quote:

the French Prime minister of France

well it sure would be bizarre to be the french prime minister of another country wouldn't it???

First off, a WMD is "a term used to describe a munition with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living beings." We're talking chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological weapons. Of mass destruction. 200 people is not mass destruction. Neither, for that matter, is 2000. A weapon with the ability to blow up, contaminate, or somehow off an entire city is a WMD. In other words, not conventional explosives. I don't care how many people you can kill with C-4; it's not a WMD.

quote:

Just because we gave the weapons to Iraq to defend themselves from Iran gives you justification to say it's our fault those Kurds were killed?

Ooookay, where did I say it was our fault? Hmm?

quote:

AK-47's, old chinese rockets and russian explosives ALL over the place

Wow! AK-47s in a Middle Eastern country! Who knew? Clearly I was referring to mustard gas and other WMDs, not conventional weaponry or mere nuclear components (let's blow someone up with a stick of plutonium and some metal, guys!). Way to read.

quote:

French Prime minister of France before he became the prime minister was closely dealing with Saddam and also selling him nuclear components. As for Russia and China....are you serious you need evidence?

I asked for a source. Humor me and find one.

quote:

You haven't heard any of this because if all you do is watch the news and read the news paper you won't get all the facts.

As I said in another thread, I don't watch the news and I rarely read the newspaper. I do so hate assumptions, don't you?

quote:

Where in the hell did you hear that?

From a man named Dick Clark. And he should know. Try reading, it helps (oh look! Assumptions!).

quote:

they are the typical leftwing bias arguements.

All right, what's wrong with that? Must I agree with you to be right? I am interested why you can't believe I came to those opinions on my own.

Thanks for the correction Riskbreaker.
What is everyones defenition of WMD's? Does it have to kill, lets say, 200 people...maybe 2000? or 3000? Or maybe it's just that the UN decided Saddam didn't have WMD's so they made it so. I can imagine them going down the list of what we did find in Iraq. "Hmmm...10,000 barrels of mustard gas, well that could probably anihilate an entire nation, but it's not a 1,000,000 ton bomb so, SORRY, not a winner." Let me ask you, if we found that Saddam did infact have a nuclear bomb would it still convince you or would he have had to drop it on us? The threat is real, we had to act before we got attacked again and so Bush said enough is enough.

You proved my point Riskbreaker. Saddam hid some of it, which we found most of and continue to find to this day. From what the UN has on record he destroyed very little, he most likely ended up selling most of it to neighboring countries. It's like the implications are all there people but you need this "smoking gun" or in other words a big ass bomb to convince you he's a threat. The guy has proven through history that he's a wacko, he killed 100s of thousands of people during his rule, supressed 80 precent of his country, invaded Kuwait, ignored 14 resolutions, either blocked inspectors or delayed them for months from inspecting stockpiles, did not show substantial evidence that the weapons we told him to destroy were destroyed. He left NUMEROUS weapons unaccounted for, such as bateria growth used in rockets, and over 8500 liters of anthrax. Saddam made blaten threats to not only the US but our Allies as well, honestly what more do you need? How can you just sit back and let a man with such an unstalbe mind have so much destructive material, i don't know how Bush Sr. and Clinton slept at night seriously.

quote:

our little friend Hans Blicks (French I might add

You think he's French, or have i misunderstood...he's Swedish.

quote:

and his little boy scouts were told to wait for DAYS outside of Saddams palace's and stockpiles before they were allowed to come in, not to mention it took us nearly 8 months to get inspectors in this last resolution, 8 months is enough time to hide just anything you can put your hands on.

then where is it now? unfound.

quote:

So, it's his fault he had it even though we gave it to him? That sounds...intelligent. Anyways, that mustard gas you're referring to is the mustard gas used by Saddam against the Kurds in 1988. No other stockpiles have been found since, unless you have some source...? According to my (non-media) sources, no stockpiles of any WMDs have been found in Iraq since the early 1990s. And most certainly not during this little war of ours. Considering the whole reason for the war was finding and destroying Iraq's WMDs, it's clear we've failed which explains low public morale.

