Do you approve or criticize America's War on Terror ?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
you mean do you approve or criticize americas terror on the world
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] IA nation has the right to claim their resources as they see fit, sorry.jointedNot by stealing another nations resurces. These resources being the millions of pounds Britain had invested plus the physical constructs themselves.
Wait what? THats exactly what Britain was doing for decades through out the entire region INCLUDING Iran with that oil industry..
Sorry thats not how things work, Iran never had a real say in the matter because the entire region was mandated and cut away.. If your going to come here and claim it was unjustified, than I got a hug elaundry list of "unjustified" things the British did through out the world including within that very region.. The fact of the matter is Great Britian WAS ripping Iran off, and it was full within their rights to nationalize it.. The problem here is that is not WHY the United States went in what so ever.. And Great Britain didn't spear head this, they only tagged along becaus ehtey were asked for.. It is not why MOSADEQ got overthrown.. Yet again you seriously are trying to jusitfy the installation of the Shah a brutal dictator that tortured and killed his people? The US fully supported him through all that time I might add.. Yet again your whats wrong with humanity today.
A war that Great Britain never declared... Who I might add some 5 years ago was kicked out forcibly by the future Israeli population.. Maybe they should have had a coup or committed war on them too?.. And only took part in the coup because the United States asked them to.. And hell yes it does have alot to do with the war on terror.. Because it is yet again completely ignoring the transgressions of the past in which the US and the west in general are fighting groups that they themselves supported and/or put into power decades back!!.. And yet again these groups would not be getting such support if it were not for the checkered past the West has had in the region.. IF we want to end the war on terror, we must first look at all the causes of it, this includes western policy which has led to countless suffering within the region leading to much hatred and support towards the extremist groups.. But no no your right, screw human and state rights if they are not American!sSubZerOoSuffering? Look at Islam if you want to look for suffering. Stoning people in public, cutting of limbs, deforming people etc, etc This has been going on for ages and the wests economical interference in the middle east pales in comparision to this. The inhabitants does not recognize this though, because they are, as we all know muslims and they support one kind of tyranny while they hate one that they themself have percieved.
It depends on the year and the enemy. In 2001, we had to send in the military to Afghanistan. The Taliban wasn't just a handful of rebels here and there, they were a legit fighting force that blanketed the majority of the country. There were many hard-fought battles in the few few years where conventional military means worked well.
The problem was after the battles were won the occupation of the cities was where we faltered the most. We had large military targets all over the place that were extremely susceptible to very small scale attacks, roadside bombs, landmines, and stuff like that. Over the years we have adapted, but it's been slow. With the invasion of Iraq and the focus of re-stabilizing that country, we let our enemies in Afghanistan gain more footholds.
Now we are using our heads far more. Utilizing small strike forces, drone attacks, and focusing on the leaders. However I don't agree with drone attacks. To many civilians are killed by drones. President Obama has really stepped up the drone attacks and that has resulted in a lot of civilians dead.
Another big area of criticism is how we handle rebuilding the infrastructure. While we rebuild infrastructure, it's not enough. Most of the people living in those tiny mountain villages didn't even know what happened on September 11th 2001. Throughout the entire campaign and even now they aren't given the full story. They see a big military invading their lands, making a mess, and getting people killed and they don't even fully understand why. The Taliban and Al Qaeda have been able to capitalize on this and keep the flow of propaganda steady.
Though we've severely reduced their enrollment and we've pushed the Taliban leaders out of the country. Now they recruit Pakistanis and for awhile were sending them across the boarder every week to fight American and NATO positions. However the misinformation is like a virus and it spreads fast over there. It's easy for us to take a rational look at our armed forces because we don't have tanks in our back yard and foreigners patrolling our streets.
I think it all boils down to the logistical side of this "war". We didn't think things through all of the way. We acted to quickly and to rashly. Sure, we've destroyed their ability to project violence outside of the boarders, but it came at a cost. We've destroyed our relations with the people and have given the enemy all of the fuel they need to keep recruiting.
