The Price of Victory

  • News
  • Thread starter Art
  • Start date
  • #26
marlon said:
War isn't irrelevant.



Well, that is your opinion. I can just as easily say that you are not able to come up with arguments, proving that the US-saving of Iraq is illegal. Plants to build WMD were found in Iraq, just no WMD. But than again, why are you forgetting about what kind of 'man' Saddam was ? That is a pretty convincing argument to me.


marlon
Okay, take your conviction and now prove to me just how evenly it has been applied. Mugabe ... where is the even handed application of this 'justice'. Then we have this character Cheney in half the regimes with nasties and we find out those neutorn pulse generators he sold to Ghadaffi were used as detonators in his Nuclear program... Remember, this was the guy who was babysat for 20 years while they KNEW he supported terrorism.

Tell me how you can have one country give all of the biologicals and the dual use technology and then condemn the man for producing them.

Iran wants the USA to stand trial with Saddam for what was done. Do you think there is adequate defence to justify this not happening?
 
  • #27
3,763
9
Anttech said:
Say Belgium next time, I am sure if you re-read your post you will find you said:
Sorry but you are mistaken. The part where i mentioned western europe was on the fact that terror will be more successful here nowadays because of stringent internal US security policy. You really should reread my first post here.


Firstly Italy never had a empire after the Romans (~2000 years ago if you didnt know)
Yeah, so ? are you saying that Italy never had a colony ? Please, say yes :wink: And besides, if you compare the dates at which these colonies were handed over and if you compare then to the date at which Congo was handed over, you will conclude that your point is invalid.

Besides, why are you always mentioning Leopold two ? You do not know of anybody else or another country that has had colonies.

Besides, you refer to the Roman empire on " a 2000 years ago"-timeline. this is a classic mistake when engaging in the science of history. The Roman empire from the early days was not the same as that at the end of this era. it was different on various scales as politics, ethics, philosophy, colonies :rofl: , magnitude. You do know that, do you ?

By the time Leopold started raping the Congo, The Netherland UK and Frances idea of colonising was to give back to the colones,
Well this is inconsistent with historical facts and besides, what is your point here ? Does this action justify the deads of millions of people ? Besides, the French have been dominating others since the middle ages, so i think it is nearly fair they gave up their colonies earlier. :rofl:

Besides, why are not talking about the Spanish and the Portugese ? They whiped out entire civilizations ? really, your point on Leopold the second is childish because you refuse to look at what other countries did.

Al-queda and Iraq are NOT synonomus... pft...
Really, how can you be so sure ?

The increase of terrorism is a consquence of Iraq,
Think about these words for a while will you ? So you are saying that terrorism increases on an international level because of the condition in Iraq ? You think that if Iraq had not been helped out by the US, terrorism would not manifest itself in this way ? Do you think that those inferior terrorists that lead training camps in Afganistan (the most beautiful country in the world, i suggest you visit it, you will like it) really care about Iraq ? C'mon, be realistic, they just use the Iraqi-situation as an argument to set up muslims against the west. If Iraq was not there, they would have found something else, trust me on that. Besides, you do know that Bin Laden will never engage in relations with Saddam because of his inferior Sunni blood.

Again, these statements of yours clearly prove you are not well informed about this and you are just regurgitating popular left wing statements.
I refuse to engage in such pointless discussions any longer.

regards
marlon
 
  • #28
221
0
marlon said:
I say, we must evolve to a more US type of politics (also on social security issues) here in western Europe and please, loose these eastern Europe countries that we have accepted in the latest EU-expansion. I mean, what is up with that ?
marlon said:
anttech said:
Each country in Europe has different social security system, and politics... just because we have the EU doesnt negate that all countries have the same political systems (or influence)??
I never said that. I was only comparing the belgian system with that of the US. Our social security system is no longer realistic because of several reasons...i am sure i do not have to explain to you why.
Sorry but you are mistaken. The part where i mentioned western europe was on the fact that terror will be more successful here nowadays because of stringent internal US security policy. You really should reread my first post here.
Refute what you said as much as you like, but it is in "black and white" :rofl: see the smiley face spin :yuck:

Yeah, so ? are you saying that Italy never had a colony
yes I am, ITALY never ever had any colonies!! the ROMANS did: Italy the country was only born in recent times! Look you can split hairs and Ill do the same!

Besides, why are you always mentioning Leopold two ? You do not know of anybody else or another country that has had colonies.
I am not talking about colonies, I am talking about "explotation" as being a major contributor to state of Africa

Well this is inconsistent with historical facts and besides
This is not inconsistent, it is factual... Show me these facts that show which other European countries were comitting mass explotation around the turn of the 20th century, you will find none.. Other European countries by this point didnt need to as they had assemble enough wealthy and were going through a bit of a crises of guilt

Really, how can you be so sure ?
lol... what just like Sadam was behind 7/11 Al-queda were trainning in Afgainistein, untill the US blew the crap out of them, now they are in Iraq, not before when Sadam was in power...

trust me on that
politics aside I am sure you are a nice person, but I have no reason to trust you, I havent found anything in your aguement to justify I trust you, your last paragraph is just pure speculation and contrary to the fact I have seen
 
  • #29
468
4
There is a link, there is no link... ...it really does not matter. We are all glad that Saddam is gone. The American actions in Iraq are certainly justified and i am glad there is still a courageous nation left that has the guts to stand up against global terror.
I'd agree with you when you say that we are all glad that Saddam is gone. However, I'm slightly confused about something. What is this global terror emanating from Iraq that you speak of? I was under the impression that Saddam had extremely little influence beyond his own borders. Perhaps you meant that our actions stood up to terror on the globe, not all over the globe? I guess I'll find out in coming posts.

