War on Iraq Photomozaic

[Duke]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
Does the Iraqi War follow american principles?

Let's see:

• Removal of corrupt and dangerous dictator - check
• Policing for world peace because nobody else will - check
• Attempting to establish self-elected government among formerly oppressed peoples - check
• Attempting to establish relatively free-market economy among formerly oppressed peoples - check

So far it's measuring up.

 

[///M-Spec]

^ Yep; What he said

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
Well, let me ask you this. When before in U.S. history has this happened?

Even if you wanted to debate whether or not a precedent exists, it would not prove or illustrate how action in Iraq is antithetical to current US foreign policy or even popular opinion.

Besides which, most Iraqis find life better affer Hussein... so it perhaps follows an Iraqi's principle of not being brutalized by a repressive government.


M

 

[Talentless]

Follow these. They're mesmerizing.

Sanctions are bad until war is proposed, then sanctions are apparently good.>
<Although support of sanctions in part lead to the death of many, it's apparently successful and ok because it did not lead to many deaths of those outside the zone under sanctions.>
<The number of innocent deaths related to sanctions cannot be morally justified.>
<It is wrong to aid tryants no matter the reason.>
<It is wrong to take control of resources from a tryant for which one is in part responsible for, but the tryant should still not be removed except through diplomatic means.>
<Although diplomacy may only lead to slight alleviation of a peoples' suffering in their present, not hypothetical, situation, it is wholly superior even if it remains so for 30 years.

Conclusion: We supported him but should do little against him but for what the UN says. But if the UN maintains the status quo that we are so largely faulted for maintaining, as it is bad, that's ok. Well, we "own" the UN so it's not ok, or it is.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
Grow Up.

Oh, the irony. Anyway, I guess it's better than growing out

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Talentless
Follow these. They're mesmerizing.

Sanctions are bad until war is proposed, then sanctions are apparently good.>
<Although support of sanctions in part lead to the death of many, it's apparently successful and ok because it did not lead to many deaths of those outside the zone under sanctions.>
<The number of innocent deaths related to sanctions cannot be morally justified.>
<It is wrong to aid tryants no matter the reason.>
<It is wrong to take control of resources from a tryant for which one is in part responsible for, but the tryant should still not be removed except through diplomatic means.>
<Although diplomacy may only lead to slight alleviation of a peoples' suffering in their present, not hypothetical, situation, it is wholly superior even if it remains so for 30 years.

Cool! 👍

Oh, and grow up!

 

[Talentless]

Goo goo gah gah. Btw, is that cool as in it was mesmerizing or were you agreeing with me?

 

[ExigeEvan]

At least, for now, it doesn't seem that Bush is going to repeat what happened in Vietnam. Where the Americans almost disappeared over night.
The other question is, will America find another country in need of help? If so, how soon, and would they America be willing to go forwared alone as some countries, certainly Britain, have exhausted all their money, equipment and personel in this occupation.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Talentless
Goo goo gah gah. Btw, is that cool as in it was mesmerizing or were you agreeing with me?

I thought it was a good synopsis of the irony and totally predictable failure of diplomacy with Iraq.

 

[Talentless]

Ok. It was mostly an observation of leftwing arguments on the matter.

 

[Seito4Counter]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Let's see:

• Removal of corrupt and dangerous dictator - check
• Policing for world peace because nobody else will - check
• Attempting to establish self-elected government among formerly oppressed peoples - check
• Attempting to establish relatively free-market economy among formerly oppressed peoples - check

So far it's measuring up.

Are you high? Do you realize how messed up Iraq is after this invasion? Do you realize that it is not the U.S. role to police the world, as that would have America presume to be morally and ethically superior to the rest of the world?

If you are going to create free market economies, why not try and finish what you started with those former communist block countries? You are so naive to the effects of war that it gives me a pain in my stomach. Maybe you should go to Iraq and see those American principles at work.

 

[eightfivezero]

Somehow it seems that some people forgot what the real aims of Bush were, when he started this war...

Anyways, I honestly don't care about what Reuters says, when I ask the Iraqi people, I know, who live here in Germany, how they feel about what happens there. No one in the US gives a da*n about the civilians, no one gives a da*n about the Iraqi soldiers who were forced to fight against Americans and died etc. pp.
Pretty sad, what Bush achieves with his weekly propaganda radio shows.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, that I have to second what Seito 4 Counter said/wrote.

 

[Dave A]

Not to get into an big argument, I would be against the war for the following reasons.
It was on the basis that Saddam had WMD, these WMD are non-existent.
It was against the UN.
Without the WMD there was no imminent threat as claimed, in which case, what right does another country have to change another countries goverment.
The oil fields were a factor, no matter what anyone say's.
I would be for it because.
It removed an evil dictator.
It has led to the country getting back onto the path of re-gaining order.