To top it all off we have Pakistan preventing us from taking out the leaders of our enemies.
The only thing we can do is continue to reduce our military presence in the region. We need to focus on small scale strikes, co-operation with the local people, and we need to continue to build their infrastructure so they can see a larger picture of the world, it will help negate the propaganda and lies they get from the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I'm not saying we have to brainwash them. But clearly they are not informed of world events and don't see the larger picture even within their own boarders. It's really bad. They have no idea what the Taliban really has done to their own people. Unlike us, they don't just log into the internet and check the latest news.
However, I'm not saying that we never should have gone there in the first place. It was something we needed to do as they had become a proven threat against people. If they couldn't hit us on our soil, they were posing a great threat to all of our citizens abroad and our allies. However, even now, 11 years later and a whole new leadership of our country, we still don't have a clear way of leaving without letting the Taliban resume control and start feeding into other terrorist organizations. That's the biggest problem.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]A war that Great Britain never declared... Who I might add some 5 years ago was kicked out forcibly by the future Israeli population.. Maybe they should have had a coup or committed war on them too?.. And only took part in the coup because the United States asked them to.. And hell yes it does have alot to do with the war on terror.. Because it is yet again completely ignoring the transgressions of the past in which the US and the west in general are fighting groups that they themselves supported and/or put into power decades back!!.. And yet again these groups would not be getting such support if it were not for the checkered past the West has had in the region.. IF we want to end the war on terror, we must first look at all the causes of it, this includes western policy which has led to countless suffering within the region leading to much hatred and support towards the extremist groups.. But no no your right, screw human and state rights if they are not American!jointedSuffering? Look at Islam if you want to look for suffering. Stoning people in public, cutting of limbs, deforming people etc, etc This has been going on for ages and the wests economical interference in the middle east pales in comparision to this. The inhabitants does not recognize this though, because they are, as we all know muslims and they support one kind of tyranny while they hate one that they themself have percieved. No where am I defending the extremist groups and your entire point is based upon fallacy.. "Hey its ok just look how bad they are!" Your entire view point is morally bankrupt and furthermore I am pointing it out that many of those tyrannies were put in place by the WEST! And now your true colors are showing, your a biggot... By suggesting that all Muslims are in fact violent, prejudice etc, etc.. I am done here..
[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]A war that Great Britain never declared... Who I might add some 5 years ago was kicked out forcibly by the future Israeli population.. Maybe they should have had a coup or committed war on them too?.. And only took part in the coup because the United States asked them to.. And hell yes it does have alot to do with the war on terror.. Because it is yet again completely ignoring the transgressions of the past in which the US and the west in general are fighting groups that they themselves supported and/or put into power decades back!!.. And yet again these groups would not be getting such support if it were not for the checkered past the West has had in the region.. IF we want to end the war on terror, we must first look at all the causes of it, this includes western policy which has led to countless suffering within the region leading to much hatred and support towards the extremist groups.. But no no your right, screw human and state rights if they are not American!sSubZerOoSuffering? Look at Islam if you want to look for suffering. Stoning people in public, cutting of limbs, deforming people etc, etc This has been going on for ages and the wests economical interference in the middle east pales in comparision to this. The inhabitants does not recognize this though, because they are, as we all know muslims and they support one kind of tyranny while they hate one that they themself have percieved. No where am I defending the extremist groups and your entire point is based upon fallacy.. "Hey its ok just look how bad they are!" Your entire view point is morally bankrupt and furthermore I am pointing it out that many of those tyrannies were put in place by the WEST! And now your true colors are showing, your a biggot... By suggesting that all Muslims are in fact violent, prejudice etc, etc.. I am done here.. No they were not. The regimes put in place by the west were in many cases fighting islamic-extremism. What I'm talking about is the result of deep-rooted cultural values, not of regimes. I never suggested any of that. I am however suggesting that Islam is a disease that need to be dealth with. This is not a result of prejudice, quite the opposite really. Try to read up on the religion and see for yourself.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"]' I'm sure all the families of poor Americans and Iraqis killed by Saddam and Osama love that you're being an apologist. jointed... Saddam and Osama? You mean two men that the United States actually armed and supported in the past? The US never armed Osama Bin Laden, they armed the taliban. Which Bin Laden was a part of.. That is my point, the United STates has a history of arming and supporting brutal, dangerous people around the world.. Who LATER have become dangerous enemies.
