The Truth About Iraq




Posted by Random

http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml

I watched this on Glenn Beck.. It makes me realize that we're still making a difference over there. I'm glad to see something like this.. Our liberal media has blown the war out of proportion. I have friends over there who say the people are happy that we're there but I never really thought much about it. Now heres something worth watching..




Posted by Bebop

The media is liberal? What ever you say skip.




Posted by Lord of Spam

Glenn beck is the biggest pile of conservative, idiot douchebaggery I've ever heard that wasnt on fox news.

I'm not even going to watch that video.




Posted by Random


Quoting Lord of Spam: Glenn beck is the biggest pile of conservative, idiot douchebaggery I've ever heard that wasnt on fox news.

I'm not even going to watch that video.


Its funny that you say that because although he is conservative he does believe in things like stem cell research and he's not always fully behind Bush. Glenn Beck is extremley intelligent..



Posted by Lord of Spam

Having watched his show on a number of occasions, I can safely say that the man is either a total ****wit moron, or does a very good immitation of one.




Posted by Random

You must not really watch Glenn Beck then. Hes the mother effin man.

You should watch the video. It'll make you realize we're still doing good in Iraq. Its not some slide show of him saying how many al qaeda we killed.




Posted by Aioros

[COLOR="Yellow"]That was as biased as it gets. Seriously, he only used 5 seconds to mention the fact that too many soldiers are dying, unnecessarily. Yay, the Iraqis use cell phones now, more of their children are vaccinated, and their women are now a big part of parliament. To me tt all sounded like he was trying put a good face on an otherwise failed war.

Not to sound like a Democrat (ugh) either, i like Glenn and i supported the president when we invaded Iraq, at first. But this war is going nowhere and costing way too many lives, it's gotten to the point where i can't even get a straight answer as to why we're still there.[/COLOR]




Posted by Random


Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"]That was as biased as it gets. Seriously, he only used 5 seconds to mention the fact that too many soldiers are dying, unnecessarily. Yay, the Iraqis use cell phones now, more of their children are vaccinated, and their women are now a big part of parliament. To me tt all sounded like he was trying put a good face on an otherwise failed war.

Not to sound like a Democrat (ugh) either, i like Glenn and i supported the president when we invaded Iraq, at first. But this war is going nowhere and costing way too many lives, it's gotten to the point where i can't even get a straight answer as to why we're still there.[/COLOR]


We're there to try to turn things around. This isn't yo daddys Vietnam War. We haven't lost that many soldiers yet. A few thousand sucks but we lost way more in Vietnam. We're there to still make a difference. Saddam killed millions of his men and we're trying to save as many lives as possible. We cant' leave now becasue it'd be an unsettled mess. We have to make as much as a positive impact as possible. Are we saving lives? I hope so..

Its not garunteed that it'll work or fail. That we don't know yet and we don't know how long we'll be over there either. Did I support the war? Yes I did.. Do I still support it? Yes until theres been more lives lost than Saddam himself killed than yes I support it. Aslong as we can save a number of people it'd be worth it. Because afterall the bigger picture is mankind.. They are people too and so its important we try to help them.



Posted by Bebop

Oh Christ is couldnt even stomach 1 minute of that video. Its awful, biased and BS.




Posted by Random


Quoting Bebop: Oh Christ is couldnt even stomach 1 minute of that video. Its awful, biased and BS.


Um no.. It was showing improvements. There was nothing biased about it at all. Infact the only reason why it was brought up because it was to counter biased news that showed only terrible things about the war.

You silly liberals and your silly liberal media.



Posted by Proto Man


Quoting Aioros: [COLOR="Yellow"]Yay, the Iraqis use cell phones now, more of their children are vaccinated, and their women are now a big part of parliament. [/COLOR]


So you rather other people not experience something that we take for granted every day?

The war is only a failure if we pull out right now. The Iraqi army is ALMOST ready to stand on it's own two feet, but not just yet. I believe that video is a good answer as to WHY we are there.


Quoting Random:
You silly liberals and your silly liberal media.


Liberalism... it's a disease.



Posted by Bebop


Quoting Random: Um no.. It was showing improvements. There was nothing biased about it at all. Infact the only reason why it was brought up because it was to counter biased news that showed only terrible things about the war.

You silly liberals and your silly liberal media.


If you cant see how it was biased then you truly are blind. Such things were using music and tone of voice and wording to lull the audience into siding with the narrator, rather than presenting them with the facts and letting them decide for themselves. Please dont vote.

FFS you retard the media is not liberal.



Posted by Random

DIDNT U WATCH THE WHOLE FREAKING THING? RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING HE SAYS HOW WE HEAR ABOUT THE DOWN SIDE (THE NUMBERS OF LIVES) BUT TODAY HES GOING TO SHOW THE POSITIVE SIDE WHICH THE LIBERAL MEDIA DOESNT SHOW!.