I sit on the fenc in most political goverment decisions, but the war was illegal, it has done some good, but it has done some bad as well, like all thoes people praying in that mosque when it was blown up, I don't care if there was a couple of people with guns inside, over 40 people praying were killed which annoys me, because the innocents get killed, right now they are being killed by both sides. As I said, I'm pretty much on the fence, there are more reasons why I would be against, but the removal of Saddam and adding order are two very good reasons for. I'd like to see some non-argumentative views no this.

 

[Talentless]

Almost no one listens to his radio address. Besides, the Democrats get a say immediately after, and if they aren't coincidentally on the same subject the Dems have other chances. Albeit coincidence may only play a minor role as each party can usually guess what the other will talk about.

I'm fascinated that you think so many of us are duped by a 15 minute radio address at 10:00 in the morning, or whenever.

 

[eightfivezero]

Excuse me, seems like I've been misinformed then.
You get to read weird stuff in some newspapers over here. Thought the resonance on his radio show was big.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by ExigeExcel
At least, for now, it doesn't seem that Bush is going to repeat what happened in Vietnam. Where the Americans almost disappeared over night.

I wonder if anyone currently drawing a parallel between Iraq and Vietnam actually know anything about the Vietnam War? I wager almost nothing except that a lot of people died.

Let me highlight some major differences:

-Supporters of the old Hussein regime does not have support of a major industrialized communist power. Without the assistance of China and North Vietnam, the Viet Cong would not have lasted anywhere near as long as they did. Syria and Iran is not the same as China and North Vietnam. The Fedayeen Saddam is not the same as the VC.

-There is signifigant public support for the Iraq war in the US. There was very little support for the war in Vietnam.

-Many operations in Vietnam were quagmired under strict rules of engagment that limited usefulness of combat deployments. The US pulled a lot of punches in 'Nam. Some people went as far to say it was a war the US did not let itself win because it risked dragging China into it, sparking a nuclear crisis. Many of those political situations do not exist in Iraq.

-EDIT. Terrain in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia also greatly favor a guerilla war. A flat desert, predicatably, does not. Especially when coalition forces see in the dark. In addition, the people of Vietnam had hundreds of years of experience in resisting occupying foreign forces (China, France, Japan, etc). The were already good at fighting wars in the jungle, after the Vietminh defeated the French at Dien Bien Phu.

-We are a lot better at this sort of thing now. A lot better. After all, we did learn a thing or two.



M

 

[Seito4Counter]

Actually.. radio is fairly prominent. Could you drudge up the listener statistics? (talentless)

(Note) There are some major differences between Iraq and Vietnam. But like Vietnam, Iraq won't turn out as intended. The U.S.. rather no one is equipped to subdue a population. Doesn't work. As far as support, you don't need that much. They have food, and plenty of guns.

 

[Talentless]

In fairness, I was presuming. If you knew Americans like I do, I think you'd be inclined to agree with me. I will correct my presumption if proven statistically false. Though I don't know where such data is located.

 

[Seito4Counter]

I honestly don't know either way. I just know that there are some hardcore right wingers that are pretty popular.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
(Note) There are some major differences between Iraq and Vietnam. But like Vietnam, Iraq won't turn out as intended. The U.S.. rather no one is equipped to subdue a population. Doesn't work. As far as support, you don't need that much. They have food, and plenty of guns.

Two major fallacies exist in this post. For one, the US is not attempting to subdue an entire population. The mission is to help Iraqis govern their own country. You make it sound like the entire country is arming themselves for a guerilla war. It is not.

Second, you display zero credibility to assess whether or not this will succeed. You only comment on this because you don't want it to succeed.


M

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
Are you high? Do you realize how messed up Iraq is after this invasion? Do you realize that it is not the U.S. role to police the world,

Are you high? How come every time something bad happens we are expected to go and save the day? Countries literally beg America to come and save them.

as that would have America presume to be morally and ethically superior to the rest of the world?

Only morally superior to dictatorships with rape rooms, dictatorships that gases it's own citizens, dictatorships that executes dissidents, etc.

If you are going to create free market economies, why not try and finish what you started with those former communist block countries?

This is utter rubbish. What the hell are you talking about?

You are so naive to the effects of war that it gives me a pain in my stomach. Maybe you should go to Iraq and see those American principles at work.

I personally, am not naive at all. I've spent a lot of time over many years thinking and reading and learning about war and history through the perspective of wars. This was was inevitable, as all of them were.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by eightfivezero
Somehow it seems that some people forgot what the real aims of Bush were, when he started this war...

To get Saddam and his sons out of power? Hmm. The fact that nobody has found WMD is inconsequential. It is second rate fodder for liberals who already hated Bush.

Anyways, I honestly don't care about what Reuters says, when I ask the Iraqi people, I know, who live here in Germany, how they feel about what happens there.

Maybe they should go to Iraq and see for themselves. If Iraq was so great why are they in Germany?