The US never armed Osama Bin Laden, they armed the taliban. Which Bin Laden was a part of.. That is my point, the United STates has a history of arming and supporting brutal, dangerous people around the world.. Who LATER have become dangerous enemies. No he wasn't, he was a member of al-qaeda. Al-qaeda =/= taliban. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That still holds true to this day. Every nation has played by these rules. You make it sound as if the US is a special case.[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] ... Saddam and Osama? You mean two men that the United States actually armed and supported in the past? sSubZerOo
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]Which Bin Laden was a part of.. That is my point, the United STates has a history of arming and supporting brutal, dangerous people around the world.. Who LATER have become dangerous enemies. No he wasn't, he was a member of al-qaeda. Al-qaeda =/= taliban. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That still holds true to this day. Every nation has played by these rules. You make it sound as if the US is a special case. ... Yes he was, he was actually trained by the CIA and fougth the USSR within Afghanistan during that time! Yes they have, but this is the 21st century and we have the US claiming they are the force of freedom and democracy when our history is a contradiction of that.. And to end the supposed "war on terror" we must acknowledge and chagne many of our policies within that region so these extremists can not get as much support as they are getting based upon anti western rhetoric.. If we truely want to win the war on terror, we must look at all the causes and what must be done.. We must look at our policies, our history, our diplomacy as well as our current goals in crushing these extremist organizations.[QUOTE="jointed"] The US never armed Osama Bin Laden, they armed the taliban. jointed
[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Which Bin Laden was a part of.. That is my point, the United STates hasa history of arming and supporting brutal, dangerous people around the world.. Who LATER have become dangerous enemies.sSubZerOoNo he wasn't, he was a member of al-qaeda. Al-qaeda =/= taliban. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That still holds true to this day. Every nation has played by these rules. You make it sound as if the US is a special case. ... Yes he was, he was actually trained by the CIA and fougth the USSR within Afghanistan during that time! Yes they have, but this is the 21st century and we have the US claiming they are the force of freedom and democracy when our history is a contradiction of that.. And to end the supposed "war on terror" we must acknowledge and chagne many of our policies within that region so these extremists can not get as much support as they are getting based upon anti western rhetoric.. If we truely want to win the war on terror, we must look at all the causes and what must be done.. We must look at our policies, our history, our diplomacy as well as our current goals in crushing these extremist organizations. No...he wasn't. You can always try to prove it if you don't believe me. Prove that he was trained by the CIA and prove that he was taliban. So let's see here. The problem isn't the actions of the US per say, it's the fact that they're claiming to be fighting for freedom and democracy? That's a completely different thing.
I unlike you believe that it is the actions that matters, which is why I'm a staunt critic of China's war on terror in Tibet.
... Yes he was, he was actually trained by the CIA and fougth the USSR within Afghanistan during that time! Yes they have, but this is the 21st century and we have the US claiming they are the force of freedom and democracy when our history is a contradiction of that.. And to end the supposed "war on terror" we must acknowledge and chagne many of our policies within that region so these extremists can not get as much support as they are getting based upon anti western rhetoric.. If we truely want to win the war on terror, we must look at all the causes and what must be done.. We must look at our policies, our history, our diplomacy as well as our current goals in crushing these extremist organizations. No...he wasn't. You can always try to prove it if you don't believe me. Prove that he was trained by the CIA and prove that he was taliban. So let's see here. The problem isn't the actions of the US per say, it's the fact that they're claiming to be fighting for freedom and democracy? That's a completely different thing.[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="jointed"] No he wasn't, he was a member of al-qaeda. Al-qaeda =/= taliban. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That still holds true to this day. Every nation has played by these rules. You make it sound as if the US is a special case. jointed
I unlike you believe that it is the actions that matters, which is why I'm a staunt critic of China's war on terror in Tibet.