THE IRAQ CHILDREN NOW HAVE EDUCATION AND MEDICINE!!

HE WAS SHOWING FACT. ARE YOU FREAKING RETARDED?




Posted by Bebop

Iraqi children hav always had medicine and education.

There is more positive stuff said about the War than negative.

The media isnt liberal.

What makes what he says fact? Becuase it goes against what he considers the majority? You're just another example or a moron being suckered in my flashy editting.




Posted by Arwon

It's interesting how this squares with the Johns Hopkins survey which calculated pre- and post-invasion deathrates and reckons 500 000 (well, that's the median) Iraqs have died in excess of the pre-invasion deathrate. Died from things such as deteriorated infrastructure, lack of electricity, etc, as well as from violent deaths.




Posted by Random


Quoting Bebop: Iraqi children hav always had medicine and education.

There is more positive stuff said about the War than negative.

The media isnt liberal.

What makes what he says fact? Becuase it goes against what he considers the majority? You're just another example or a moron being suckered in my flashy editting.


EDUCATION AND MEDICINE? Wow your intelligence about Iraq pre war is pitiful..

Perhaps you should do a little research.



Posted by Lord of Spam

I suggest you read arwons post closely before you keep patting america on the back. We're ****ing it up more than we're helping it.




Posted by Random


Quoting Lord of Spam: I suggest you read arwons post closely before you keep patting america on the back. We're ****ing it up more than we're helping it.


We don't know that yet. There are a lot of lives lost but we still may make a difference. Who knows what might have happend if Saddam would have stayed in power. Theres no say in what could have happend. All we know is he killed a few million of his own people and that had to stop. It doesn't much look like we're helping but who knows. Maybe it'll turn out to be positive in the end. Its not over so you nor I can really say. But there are boht positive and negative things happening in this war.



Posted by Lord of Spam

So your defense for trying to overthrow and then control the destiny of another nation, waging a war on its own soil in the process, is that you dont know how it will come out?

RIIIIIIIGHT. GOOD ON THERE, SMART GUY.




Posted by Random


Quoting Lord of Spam: So your defense for trying to overthrow and then control the destiny of another nation, waging a war on its own soil in the process, is that you dont know how it will come out?

RIIIIIIIGHT. GOOD ON THERE, SMART GUY.


Its worth a try is it not? Can we really sit here and let millions die by a dictator? So we over threw him and we took control of Iraq. We didn't know before hand there'd be a continuous war. So now we have a bunch of ****ed off terrorists who are trying to take us out. Thats the obvious. But who's to say that we won't make a difference?

I still stand firm in saying that we're there for a good reason. Nobody can say its a failure yet because there haven't been near as many deaths since we invaded compared to while Saddam was in power.



Posted by Lord of Spam

"We didn't know before hand there'd be a continuous war."

DAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha...

whooo ho hoh oho....

oh man, you dont really belive that, do you?




Posted by Random


Quoting Lord of Spam: "We didn't know before hand there'd be a continuous war."

DAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha...

whooo ho hoh oho....

oh man, you dont really belive that, do you?


Yeah why not? Nobody knows anything for certain.

We must give those people democracy. They had a much higher percentage of voters than the United States does. Goes to show how much they want democracy.

Besides what else would we have done? Diplomacy? Blah hahahahaha Diplomacy sucks and rarely works.

OH PLEASE NORTH KOREA DONT TEST THAT NUKE.. WE'RE THE "U.N." AND WE WILL STOP TRADING WITH U IF U DO..

*So eventually North Korea tests a nuke*

And what does the UN Do? NOTHING. BECAUSE DIPLOMACY SUCKS.. You want to get rid of dictators, you have to use force.

Unfortunately North Korea is at a point where its a powerhouse unlike Iraq and invading could cost a lot of lives.

Spam your just one of those Bush Haters. ZOMG BUSH TEH SUCKSORZ.. TEH ECONOMY SUCKZ. SURE WE HAVE THE BEST JOB RATE EVER OF ANY PRESIDENT BUT WHO CARES? HE STILL TEH SUX.



Posted by mis0


Quoting Random: http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml

I watched this on Glenn Beck.. It makes me realize that we're still making a difference over there. I'm glad to see something like this.. Our liberal media has blown the war out of proportion. I have friends over there who say the people are happy that we're there but I never really thought much about it. Now heres something worth watching..

The media is not liberal, moron. Glenn Beck's existance is evidence enough, and besides, Glenn Beck is worse than Fox because he's basically insane and he contradicts himself in every episode, usually by accusing the "liberal media" of "fear mongering" right before he presents a new doomsday scenario for you to behold.

The media as a whole falls along a continuum. CNN leans liberal, Fox is conservative, etc. You really have to take a little from both to peice together the real story.



Posted by Arwon


Quoting Random: All we know is he killed a few million of his own people.