No one in the US gives a da*n about the civilians,

Wait. Where did you hear that. I care. I don't know a person who doesn't care.

no one gives a da*n about the Iraqi soldiers who were forced to fight against Americans and died

Who forced them? Saddam had a very simple solution to avoid war and he continued to **** around. We'll see how long before anyone tries something like that again. Not to mention the

Pretty sad, what Bush achieves with his weekly propaganda radio shows.

What station? When? I've never heard them.

EDIT: Just wanted to add, that I have to second what Seito 4 Counter said/wrote.

Well, DUH!

 

[Talentless]

He's referring to President Bush's weekly radio address. Some broadcast stations air it, as does C-span radio. Perhaps C-span tv too.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by live4speed
Not to get into an big argument, I would be against the war for the following reasons.
It was on the basis that Saddam had WMD, these WMD are non-existent.

That was one part of it. Nobody ever mentions the fact that Saddam had 13 years to comply with the UN and failed to even indicate that he might be willing to.

It was against the UN.

The UN is against itself. America is the only UN member who actually carried out the resolution. France and Germany would rather see Iraqi civilians die and starve for another 13 years to avoid a war.

Without the WMD there was no imminent threat as claimed, in which case, what right does another country have to change another countries goverment.

To the extent that they are capable and justified. What does a dictator have to do to get kicked out? Anything?

The oil fields were a factor, no matter what anyone say's.

Of course it was. Iraq's only resource is oil. Duh.

I would be for it because.
It removed an evil dictator.
It has led to the country getting back onto the path of re-gaining order.

As if this wasn't enough. SOme people talk like it would be better for Saddam to be in power and oil-for-food to still be padding the pockets of Saddam and his buddies while the country starves.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
no one is equipped to subdue a population.

The population does not need to be subdued. A handful of paramilitary geurillas need to be exterminated. The vast Majority of Iraqis are much better off and they know it.

Many of them are complaining, and that all revolves around how inconvenient it must be for them, and I don't blame them.

 

[Seito4Counter]

Originally posted by ///M-Spec
Two major fallacies exist in this post. For one, the US is not attempting to subdue an entire population. The mission is to help Iraqis govern their own country. You make it sound like the entire country is arming themselves for a guerilla war. It is not.

Second, you display zero credibility to assess whether or not this will succeed. You only comment on this because you don't want it to succeed.


M

You don't know what I want or don't want. I didn't want the war to happen at all. Secondly, the country is armed already. Its a really common tactic that you put weapons depots around a country for the militia to go to, and yes there are pockets of organized resistance. The U.S. is trying to subdue not necessarily all Iraqis (obviously) but a demographic.. what the do you think they were doing in Fallujah? It's not going to succeed because once the U.S. is gone, people will vie for power. That's how it works. That's how it's happened in revolts time and time again, and it's how its going to happen in Iraq, any expert would say that. Either a policing force stays in Iraq perpetually, and there is perpetual fighting, or the country has a civil war.

Also, milefile. I was talking about eastern european countries.. you know, poland, belarus, baltic states, etc.. don't know your history very well, or what? You seem to be the worst kind of American. You presume to be better than others, ignore your own faults, are fairly ignorant about the geopolitical scene, and have little respect it seems for human life.

Sounds like you just repeat what you hear on a press release from Atilla the Rum. Why don't you guys go wave an american flag or something.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter


Also, milefile. I was talking about eastern european countries.. you know, poland, belarus, baltic states, etc.. don't know your history very well, or what? You seem to be the worst kind of American. You presume to be better than others, ignore your own faults, are fairly ignorant about the geopolitical scene, and have little respect it seems for human life.

Sounds like you just repeat what you hear on a press release from Atilla the Rum.

Again, utter garbage.

Answer the question: How are Eastern Europe's former communist dictatorships America's fault?

I like this part best

You seem to be the worst kind of American. You presume to be better than others, ignore your own faults, are fairly ignorant about the geopolitical scene, and have little respect it seems for human life.

So very entertaining.

Now, ANSWER THE QUESTION.

 

[milefile]

By the way, Poland absolutely LOVES us.

 

[Solid Fro]

Originally posted by Seito4Counter
Sounds like you just repeat what you hear on a press release from Atilla the Rum.

Sounds like you spew what you hear from that Liberal bull **** I hear every day.

 

[eightfivezero]

Originally posted by milefile
To get Saddam and his sons out of power? Hmm. The fact that nobody has found WMD is inconsequential. It is second rate fodder for liberals who already hated Bush.


Wait. Where did you hear that. I care. I don't know a person who doesn't care.


Who forced them? Saddam had a very simple solution to avoid war and he continued to **** around. We'll see how long before anyone tries something like that again. Not to mention the


What station? When? I've never heard them.


Well, DUH!

Do I have to answer? Nah, not really. Got better things to do than wasting my time with talkin' to some narrowminded persons who really believe the **** which is coming out of Bush's mouth everyday.

Have a good day,

 

[Solid Fro]

You should have never posted in a discussion if you are to scared to reply back. If you can't back it up, then leave.

Narrow-minded? Look who's talking.