Hilarious! Just because we gave the weapons to Iraq to defend themselves from Iran gives you justification to say it's our fault those Kurds were killed? HAHA, classic! Bro, 14 sanctions we put out to tell him to get rid of these weapons, the weapons you said he "supposedly destoryed", i guess not cause 10,000 Kurds still died and more and more each day until we invaded. We haven't found ANY weapons stockpiles?! hahaha, whoa, you seriously need to do more research. Guys within my division found massive stockpiles on a daily basis, AK-47's, old chinese rockets and russian explosives ALL over the place. There was also evidence of soldiers finding nuclear components barried under the backyard of one of Saddam's top nuclear scientists. Most of the WDM's we didn't find are linked to Syria, they agreed to harbor. The enemy knows who our worst enemy is, it's not them, it is us. All they have to do is turn us against our government and all hell breaks loose. These are what Al Zarqawi had stated in some files we found in the building we blew him up in. The only way to defeat america is to a: turn them on their own government or b: get other countries to attack them, i.e. Iran. This i why we have to stop terroism because these extremest want America to burn along with Israel. And when it comes to me or them, i chose me.

quote:

Source, please. Most likely, I haven't heard any of this because a tiny minority believes it to be true.

You will find it in the archives of any major news organization except probably New York Times that the French Prime minister of France before he became the prime minister was closely dealing with Saddam and also selling him nuclear components. As for Russia and China....are you serious you need evidence? They both have been supporting our enemies in time of war ever since the Korean War. Russia and the U.S. still have over 20,000 nuclear weapons pointed at each other, by no means are we friends. Both countries could give a rats ass if we were anihilated off the face off this planet, as long as they make a few bucks off of some shady deals they're happy. You haven't heard any of this because if all you do is watch the news and read the news paper you won't get all the facts.

Most of my sources come from a combiantion of Department of intelligence files (information that is not considered top secret) and also from my personal experiences of actually fighting in this war and experiencing the culture.

quote:

To be fair, I meant to say that they were destroyed by the UN. Again, that was in the early '90s.

WHAT?! Where in the hell did you hear that? As i remember our little friend Hans Blicks (French I might add) and his little boy scouts were told to wait for DAYS outside of Saddams palace's and stockpiles before they were allowed to come in, not to mention it took us nearly 8 months to get inspectors in this last resolution, 8 months is enough time to hide just anything you can put your hands on.

quote:

You're making assumptions as well. What makes you think I don't do my research? The fact that I disagree with you? And what is "the other side of the argument" that I need to look into? If all the facts I find support my side, I don't need to look at the other side.

Some of my arguments may be assumptions but my strongest arguments are not, this is typical of a debate. Most of my assumptions are about your credibility. I have heard nothing new in your arguments, they are the typical leftwing bias arguements. The only statement i think you have said that i agree with was stated long ago, since then you have ranted more so opinion than fact.

quote:

But you also cannot win a war without the support of your own people

Prove to me why we need to win this war (on terrorism, that is) and I'll give you that one.

quote:

It is obvious that you are a cronie of the media brecause most of your arguements are based off of that and what the popular public opinion is.

It is also obvious that you can't comprehend someone coming to the same conclusions of their own volition. For the record, I don't get my opinions from the news. I get my facts from verifiable and credible sources. Do you?

quote:

WMD's were found, i think to the tone of 50,000 barrels of mustard gas that we knew he had because we gave it to him.

So, it's his fault he had it even though we gave it to him? That sounds...intelligent. Anyways, that mustard gas you're referring to is the mustard gas used by Saddam against the Kurds in 1988. No other stockpiles have been found since, unless you have some source...? According to my (non-media) sources, no stockpiles of any WMDs have been found in Iraq since the early 1990s. And most certainly not during this little war of ours. Considering the whole reason for the war was finding and destroying Iraq's WMDs, it's clear we've failed which explains low public morale.

quote:

Plus all insurmountable evidence we have against Russia, France and Germany ALL in bed with Saddam whether it has to do with new nuclear plants, nuclear weapons components and plutonium.

Source, please. Most likely, I haven't heard any of this because a tiny minority believes it to be true.

quote:

It's also funny how you say Saddam got rid of his WMD's

To be fair, I meant to say that they were destroyed by the UN. Again, that was in the early '90s.

quote:

You my friend are basing your facts off of fall assumptions that you need to rethink, do more research and try to dive into the other side of the arguement.

You're making assumptions as well. What makes you think I don't do my research? The fact that I disagree with you? And what is "the other side of the argument" that I need to look into? If all the facts I find support my side, I don't need to look at the other side.

quote:

President Bushed CLEARLY stated in his adress to congress that "I was informed by british intelligence that Saddam has WMD's."

Bush was misled, therefore the American people were misled. I didn't say anything about Bush lying to us.

But you also cannot win a war with(out) the support of your own people =)

It is obvious that you are a cronie of the media brecause most of your arguements are based off of that and what the popular public opinion is. Unfortunately this opinion is heavily media biased as well and wrong. WMD's were found, i think to the tone of 50,000 barrels of mustard gas that we knew he had because we gave it to him. Plus all insurmountable evidence we have against Russia, France and Germany ALL in bed with Saddam whether it has to do with new nuclear plants, nuclear weapons components and plutonium. You haven't heard any of this because the UN threw it out the window and the UN is just another media pleasing corrupt orgnaization full of money hungry thugs. It's also funny how you say Saddam got rid of his WMD's....right, 14 sanctions later he still was sticking his middle finger at the states, the guy deserved to get his ass kicked. People dissaprove of this war because they don't have all the facts, and they simply cannot have all the facts because it's a little something called information security, thats how these terrorists are still alive. I had a secret clearance in the US Army and had access to files from the Department of Intelligence, i cannot state anything i read on those papers but it would truely blow your mind my friend. This war is not even close to what most people think it is. We lost this war just like vietnam and the korean war because of two reasons: No support by the people and because our modern day war tactics (Doughet tactics) meant nothing when put to use against primitive technology. I am not in any way doubting the correlation between the wars because i agree, you cannot use sophisticated tech against primitive tech. But you also cannot win a war with the support of your own people. We have tried to fight this war with our damn hands tied behind our backs because of our politicians and people like Cindy Sheehan. So often people assume the worst because it's what they want to hear, they didn't vote for this president so they are finding any reason possible to prove he's an idiot. You my friend are basing your facts off of fall assumptions that you need to rethink, do more research and try to dive into the other side of the arguement. We failed at this war but it's more than just the governemtns fault. One last thing, the people were never misled, President Bushed CLEARLY stated in his adress to congress that "I was informed by british intelligence that Saddam has WMD's." He never once said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction but thats what most assumed, so this lie that veryone seems to think Bush told is bull.

quote:

However, where America went wrong FIRST was not supporting a war they orignally wanted.

Have you examined why we aren't supporting this war? It is exactly like Vietnam. The public doesn't trust what the government originally told them because what's happening in the country is exactly opposite of what should be happening. Many people feel the government has lied outright to them because our intentions aren't seeming as noble the further bogged down in the mud we get. In Iraq, for example, we went to find WMDs. Instead, we occupy the country, depose its leader, fire everyone responsible for keeping the country running, and waste our time trying to set up a Jeffersonian democracy which clearly won't work with all the insurgents bent on destroying it. What happened to the WMDs? Wasn't Bush told that Saddam's possession of WMDs was a near certainty?

Interestingly enough, Saddam did have WMDs...right after the first Gulf War. And we forced them to dump them after heavy UN sanctions.

Immediately following 9/11, everyone--Democrats and Republicans alike--wanted justice. We were told invading Afghanistan would bring the terrorists to justice. So we approved it. Then we were told invading Iraq would bring terrorists to justice. So we approved that.

Now, I ask you this: where is the justice? The Taliban has been driven out of Afghanistan (only to be sneaking its way back in) but the Taliban didn't blow up our buildings; al Qaeda did. Saddam has been sentenced to hang, yet without a solid leader, Iraq is falling into civil war propelled by centuries of animosity between Shi'a and Sunni and helped along by suicide attacks by insurgents.

Osama bin Laden is mocking us. Al Qaeda is still fully operational, most likely planning another attack for sometime in the future. There are now more terrorists than there ever were before, all created by increasing anti-American sentiment fueled by our actions in the Middle East. We screwed up. Now it's time to back out before things get worse.

It's not going back on your word by condemning a war you originally supported. It's reacting to new information which puts the war in a much worse light than it was before. The public is not as apathetic as you seem to think. They react quite strongly to evidence that they were misled. Which is exactly what is happening now.

Also, our failure in Korea was not a result of low morale at home. It was a result of the Chinese Army entering into the war and pushing back the UN troops.

And Vietnam...well, Vietnam was doomed before most Americans had even heard of it, way before our little war started. It was a bad decision to try and prop up a corrupt and failure-prone government like that in South Vietnam. Come to think of it, that sounds quite a lot like what's happening in Baghdad. Funny how history repeats itself for those who fail--or refuse--to learn from it, isn't it now?

Ask me how many similarities there are between 'Nam and Iraq if you don't believe me. The two are eerily alike.

Hello Torin, welcome to YN (YouthNoise). I recommend you visit this thread: http://boards.youthnoise.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6932953...?r=44110123#44110123

As to the topic, clpo and Torin have pretty much summed up my current feelings about it.

I was there for a year too and i definitely agree that the infracturcture of Iraq is better than it has ever been including schools and hospitals. CLPO you are right also that we went wrong in Iraq, we threw everyone who had a sense of how to handle the country before out of power and threw a bunch of people who most Iraqis see as American pupets in their place. This causes a serious lack of trust in the government which is desperately needed at this time. However, where America went wrong FIRST was not supporting a war they orignally wanted. The senate and house voted yes for an invasion of Iraq (regardless of how it was presented, and the senate/house convinced) and you had the majority of the population in America support this war at first, by tdoing this we made a decision to finish the job in Iraq, start to finish not half way. Unfortunately Americans have given up, they gave up LONG before the war on terrorism went sour. This disgusting lack of moral for our country in time of war has bolster moral in the ranks of numerous terrorist organizations. If you support a war and only months later vehemetly oppose it then you are "F"ing this country's international character and stance on a whole and not mention stirring up more violence because terrorists are getting a HUGE moral boost from it. Unfortunately people are more concered about getting their new H2 Hummer than they are with this war (and most politics in general) and don't care to pay any attention to it but the simple fact that "war kills people, so it's wrong!" We are a thin skined culture now with so much political correctness coming out of our a$$es that its unbelievalbe that America in still in exsitence. We started this war, and we could have very well have finished it, just like the Korean War and the Vietnam War, but we are our worst enemies in this war on terrorism, not the terrorists. They are sitting back and watching the show, and i will tell you, we are sure as hell putting on a great show that will eventually end in our defeat.

quote:

Originally posted by Banturon:
Also CLPO if it were so wrong to invade Iraq and depose a dicator who brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of individuals during his rule as dictator. So if we went wrong with Iraq, we surely went wrong with attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan because they only killed 3,000 Americans, not 300,000 Kurds.

First off, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Second, Afghanistan did not kill 3000 Americans. Al Qaeda did.

Anyways, I'm not saying it was wrong to invade Iraq. It was wrong to invade Iraq at the time we did. The world viewed the invasion as retaliation for 9/11, which pissed a lot of people off because Iraq was not involved in 9/11. 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the U.A.E., one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon. Based on retaliatory logic such as the current administrations, we really should have invaded Saudi Arabia.

We had a chance to depose Saddam Hussein. Heck, we even had a chance to stop the murder of 300,000 Kurds. When? During the Persian Gulf War, when we were actually occupying Iraq with the blessing of nearly all of the rest of the world. We went into Iraq in 1990 to force it out of Kuwait, but it is true that we were not there to force a regime change. However, after we withdrew from Iraq, Saddam began killing his own people. What did U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia do? Absolutely nothing. We let it happen. The UN and the rest of the world would have fully supported another invasion to stop Saddam and actually depose him, yet we didn't. We even left the Republican Guard mostly intact instead of fully destroying them during their retreat near the end of the war. And those same soldiers were the ones carrying out Saddam's orders to kill his own citizens.

Funny how we waited 12 years to retaliate, isn't it?

Now, the attack on the Taliban was fully justified, since we had warned them that we would use force against them if they did not give up Osama bin Laden and shut down the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. They didn't, so we invaded and deposed them. It wasn't carried out as effective as it could have been, but we made the right decision in not occupying the country. Afghanistan mostly succeeded where Iraq has completely failed.

So, the Taliban had direct ties to 9/11 since we had known for a long time that they were harboring and sympathizing with al Qaeda, thus an invasion was both justified and necessary (to make good on previous threats). But Iraq was not connected, therefore an invasion at that time was a very, very bad decision and completely unjustified, since we had missed our chance to correctly force a regime change (not set up our own, mind you) in Iraq in 1991, following the Gulf War.

Technically Kuwait is both if you wish to view it that way. They have a president, but he has no power and the country as a whole is a commonwealth. As for not knowing anything about it, I was there for a year and lived there, I'd say I know more about the middle east than someone who has never set foot in the Desert. However it is not that I am against thier forms of Government, I am simply saying that a Democracy, such as an American Democracy like we are trying to build in Iraq, does not exist in any other nation in the Middle East.

They may elect officials by popular vote, but the general masses of people have no power over their lives, therefore they are not Democracies. Also CLPO if it were so wrong to invade Iraq and depose a dicator who brutally murdered hundreds of thousands of individuals during his rule as dictator. So if we went wrong with Iraq, we surely went wrong with attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan because they only killed 3,000 Americans, not 300,000 Kurds.

you're right, sorry about that

Turkey is also a Democracy, and Israel is democratic in appearance, but it's the only country in the mid east that holds elections where voting right is restricted to certain sectors of the population(All of the previously mentioned arab nations let women vote, wich is remarkable when contrasted with the common view people have of islam).

I would hasten to remove Israel from your list Speed, since they deny a large percentage of their populations right to vote, they are not a democracy.

Also add Turkey to your list! and perhaps kuwait, not sure.

Democracy in the middle east:

Iran - Islamic Republic.
Israel - Parliamentary Democracy
Lebanon - Republic
Syria - Presidential Republic
United Arab Emirates - Federal Constitutional Monarchy
Yemen - Republic


you may not like some of those country's for whatever reason, but factually speaking, all of them house democratic political systems that elect national leaders through popular vote.
Don't presume to have a lot of knowledge on the middle east when you seemingly don't even know what nations compose it.

Your "truth" is sorely misinformed. The democracy you speak of is inefficient, powerless, and on the brink of collapse. Those in the Middle East who hate the United States and what it stands for will stop at nothing to tear it down. We are really back where we started.

Democracy in the Middle East will not work until Middle Eastern society accepts it. And that will not happen until we work to eliminate radical teachings of Islam and the religious intolerance and hatred that it breeds. To do this, we must improve societal conditions. Building infrastructure was a start, but infrastructure does nothing without people to run it. And the people who ran the infrastructure of Iraq before the United States invaded were all fired because they were all members of the Baath Party.

I suggest reading "Against All Enemies" by Richard A. Clarke, a former counter-terrorism official under the past four presidents. Very good book, and it shows just how wrong we went with Iraq.