It's interesting how this has become such a widely perpetuated meme despite how imprecise and misleading it is. It creates mental images of Stalinist work camps, depopulation campaigns, genocide, mass graves.

When did these killings happen? In what manners? How many were there actually? (The estimate is actually nowhere near "a few million" even at its most broad-brush)

Hussein was an autocratic thug and a dictator, but in any objective sense he was really no worse the bevy of other nasty brutes who have variously headed countries the world over and continue to do so. He wasn't Stalin or Hitler and attempts to paint his Iraq as OMG WORST REGIME EVER are just plain wrong and dishonest. "He killed a few million" is massive hyperbole.

As far as I can see, non-natural deaths in Hussein-era Iraq took 4 main forms. The first was attributable to the Iran-Iraq War in 1980-1988, a brutal, grinding conflict that caused a million+ casualties and I'm not sure how many of those were deaths. Hussein can certainly be held culpable, but that's still a bit different from intentional death camps and liquidation. Remember that the West is also culpable in supporting and arming Iraq in this war after 1982. Incidentally, the mass-graves that've been found have all been from this era.

The second was anti-Kurdish repression through the late 80s, tens of thousands of "disappearances".

The third big cause of deaths was the Gulf War and the brutal repression of the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings that followed it. I've seen figures in the 200 000 range for that violence. On the plus side, the Kurds became de facto independent and beyond the reach of Bahgdad.

The last was the post-war ruination and isolation of the Iraqi economy under sanctions. I have no idea how many died under these sanctions, the question of the morality of sanctions is highly questionable as is the culpability for deaths caused by them. My understanding, though, is that things had improved after the first years of this new hardship. To put it bluntly: mass killings were finished in Iraq, violent repression and deprivation were the norm, nor genocide of any sort. Hussein had control... rationing and isolation increased his power and control. He was a brutal dictatorial autocrat who presided over a destructive war and was extremely iron-fisted in asserting and maintaining control and power, not a genocidal maniac.

So yes. Then we have a survey that says there have been between 400 000 and 800 000 violent deaths (I'd thought it was all excess deaths, apaprently it's violent deaths) in Iraq that wouldn't have happened had the invasion not occurred. Nonviolent deaths rose above pre-invasion levels this year as well. The US was responsible for about 30% of the violent deaths but this has been decreasing as a share of the total deaths even as the rate of deaths rises. In short: the mortality rate in Iraq is substantially higher in 2006 than it was in 2002. The only question is by how much, exactly.

There's been attacks and attempts to portray it as biased or flawed, or at least "controversial" but these attacks contain little actual substance--they seem to amount to sheer disbelief that three-and-a-half years of violent free-for-all can kill so many people. But seriously. This is a Lancet survey, one of the premier public health publications in the world, put out by Johns Hopkins University's school of public health, one of the most prestiguous schools in that field. The methodology is broadly accepted and seems pretty sound ([url=http://www.stats.org/stories/the_science_ct_dead_oct17_06.htm]A good analysis of the reliability of the statistical methodology[/url] and [url=http://www.juancole.com/2006/10/655000-dead-in-iraq-since-bush.html]some relevant excerpts[/url]). Really the only question is of sample size, whether the clusters were representative... 600 000 is the most likely figure within the range, but only more surveys with different random samples will reduce the margin of error. Even the lower end of the margin-of-error is staggering and starts to push the situation's scale towards other full-scale civil wars such as Afghanistan and Cambodia.

Now we get into truly questionable territory, we really must ask ourselves if we truly have been "better than Hussein" for either Iraqis, for the region, and certainly for our long-term interests. Was a stable dictatorship and bulwark to Iran actually better than a (predictably) chaotic and disastrous attempt to impose an alien form of government on a fractuous multiethnic country in an explosive geopolitical region that has resulted in a civil war that seems to be killing 150 000 people a year? It's no longer possible to flat-out say that because we're the "good guys" AND OMG SADDAM KILLED MILLIONS we must be doing better, because hey, the road to hell was paved with good intentions, wasn't it?

Actually it's interesting how often the SADDAM KILLED MILLIONS hyperbole comes from the same people who go "that can't be right" at the statistical survey like the Johns Hopkins one.

The war is lost. We have no plan for fixing things, for addressing the consequences we unleashed... we're lurching towards a new Vietnamisation (Iraqisation?) and eventual abandonment of Iraq to its fate and will likely have nothing to show for it all except a massive loss of political capital, an increasingly destabilised and volatile region, and a generation of Iraqis (and Arabs as a whole) who will probably believe that the West has been worse for them than Saddam Hussein was... especially now that in statistical terms the two are becoming comparable.

And the worst part is how sadly predicable all this was to everyone who didn't believe in the hopelessly naive democratisation project of neoconservative political theory.



Posted by Bebop


Quoting Random: EDUCATION AND MEDICINE? Wow your intelligence about Iraq pre war is pitiful..

Perhaps you should do a little research.


