieces of intelligence we had been given and something had happened in the meantime - you guys would have blamed the president FOR NOT ACTING FAST ENOUGH ON WHAT INFO WE HAD! Not gonna play that game with y'all. Fact is, if there were anything concrete at all about any lies from this administration, impeachment would have been a reality long ago rather than a word you throw around just because you don't agree. Apparently the fact that weapons were found, whether or not they can do anything because of their degraded condition, does not mean they didn't exist. Coupla years ago, they may have been completely viable. If the story were fake, why hasn't every news organization in the country blasted it and reported on their removal from office? I'll tell you why the white house didn't jump all over it - W is well aware of the report and stated he was going to engage in told ya so politics and is resolved to be forward looking. A concept you liberals are completely unfamiliar with. Facts are facts whether or not you agree with them because you don't like someone's politics, dudes. Sorry - wmd's were there; osama and saddam were well aware of each other; the taliban was everywhere, including iraq; the people of iraq for the first time are free to live their own lives and choose their own destinies without fear of death for dissention; if we pull out now we'd be abandoning a people we have resolved to help and losing and ally - not to mention we'd be sending the message to terrorists around the world that you can mess with our country and you might just get away with it because liberal politics is about blaming everyone but the prepetrators. You go right on disagreeing with the president's policies - it's your right in this country - but please don't insult our intelligence by trying to tell us your wool over our eyes makes your opinion the truth. peace out.
Alecs	Date: June 24, 2006 @ 10:19 PM I'd just like to say that saying that we're taking the war to them instead of letting them bring it here is one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard. They're killing our troops because we fucking invaded their country, toppled their government, put an infinitely weaker one in power then sat back and said "There you go! All better!". Of course they're fucking attacking us! We invaded their home!
EmpireDay3	Date: June 25, 2006 @ 12:03 AM
hate9wicket	Date: June 25, 2006 @ 12:08 AM ED3, #1. The Taliban originated in Pakistan #2. Mustard Gas has a very short shelf life #3. George Bush is not the Buck stops here kind of Guy, He was chosen to be the Fall guy,in case none of the plans Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice had in mind fell through. Which is going to happen, once the fog has lifted from the general public's perception. #4. Nobody in this administration was interested in stopping any major terrorist attacks perpetrated in this Country, they were just waiting for the opportunity to go out and get their war on "someone" "anyone" who did not pose a serious threat---in their estimation. #5. They underestimated the resolve and stubbornness of the people of the region, either that, or they correctly predicted how long and drawn out this affair would be...Iraq =Eurasia...U.S.A=Oceania 1984=2006
EmpireDay3	Date: June 25, 2006 @ 12:16 AM hate9, #1. and now they're everywhere, including iraq #2. which is why the wmd's found today were probably active when saddam was lying to the world about not having any #3. it's easy to get caught up in your own spin, isn't it - when you want something to be the truth so bad, I guess you'll pose it any way you can to present your particular brand of fiction as fact, eh? #4. the 9/11 attcks were being planned pretty much the entire time clinton was in office #5. the stubborn people you refer to happen to be the ones who will be devastated by the fact that iraq is now a democracy - and documents recovered from al zarqawi verify that it is working.
EmpireDay3	Date: June 25, 2006 @ 12:28 AM how about a little perspective: http://www.nysun.com/article/32787?page_no=1 "...the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia (61.7), South Africa (49.6), Jamaica (32.4), and Venezuela (31.6). How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1. FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9..." keep that in mind when booking your next vacation!
sinai	Date: June 25, 2006 @ 8:03 AM which only affirms what i've been saying all along... if you're afraid of dying in a terrorist attack, you're the biggest pussy on god's green earth.
zedsalt	Date: June 25, 2006 @ 4:11 PM The "documents" alluded to by Mona Charen (speechwriter for Nancy Reagan and Jack Kemp / Associate Director for the Office of Public Liaison and Public Affairs officer for Ronald Reagan) are, in reality, a single document- a sixteen page, handwritten document which "appears to have been authored in early '97". That last quote is from a fifty point memo sent by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller. The memo states both that the document "appears to have been authored in early '97" and that it "details Iraq-al Qaeda contacts beginning in 1990 and continuing through mid-March 2003". This single document has been repeatedly cited as proof of the following meetings: 1990- "emissaries of bin Laden" with "Iraqi government officials" in Jordan 1992- "the first meeting between the Iraqi Intelligence Service" (specifically, former IIS Deputy Director and Ambassador to Turkey, Faruq Hijazi) and "al Qaeda" (specifically, Ayman al Zawahiri) in Sudan, "brokered by Hassan al-Turabi". An indeterminate number of these meetings was said to have happened in '92 through '95. 1994- "a Sudanese official" representing, not the Sudanese government, but moonlighting as a representative of "bin Laden's Advice and Reform Commission" with Uday Hussein in Iraq February 19th, 1995- This is The Big One, the meeting most often cited as proof positive that al Qaeda and Iraq were in cahoots. Unlike most of the meetings mentioned in the sixteen page handwritten document, the claim is that this meeting has been corroborated by multiple sources. This meeting was reportedly between "a former Director for Iraq Intelligence Directorate 4" and bin Laden. Some of the corroborating sources have been said to have expressed outrage that this same former Director was placed in a very high position in the temporary Iraqi government set up after the war, but that outrage quieted when he was eventually voted out by the Iraqi people. July 1996- Mani abd-al-Rashid al-Tikriti, Director of Iraqi Intelligence, with bin Laden "at bin Laden's farm in Sudan" February 3, 1998- Ayman al Zawahiri with "the Iraqi Vice President" in Iraq "late 1998", December 1998- Here, it gets a little trickier...not just because this is the first date which conflicts with the "early '97" assessment of when the document was authored, but because the corroboration is far from perfect. The document states that "An Iraqi delegation, including at least two Iraq Intelligence officers formerly assigned to the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan" met with bin Laden in Afghanistan. The CIA authored two reports which conflict with this and with each other. One says they have evidence that "two Iraqi Intelligence officers" met with bin Laden and al Zawahiri; the other says that it was one IIS officer. 1999- Faruq Hajazi with bin Laden, once in Sudan, once in Afghanistan And last but certainly not least, the document says that "a large number of al Qaeda operatives headed to Iraq" in October of 2002 Granted, this single document does NOT represent the sum total of evidence said to exist of ties between al Qaeda and Hussein's Iraq, but it does seem consistent in character with the other "evidence" we've been fed, doesn't it?
GreatGooglyM...	Date: June 25, 2006 @ 4:48 PM My... eyes... bleed...
K3VIN	Date: June 25, 2006 @ 8:06 PM ElectronicEmpireDay3 Date: June 25, 2006 @ 12:16 AM hate9, #1. and now they're everywhere, including iraq not true the taliban were not in iraq when saddam was in power.. and if they were.. it was not under his knowlede.. like the members of the taliban in the us we did not know about #2. which is why the wmd's found today were probably active when saddam was lying to the world about not having any they were old... its a big lie.. the pwoer of suggestion is really screwing up ur mind.. why is america allowed to have them and not iraq? #3. it's easy to get caught up in your own spin, isn't it - when you want something to be the truth so bad, I guess you'll pose it any way you can to present your particular brand of fiction as fact, eh? kinda like what our government does to us.. propaganda anyone? #4. the 9/11 attcks were being planned pretty much the entire time clinton was in office what does this have to do with anything really.. bush was talking to some kids.. #5. the stubborn people you refer to happen to be the ones who will be devastated by the fact that iraq is now a democracy - and documents recovered from al zarqawi verify that it is working. mhmm -_- ElectronicEmpireDay3 Date: June 25, 2006 @ 12:28 AM how about a little perspective: http://www.nysun.com/article/32787?page_no=1 "...the violent death rate in Iraq is 25.71 per 100,000. That may sound high, but not when you compare it to places like Colombia (61.7), South Africa (49.6), Jamaica (32.4), and Venezuela (31.6). How about the violent death rates in American cities? New Orleans before Hurricane Katrina was 53.1. FBI statistics for 2004-05 have Washington at 45.9, Baltimore at 37.7, and Atlanta at 34.9..." keep that in mind when booking your next vacation! wow thanks for putting some statistics up for me... so why would u invade iraq qhich is really less of a threat to the us, then itself? america needs to fix its own problems.

~~Previous 100~~

Page: [ 1 2 ]

Next 100

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: