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!

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

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.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

Last edited by imokruok on Jun-30-2004 at 03:40

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.