TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- quick question.
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

quick question.

are we fighting for oil? or Iraqi democracy? and when did either oil or democracy become the main goal over terrorism?

where are all those n00bs comming from? yoepus, save us

here's a similair topic that was posted today....

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...threadid=192055

better an inquiring n00b than an apathetic ignorant

These are subjective questions that will elicit different responses from almost anyone you ask. Do the thinking yourself and come to a defensible conclusion.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue better an inquiring n00b than an apathetic ignorant

hehe, dude take it easy welcome to the poltical forum i was just kidding, although there has been many of those questions latly :S so i was kinda serious too

yea.

If you want to ask a question that is hinting at open-ended at least make it open ended.

Don't say, what do you think is the reason... Do you believe it is A or B?

I don't believe in neither A or B, I'll take C.

I still believe the war in Iraq is being fought against terror. I think the proof is in the terror there. A victory in Iraq over terror is a victory for the West over terror. Bush simply decided to put the battle in their backyard instead of the USA.

If a battle has to be fought against terror, I sure as hell prefer it being fought over that as opposed to here.


Anyway.. shoo! shoo!

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus yea. If you want to ask a question that is hinting at open-ended at least make it open ended. Don't say, what do you think is the reason... Do you believe it is A or B? I don't believe in neither A or B, I'll take C. I still believe the war in Iraq is being fought against terror. I think the proof is in the terror there. A victory in Iraq over terror is a victory for the West over terror. Bush simply decided to put the battle in their backyard instead of the USA. If a battle has to be fought against terror, I sure as hell prefer it being fought over that as opposed to here. Anyway.. shoo! shoo!

That's a kinda skewed logic. If the terror is there now, that really doesn't mean it was there earlier on. Sure, Saddam's regime hated the US as much as Al Quaeda does. But they more concerned with fighting each other, and Saddam was really too smart to organize big terrorist acts like the one on 9-11, because he knew the retaliation would surely come. The only thing this war has done is the creation of another fertile ground for Al Quaeda operatives. If human rights and US security were the issue, then the US forces would have invaded Sudan for example, because it is a country with a huge starvation crisis, as well as it supports Al Quaeda operations.

Re: quick question.

quote:

Originally posted by Omega_Blue are we fighting for oil? or Iraqi democracy? and when did either oil or democracy become the main goal over terrorism?

look its a puppet

im jking btw

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 That's a kinda skewed logic. If the terror is there now, that really doesn't mean it was there earlier on. Sure, Saddam's regime hated the US as much as Al Quaeda does. But they more concerned with fighting each other, and Saddam was really too smart to organize big terrorist acts like the one on 9-11, because he knew the retaliation would surely come. The only thing this war has done is the creation of another fertile ground for Al Quaeda operatives. If human rights and US security were the issue, then the US forces would have invaded Sudan for example, because it is a country with a huge starvation crisis, as well as it supports Al Quaeda operations.

Fact is Al Qaeda is comprised mostly of Arab born terrorists. Attacking Sudan would not have an effect there.

The case is not made necessairly that terror was there before (altough I mantain that the true reason of invasion was to disrupt an uneasy status quo that existed with a madman like Saddam. The reasoning is it was better to remove him than not knowing). But the fact of the matter, and as I predicted and many others before the war - the terrorist would come to Iraq. And they did. They did because Iraq was an Arab country, it was close to its financial base (Saudi Arabia), and it struck the heart of the fanatical ideals. A true struggle over the future of Iraq between Islamo-facisim and democracy.

It is this battle that the terrorist are now focusing on, and I am very happy it is this battle instead of another.

That was the point.


And despite naysayers I believe the West is winning in Iraq and will triumph in the end. It is only a matter of time. A long time.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus It is this battle that the terrorist are now focusing on, and I am very happy it is this battle instead of another. That was the point.

I think that's a very good way to look at the situation. We've all heard phrases like 'the war on terror isn't a real war because terror doesn't have a state.' Well, terror still doesn't "have" a state, but they're all heading to Iraq to fight, so for all practical purposes, now we know where they are...much more so than we did before.

This is a far better scenario for Europe too. After the Middle East, they're next on the general insurgency list. With France, Belgium, the Netherlands and a few other places pushing over 10% Muslim population, if there's some widescale jihad, that's the next logical place it will be. After all, this is where all of the major arrests have been recently, and all have had plans for European strikes (Paris metro, Belgian synagogue bombs, etc.)

As long as the jihadists are kept occupied in Iraq, I think the rest of the world is better off. And if by some chance the democracy really works out, it will make the whole religion better off.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Fact is Al Qaeda is comprised mostly of Arab born terrorists. Attacking Sudan would not have an effect there.

Isn't the north part of Sudan mostly arab? Nevertheless, they are kindly giving haven to AQ whenever they get the chance.

quote:

The case is not made necessairly that terror was there before (altough I mantain that the true reason of invasion was to disrupt an uneasy status quo that existed with a madman like Saddam. The reasoning is it was better to remove him than not knowing). But the fact of the matter, and as I predicted and many others before the war - the terrorist would come to Iraq. And they did. They did because Iraq was an Arab country, it was close to its financial base (Saudi Arabia), and it struck the heart of the fanatical ideals. A true struggle over the future of Iraq between Islamo-facisim and democracy. It is this battle that the terrorist are now focusing on, and I am very happy it is this battle instead of another. That was the point.

Well, yeah, but in my opinion it was better to leave the status quo since it pretty much left the two madmen fight on between each other. The focus should have been put on the side that can currently do more damage, and that is AQ.

quote:

And despite naysayers I believe the West is winning in Iraq and will triumph in the end. It is only a matter of time. A long time.

We'll see. I hope you're right.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok This is a far better scenario for Europe too. After the Middle East, they're next on the general insurgency list. With France, Belgium, the Netherlands and a few other places pushing over 10% Muslim population, if there's some widescale jihad, that's the next logical place it will be. After all, this is where all of the major arrests have been recently, and all have had plans for European strikes (Paris metro, Belgian synagogue bombs, etc.)

You're kinda assuming here that an average European muslim is the same sort of person as the average middle eastern sabre waving jihad muslim, which is not the case. European muslims are generally normal people.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Isn't the north part of Sudan mostly arab? Nevertheless, they are kindly giving haven to AQ whenever they get the chance.

I don't know. Maybe - I don't think so though. Obviously there is a bit of inbreeding.

The question is not whether Sudan was supporting AQ but would AQ support Sudan if a war happened. Perhaps yes, but I feel not as vehemently as they have done in Iraq.

Further the choice is quiet cleared when you are forced to "do something" to an Arab nation.

Iraq was just the no-brainer obvious target. Sure you could go for Sudan, an easy target - with no external threat - not developing WMD - just helping terrorist here and there and butchering their own kind. But with Saddam the fear was as above, and the fact that he had WMD, he had a very important geo-political position, and had defyed the west for a decade.

Reigning him in, in retrospect will not look as bad as it does to many of you.

quote:

Well, yeah, but in my opinion it was better to leave the status quo since it pretty much left the two madmen fight on between each other. The focus should have been put on the side that can currently do more damage, and that is AQ.

Can you imagine a world where the status quo of pre-war Iraq existed? I can not. I do not believe there would have been any great triumphs for America and AQ would be left with free time to create more bombs in Madrid, Turkey, and the USA.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Further the choice is quiet cleared when you are forced to "do something" to an Arab nation.

using that logic, afganistan should have been enough.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Can you imagine a world where the status quo of pre-war Iraq existed? I can not. I do not believe there would have been any great triumphs for America and AQ would be left with free time to create more bombs in Madrid, Turkey, and the USA.

Just curious - why would that be hard to imagine? Prior to conjuring up our war plans to invade Iraq, both Powell and Rice were on record saying that Saddam was effectively contained, and that he posed no serious threat.

Personally, I could care less about great triumphs for us - I would have preferred to concentrate our intelligence and military forces on the true enemy that attacked us on our own soil. The triumphs that would be given would be a world more focused on the true enemy (AQ), rather than trying to figure out why the hell we got ourselves in a mess in Iraq. I can't help but agree with the anonymous CIA intelligence author - we played right into Bin Laden's hands by invading Iraq.


But alas, we can't even capture their leader. How much of a triumph is that?

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew using that logic, afganistan should have been enough.

see note regarding Sudan.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Just curious - why would that be hard to imagine? Prior to conjuring up our war plans to invade Iraq, both Powell and Rice were on record saying that Saddam was effectively contained, and that he posed no serious threat. Personally, I could care less about great triumphs for us - I would have preferred to concentrate our intelligence and military forces on the true enemy that attacked us on our own soil. The triumphs that would be given would be a world more focused on the true enemy (AQ), rather than trying to figure out why the hell we got ourselves in a mess in Iraq. I can't help but agree with the anonymous CIA intelligence author - we played right into Bin Laden's hands by invading Iraq. But alas, we can't even capture their leader. How much of a triumph is that?

Why is it so hard for you believe that the mightiest army this planet has ever seen, trained to fight on two massive fronts for the past 60 years is incapable of handling two ridicilously small conflicts at the same time?

For a nation the size of the USA who has ventured into large campagins during the world wars, Vietnam, and the first gulf war, why is it so hard to understand that the USA can fight two wars at the same time with no disadvantage?

Surely the state department is big enough, handling the diplomacy of two campagins should not conflict either.


Perhaps Saddam was contained. But Bush was not convienced. After September 11th he wasn't a betting man either.

Guess what? Neither am I.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Why is it so hard for you believe that the mightiest army this planet has ever seen, trained to fight on two massive fronts for the past 60 years is incapable of handling two ridicilously small conflicts at the same time? For a nation the size of the USA who has ventured into large campagins during the world wars, Vietnam, and the first gulf war, why is it so hard to understand that the USA can fight two wars at the same time with no disadvantage?

Well let's agree with some definitions. If you mean fighting a war in the sense of the primary goal of toppling the enemy's regime - then yes I would certainly agree. If this is Bush's and Rummy's definition when referring to fighting 2 wars at once, then yes I would certainly agree.

But I believe much more is at play here than just toppling a regime, including fighting insurgents, terrorist networks infiltrating the borders, overall resentment throughout the entire region, etc. etc. What's more, enemy #1 has come into the region and teamed up with enemy #2 (post invasion, mind you), both with the common goal/adversary in mind (us).

This is a unique situation, and I believe drawing upon our past war histories will not draw a cogent parallel to this particular situation we are in.

quote:

Surely the state department is big enough, handling the diplomacy of two campagins should not conflict either.

Not so much of a conflict, but intelligent resources being drawn away is well known. Now I'm NOT saying that Al Qaeda and Bin Laden was neglected - but certain intelligence agencies and agents were most certainly diverted away from AQ. To me, that was a mistake.

quote:

Perhaps Saddam was contained. But Bush was not convienced. After September 11th he wasn't a betting man either.

I won't deny the fact that Saddam was a pain in the ass, and had to be dealt with sooner or later. Clinton was getting tired of his bullshit too. But I disagree strongly with the absolute necessity of dealing with Saddam NOW. I also strongly disagree with somehow fallaciously tying him to the overall terrorist problem, when we should have been concentrating on the real problem and the real culprit of 9/11 altogether. I further disagree strongly with how we dealt with him via invasion without UN inspectors completing their mission. I still fail to understand what exactly our hurry was there.

quote:

Guess what? Neither am I.

I respect your opinion. I just happen to disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Why is it so hard for you believe that the mightiest army this planet has ever seen, trained to fight on two massive fronts for the past 60 years is incapable of handling two ridicilously small conflicts at the same time? For a nation the size of the USA who has ventured into large campagins during the world wars, Vietnam, and the first gulf war, why is it so hard to understand that the USA can fight two wars at the same time with no disadvantage? Surely the state department is big enough, handling the diplomacy of two campagins should not conflict either. Perhaps Saddam was contained. But Bush was not convienced. After September 11th he wasn't a betting man either. Guess what? Neither am I.

GEN Shinsheki, the former Army Chief of Staff saw the same scenario and voiced his opinions before Congress and before the onset of war, but was booed out by the Rumsfeld gang. Basically he understood that it would take far fewer forces to destroy any organized resistance than it would to occupy a country like Afghanistan or Iraq afterwards. There's no question the US can defeat any organized land force on earth pretty handily. The question is that once the ass whipping is over, how many casualties can we afford to take during occupation before the politicians believe their goals are met and are willing to pull our forces back. Our troops merely do what the politicians want. If they want annihilation, no problem. If they want to change a society, they are ill equipped to make that happen; they can only provide security whilst someone else does it.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I further disagree strongly with how we dealt with him via invasion without UN inspectors completing their mission. I still fail to understand what exactly our hurry was there.

What i dont see nor understand is what exactly was the point of the UN inspectors during the recent time period.

We know sadamn was a irritation to the world and had been.

People tend to argue:

1)He was no threat to anyone and had half the army he had..etc etc


Counter:

1)So is this World suppose to just pull out inspectors since they checked this badboy and saw nothing bad....for the time being?

Were we suppose to just let saddam just relax and Slowly rebuild for years to come To once again do...

1)Iran-Iraq war

2)Attacks on Iraqi Kurds (cyanide gas was used to kill children and innocent civilians)


were these crimes to be forgiven or forgotten?

3)Invasion of Kuwait

4)Scud attacks on Israel

5)Killings, persecution and torture (270 mass graves across Iraq which are believed to hold the remains of possibly tens of thousands of people)

6)UN inspections (yea he defied un inspections in the 1990s)


However just because UN inspectations were allowed...he was not to be held accountable now? or never?

How about we just let him rebuild since we didnt find anything

Maybe when he striked again down the road maybe 10years from now........

*btw that list is the charges that he is being held accountable for today*
Some people tend to just look at the sadamn from 2003 but never realize the saddam that has always been.
The timing of the war may have not been good but lets just be happy that another dictator was put away.
Maybe this way we can close down osama bin laden's foxhole since
Fighting a war against terrorists and one man is not a war to be fought on the flanks.

Busy at the keyboard again Speed? HAAAHAA! How the hell are you?

quote:

Originally posted by emander Busy at the keyboard again Speed? HAAAHAA! How the hell are you?

doing fine

lol


and u?

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec doing fine lol and u?

Hooah! Upholding Infantry standards!

quote:

Originally posted by speedracer_mec What i dont see nor understand is what exactly was the point of the UN inspectors during the recent time period.

The point of the UN inspectors was to see whether or not Saddam had WMD - our primary reason for going to war. It was the primary reason why our Congress was convinced to give the President authorative war powers, the primary reason why the Press was convinced we should be at war, and of course the primary reason why the public was convinced we should be at war. I remember that time quite well - Condoleeeeeeza Rice talking about a mushroom cloud; Cheney telling us that there is no doubt that Saddam has constituted WMD and has intentions on using them, Bush himself that Saddam's WMD posed a grave and serious threat to us, etc. etc. etc.

It was the duty of the UN weapons inspectors to find these WMD and help disarm Saddam. Christ, we were the ones that agreed to send them there in the first place.

But of course, they were not finding what Bush wanted/needed them to find. And so the story goes that Saddam must have been playing games with us and hiding them out the back door while the inspectors were coming through the front. Hence, the invasion.

Hence, no WMD yet.

quote:

We know sadamn was a irritation to the world and had been. People tend to argue: 1)He was no threat to anyone and had half the army he had..etc etc Counter: 1)So is this World suppose to just pull out inspectors since they checked this badboy and saw nothing bad....for the time being?

Easy there buddy. No need to shout. I find very few, if anyone, even the most hardcore liberals who would agree with your first premise. There is a distinction between being a threat to someone, and being a threat to everyone. Of course he was a threat to someone, of course no one will deny that he's killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.

The difficulty with this argument, however, is that we had known about Saddam killing his own people for decades now. In fact, in the '80's, we were trying to cajole him into building a pipeline through his country, AT THE SAME TIME WHILE KNOWING DAMN WELL THAT HE GASSED AND MURDERED THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE. Saddam was actually reassured by none other than Donald Rumsfeld that his actions of gassing his people will only receive a condemnation, nothing more. We wanted his business in the '80's. When he turned us down, we immediately looked at him in a different light.

I honestly do not have much of a problem with us going to war for humanitarian reasons. I think this is a very noble worthwhile battle to fight across the globe. The trouble is, this was NOT the reason why we went to war, and for you or any other conservative to try to say otherwise is purely revisionist history. Our primary concern was the supposed threat Saddam posed to US and our country.

If we are to go to war and send troops to fight humanitarian battles, I assume you are aware of the millions of lives we could have saved in the Congo. I'll also assume you are aware of the potential hundreds of thousands of lives we need to save NOW in Sudan. Where has our troops been? Again, I'll grant you that the humanitarian battle is worth the fight, but don't for a second try to kid me or yourself that this was the reason why we went to Iraq. Personally, I wouldn't have minded it so much IF Bush tried to sell this war for humanitarian reasons. I think the public may have actually caught on and bought it. Bush would have also had the added bonus of no misleading evidence to support his cause, like he does now with WMD. But as it stands now, we know full well that this Administration filtered out contradictory evidence to bolster their case primarily on the WMD threat. For more on that affair, Seymour Hersh's "The Stovepipe" is an excellent read:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031027fa_fact

Bush's fatal mistake was listening to much to the warmongering neo-cons. They were willing to go to whatever lengths necessary, even at the cost of misleading evidence, to go to war. I know you haven't been around the Political Forums for very long, but I highly recommend doing a search on neoconservatives and "Project for a New American Century". Specifically, look for Vesa's posts - everyone here would agree he is easily the knowledgable poster on this subject.

quote:

Were we suppose to just let saddam just relax and Slowly rebuild for years to come To once again do... 1)Iran-Iraq war

Which we helped contribute to both sides. That is a stain on Reagan's resume, BTW......

quote:

2)Attacks on Iraqi Kurds (cyanide gas was used to kill children and innocent civilians) were these crimes to be forgiven or forgotten?

Which Reagan's Administration slapped him on the wrist and still wanted his business (well, actually it was Bechtel).

quote:

3)Invasion of Kuwait

You honestly think with our restraints on his ass, no fly zones, etc. that Saddam was going to try to invade another country anytime soon? I think you would be hardpressed to find very many intelligence agents that would agree with you here, but I may very well be wrong.

quote:

4)Scud attacks on Israel

Did any Scud attacks occur before Gulf War I? If not, my same response from #3 applies here as well.

quote:

5)Killings, persecution and torture (270 mass graves across Iraq which are believed to hold the remains of possibly tens of thousands of people)

I do concede this point. If only Bush had tried to sell us this reason over that supposed "serious" WMD threat...

I also want to add that we did not in any way rule out diplomatic pressure, or any other possibilities for getting Saddam out of power. I'm on record in this forum for saying that I even went as far as agreeing with sending our troops over to Iraq and have our guns pointed at Saddam's head while the UN inspectors perform their jobs that we asked them to do. The trouble is, we will never know if all avenues were explored before our first bomb was dropped.

quote:

6)UN inspections (yea he defied un inspections in the 1990s)

No doubt, but it certainly didn't help our case by having undercover CIA officers posing as inspectors - which was against sanctions. Saddam knew who they were, we eventually confessed, and that was that.

quote:

However just because UN inspectations were allowed...he was not to be held accountable now? or never?

We covered this point. I'd merely be repeating myself here.

quote:

How about we just let him rebuild since we didnt find anything Maybe when he striked again down the road maybe 10years from now........

It's well known that Clinton was getting tired of Saddam's bullshit too. Something was going to eventually get done. And look, I have no problem with Bush being the one doing the dirty deed.

But it was how Bush handled the job is what really pisses me off about this Administration. Not only were we sold on a farce threat (based on selective, dated intelligence), but we didn't have a God damn clue as to what to do AFTER we conquered Saddam's regime. As a result, we're in a real fucking cleanup mess, and to top things off - the area just became a gigantic magnet for terrorists (like our #1 foe Al Qaeda).

To me this is problem describes this admistration to a "T" - selective data mining to fit their agendas, and too much idealism with little practicality to support it.

quote:

*btw that list is the charges that he is being held accountable for today*

True, which is partially why we probably handed him over to his people, rather than attempt to prosecute him ourselves. It would look rather strange, given the fact that we contributed to his WMD arsenal, turned a blind eye to gassing and committing genocide to his own people, and the fact that Bush Sr. didn't finish the job the first time.

quote:

Some people tend to just look at the sadamn from 2003 but never realize the saddam that has always been.

You mean the Saddam that we aided in abetted in his genocide and WMD arsenal? I agree. But don't fall into the selective memory pit, please.

quote:

The timing of the war may have not been good but lets just be happy that another dictator was put away.

No one disputes the fact that it's a good thing he is gone.

quote:

Maybe this way we can close down osama bin laden's foxhole since Fighting a war against terrorists and one man is not a war to be fought on the flanks.

Quite true. I only wish our troops and intelligence were more focused on Al Qaeda this whole time - perhaps we could have had Osama by now. But taking down Osama does not in any way stop Al Qaeda. They are a very loose knit organization with a real dissociation amongst their terrorist cells. We have a global battle to fight, and unfortunately this Iraqi War has only made that global battle against Al Qaeda worse. I just bought "Imperial Hubris", which is a book about an anonymous, 22-year CIA intelligence veteran who ran the Counterterrorist Center's bin Laden station from '96-'99, and this is exactly his premise.

Well, actually he's no longer "anonymous":

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news...t_id=1000557752

Hey! The topic of the thread was "Quick Question". That means "Quick Answer". Come on, Opus!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Hey! The topic of the thread was "Quick Question". That means "Quick Answer". Come on, Opus!

Oops, sorry. Here ya go:

Bush is a wiener.

I'm done.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.