Because I beleive in democarcy and freedom, but the US government clearly does not.. And I am sorry but what there is massive controversey in which BIn Ladin was in it with the CIA.. Bin ladin fought against the USSR in Afghanistan.. A simple google search will bring it up.. You mean the actions which has had the United States support and even put into power brutal dictators that have tortured, killed, and maimed people that makes something like the attacks on 9/11 the entire catalyst to the war ont error.. Seem like a side note to the main event when it comes to the costs of human life? But no no your right, all Islam is evil (even though its a logical fallacy of stereotypes and generalizations), and the United States can do NO evil what so ever. And CLEARLY its completely the fault of the otherside.Are you aware of how many poor Iraqis were killed BY US in that war? Estimates range between about 107K on the low end to upwards of around 1.2 million and everything inbetween. nocoolnamejim
I really hope you know that 99% of those fatalities were not because of US and allied soldiers directly. We didn't just go in guns blazing and killing 107k-1.2 million people ourselves.
Even on the Iraq Body Count they say that they are counting civilians killed by violence.
I'm not saying we didn't have our fair share of friendly fire and whatnot. We definitely did. Civilian casualties happen when the fighting takes place in the city. I'm just saying that the US soliders weren't the ones doing the killing.
The people of Iraq did not have to resort to targeting civilians during and after the invasion, but they did.
It was the US's fault for dismantling the oppressive government that kept those factions in line, but you can't totally blame the US and its allies for these militants to attack civilians and disregard civilian casualties.
Because I beleive in democarcy and freedom, but the US government clearly does not.. And I am sorry but what there is massive controversey in which BIn Ladin was in it with the CIA.. Bin ladin fought against the USSR in Afghanistan.. A simple google search will bring it up.. You mean the actions which has had the United States support and even put into power brutal dictators that have tortured, killed, and maimed people that makes something like the attacks on 9/11 the entire catalyst to the war ont error.. Seem like a side note to the main event when it comes to the costs of human life? But no no your right, all Islam is evil (even though its a logical fallacy of stereotypes and generalizations), and the United States can do NO evil what so ever. And CLEARLY its completely the fault of the otherside.sSubZerOoNo, a simple google search will not bring it up, because it's not true. It's a popular lie that Bin Laden recieved weapons and training from the US. The facts are that the taliban recieved weapons and training, not Bin Laden. I mean the actions from other countries that you ignore in order to bash the west. Why don't you complain about China's mass murder in Tibet? Because you're more interested in Israel. Why don't you mention Russia's invasion of afghanistan and how this actually destroyed much of the already poor country? Because you're more interested in bashing the US. You hate the west and it doesn't matter what we do, you'll still find something to bash. If everything was fine and dandy in the middle east, you'd bash America's gun laws. If they were all banned, you'd bash Europe's history in colonialism. You're nothing more than a traitor.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Are you aware of how many poor Iraqis were killed BY US in that war? Estimates range between about 107K on the low end to upwards of around 1.2 million and everything inbetween. Wasdie
I really hope you know that 99% of those fatalities were not because of US and allied soldiers directly. We didn't just go in guns blazing and killing 107k-1.2 million people ourselves.
Even on the Iraq Body Count they say that they are counting civilians killed by violence.
I'm not saying we didn't have our fair share of friendly fire and whatnot. We definitely did. Civilian casualties happen when the fighting takes place in the city. I'm just saying that the US soliders weren't the ones doing the killing.
