underwater Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Been quite around here from the likes of Sassa, Normalnoises, ou812, ect.....Maybe things did not turn out as you planned.....Maybe you are starting to see Iraqies dancing in the streets and giving soldiers flowers?.....Maybe we are starting to get closer to the WMD's?......Maybe we are uncovering the sheer brutality of Saddam's torture chambers?.....Setting jailed CHILDREN free?.....Taking extraordinary steps to prevent civilian casualties?......Whats left on the list?1) Installing a successful government2) Allowing the UN to help in rebuilding Iraq3) Letting the Iraqi people keep their oilSoon it will be time for some deep reflection and the backbone to admit that many of your agruments were incorrect.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by underwater Been quite around here from the likes of Sassa, Normalnoises, ou812, ect.....Maybe things did not turn out as you planned.....Maybe you are starting to see Iraqies dancing in the streets and giving soldiers flowers?.....Maybe we are starting to get closer to the WMD's?......Maybe we are uncovering the sheer brutality of Saddam's torture chambers?.....Setting jailed CHILDREN free?.....Taking extraordinary steps to prevent civilian casualties?......Whats left on the list?1) Installing a successful government2) Allowing the UN to help in rebuilding Iraq3) Letting the Iraqi people keep their oilSoon it will be time for some deep reflection and the backbone to admit that many of your agruments were incorrect.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 by the way, the lefties have been awefully quite today..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgym Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 I don't consider myself a "lefty", but swing more often on the left than the right.It's good to see we are winning, but what i think the protestors are still upset at is:1) the loss of life, not only of our soldiers, but of all the innocent civilians that were killed.2) the monetary costs3) Bush's so-called "hidden agenda" concerning oil and private interests.And i wouldn't say we were wrong just because you pro-war people "won". There were infinite possible outcomes, your's being the quickest, at the cost of more lives.Ours might have been keeping the weapons inspectors in longer, or involving the UN or international community more, and we still might have succeeded. Who knows.And who's to say which angle was right? the peacemakers might have won, albeit taking more time. But in the end , who knows. Just be glad that for the most part things are working out. No need to rub it in our faces. That's just immature Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgym Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 And one more thing...im glad to see the recent triumph our soldiers have achieved in Baghdad.Im just saying that there could have been multiple positive outcomes, not only thru military means Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by underwater Been quite around here from the likes of Sassa, Normalnoises, ou812, ect.....Maybe things did not turn out as you planned.....Maybe you are starting to see Iraqies dancing in the streets and giving soldiers flowers?.....Maybe we are starting to get closer to the WMD's?......Maybe we are uncovering the sheer brutality of Saddam's torture chambers?.....Setting jailed CHILDREN free?.....Taking extraordinary steps to prevent civilian casualties?......Whats left on the list?1) Installing a successful government2) Allowing the UN to help in rebuilding Iraq3) Letting the Iraqi people keep their oilSoon it will be time for some deep reflection and the backbone to admit that many of your agruments were incorrect.... dnice35 you great orator...you need to go edit that post of yours, because i think you meant "quiet" not "quite"...same for you underwater...but i'll take a crack at this one...iraqis dancing in the street:well, they are "dancing" in the areas of baghdad that have been secured by the u.s. military...in the parts that have not been secured, they are still fighting...but that's not the point...i'm sure, just like you, that they will be happy to be rid of hussein...and i have never argued the opposite......what i have argued and still do is that this war is illegal, and that the liberation of the iraqi is just a pretext to get in iraq and profit from it...if not, why did the u.s. wait 12 years to do that?...why didn't they do it back in 1991...but that's too hard for all you pro-war's to understand that you can be against hussein and at the same time want something else than a unilateral, imperialistic and illegal u.s.-waged war...and all the consequences it entails...but then again our "great fearless leader" said it the best with his "sandbox politics": you're with us or against us....waahhahaahah...now to your points:1. successful gov't:sure...but successful for whom?...the iraqi's or the u.s. multinationals...2. allowing the u.n. to help rebuild iraq:that's funny...the whole time the u.s. put down the u.n....they "decide" on the all-american gov't to be put in place...yet for the humanitarian reconstruction of iraq, i.e. the one that brings no profit (as opposed to the oil installations), they want to bring in the u.n....interesting...3. let the iraqi people keep their oil:i think that this is your "best" point by far...why would that need to be on a list of things to do?...because if it's not our gov't might just take it all?...i mean who else would take it?...doesn't it seem natural that the iraqi people should keep their oil?...i guess not, because it needs to be put on a list to make sure "we let them keep it"...lol...quite revelatory lapsus there...but since you brought it up, yea i'd like to see that happen...p.s.: and i'm sure that now that we have control of the country, we'll "find" wmd's...eventhough none were used, and eventhough all the one we found (blasted on tv) so far turned out not to be wmd's (most media never made a big story to correct the "spectacular finds"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by gmccookny Ours might have been keeping the weapons inspectors in longer, or involving the UN or international community more, and we still might have succeeded. Who knows.And who's to say which angle was right? the peacemakers might have won, albeit taking more time. But in the end , who knows. keeping the UN inspectors in Iraq for what? another 12 years of UN failure to dissarm Iraq and more time for Saddams regime to torture, rape and kill Iraqi civilians.... that doesnt sound too smart cooky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by gmccookny It's good to see we are winning, but what i think the protestors are still upset at is:1) the loss of life, not only of our soldiers, but of all the innocent civilians that were killed.2) the monetary costs3) Bush's so-called "hidden agenda" concerning oil and private interests.Just be glad that for the most part things are working out. No need to rub it in our faces. That's just immature 1) the thousands that died (civilians) will be far less if Saddam was left in power...so again, i understand that loss of human life is very sad...but would u rather have that animal in power still?2) i will give u that one...its costing us alot of money3) who cares? every administration has "hidden agendas"...Democrats are NO EXCEPTION...so that arguement is out the window...ur last comment is truly agree 110% with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgym Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by dnice35 keeping the UN inspectors in Iraq for what? another 12 years of UN failure to dissarm Iraq and more time for Saddams regime to torture, rape and kill Iraqi civilians.... that doesnt sound too smart cooky. Well, the nature of beaurocracy is slow, and the fact that they took so long wasn't so much that they didn't succeed, but that the Iraqi's would not help them. I think Iraq is just a sticky situation, and there was no easy way to take care of this. I just hope that the UN doesn't lose respectability.And Mr. matas... always a pleasure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by mrmatas2277 1) the thousands that died (civilians) will be far less if Saddam was left in power...so again, i understand that loss of human life is very sad...but would u rather have that animal in power still?2) i will give u that one...its costing us alot of money3) who cares? every administration has "hidden agendas"...Democrats are NO EXCEPTION...so that arguement is out the window...ur last comment is truly agree 110% with... Exactly. This hidden agenda accusation is fallacious. EVERY goverment in the history of civilization has had hidden agendas in the conduct of war. And that will never change. That shouldn't even be an argument from the anti-war people, that's just a given. And as far as the civilian death toll, remember that Saddam Hussein has slaughtered MILLIONS of civilians. Unfortunately thousands have died and will continue to die in Iraq as a result of this war, but that pales in comparison to the additional potential deaths Saddam's regime would have caused.Of course the war is costing us money, but as a percentage of GDP, this war is a drop in the bucket compared to other wars we've fought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 super, they won. good riddance, now lets hope they dont it fuck up and Iraq is in the same or worse condition in 20 years time and dont be surprised if more terrorism happens in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by vicman super, they won. good riddance, now lets hope they dont it fuck up and Iraq is in the same or worse condition in 20 years time and dont be surprised if more terrorism happens in this country. terrosim happened before the war begun and it was bound to happen regardless. in the other hand , yes lets hope everything works out for the Iraqi people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by dnice35 terrosim happened before the war begun and it was bound to happen regardless. in the other hand , yes lets hope everything works out for the Iraqi people. dont be surprised if it increases in this country, what to do then? invade more countries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by vicman dont be surprised if it increases in this country, what to do then? invade more countries? increases? how do we know its b/c of the war and not from previous planned attacks by al queda?we will never know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicman Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by dnice35 increases? how do we know its b/c of the war and not from previous planned attacks by al queda?we will never know. like there will be no correlation. and other smaller groups other than al queda might end up doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drunk Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by vicman like there will be no correlation. and other smaller groups other than al queda might end up doing it. Correlation? As long as we take an active role in the Middle East political affairs, terrorism is going to happen regardless. You can attribute it to Iraq, the Palestinian conflict, our perceived control of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt etc. Whatever. Fundamentalist extremists will always find some reason to want wreak havoc on American interests. Unless we become an isolationist state, terrorism is something we'll have to deal with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by dnice35 by the way, the lefties have been awefully quite today..... i'm waiting for underwater's reply or maybe yours... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgeacasta2 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread dnice35 you great orator...you need to go edit that post of yours, because i think you meant "quiet" not "quite"...same for you underwater...but i'll take a crack at this one...iraqis dancing in the street:well, they are "dancing" in the areas of baghdad that have been secured by the u.s. military...in the parts that have not been secured, they are still fighting...but that's not the point...i'm sure, just like you, that they will be happy to be rid of hussein...and i have never argued the opposite......what i have argued and still do is that this war is illegal, and that the liberation of the iraqi is just a pretext to get in iraq and profit from it...if not, why did the u.s. wait 12 years to do that?...why didn't they do it back in 1991...but that's too hard for all you pro-war's to understand that you can be against hussein and at the same time want something else than a unilateral, imperialistic and illegal u.s.-waged war...and all the consequences it entails...but then again our "great fearless leader" said it the best with his "sandbox politics": you're with us or against us....waahhahaahah...now to your points:1. successful gov't:sure...but successful for whom?...the iraqi's or the u.s. multinationals...2. allowing the u.n. to help rebuild iraq:that's funny...the whole time the u.s. put down the u.n....they "decide" on the all-american gov't to be put in place...yet for the humanitarian reconstruction of iraq, i.e. the one that brings no profit (as opposed to the oil installations), they want to bring in the u.n....interesting...3. let the iraqi people keep their oil:i think that this is your "best" point by far...why would that need to be on a list of things to do?...because if it's not our gov't might just take it all?...i mean who else would take it?...doesn't it seem natural that the iraqi people should keep their oil?...i guess not, because it needs to be put on a list to make sure "we let them keep it"...lol...quite revelatory lapsus there...but since you brought it up, yea i'd like to see that happen...p.s.: and i'm sure that now that we have control of the country, we'll "find" wmd's...eventhough none were used, and eventhough all the one we found (blasted on tv) so far turned out not to be wmd's (most media never made a big story to correct the "spectacular finds"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 2. allowing the u.n. to help rebuild iraq:that's funny...the whole time the u.s. put down the u.n....they "decide" on the all-american gov't to be put in place...yet for the humanitarian reconstruction of iraq, i.e. the one that brings no profit (as opposed to the oil installations), they want to bring in the u.n....interesting... should not happen, imo.. un did jackshit, let saddam play with the resolutions for 12 years and now they want to jump in?3. let the iraqi people keep their oil:i think that this is your "best" point by far...why would that need to be on a list of things to do?...because if it's not our gov't might just take it all?...i mean who else would take it?...doesn't it seem natural that the iraqi people should keep their oil?...i guess not, because it needs to be put on a list to make sure "we let them keep it"...lol...quite revelatory lapsus there...but since you brought it up, yea i'd like to see that happen... if point 2. happens, who else would take it? I'm pretty sure France and other countries in the UN would like to get a hand in the wealth of oil and contracts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread dnice35 you great orator...you need to go edit that post of yours, because i think you meant "quiet" not "quite"...same for you underwater...now to your points:1. successful gov't:sure...but successful for whom?...the iraqi's or the u.s. multinationals...2. allowing the u.n. to help rebuild iraq:that's funny...the whole time the u.s. put down the u.n....they "decide" on the all-american gov't to be put in place...yet for the humanitarian reconstruction of iraq, i.e. the one that brings no profit (as opposed to the oil installations), they want to bring in the u.n....interesting...3. let the iraqi people keep their oil:i think that this is your "best" point by far...why would that need to be on a list of things to do?...because if it's not our gov't might just take it all?...i mean who else would take it?...doesn't it seem natural that the iraqi people should keep their oil?...i guess not, because it needs to be put on a list to make sure "we let them keep it"...lol...quite revelatory lapsus there...but since you brought it up, yea i'd like to see that happen... thanxs for the correction....1-successfull ..... for all Iraqis, anything other than the previous regime will be considered a success.... dont you think?2-you cant tell for sure whats going to happen, so lets be optimistic about the situation and hope the rebuilding of Iraq doesnt become a "my manhood is bigger match", between the US and the dickheads who didnt help one bit in the liberation of Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cintron Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 1.) name one time in history, where a country got a court order for a "legal" war.2.) we spilled blood. usually theirs, but some of ours. we put in the time, the expense and the manpower to remove the current government. naturally we're going to help install a governement that's nice to us. If your neighbor was being a jackass and pissing you off, and you had him evicted, wouldn't you want someone decent to take his place?3.) it's a shame that "innocent" civilians died. But that's war.civilians die even when there isn't war. I wonder what kind of future people like those jailed children would have had if we never went to iraq. Yes, noncombatants do die. I prefer not to call them civilians, becuase you don't have to be in the military to pick up a rifle and kill an american. I'm sure that there's a considerable number of civilians out there shooting at our forces, probably not even Iraqi civilians either. possibly from Syria or Iran or other locations. but hey, when you want to make an omlette you've gotta break a few eggs. very sad, but also very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by chrishaolin should not happen, imo.. un did jackshit, let saddam play with the resolutions for 12 years and now they want to jump in?what the hell are you talking about????...you talk like the u.s. was not part of the u.n. for the last 12 years..."u.n. did nothing but the u.s. weren't part of that"...are you insane?...how can you dissociate the u.s. from the u.n....u.s. were part of the u.n. during those 12 years just like every other countries...and the only thing they did more than the other countries in the u.n. was push embargoes that resulted in shortages of vital supplies (like medical supplies) and in many deaths in the iraqi population...but these embargoes did nothing to hussein...Originally posted by chrishaolin if point 2. happens, who else would take it? I'm pretty sure France and other countries in the UN would like to get a hand in the wealth of oil and contracts? and i'm still amazed about all this talk of "taking the iraqi oil"...you seem convinced that now that hussein is gone, the oil is free for the taking...who else would take it? NOBODY!...the oil is not some prize at some county fair game to be won by anybody who steps up and shoots at the empty rusty cans...(please see the analogy)...but the fact that you pro-war see the oil as a prize, i think speaks for itself, and just proves my argument...that goes along very well with many other posts from the pro-war side..."france wants a piece of the cake"..."we shouldn't give anybody anything since we did all this work by ourselves"...sounds to me like this work ("liberation of iraq") was done for the "oil prize" at stake and not the good of the people (iraqi)...but maybe they meant the good of the u.s. people... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishaolin Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread what the hell are you talking about????...you talk like the u.s. was not part of the u.n. for the last 12 years..."u.n. did nothing but the u.s. weren't part of that"...are you insane?...how can you disociate the u.s. from the u.n....u.s. were part of the u.n. during those 12 years just like every other countries...and the only thing they did more than the other countries in the u.n. was push embargoes that resulted in shortages of vital supplies (like medical supplies) and in many deaths in the iraqi population...but these embargoes did nothing to hussein... I understand that the US is part of UN, I was speaking of Bush's decision to go over the UN's head in order to take military action against Hussein's regime. And for someone so quick to point out the spelling errors of others, you might want to run the word disociate through your spell checker.. and i'm still amazed about all this talk of "taking the iraqi oil"...you seem convinced that now that hussein is gone, the oil is free for the taking...who else would take it? NOBODY!...the oil is not some prize at some county fair game to be won by anybody who steps up and shoots at the empty rusty cans...(please see the analogy)...but the fact that you pro-war see the oil as a prize, i think speaks for itself, and just proves my argument...that goes along very well with many other posts from the pro-war side..."france wants a piece of the cake"..."we shouldn't give anybody anything since we did all this work by ourselves"...sounds to me like this work ("liberation of iraq") was done for the "oil prize" at stake and not the good of the people (iraqi)...but maybe they meant the good of the u.s. people... You might have misunderstood the point of my post. I agree that the oil belongs to the people of Iraq. I was pointing out that the UN's interest in the rebuilding of Iraq might have something to do with the chance to land contracts for their oil companies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenchbread Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by cintron 1.) name one time in history, where a country got a court order for a "legal" war....do you know international law?...you don't get a court order...however, whenever a conflict is initiated by a country, the law is used to see if the conflict is legal or not...and in this case it's illegal...here's why:international law says that the only time country A is allowed to pre-emptively strike against country B, is when country B poses an clear and immediate threat to the national security of country A...Originally posted by cintron 2.) we spilled blood. usually theirs, but some of ours. we put in the time, the expense and the manpower to remove the current government. naturally we're going to help install a governement that's nice to us. If your neighbor was being a jackass and pissing you off, and you had him evicted, wouldn't you want someone decent to take his place?we spilled more of our blood than they did (friendly fire and accidents)...see then you're not doing it for the best of the iraqi people(your neighbour's family), but for your own best...(like i've been saying all along)...Originally posted by cintron 3.) it's a shame that "innocent" civilians died. But that's war.civilians die even when there isn't war. I wonder what kind of future people like those jailed children would have had if we never went to iraq. Yes, noncombatants do die. I prefer not to call them civilians, becuase you don't have to be in the military to pick up a rifle and kill an american. I'm sure that there's a considerable number of civilians out there shooting at our forces, probably not even Iraqi civilians either. possibly from Syria or Iran or other locations. but hey, when you want to make an omlette you've gotta break a few eggs. very sad, but also very true. isn't it that we killed more civilians than actual iraqi soldiers?...(or close to)...and it's funny how we choose the eggs we break:al-jazeera tvabu dhabi tvpalestine hotel...all bombed on the same day...and all were mistakes... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted April 9 Report Share Posted April 9 Originally posted by frenchbread and i'm still amazed about all this talk of "taking the iraqi oil"...you seem convinced that now that hussein is gone, the oil is free for the taking...who else would take it? NOBODY!...the oil is not some prize at some county fair game to be won by anybody who steps up and shoots at the empty rusty cans...(please see the analogy)...but the fact that you pro-war see the oil as a prize, i think speaks for itself, and just proves my argument...that goes along very well with many other posts from the pro-war side..."france wants a piece of the cake"..."we shouldn't give anybody anything since we did all this work by ourselves"...sounds to me like this work ("liberation of iraq") was done for the "oil prize" at stake and not the good of the people (iraqi)...but maybe they meant the good of the u.s. people... you are talking out of your ass...... personally I dont see oil as a prize, on a personal level seing those people liberated is my prize, regardless of whatever non-sense I said in the past. but as far as france is concerned, their change of tune on the Iraq issue goes to prove their govt is ran by opportunist.the US liberates Iraq and all of a sudden France/Germany/Rusia want to go in and "help" the people..... where were they when these people were getting massacred, used as human shield, tortured, etc.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.