Do you honestly beleive Iraq didn't have schools and doctors before the western invasion? Then again you think the media is entierly liberal so I guess you really are a retard.



Posted by Random


Quoting Misoxeny: The media is not liberal, moron. Glenn Beck's existance is evidence enough, and besides, Glenn Beck is worse than Fox because he's basically insane and he contradicts himself in every episode, usually by accusing the "liberal media" of "fear mongering" right before he presents a new doomsday scenario for you to behold.

The media as a whole falls along a continuum. CNN leans liberal, Fox is conservative, etc. You really have to take a little from both to peice together the real story.


The Media is very liberal. Just watch tv for a little while. The majority of Hollywood is pro liberal, you've got shows like the Daily Show with John Stewart which is completely liberal, not to mention watching CNN or MSNBC and you'll find them attacking the president for this and that.

I'm suprised your so effin blind..


Quoting Bebop: Do you honestly beleive Iraq didn't have schools and doctors before the western invasion? Then again you think the media is entierly liberal so I guess you really are a retard.


Oh i'm not saying they didn't have it, but they didn't have much. Saddam rather spend his money on golden palaces. The kids there didn't have anywhere the amount of medicine, doctors/hospitals or schools they had. They're education was poor (Those who actually got education) and the medicine didn't do jack squat. Now 98% of the Iraqi children have been treated for polo. Your just making a fool of yourself.



Posted by Lord of Spam

So if I say that a black man who killed an entire family is deserving of being punished, I'm racist?

They critisize bush because he has ****ed up the nation so bad that if we ever do recover it'll be years from now.




Posted by Random


Quoting Lord of Spam: So if I say that a black man who killed an entire family is deserving of being punished, I'm racist?

They critisize bush because he has ****ed up the nation so bad that if we ever do recover it'll be years from now.


And how did he screw up our nation? He lowered our taxes and our economy seems to be booming right now. He's got the best job rate of any president PERIOD.

The Economy is fine.. The War on Terror is going on well.. Do we still have terrorist attempts? Yeah but we've managed to stop them.

I feel safer now that President Bush is in office. Sure we're paying more for our security but I wouldn't have it any other way..


Oh while i'm on the subject about the gov't. I'm getting sick and tired of people saying "HEY IM ****ED THE GOV'T IS LISTENING INTO OUR CALLS DUR DUR DUR."

People.. What do you have to hide thats so bad? I would rather the Gov't listen into my calls just to keep me safe. Ohhh you guys must be talking to your gay lovers over the phone huh? Having phone sex huh? You embarassed the Gov't is laughing at you? Yeah I would be too..

Im disappointed in people.. Why you ask? Because they don't make sense..



Posted by Bebop


Quoting Random: Oh i'm not saying they didn't have it, but they didn't have much. Saddam rather spend his money on golden palaces. The kids there didn't have anywhere the amount of medicine, doctors/hospitals or schools they had. They're education was poor (Those who actually got education) and the medicine didn't do jack squat. Now 98% of the Iraqi children have been treated for polo. Your just making a fool of yourself.


I'm making a fool of myself? Your the one who didnt understand a simple question. And what evidence is there for these kids not having that great schools? How do we know these children werent getting better education than american children?



Posted by Random

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20031204-2.html

Medical

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2290202.stm

Scroll down to the middle and you'll see what i'm talking about.

The education system in Iraq was terrible. After we invaded we built schools and hospitals. Now the children have a brighter future to look forward to.




Posted by Lord of Spam

I home on lunch, and this faggotry ruined teh best meal ever. for this, you will die.


Quoting Random: And how did he screw up our nation? He lowered our taxes and our economy seems to be booming right now. He's got the best job rate of any president PERIOD.

The Economy is fine.. The War on Terror is going on well.. Do we still have terrorist attempts? Yeah but we've managed to stop them.

I feel safer now that President Bush is in office. Sure we're paying more for our security but I wouldn't have it any other way..


Oh while i'm on the subject about the gov't. I'm getting sick and tired of people saying "HEY IM ****ED THE GOV'T IS LISTENING INTO OUR CALLS DUR DUR DUR."

People.. What do you have to hide thats so bad? I would rather the Gov't listen into my calls just to keep me safe. Ohhh you guys must be talking to your gay lovers over the phone huh? Having phone sex huh? You embarassed the Gov't is laughing at you? Yeah I would be too..

Im disappointed in people.. Why you ask? Because they don't make sense..


the national debt is now over 8 TRILLION dollars.i forget what the exact percentage is, but a rediculous amount of the national budget goes towards paying interest on that debt. not the principle, just interest. meaning that its basically dollars thrown out the window. and whats worse, the debts is increasingly owed to overseas lenders, so the money isnt even staying in america.

as for the war on terror being a success, you're a total ****wit moron. rather than having a few idiots in caves planning ****, now we've given them a cause to rally around and made it look like their insane "usa vs islam" argument has a ring of truth to it. not to mention that if you count all the dead soldiers, americans rism of terror related death has INCREASED after the invasion.

"Now the children have a brighter future to look forward to."

yeah, now they can look forward to either being killed based on their religious beliefs by roaming militias or just straight out being blown up by a random bomb. WHAT A CHEERY FUTURE INDEED.

you are an idiot. rather than looking at facts and then basing your opinions on them, it seems like you've got it stuck in your head that bush=good, and you're jsut trying to make excuses. suck my balls.


que bj to make me look stupid



Posted by CynicalBastard


Quoting Random: Oh while i'm on the subject about the gov't. I'm getting sick and tired of people saying "HEY IM ****ED THE GOV'T IS LISTENING INTO OUR CALLS DUR DUR DUR."

People.. What do you have to hide thats so bad? I would rather the Gov't listen into my calls just to keep me safe. Ohhh you guys must be talking to your gay lovers over the phone huh? Having phone sex huh? You embarassed the Gov't is laughing at you? Yeah I would be too..


You're completely right. In fact, people, what do you have to hide from the government in your homes? I would rather the "Gov't" (Oh, how I hate some abbreviations) watched my home (and everywhere in public too) to keep me safe. Oh, so you guys must be having sex with your gay lovers in your homes, huh? Having affairs with the neighbors, eh? You're embarassed the government is laughing at you?

Now I'm not saying I'm against or for the government listening to international calls, I'm just pointing out that if you carried out your own arguments, the government should watch everyone all the time, ("just to keep me safe") because your only (implied) arguments were that the reason people are against wire-tapping is because they have something to hide, and that the government's job is to keep its people safe, even at the cost of people's liberty. Following this out logically, the only reason that people (according to you) would be against the government watching their houses with cameras (or whatever) would be that they have something to hide. You set up a strawman of the proposers of privacy rights (by saying their only argument is that they have something to hide) while neglecting that they may have other (better) reasons for not wanting the government to be listening to or watching them. If you need help with constructing a logical argument for wire-tapping (and I'm serious, I'm not trying to insult you) there are many books and websites that can help you.

P.S. Using the words "DUR DUR DUR" doesn't help your case. Seriously.



Posted by Arwon

How can large corporate media organisations have any particular bias other than being very status-quo oriented, sensationalist in pursuit of ratings, and motivated primarility by profit? They don't look at anything in enough depth or with enough context to manifest a conscious political bias of any kind.

It's funny, CNN is seen elsewhere, even in the countries friendliest with the US, as a timid mouthpiece of the American government and yet inside the US people can get away with claiming it has a "liberal bias" whatever the f*ck that means.




Posted by Random


Quoting Lord of Spam: I home on lunch, and this faggotry ruined teh best meal ever. for this, you will die.



the national debt is now over 8 TRILLION dollars.i forget what the exact percentage is, but a rediculous amount of the national budget goes towards paying interest on that debt. not the principle, just interest. meaning that its basically dollars thrown out the window. and whats worse, the debts is increasingly owed to overseas lenders, so the money isnt even staying in america.

as for the war on terror being a success, you're a total ****wit moron. rather than having a few idiots in caves planning ****, now we've given them a cause to rally around and made it look like their insane "usa vs islam" argument has a ring of truth to it. not to mention that if you count all the dead soldiers, americans rism of terror related death has INCREASED after the invasion.

"Now the children have a brighter future to look forward to."

yeah, now they can look forward to either being killed based on their religious beliefs by roaming militias or just straight out being blown up by a random bomb. WHAT A CHEERY FUTURE INDEED.

you are an idiot. rather than looking at facts and then basing your opinions on them, it seems like you've got it stuck in your head that bush=good, and you're jsut trying to make excuses. suck my balls.


que bj to make me look stupid


The national debts been high for a long *** time. Though Clinton shortened it a little, he didn't do that much. Bush just added on, big whoop, its been there for years.

I'm not talking terrorism in Iraq, i'm talking about terrorism in the homeland. We're much safer now. Having our airports checked, stadiums checked etc etc. We're much safer now and if you don't believe that than your a ****tard.

Children do have a brighter future. Some will die yes, but Saddam killed many children in his day. Theres fact behind what I say. Look at the 3 links i've posted. Google search some. I love history and I love studying the middle east. Saddam was hurting Iraq, killing a few million of his own people. People will die in war thats a given, but we're there to try to make a difference.



Posted by mis0

Terrorism has been around forever, so didn't Al Qaeda just "add on to it?"

omfg! maybe now you see the error in your logic!




Posted by Random


Quoting Misoxeny: Terrorism has been around forever, so didn't Al Qaeda just "add on to it?"

omfg! maybe now you see the error in your logic!


Whom are you talking to? I see no error in my logic if thats what your talking about it. I even said about the Terrorism in Ireland. You confuse me Miso..



Posted by Lord of Spam


Quoting Random: The national debts been high for a long *** time. Though Clinton shortened it a little, he didn't do that much. Bush just added on, big whoop, its been there for years.

I'm not talking terrorism in Iraq, i'm talking about terrorism in the homeland. We're much safer now. Having our airports checked, stadiums checked etc etc. We're much safer now and if you don't believe that than your a ****tard.

Children do have a brighter future. Some will die yes, but Saddam killed many children in his day. Theres fact behind what I say. Look at the 3 links i've posted. Google search some. I love history and I love studying the middle east. Saddam was hurting Iraq, killing a few million of his own people. People will die in war thats a given, but we're there to try to make a difference.


Bush TRIPLED the national debt. Clinton had fixed the budget to the point where it was in a position to be lowered each year thanks to a budet surplus. And dont give that bull**** about how ZOMG WE NEED @ FUND TEH MILITARY!!1! cuz it seems to me like clintons military did a pretty good job invading afganistan.

Also, I really hope you arent saying that its okay to **** the rest of the world over so long as americans can **** back and be happy. Its **** like that which gets teh rest of the world ****ed off at us and is the source of most of the antiamerican sentiment.

And once again, iraq isnt that much better off. In fact, if anything its only closer to an all out civil war. so while there may not be one guy that you can point to and say he caused it, now theres many different groups killing. GG america no re



Posted by mis0


Quoting Random: Whom are you talking to? I see no error in my logic if thats what your talking about it. I even said about the Terrorism in Ireland. You confuse me Miso..

Well, see, if terrorism has been around forever, and Al Qaeda was just adding to it, why did we try to solve it? I mean, the national debt is something that's been around forever, but adding to it is OK?

ANYWAY, look! That military you want funded so much has essentially said this war is a failure. In fact, so many Generals and what have you have kinda made a point as crystalizing the fact that you'd have to be an idiot or a conservative to think otherwise. FACT IS, Bush 1 never invaded Baghdad because he KNEW it would be an impossible fight. Bush 2 basically just saw it as an opportunity to be awesome, and, well, the FACTS governing Bush 1's decision still are in place in Bush 2's Iraq.

So guess what? We've KNOWN for the better part of 17 years that trying to invade parts of Iraq, especially Baghdad, is an incredibly bad idea.

What are you gonna say now? Those generals are "activist generals?" "Drive-by generals?" Some other stupid Fox/Rush Limbaugh lingo? CONSIDER for a moment that maybe the whole world isn't just whiney liberals out to destroy the white man's ***-fearing America; maybe you're just WRONG.

-luv mis0



Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

I want to know why we are supposed to instill democracy in Iraq? Why? Is that some new form of manifest destiny that I hadn't heard about? Why do we have to be the cross-bearing saviors of democracy? We can't help our own people, why give a **** about Iraq? The United States is not safer now than before... now your average joe schmoe Arab has a reason to hate the US, as before he just thought we were meddling pricks




Posted by CynicalBastard


Quoting Random: Children do have a brighter future. Some will die yes, but Saddam killed many children in his day. Theres fact behind what I say. Look at the 3 links i've posted. Google search some. I love history and I love studying the middle east. Saddam was hurting Iraq, killing a few million of his own people. People will die in war thats a given, but we're there to try to make a difference.


See, the problem you run into is that even if the aid we are giving by being in Iraq counterbalances the deaths we cause by being there, its still not a justification for invasion. Many countries in the world could be better run by a representative democracy/constitutional republic, but does that alone mean that we should invade and change their governments as well? The sad fact (or some would say, the fortunate fact) is that practically, we do not have the resources to invade and reconstruct every nation that is not run the way we think it should be. So what are we to do? "Help" as many people as we can like good little utilitarians (the word help is in quotation marks because we still haven't established if we're even helping)? Anyways, I'm moving steadily away from my point: that helping other countries take down genocidal dictatoriships is a privelege, not a duty of free nations. And while I believe we do have the right to invade Iraq, (in the same sense that you have the right to help someone if you see them being mugged) I still believe we shouldn't have, because practically, we do not have excess resources with which we can arbitrarily start liberating countries (And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard the whole WMD thing was a big joke?). The cost of the Iraq War has cost the U.S. a great deal, and Bush's determination to finish the job seems evident, but before you rush into your rebuttle supporting the war, just think for a moment: what are we still doing there? Couldn't we be spending this money elsewhere?

(For an estimate of how much the war has thus far cost the U.S., I recommend this site: http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182)

Surely this much money could be better spent making education and such better within the United States or within one of our allies nations?



Posted by Arwon

Or even undertaking achievable foreign policy adventures...




Posted by Lord of Spam


Quoting Bj Blaskowitz: I want to know why we are supposed to instill democracy in Iraq? Why? Is that some new form of manifest destiny that I hadn't heard about? Why do we have to be the cross-bearing saviors of democracy? We can't help our own people, why give a **** about Iraq? The United States is not safer now than before... now your average joe schmoe Arab has a reason to hate the US, as before he just thought we were meddling pricks


but... but... you're supposed to contradict me...:(



Posted by Anti-Muffla

hey, we all voted for this war, so suck it up and stop complaining. lets just start supporting our soldiers more so this job can get done quickly and we can get them home.

You guys haven't seen what it was like over there in Iraq before. I know soldiers that say that whoever saw what the Iraqi people went through, would be 100% behind this war.




Posted by Arwon

"I guess they'd rather be alive than free. Poor bastards"

Name that movie!




Posted by Speedfreak

Starship Troopers.

[quote=Anti-Muffla]hey, we all voted for this war, so suck it up and stop complaining. lets just start supporting our soldiers more so this job can get done quickly and we can get them home.

You guys haven't seen what it was like over there in Iraq before. I know soldiers that say that whoever saw what the Iraqi people went through, would be 100% behind this war.

Maybe I'm a total n00b at this whole American politics thing, but I'm still pretty sure that not everyone voted for it. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that not one person voted for it.




Posted by Arwon

Full Metal Jacket.




Posted by Bebop


Quoting Arwon: Full Metal Jacket.


Mie sooo hawny!!



Posted by Anti-Muffla


Quoting Speedfreak: Starship Troopers.



Maybe I'm a total n00b at this whole American politics thing, but I'm still pretty sure that not everyone voted for it. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that not one person voted for it.


lol its pretty funny how u take every word so seriously, like the words "we all". as in "we all", obviously it means the majority, so i win. HA.



Posted by higbvuyb


Quoting Anti-Muffla: lol its pretty funny how u take every word so seriously, like the words "we all". as in "we all", obviously it means the majority, so i win. HA.

You win the Retard Contest, Congratulations!




As Speedfreak said, nobody voted 'for' or 'against' the war in Iraq. Even though a majoirty of peopel voted for George Bush, nobody ever voted for the Iraq war. There was no vote. George Bush just said 'Lets invade Iraq', and they invaded Iraq.



Posted by Bj Blaskowitz

dude, we voted to invade iraq. Didn't you get the memo?




Posted by specopssv44


Quoted post: Originally Posted by Bj Blaskowitz
I want to know why we are supposed to instill democracy in Iraq? Why? Is that some new form of manifest destiny that I hadn't heard about? Why do we have to be the cross-bearing saviors of democracy? We can't help our own people, why give a **** about Iraq? The United States is not safer now than before... now your average joe schmoe Arab has a reason to hate the US, as before he just thought we were meddling pricks

Not really. Were not fighting Iraqis man, there coming across the border. In ramadi, our battalion set up a no **** "terrorist hotline". A toll free ****ing number for Iraqis to call and report terrorist activities. And the Iraqi people came through bigtime, it was so succesfull that the insurgents started attacking the phone lines around the government center to put an end to it.

Whatever the case for war is were there and we gotta ride it out. **** the democrats, we didnt ask for, and we dont want the liberals to come and "save us from Iraq". If anything the government needs to loosen our leash and let us be more assertive in our tactics. Were war fighters not police officers, let us do our jobs or send the LAPD over to take our place.



Posted by higbvuyb


Quoting specopssv44: Not really. Were not fighting Iraqis man, there coming across the border. In ramadi, our battalion set up a no **** "terrorist hotline". A toll free ****ing number for Iraqis to call and report terrorist activities. And the Iraqi people came through bigtime, it was so succesfull that the insurgents started attacking the phone lines around the government center to put an end to it.

It is definitely ture that many Iraqi people dislike the insurgents (who likes people who blow stuff up in your face?), but that doesn't mean they like the US forces either. It's quite possible that many Iraqis hate the insurgents, but don't exactly love the US forces. It's just that some dislike the insurgents a lot more. They might still, as Bj says, think of the US forces as "meddling pricks" who should never have invaded in the first place.



Posted by Lord of Spam

Its always comforting to know that the people that have been sent over to act in part as the temp police force would rather just shoot at people. Thats a sure way to win popular support! After all, if everyone who doesnt like you is dead, nobody complains.




Posted by specopssv44


Quoting Lord of Spam: Its always comforting to know that the people that have been sent over to act in part as the temp police force would rather just shoot at people. Thats a sure way to win popular support! After all, if everyone who doesnt like you is dead, nobody complains.


You misunderstand me. Party my fault. Its difficult for me to put this in terms understandable to everyone, but we are being told to do things one way, when we are trained to handle them a different way. Marines are being put in situations where the appropriate response- (according to our training and the Law of War)- would warrant the use of deadly force, however, Marines in the past, and are now as we speak being punished for responding to situations with deadly force. So the higher ups start to get jumpy cause they wanna stay out of trouble, they churn out a ridiculous ROE and it leave us the guys walking down the street in a very vulnerable and volatile position.
Its like taking a pitbull, shaking up his cage, starving him for a week, then putting him in a room full of other angry dogs and expecting him not to fight.



Posted by Bebop


Quoting specopssv44: Party my fault.


You dont have to ask me twice! :cool2: :cool2: :cool2:



Posted by Lord of Spam


Quoting specopssv44: You misunderstand me. Party my fault. Its difficult for me to put this in terms understandable to everyone, but we are being told to do things one way, when we are trained to handle them a different way. Marines are being put in situations where the appropriate response- (according to our training and the Law of War)- would warrant the use of deadly force, however, Marines in the past, and are now as we speak being punished for responding to situations with deadly force. So the higher ups start to get jumpy cause they wanna stay out of trouble, they churn out a ridiculous ROE and it leave us the guys walking down the street in a very vulnerable and volatile position.
Its like taking a pitbull, shaking up his cage, starving him for a week, then putting him in a room full of other angry dogs and expecting him not to fight.


it almost sounds like going there was a bad idea:cool2:



Posted by Pit

Marines? Not on my VGC.




Posted by Arwon

Spec has a point here, but I'm not sure if it's the same point as what I'm thinking. There's actually been a lot of problems in peacekeeping/peace enforcement type scenarios with Rules of Engagment not matching the criteria of the deployment. In UN operations, it's the difference between Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 operations. In Rwanda for example, too little force was authorised while in Somalia there was too much--combat troops being used for famine relief and reacting badly when things went wrong. The problem is that too much force, or a lack of impartiality, leads to a collapse of consent, while too little force is obviously ineffective.

Even if Iraq has been a collossal cock-up there's still similarities with other peace-enforcement type deployments of the last 15 years in the basic realities of the game. At some point, consent has utterly collapsed, perhaps inevitably so because of how difficult the realities on the ground are... and so any ideas of functioning as peacekeepers is out the window. One of the lessons to be learned from all of this is, seemingly, "don't use the Marines as police" because that's not what they're for, as spec has said in his own words.

I suspect, however, that America doesn't have the right capabilities and training methods to deploy a large force primarility designed for policing and peace-enforcement, to another country, because they've simply never had to do so in the past (that and people like Rumsfeld and Bush were living in a fantasy world where they didn't really need any peace-enforcement becuase the Iraqis would be "dancing in the streets"). It's a capability gap, it comes from the fact that the idea of deploying military force to function as a police force, and as a source of order and security in a country you're trying to build peace and stability in, is a relatively new idea. Australia has a similar problem on a smaller scale in trying to keep the peace and support weak governments in various struggling Pacific Island nations--they're trying to train our Army and restructure the Federal Police to bridge this gap, but it's still a relatively a new idea.

My understanding, additionally, is that in Iraq there has been a great deal of disagreement between the American and British leaderships over their different Rules of Engagement. The Brits feel that the Americans are too gung-ho and far too quick to use deadly force and that this is detrimental to peace-enforcement, and therefore think that they should be using the British approach which has been honed in 30 or 40 years of urban combat and peace-enforcement operations in Ireland and elsewhere (they're widely acknowledged to be the most successful at these types of policing operations where consent is such a vital part of success, this goes right back to the contrasts between the relative success of the Malay Campaign and the utter disaster of Vietnam)... while the Americans obviously think the opposite about British methods. It's a problem of different training and different priorities and different ways of thinking, I guess.

I also suspect that things are now too far gone from 4 years of massive scale violence, for a simple peace-enforcement type deployment to be functional. There's effectively a civil war there now (I dunno what else you can call a situation where 100 government employees are kidnapped in broad daylight without a fight), and I'm not sure what exactly the Americans/British think they can achieve in the face of such. Seems like it's either picking a side and helping them win, or continuing to go through the motions, save face, and organising an orderly transition to "Iraqisation" and a timetabled withdrawal. My money's on the latter.




Posted by specopssv44

This may come as a shock to most of you, but Iraq is not really a peice keeping operation. Its ****ing combat. Especially in places like Ramadi and a couple other towns just south of baghdad.




Posted by Arwon

Yeah, but initially it didn't need to be. The guys running the invasion didn't think it was going to be like this, but then, they also didn't manage to create a situation stable enough so that the role of troops was peace-enforcement.

There's also the argument that given that the goals of the Iraq campaign are explicitly political--create and enforce and make accepted a certain form of government--the fact that it's down to pure combat means it's already been lost. Kinda like how Vietnam was lost because the aims of the war--political aims, the goal of achieving a stable, popular anti-communist Vietnamese regime--were impossible.




Posted by specopssv44

The reason its still dragging on in some cities is because Military Officals are being told how to run things by political officals. Like vietnam in the sense that we are fighting, but not being allowed to win. Not like Veitnam in the sense that we are battleing a small group of individuals, not half of the nation in a popular uprising.




Posted by Shade

[quote]The Economy is fine..

Come to Michigan. You'll soon realize the error of that statement.