The people of Iraq did not have to resort to targeting civilians during and after the invasion, but they did.
It was the US's fault for dismantling the oppressive government that kept those factions in line, but you can't totally blame the US and its allies for these militants to attack civilians and disregard civilian casualties.
I'm not in any way accusing the U.S. of systematically and deliberately targeting civilians for death. I am saying that if we launch the war, then we're responsible for the consequences. I'm sure that those deaths are a mix of us bombing, infighting among the factions within the country, suicide strikes against U.S. troops that also caused civilian casualties, mistakes, resulting breakdown of infrastructure that provides essential services like the distribution of food/water and the maintenance of electricity, rioting etc. There's probably a dozen different causes. But ultimately, if we launch the war, then we're the ones responsible for the aftermath of it. Pottery Barn Rule which General Colin Powell warned about. What I was saying is that kingkong was dramatically oversimplifying with his insinuation that I am an apologist for Saddam/Osama who doesn't care about killed American or Iraqi civilians.I'm not in any way accusing the U.S. of systematically and deliberately targeting civilians for death. I am saying that if we launch the war, then we're responsible for the consequences. I'm sure that those deaths are a mix of us bombing, infighting among the factions within the country, suicide strikes against U.S. troops that also caused civilian casualties, mistakes, resulting breakdown of infrastructure that provides essential services like the distribution of food/water and the maintenance of electricity, rioting etc. There's probably a dozen different causes. But ultimately, if we launch the war, then we're the ones responsible for the aftermath of it. Pottery Barn Rule which General Colin Powell warned about. What I was saying is that kingkong was dramatically oversimplifying with his insinuation that I am an apologist for Saddam/Osama who doesn't care about killed American or Iraqi civilians.nocoolnamejim
Yes, but at the same time, were they better off under Saddam?
If all of that violence happened when he was removed from power, what's to say that the lasting oppression would strain the people more and more and eventually that country would destablize and go straight to hell.
I mean it's a what-if scenario, but we have to consider that the likelyhood for that violence happening was pretty damn high. It would have become a breeding ground for terrorist organizations and funding.
[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 1. I supported the war against the Taliban. We were responding to a direct attack against us. 2. I don't like the concept of "preemptive war" and thus did not support the Iraq War. 3. Are you aware of how many poor Iraqis were killed BY US in that war? Estimates range between about 107K on the low end to upwards of around 1.2 million and everything inbetween. Sometimes life is A LITTLE BIT more complicated than "Saddam and Osama bad people. U.S. smash!" Saddam was a bad man, but we've now spent well over a trillion dollars removing him from power and killed AT LEAST 107K innocent civilians doing so.nocoolnamejimSaddam was a clear supporter of Al Qaeda who engineered the attacks...I know that thousands of Iraqis died. War always has sad consequences. But it is necessary in many cases for the greater good. And, as Wasdie pointed, out your statistic is largely skewed. It's not some sort of U.S. conspiracy. 1. Provide your proof that Saddam was a clear supporter of Al Qaeda. This is an assertion that has been debunked countless times. Support your statement. 2. Yes, war has sad consequences. Your initial statement on this subject had no acknowledgement of this and simply said, essentially, "You're a bad person for seeing a larger, nuanced picture of things."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/saddam_and_alqaeda_1.html
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddam-al-qaeda-did-collaborate-documents-show/29746/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199757,00.html
Again, not a conspiracy. Take your tinfoil hat off.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I'm not in any way accusing the U.S. of systematically and deliberately targeting civilians for death. I am saying that if we launch the war, then we're responsible for the consequences. I'm sure that those deaths are a mix of us bombing, infighting among the factions within the country, suicide strikes against U.S. troops that also caused civilian casualties, mistakes, resulting breakdown of infrastructure that provides essential services like the distribution of food/water and the maintenance of electricity, rioting etc. There's probably a dozen different causes. But ultimately, if we launch the war, then we're the ones responsible for the aftermath of it. Pottery Barn Rule which General Colin Powell warned about. What I was saying is that kingkong was dramatically oversimplifying with his insinuation that I am an apologist for Saddam/Osama who doesn't care about killed American or Iraqi civilians.Wasdie
Yes, but at the same time, were they better off under Saddam?
I'm not certain. Was it worth the opportunity cost involved in our removing him for U.S. strategic interests? At a minimum, we've spent over a trillion dollars on that war, damaged international relations in the process and got somewhere between a hundred thousand and 1.2 million Iraqis killed...while delaying the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden and making the Afghanistan War last longer since we've divided up our efforts. Now keep in mind, the argument of going in and liberating Iraq for humanitarian reasons was NOT the argument presented at the time. This was an after the fact justification. Initial reasons given: 1. Saddam has WMD (False) 2. Saddam is supporting Al Qaeda (False) Certainly, a "greater good" argument can be made, but it's certainly not a clear-cut winner case. The majority of the American public consistently says in polls that the Iraq War was not worth it.[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]I'm not in any way accusing the U.S. of systematically and deliberately targeting civilians for death. I am saying that if we launch the war, then we're responsible for the consequences. I'm sure that those deaths are a mix of us bombing, infighting among the factions within the country, suicide strikes against U.S. troops that also caused civilian casualties, mistakes, resulting breakdown of infrastructure that provides essential services like the distribution of food/water and the maintenance of electricity, rioting etc. There's probably a dozen different causes. But ultimately, if we launch the war, then we're the ones responsible for the aftermath of it. Pottery Barn Rule which General Colin Powell warned about. What I was saying is that kingkong was dramatically oversimplifying with his insinuation that I am an apologist for Saddam/Osama who doesn't care about killed American or Iraqi civilians.nocoolnamejim
Yes, but at the same time, were they better off under Saddam?
I'm not certain. Was it worth the opportunity cost involved in our removing him for U.S. strategic interests? At a minimum, we've spent over a trillion dollars on that war, damaged international relations in the process and got somewhere between a hundred thousand and 1.2 million Iraqis killed...while delaying the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden and making the Afghanistan War last longer since we've divided up our efforts. Now keep in mind, the argument of going in and liberating Iraq for humanitarian reasons was NOT the argument presented at the time. This was an after the fact justification. Initial reasons given: 1. Saddam has WMD (False) 2. Saddam is supporting Al Qaeda (False) Certainly, a "greater good" argument can be made, but it's certainly not a clear-cut winner case. The majority of the American public consistently says in polls that the Iraq War was not worth it. Biological weapons and sources that he had a nuclear arsenal are not considered WMDs?....1. Provide your proof that Saddam was a clear supporter of Al Qaeda. This is an assertion that has been debunked countless times. Support your statement. 2. Yes, war has sad consequences. Your initial statement on this subject had no acknowledgement of this and simply said, essentially, "You're a bad person for seeing a larger, nuanced picture of things."[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"] Saddam was a clear supporter of Al Qaeda who engineered the attacks...I know that thousands of Iraqis died. War always has sad consequences. But it is necessary in many cases for the greater good. And, as Wasdie pointed, out your statistic is largely skewed. It's not some sort of U.S. conspiracy. kingkong0124
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/saddam_and_alqaeda_1.html
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddam-al-qaeda-did-collaborate-documents-show/29746/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199757,00.html
Again, not a conspiracy. Take your tinfoil hat off.
Well, you've provided some good examples of how you need to start reading other sources other than rightwing ones to get your info from. Sorry bud, but there was no connection other than the one that rightwingers desperately tried to manufacture after the WMDs came up dry. We were promised massive stockpiles of ready to use weapons. Nothing was found.I'm not certain. Was it worth the opportunity cost involved in our removing him for U.S. strategic interests? At a minimum, we've spent over a trillion dollars on that war, damaged international relations in the process and got somewhere between a hundred thousand and 1.2 million Iraqis killed...while delaying the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden and making the Afghanistan War last longer since we've divided up our efforts. Now keep in mind, the argument of going in and liberating Iraq for humanitarian reasons was NOT the argument presented at the time. This was an after the fact justification. Initial reasons given: 1. Saddam has WMD (False) 2. Saddam is supporting Al Qaeda (False) Certainly, a "greater good" argument can be made, but it's certainly not a clear-cut winner case. The majority of the American public consistently says in polls that the Iraq War was not worth it. Biological weapons and sources that he had a nuclear arsenal are not considered WMDs?.... He had neither. No nuclear weapons program even close to ready to make weapons and no ready to use biological weapons. You're actively living in a fantasyland.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
Yes, but at the same time, were they better off under Saddam?
kingkong0124
[QUOTE="kingkong0124"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] 1. Provide your proof that Saddam was a clear supporter of Al Qaeda. This is an assertion that has been debunked countless times. Support your statement. 2. Yes, war has sad consequences. Your initial statement on this subject had no acknowledgement of this and simply said, essentially, "You're a bad person for seeing a larger, nuanced picture of things."nocoolnamejim
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/saddam_and_alqaeda_1.html
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddam-al-qaeda-did-collaborate-documents-show/29746/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199757,00.html
Again, not a conspiracy. Take your tinfoil hat off.
Well, you've provided some good examples of how you need to start reading other sources other than rightwing ones to get your info from. Sorry bud, but there was no connection other than the one that rightwingers desperately tried to manufacture after the WMDs came up dry. We were promised massive stockpiles of ready to use weapons. Nothing was found. Stop trying to politicize everything into a left vs. right spectrum dude...Notice how the articles link direct sources by the way...[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]Biological weapons and sources that he had a nuclear arsenal are not considered WMDs?.... He had neither. No nuclear weapons program even close to ready to make weapons and no ready to use biological weapons. You're actively living in a fantasyland. We had strong sources that told us that he did, it's not like we go in and purposefully kill thousands of innocent civilians, bro.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'm not certain. Was it worth the opportunity cost involved in our removing him for U.S. strategic interests? At a minimum, we've spent over a trillion dollars on that war, damaged international relations in the process and got somewhere between a hundred thousand and 1.2 million Iraqis killed...while delaying the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden and making the Afghanistan War last longer since we've divided up our efforts. Now keep in mind, the argument of going in and liberating Iraq for humanitarian reasons was NOT the argument presented at the time. This was an after the fact justification. Initial reasons given: 1. Saddam has WMD (False) 2. Saddam is supporting Al Qaeda (False) Certainly, a "greater good" argument can be made, but it's certainly not a clear-cut winner case. The majority of the American public consistently says in polls that the Iraq War was not worth it.nocoolnamejim
Biological weapons and sources that he had a nuclear arsenal are not considered WMDs?....
kingkong0124
We never found them in large enough quantities to deem them harmful. However we did find traces. Enough to know that at one point they had active chemical/biological weapons.
We knew he had them before the invasion. He used them against Iran and on his own people. However we delayed many months asking him to surrender and give up. During this time we tracked mobile chemical weapon factories and potential scud launchers. We lost track of them. This is what I remember watching in 2002/2003 before the invasion.
We believe that they probably got to Syria. Syria sent a lot of support and soldiers to Iraq during the invasion. We killed untrained Syrian militants who crossed the border to fight the allied forces.
The justification for the war at the time was the potential for WMDs. None were found in significant quantities. However, the entire government, even if it was Republican controlled, still voted in favor of the military action and the continuation of the occupation for many years after with strong bi-lateral support. Support for the war didn't really deteriorate until 2006 when we started to pull out of Iraq and it turned into a crap fest and had to reenter.
Most civilian casualties took place during the invasion and inbetween 2005-2008 with the largest surge when we started to withdraw from larger cities. It was at this time did American's get cold feet and all of our strategies fell flat as the trained security forces didn't do jack to protect their own people.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="kingkong0124"]Well, you've provided some good examples of how you need to start reading other sources other than rightwing ones to get your info from. Sorry bud, but there was no connection other than the one that rightwingers desperately tried to manufacture after the WMDs came up dry. We were promised massive stockpiles of ready to use weapons. Nothing was found. Stop trying to politicize everything into a left vs. right spectrum dude...Notice how the articles link direct studies by the way... Yes. It linked to the exact same study that my article linked to. And then twisted and mashed it around to try and make the study say what it wanted it to say. In other words, it linked to a non-conservative study, but did everything it could to try and interpret it in a way that supported what it wanted it to say. Look, here's the very best proof you're going to find that the Iraq War was a waste and the reasons for going in didn't pan out: that conservatives no longer want to talk about it. If, as you say, massive piles of WMDs and clear proof of operational linkages to Al Qaeda were found then you would have been hearing about it constantly leading up to 2008 and it would have been raised after bin Laden was killed. In the reality based community, there was nothing there. All that was left to be talked about was, "Sure, we didn't find WMDs like we promised, didn't find any real linkages between Saddam and Al Qaeda that prove he was behind the 9/11 attacks and supporting their attacks on the U.S....but Saddam was a bad man! He had to go!"http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/saddam_and_alqaeda_1.html
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddam-al-qaeda-did-collaborate-documents-show/29746/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199757,00.html
Again, not a conspiracy. Take your tinfoil hat off.
kingkong0124
[QUOTE="kingkong0124"]
Biological weapons and sources that he had a nuclear arsenal are not considered WMDs?....
Wasdie
We never found them in large enough quantities to deem them harmful. However we did find traces. Enough to know that at one point they had active chemical/biological weapons.
We knew he had them before the invasion. He used them against Iran and on his own people. However we delayed many months asking him to surrender and give up. During this time we tracked mobile chemical weapon factories and potential scud launchers. We lost track of them. This is what I remember watching in 2002/2003 before the invasion.
We believe that they probably got to Syria. Syria sent a lot of support and soldiers to Iraq during the invasion. We killed untrained Syrian militants who crossed the border to fight the allied forces.
The justification for the war at the time was the potential for WMDs. None were found in significant quantities. However, the entire government, even if it was Republican controlled, still voted in favor of the military action and the continuation of the occupation for many years after with strong bi-lateral support. Support for the war didn't really deteriorate until 2006 when we started to pull out of Iraq and it turned into a crap fest and had to reenter.
Most civilian casualties took place during the invasion and inbetween 2005-2008 with the largest surge when we started to withdraw from larger cities. It was at this time did American's get cold feet and all of our strategies fell flat as the trained security forces didn't do jack to protect their own people.
This post I don't mind at all. It acknowledges that we didn't really find what the war was really launched on. We can hypothesize that we didn't find them because Saddam moved them out of the country before the war, or hypothesize that what we thought were mobile weapon factories were something else (mobile fruit trucks or whatever) and that we were manipulated by expatriots feeding us bad information. Either approach involves a particular hypothetical of which no definite proof exists, but the basic fact that we didn't find stockpiles of WMDs is something that is what it is. We can still make arguments that the war was worth it or not worth it, but we have to do so by acknowledging that one of the key reasons for launching the war ended up not materializing.
War crimes is what they are.Seems from 2001 to present America is highly involved in War on Terror along with United Kingdom and other NATO/NON NATO countries.
Seems there is lots of criticsm against america's War on Terror as The notion of a "war" against "terrorism" has proven highly contentious, with critics charging that it has been exploited by participating governments to pursue long-standing policy / military objectives,reduce civil liberties,and infringe upon human rights.
There is also perceived U.S. hypocrisy,media induced hysteria,and that differences in foreign and security policy have reduced America's image in most of the world.
OT?
Do you approve America's War on Terror or criticize it ?
indzman
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment