A war story from iraq

Why?
Because we actually DO care about humanity! We care about colateral damage. Those weapons would NOT be very discriminating would they?

Has anyone heard of "silent weapons" they are sound waves that can shatter thick steel from 1 mile away. We also have biological weapons. why doesn't the military use any of these?

Errr...wasn't the whole gist of this war supposed to be that Saddam was a a bad guy who would use this kind of weapon and had piles of them just waiting to be used?Isn't George supposed to be one of the 'good guys?

Sheesh,I know it's hard for you guys to tell right from wrong sometimes, but you justwent waaaaaaaaay beyond ill-advised.

Errr...wasn't the whole gist of this war supposed to be that Saddam was a a bad guy who would use this kind of weapon and had piles of them just waiting to be used?Isn't George supposed to be one of the 'good guys?

Sheesh,I know it's hard for you guys to tell right from wrong sometimes, but you justwent waaaaaaaaay beyond ill-advised.


I have to agree with Naki, there is no need or purpose in using WMD from any side. These weapons are more or less a deterent and not meant to be used.

with silent weapons u can level the whole city without them hearing it comin!

The Marined had funded research on a sonic cannon, that makes everyone within it's range simultaneously shit their pants, puke, and generally make them sick. I was hoping to see it tested on rioters in the US, but It sure would be fun to use it in Iraq.

But, if we took all the money we saved on those overseas bases and all the money we would save by withdrawing most of our humanitarian aid to other countries then we would have enough to build more high tech weapons. This would make enemies location irrelevant.


Like I said, sounds good when you think about it but its not at all practical. People fight wars, not imaginary bombs. Our US Navy is all over the world, shore and sea. We call this forward presence. We let our presence be know to the world to let them know that we are here and we are just a hop, skip, and jump away.

Actually I have just been trying to be a smart*ss on this thread. I didn't think others would take me seriously about withdrawing aid from others or withdrawing all our troops. I was just seeing if I could get a rise out of some who are always complaining about our involvment in the rest of the world.
I got what I thought I would from certain individuals. My work here is done. I'm satisfied.:smile:

Later


Phhheeewwwww.

Thank God! And here I was thinking you were just another naive idiot! Good on you.

Like I said, sounds good when you think about it but its not at all practical. People fight wars, not imaginary bombs. Our US Navy is all over the world, shore and sea. We call this forward presence. We let our presence be know to the world to let them know that we are here and we are just a hop, skip, and jump away....like your mother coming with you on your first date.:thumbsdow

...like your mother coming with you on your first date.:thumbsdow
By far, the lamest comment, ever.

Thats one main reason why the Navy sails the world constantly. Why they have bases everywhere. Forward presence.

By far, the lamest comment, ever.

Thats one main reason why the Navy sails the world constantly. Why they have bases everywhere. Forward presence.
All I'm saying is that the world doesn't want "mother" watching its every move. Sometimes mothers do need to find out what's going on, but if she watches and comments/scolds the "child" for every thing he/she does, he/she develops a strong hatred for mother.

I thought it was a clever metaphor :grinyes::p

All I'm saying is that the world doesn't want "mother" watching its every move. Sometimes mothers do need to find out what's going on, but if she watches and comments/scolds the "child" for every thing he/she does, he/she develops a strong hatred for mother.

I thought it was a clever metaphor :grinyes::p


I see. Thats how its gonna be and always has been. The US Navy is not going from country to country to bully them. Forward presence is used as a deterent. To let the bad guys, whoever they may be, know that the US military isn't far away so think about your actions before you commit to them.

I see. Thats how its gonna be and always has been. The US Navy is not going from country to country to bully them. Forward presence is used as a deterent. To let the bad guys, whoever they may be, know that the US military isn't far away so think about your actions before you commit to them.

Exactly. Momma doesn't bully you on your date, she just whaps you upside the head when you go the kiss.

To continue with the metaphor, the "child" is an adult now, and unless he/she is back in Momma's home, then she has no right to tell the child what to do.

Whatever happened to the concept of jurisdiction?

Exactly. Momma doesn't bully you on your date, she just whaps you upside the head when you go the kiss.

To continue with the metaphor, the "child" is an adult now, and unless he/she is back in Momma's home, then she has no right to tell the child what to do.

Whatever happened to the concept of jurisdiction?

Metaphores are fun to play with but lets step into reality shall we. Comparing the US Navy/military to a mother and a country as the child doens't work. Its not that black and white.

Being in the US Navy I have first hand knowledge on why we do what we do. Let me give you a brief explaination on why the US military has bases all over the world. The US military doesn't just enter a country and decide to, against said countries will, that we will establish a base here. Contracts are made between both goverments. Many countries welcome military bases because they now have a sense of security, aka defense contracts. Also these bases provide stable economies because military personnal and civialian contractors spend their money in said country. These bases also provide jobs for the local people. If you ever find yourself on a US military base you will see that local people are working all over the base. Thats because the military has to hire them, its all apart of the contracts. So theres your jurisdiction.

If any other US military guys happen to read this please feel free to leave your comments.

Metaphores are fun to play with but lets step into reality shall we. Comparing the US Navy/military to a mother and a country as the child doens't work. Its not that black and white.

Being in the US Navy I have first hand knowledge on why we do what we do. Let me give you a brief explaination on why the US military has bases all over the world. The US military doesn't just enter a country and decide to, against said countries will, that we will establish a base here. Contracts are made between both goverments. Many countries welcome military bases because they now have a sense of security, aka defense contracts. Also these bases provide stable economies because military personnal and civialian contractors spend their money in said country. These bases also provide jobs for the local people. If you ever find yourself on a US military base you will see that local people are working all over the base. Thats because the military has to hire them, its all apart of the contracts. So theres your jurisdiction.

If any other US military guys happen to read this please feel free to leave your comments.
The U.S. being where they are welcomed is perfectly fine - I just have a problem with them getting involved where they aren't.

Also, it just seems to reinforce the image that the U.S. is keeping tabs on "their" world that they seem to think they own...

Heep...you are saying exactly the kind of things that I believe in,and you seem to have far more patience when it comes to constantly having to repeat yourself than I do....

Being in Iraq we are defending our own turf! Like it or not Iraq belongs to the US. We defeated Iraq what we the US decide to do with Iraq is our business and no one else's business. If we want to give Iraq back we can, if we want to stay there we can and there is nothing you can say or do about it.

That statement right there scares me....it's attitudes like that which will only bring further hatred and contempt upon Americans.

3 months ago I was overjoyed to be awarded US citizenship, now I am embarassed to think I am a citizen of the same country as people with attitudes like yours. :disappoin

Heep...you are sayoing exactly the kind of things that I believe in,and you seem to have far more patience when it comes to constantly having to repeat yourself than I do....

*hopes taranaki doesn't see the pulled-out hair, smashed chairs, and defenestrated objects around his house...*

j/k :p I've been blessed with a fairly high level of patience


I guess I just want to see as many people happy and peaceful as possible, and I don't see the U.S. making that reality - just the opposite, in fact :(

The U.S. being where they are welcomed is perfectly fine - I just have a problem with them getting involved where they aren't.
There's a reason why there is such a thing as Combat Loaders in the miltary, and the USAF in particular, and that these men and women are granted Special Forces status, and have the highest level of clearances for enlisted military...

...they often have to "pick-up", and "deliver" supplies, and men, to areas where the US was never supposed to be, and have no business being in.

I didn't read the whole thread, but I saw this quoted:
Being in Iraq we are defending our own turf! Like it or not Iraq belongs to the US. We defeated Iraq what we the US decide to do with Iraq is our business and no one else's business. If we want to give Iraq back we can, if we want to stay there we can and there is nothing you can say or do about it.
Are you fucking kidding me? What country did you immigrate from to the US again? Which one did you have, Communists or Nazis where you are from?

Defending our own fucking turf?

No wonder you don't understand why an ever-increasing number of people in Iraq want to kill Americans...and no wonder they want to kill people like you. It's just too bad that they happen to take the rest of conscientious America along with you, kinda like how you (most of the time), can't, or don't want to, differentiate between a regular Iraqi person, and a terrorist.

Defending our own fucking turf?

I guess you and Freak decided to speed read this topic! Me bad since I'm not righteous and condscending as you are

There's a reason why there is such a thing as Combat Loaders in the miltary...

But their very existence shows to me that the US likes to poke it's nose in mouse holes just daring the mice to bite...

No wonder you don't understand why an ever-increasing number of people in Iraq want to kill Americans...and no wonder they want to kill people like you. It's just too bad that they happen to take the rest of conscientious America along with you, kinda like how you (most of the time), can't, or don't want to, differentiate between a regular Iraqi person, and a terrorist.

Excellent point, though in this case Flatrater had said he was only kidding, "spicing" up the thread, and isn't really to blame...;)

I guess you and Freak decided to speed read this topic! Me bad since I'm not righteous and condscending as you are

LMFAO!

First-off, the term, in the context you're using it is "self-righteous". With that out of the way, I find it hilarious that you can call me condescending, when you just claimed a whole country for yourself.

You're like the Kobe of politics - "my team gave me 110%". Well, guess what, it ain't Kobe's team, and Iraq ain't yours, mine, or any other American's turf.

We all know what happens when people ASSUME! Iraq had Scud missiles that could reach Isreal.
Practice what you preach my man.

That book isn't done being written yet. The US is still there.
You finish one before you start another.

We may never learn the true real reason on going to Iraq. Oil may be your opinion. You talk about financial value as the reason for the US to care about a certain country. Well what about Isreal?
1.Are you saying that Isreal does not contribute financially to the US?

2.Go back to the war on Afghanistan. Why would the US impose the US dollar? Why was the government changed? To help the people is one of the reason but I don't think the biggest one was much revealed. Back in 1998, the US wanted to change the regime in Afghanistan to allow constructions of oil pipelines through contracting companies liek Unocal and CentGas. You can find this report on the US government site presented at a US Government foreign policy meeting on February 12th 1998. Now that pipeline began construction in May 2002, after the US had changed the Afghan government.
Unlike what you have been told, the war on Afghanistan began before 9/11. Heres a little timeline for you
November 3 1998- An American oil company (Unocal) funds a program that fires up to 80 cruise missiles at Afghanistan and Sudan. SOURCE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/207183.stm)
January 2 1999- You might remember the US retiliating against Osama (again) after bombing the African embassy SOURCE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/241477.stm)
March 15 2001- An anti-taliban coalition consiting of India, Russia, Iran and US was put together to bring down the regime SOURCE (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml)
September 3 2001- A gigantic fleet of ships head over to the Gulf region to prepare for a fictional war. SOURCE (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1522987.stm)
Now this goes to show that 9/11 was just an excuse to invade and put forward all their plans to invade Afghanistan.

3.In 1998, vice-president Dick Cheaney said in a speech to oil industrialists " Icannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian"

4.4 years later, the US had overthrown the Afghan government, ad thr construction of Caspian Sea oil pipeline by the US oil corporations had begun.
Hamid Karzai was the negotiator betweent he taliban and Unocal talks to bribe them and have them accept the offer to have them build the pipelines without a fight. He was alsot their advisor.

Being in Iraq we are defending our own turf! Like it or not Iraq belongs to the US. We defeated Iraq what we the US decide to do with Iraq is our business and no one else's business. If we want to give Iraq back we can, if we want to stay there we can and there is nothing you can say or do about it.
Well then enough with the lies already and come out witht he truth. Admit to the fact that your expanding your contry, that you have conquered Iraq and stop lying to your own people and other countries.

Like I said, sounds good when you think about it but its not at all practical. People fight wars, not imaginary bombs. Our US Navy is all over the world, shore and sea. We call this forward presence. We let our presence be know to the world to let them know that we are here and we are just a hop, skip, and jump away.

Sooo...this 'forward presence' is a good and sensible thing.............. unless you happen to be say,the Soviet Union, wanting to establish your 'foreign presence' in, say Cuba?

I seem to recall America getting very agitated by the Cuban missile crisis.Can you not see that by poking your Navy's nose in around the world, the rest of the world is going to react in much the same way?

It's no good saying, 'hey, it's ok, we're there by invitation' If the sole purpose of that invitation is for the host nation to threaten a neighbour.

realistically the establishment ofoverseas bases may be great for lthe local economies, but it has been shown repeatedly that anyone who sucks up to the US ends up getting hurt.

LMFAO!

First-off, the term, in the context you're using it is "self-righteous". With that out of the way, I find it hilarious that you can call me condescending, when you just claimed a whole country for yourself.

You're like the Kobe of politics - "my team gave me 110%". Well, guess what, it ain't Kobe's team, and Iraq ain't yours, mine, or any other American's turf.

So can you point out were I said "MY"?




right·eous
adjective 1. strictly observant of morality: always behaving according to a religious or moral code

2. justifiable: considered to be correct or justifiable


self-right·eous

adjective believing in own virtue: sure of the moral superiority of your own beliefs and actions ( disapproving )


OK I can say you are both!

Sooo...this 'forward presence' is a good and sensible thing.............. unless you happen to be say,the Soviet Union, wanting to establish your 'foreign presence' in, say Cuba?

I seem to recall America getting very agitated by the Cuban missile crisis.Can you not see that by poking your Navy's nose in around the world, the rest of the world is going to react in much the same way?

It's no good saying, 'hey, it's ok, we're there by invitation' If the sole purpose of that invitation is for the host nation to threaten a neighbour.

realistically the establishment ofoverseas bases may be great for lthe local economies, but it has been shown repeatedly that anyone who sucks up to the US ends up getting hurt.


To even compare Russia's depoisting nuclear missles in Cuba that were to be aimed directly at US citizens to the US Navy sailing around the world is so far off its hilarious. The US military has bases and sea vessels all over the world. The difference is the US military is not aiming their nuclear missles at cilivians. Let me say it again, we are not targeting civilians. Our intent is not to destroy and kill. America is always there first to rebuild, loan money, provide food, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, etc. But lets forgot all the good and focus on the bad.

Before 9/11 wars were fought between armed soldiers. Each soldier on either side knew who their enemy was by the color of their uniform. Those days are over. Now we must combat terrorists who live amongst all of us. Thats right, terrorists are all over the world, not just the US. Since 9/11 american citizens demand security from future attacks. This is were the intelligence field comes in. America cannot spy (yes I said it, spy. Aka, "poking our noses in places". Countries spy on each other. Even yours.) from their shores. America cannot come to the aid of an ally or defenseless country fast enough from their shores. America cannot protect their, and their allies interests from their shores. America will always be a fierce presence in the world. America is a superpower.

Now obviously many of you disagree with the war on Iraq. I too don't agree with. I never saw the real connections with terrorism. I wanted to hunt down terrorists, not fight in Iraq. But thats not my call. So here we are now, americans in Iraq. I agree with many of you that going there in the first place was wrong but we're there now and we cannot leave yet. Why? Because we made our beds and now we must lie in them. We cannot just up and leave Iraq in the state it is currently in. We have to rebuild and let their new democratic goverment get off the ground. Some Iraqi's welcome our troops while others oppose them. Nothing strange about that. You can't please everybody.

Its real easy to sit at your computer and view your opinions about the war and about how wrong America is but lemme ask you this, what are you going to do about it? Most likely nothing cause thats the easiest thing to do. So this long winded post of mine probaly didn't change any minds. In fact, I'm sure there are a few of you right now disecting it getting ready to quote me to counter my views. Maybe some of you agree with some of what I said but I'm sure there are many here who this post had absolutly no impacted on. Thats fine. I'm not here to impose my views on you, only to defend them. But I have learned one thing, discussions about Iraq and America are all one sided. Everyone has their opinion and they're not changing it for no one. Any future discussions, to me, seem trival. Its just the same old debates. Nothing new. So I'm no longer going to engage in any discussions that fall under this catogory.

In fact, I'm sure there are a few of you right now disecting it getting ready to quote me to counter my views.

Yep :p

To even compare Russia's depoisting nuclear missles in Cuba that were to be aimed directly at US citizens to the US Navy sailing around the world is so far off its hilarious.

Not really. In fact I think it's an interesting analogy. The methods of intimidation are certainly different (most notably, no nukes), but it's intimidation nonetheless.


The new documentation, combined with recent testimony by Soviet and Cuban officials, also sheds light on what is perhaps the most important puzzle of the missile crisis, namely, what motivated the Soviets to deploy nuclear weapons in Cuba. The declassified record shows that U.S. officials were well aware that their deployment of Jupiter missiles near Soviet borders in Turkey and Italy in 1959 would be deeply resented by Soviet officials; even President Eisenhower noted that it would be a "provocative" step analogous to the deployment of Soviet missiles in "Mexico or Cuba.(9) (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/declass.htm#9) A declassified military history of the Jupiter system reveals that the rockets became operational in April 1962—an event that may have contributed to Khrushchev's proposal, made the very same month, to deploy similar weapons in Cuba.(10) (http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/declass.htm#10) In addition, the documents lend credence to Khrushchev's claim that a primary Soviet motivation was the defense of Cuba against a U.S. invasion. For years, U.S. analysts have dismissed this as a face-saving, after-the-fact rationale that enabled the Soviets to declare victory in the confrontation rather than admit defeat. But formerly top-secret documents, released to the National Security Archive in January 1989, provide a detailed description of a 1962 U.S. covert action program known as OPERATION MONGOOSE, which combined sabotage, infiltration, and psychological warfare activities with military exercises and contingency operations for a possible invasion to overthrow the Castro government. Guidelines for OPERATION MONGOOSE, tacitly approved by President Kennedy in March 1962, noted that the "final success" of the program would "require decisive U.S. military intervention." Although Kennedy never formally authorized an invasion, former administration officials acknowledge that Cuban intelligence had infiltrated the CIA's exile groups and learned of plans for a potential invasion—which, ironically, was scheduled for October 1962.If the new documents illuminate how the crisis began, they also clarify how it ended. For years, conservative analysts have alleged that, in return for the Soviet withdrawal of the missiles, Kennedy made a secret deal with Khrushchev not to invade Cuba. The recently declassified Kennedy-Khrushchev correspondence published here, reveals that no such U.S. commitment was made. Khrushchev repeatedly urged Kennedy to "formalize through the U.N." a noninvasion pledge to end the crisis. The letters show Kennedy repeatedly refused, citing the Soviets' inability to meet U.S. inspection and verification demands. Highly classified State Department memoranda, released in April 1992 to the National Security Archive, reveal the Kennedy administration's internal arguments against finalizing an agreement on the crisis: a settlement would limit the United States in its ongoing efforts to overthrow Fidel Castro. In the end, U.S. officials preferred free rein to intervene in Cuba over an international accord that would settle the Cuban missile crisis.
I certainly don't approve of the Soviet and Cuban actions, but it's quite clear to me that they were in retaliation to U.S. intimidation, much like this naval "forward presence" intimidation. In fact, one could speculate that the 9/11 attacks were simply retaliation to this intimidation and pressure. In my opinion, this "forward presence" is not at all a wise action - you're just asking for trouble.(It's also interesting to note that a "dictator removal" was pending in this situation as well...the U.S. seems intent on doing that, and always seems to get themselves in trouble.)America will always be a fierce presence in the world. America is a superpower.
...until the next superpower comes around. Rome was a superpower.
I agree with many of you that going there in the first place was wrong but we're there now and we cannot leave yet.I have to agree with you there. Invading in the first place was a big mistake, IMO, but you can't just leave now. You don't go to a friends house, make a big mess, and leave it for them to clean up - if you do, that friend isn't likely to be a friend of yours anymore...How to proceed is a difficult decision, and I can't and won't claim I know the answer. I can, however, be critical of decisions that have already been made, such as a planned massacre of Fallujah, the installation of a puppet government and election (Iraqis should be able to choose whoever they want, not choose from the US's approved candidate list), etc.You're correct that nobody's mind will ever change. However, I find debating opens up new lines of thinking, exposes errors, and generally helps us all (no matter which side you're on) better understand what happened.Plus, I just like to argue ;)

THEY--WANT--US--OUT: Forgive me if I indulge in a brief rant. Lots has been written over the last several days about the United Iraqi Alliance, the Sistani-brokered slate of mostly Shia candidates for the January election. Practically all the coverage recognizes that the ticket is practically assured to take power. But there's nearly nothing about what the slate says it wants to do when it finds itself in charge--namely, get the U.S. out of Iraq. Which is kind of, you know, a big deal, as I've been writing (http://thenewrepublic.com/blog/iraqd?pid=2426) practically every day for a week and a half (http://thenewrepublic.com/blog/iraqd?pid=2417). In The New York Times today, this piece of information--which in its application is historic--is presented (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/10/international/middleeast/10iraq.html) in paragraph eleven of a story tucked away on page A12. And it's treated as a passing aside: The Alliance has a 23-point platform, [negotiator Hussein] Shahristani said, but he disclosed only one point: a plan to negotiate a date for the withdrawal of American troops. The main elements of the platform, he said, are sovereignty, unity and respect for the Islamic identity of Iraq.I don't mean to single out the Times for criticism. Its coverage is pretty typical of this crucial issue, as this AP story (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/345/world/Representative_of_Iraq_s_domin:.shtml) shows. And, of course, it's easy to criticize reporters in Iraq from the snuggly confines of a Washington D.C. office, so take this as a criticism of their stateside editors. With that, this blog is on hiatus until after I return from traveling on the 20th. Please check back then. posted 2:44 p.m. (http://thenewrepublic.com/blog/iraqd?pid=2449)

E-mail Iraq'd ([email protected])
Email this post (javascript:launchwin('/blog/email/iraqd?pid=2449','emailwindow','height=350,width=37 5,scrollbars=no'))
Return to the top of the page. (http://thenewrepublic.com/blog/iraqd#top)


THE TYRANNY OF THE INSURGENCY: Would an elected Shia government be able to use its stated demand for an end to the occupation (http://washingtontimes.com/world/20041210-120723-8356r.htm) as an overture to the Sunnis (http://thenewrepublic.com/blog/iraqd?pid=2426)? That is, would there be any significant Sunni receptivity to such an olive branch that could finally cleave the insurgency from the broader Sunni population? While it's impossible to be certain, a report from two intrepid Iraqi journalists (http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/irq/irq_93_1_eng.txt) for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting describes how Sunnis feel about the insurgency when they come face to face with it in the absence of U.S. forces: When the fight for Fallujah began in early November, schools in Latifiyah, Yusifiyah and Mahmudiyah, three neighbouring towns located south of Baghdad in the notorious Sunni triangle, received leaflets telling them to close or face the consequences. Classes were suspended the following day. "The mujahedin threatened us and said we had to close the school to show our support for the fighters in Fallujah," explained Anwar Ismail, headmaster of a primary school in the area. "This area is controlled by armed groups so it's not a threat we took lightly. Our schools have no security or protection." Amin Abdul Hadi, headmaster of another primary school in the area, tells a similar story of intimidation. "A week ago, the mujahedin set up a checkpoint near our school. They beat any drivers who were listening to songs in their cars and told them to listen to religious lectures instead, so as to learn how to oppose the occupiers. "They were terrifying the students, so I closed the school--I thought that would be the best way to protect the children and my staff." While many teachers and pupils were angered by the threats, they say they have no choice but to obey. Many feel they are increasingly becoming part of a conflict they had wanted no part of. "Around 400 students aren't getting an education and 15 teachers are sitting at home with nothing to do because of the mujahedin. What good does that do?" asked headmaster Ismail. "The mujahedin in our area say that whoever works with the government or the Americans is a criminal and must be killed."If an elected government bolstered by nationalist, anti-occupation sentiment can marshal its forces--surely bolstered by Shia militias--to liberate Latifiyah, Yusifiyah and Mahmudiyah from the insurgency, it doesn't seem like the locals of these Sunni towns would have much objection, even if the fighting is done by Shia.

To even compare Russia's depoisting nuclear missles in Cuba that were to be aimed directly at US citizens to the US Navy sailing around the world is so far off its hilarious. The US military has bases and sea vessels all over the world. The difference is the US military is not aiming their nuclear missles at cilivians. Let me say it again, we are not targeting civilians. Our intent is not to destroy and kill. America is always there first to rebuild, loan money, provide food, shelter the homeless, heal the sick, etc. But lets forgot all the good and focus on the bad.

Before 9/11 wars were fought between armed soldiers. Each soldier on either side knew who their enemy was by the color of their uniform. Those days are over. Now we must combat terrorists who live amongst all of us. Thats right, terrorists are all over the world, not just the US. Since 9/11 american citizens demand security from future attacks. This is were the intelligence field comes in. America cannot spy (yes I said it, spy. Aka, "poking our noses in places". Countries spy on each other. Even yours.) from their shores. America cannot come to the aid of an ally or defenseless country fast enough from their shores. America cannot protect their, and their allies interests from their shores. America will always be a fierce presence in the world. America is a superpower.

Now obviously many of you disagree with the war on Iraq. I too don't agree with. I never saw the real connections with terrorism. I wanted to hunt down terrorists, not fight in Iraq. But thats not my call. So here we are now, americans in Iraq. I agree with many of you that going there in the first place was wrong but we're there now and we cannot leave yet. Why? Because we made our beds and now we must lie in them. We cannot just up and leave Iraq in the state it is currently in. We have to rebuild and let their new democratic goverment get off the ground. Some Iraqi's welcome our troops while others oppose them. Nothing strange about that. You can't please everybody.

Its real easy to sit at your computer and view your opinions about the war and about how wrong America is but lemme ask you this, what are you going to do about it? Most likely nothing cause thats the easiest thing to do. So this long winded post of mine probaly didn't change any minds. In fact, I'm sure there are a few of you right now disecting it getting ready to quote me to counter my views. Maybe some of you agree with some of what I said but I'm sure there are many here who this post had absolutly no impacted on. Thats fine. I'm not here to impose my views on you, only to defend them. But I have learned one thing, discussions about Iraq and America are all one sided. Everyone has their opinion and they're not changing it for no one. Any future discussions, to me, seem trival. Its just the same old debates. Nothing new. So I'm no longer going to engage in any discussions that fall under this catogory.


i like this guy, he said everything i wanted to say. i second that and third it

The difference is the US military is not aiming their nuclear missles at cilivians.

.

Now that is so naive it's funny.

If you possess nuclear weapons,and they are aimed at anything,they are going to kill civillians.

If you possess nuclear weapons,and they are aimed at anything,they are going to kill civillians.

:1:

Something that big takes out civilians whether you aim it or not.

i wonder if anyone ehre actually supports the war besides me...

i wonder if anyone ehre actually supports the war besides me...
Yep, I'd say somewhere around 1/4 of the debaters here support it. One observation I've made, though, is that there doesn't seem to be anyone from outside the U.S. supporting the war.

Yep, I'd say somewhere around 1/4 of the debaters here support it. One observation I've made, though, is that there doesn't seem to be anyone from outside the U.S. supporting the war.

How about England?

How about England?

Sorry, I meant there doesn't seem to be any active AF debaters from outside the U.S. supporting it. :)

Well, they will be pulling out their bombs when the US does nothing and Osama blows them up... oh, that will be loads of fun.

Somone has to stand up to Terrorists is what i think.

Well, they will be pulling out their bombs when the US does nothing and Osama blows them up... oh, that will be loads of fun.

Somone has to stand up to Terrorists is what i think.
:wtf:
Care to elaborate on what you just said, cuz it's kinda random

Well, they will be pulling out their bombs when the US does nothing and Osama blows them up... oh, that will be loads of fun.

Somone has to stand up to Terrorists is what i think.

The rest of the world has far more experience in dealing with terrorism than you give them credit for.The British have been dealing with the IRA, The Spanish with ETA, the Germans with Baader-Meinhof,the Israelis with the PLO......

The list is endless.It's not something that George just discovered by accident.The rest of the world has been standing up to terrorism for years.America has ignored it,because, like the Second World War, America believed that it was in her own interests not to get involved.

Suddenly,America gets bitten in the ass by a few Arabs with boxcutters, and terrorism becomes the defining issue of foreign policy.Americans have collectively ignored acts of terrorism committted against its allies for decades.A few contemptable Americans have even supported terrorism against their closest ally through organisations like Noraid.Tell me again why we should back Americas fight against these people when history shows that we have not received the same courtesy?

Americans don't really care if you back us up. Support would be nice, but we're used to being let down and back-stabbed by so-called allies, and others whose friendship is based on how much US Aid they can suck up. Some are better at it than others, but we know we can't really depend on any of them when the chips are down. But we'll persevere in the end, and all these so-called allies will be right there taking credit for our successes.

The rest of the world has far more experience in dealing with terrorism than you give them credit for.The British have been dealing with the IRA, The Spanish with ETA, the Germans with Baader-Meinhof,the Israelis with the PLO......

The list is endless.It's not something that George just discovered by accident.The rest of the world has been standing up to terrorism for years.America has ignored it,because, like the Second World War, America believed that it was in her own interests not to get involved.

Suddenly,America gets bitten in the ass by a few Arabs with boxcutters, and terrorism becomes the defining issue of foreign policy.Americans have collectively ignored acts of terrorism committted against its allies for decades.A few contemptable Americans have even supported terrorism against their closest ally through organisations like Noraid.Tell me again why we should back Americas fight against these people when history shows that we have not received the same courtesy?

Whoa... thats absolutly correct. For some reason, to me, it seemed that fighting terrorism was a new concept post 9/11. I never thought about all the others countries who have been fighting their own wars of terrorism. I think the closest america has gotten to actual fighting terrorism is Chuck Norris in his Delta Force movies. Right on taranaki.

Americans don't really care if you back us up. Support would be nice, but we're used to being let down and back-stabbed by so-called allies, and others whose friendship is based on how much US Aid they can suck up. Some are better at it than others, but we know we can't really depend on any of them when the chips are down. But we'll persevere in the end, and all these so-called allies will be right there taking credit for our successes.

Wow, you just don't know when to quit do you? What facts are you basing that statement on? Please provide a source to back that outlandish remark.

Americans don't really care if you back us up. Support would be nice, but we're used to being let down and back-stabbed by so-called allies, and others whose friendship is based on how much US Aid they can suck up. Some are better at it than others, but we know we can't really depend on any of them when the chips are down. But we'll persevere in the end, and all these so-called allies will be right there taking credit for our successes.


:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Another gem of brain-dead non-information from The Man Who Speaks For The Whole Of America.

:lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

Another gem of brain-dead non-information from The Man Who Speaks For The Whole Of America.
...made perfect sense to me and MOST of America!

...made perfect sense to me and MOST of America!

Dear God,it appears to be infectious.

My opinion is just that.Mine.Nobody else's.Each and every one of us has an individual standpoint on thousands of different issues from whether spinach tastes good, to whether it's fun to dress up in women's underwear, to whether George W Bush is doing an adequate job.

If I were to say 'New Zealand hates parsnips' in a debate,I would be laughed out of the forum,and desevedly so. The same applies to the fools who think that they speak for their whole country on issues that are far more complex than a dislike of root vegetables.

If you want to be taken seriously in this forum,try to come up with something vaguely credible now and again.