Wrong, saddam was a mass murderer. More (of his own people) died under his command during his gass attacks in the late 80ties then there are people dead during the entire Iraqi 'war'
You're right. Current estimates place Iraqi civilian casualties at around 100,000 (not including enemy combatants, mind you). The Kurdish campaign was estimated to have caused 182,000 casualties between 1986 and 1989. Although, granted that it happened 14 years before the invasion and before a decade of economic sanctions in a country that is primarily desert, I wouldn't exactly call him a threat (even to his own people, let alone to outsiders). Also, I wouldn't exactly think that deaths caused in the recent war somehow cancel out the deaths caused by Saddam. Could you elaborate on this? Finally, I'm somewhat troubled by the fact that you put "war" in quotes. War is not irrelevant.

War isn't irrelevant.
I'm glad you agree.

Oh no, here we go again. Yes i know the US have been the ally of Saddam during the war with Iran. This is just standard geo-politics and you cannot condemn the US for that. It is morally not correct but then again every nation does it. if you start condemning the US, you should do the same with France, Germany,...etc etc...but do you see that happening ?
I think the US is being criticized for providing Saddam with the means to kill his people, and then using that as justification to go to war with him. (Well, actually, the justification was WMDs, and the genocide/dictator justification was tacked on later.) In the American legal system, this is akin to entrapment, and as you said, is morally wrong.

Well, that is your opinion. I can just as easily say that you are not able to come up with arguments, proving that the US-saving of Iraq is illegal. Plants to build WMD were found in Iraq, just no WMD. But than again, why are you forgetting about what kind of 'man' Saddam was ? That is a pretty convincing argument to me.
I'm afraid that I'm going to need to see some evidence that WMD plants were found. (Good luck with that.) So, a convincing argument is that because Saddam was a bad man, his country needed to be invaded? Am I understanding you correctly? If so, using the same logic, all countries run by bad men need to be invaded.

Really, how can you be so sure ?
How can I be sure that al-Qaeda is not synonymous with Iraq? Mainly because one's a country, and one's a terrorist organization. If you mean that I shouldn't be so sure that there are no ties between the two, you're right. You may have stumped me.

Besides, you do know that Bin Laden will never engage in relations with Saddam because of his inferior Sunni blood.
Oh yes, that's why. Thanks for reminding me.

Think about these words for a while will you ? So you are saying that terrorism increases on an international level because of the condition in Iraq ? You think that if Iraq had not been helped out by the US, terrorism would not manifest itself in this way ? Do you think that those inferior terrorists that lead training camps in Afganistan (the most beautiful country in the world, i suggest you visit it, you will like it) really care about Iraq ? C'mon, be realistic, they just use the Iraqi-situation as an argument to set up muslims against the west. If Iraq was not there, they would have found something else, trust me on that.
First of all, the majority of Iraqis would disagree with you when you say that Iraq was helped by the US. Secondly, while you are correct when you say that the terrorists would have found something else to dwell on, you are incorrect when you say that terrorism has not increased because of the war. Putting aside the empirical data (which shows a drastic increase in the incidence of terrorism since March 2003), one can consider what al-Qaeda could "use" as recruitment tools at various points in time. Before 9/11, all they had was the support of Israel coming from the US. After 9/11, they pretty much had nothing to recruit with, because they came across as the bad guys. (The war with Afghanistan was a very weak reason, because everyone knew that that wasn't a war of aggression.) Notice that between the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq, there were very few attacks. Also notice that suicide bombings just flat out didn't happen in Afghanistan. Then, after the invasion of Iraq, terrorist attacks increased vastly, because it was quickly shown to be a war of aggression. I think the reason is clear.
 
  • #30
Archon
marlon said:
Really, how can you be so sure ?
I'm afraid the burden of proof lies on you. This is very much like saying "well, you can't prove that Saddam didn't have ties to Al-Qaida. Therefore, he did have such ties." But using this same logic, I could say, "YOU can't prove that you have no ties to Al-Qaida. Therefore, YOU support terrorism." Obviously, no rational person would accept this as proof: they would require me to support my claims with hard data.

Of course we can't be SURE that Saddam didn't have ties to Al-Qaida, but until we see proof to the contrary, we assume that he didn't.

Also, Al-Qaida and Iraq can't be synonymous because they are (at most) loosely connected by the support of Iraq's once-leader. Al-Qaida isn't based in Iraq, it doesn't get its funds from Iraq, etc.
 
  • #31
81
0
Archon : American government had more connections with Al-Qaida than Saddam Hussein ever could have. And when Saddam H. stand trail don't be fooled by his supposedly true admission of ties to Al-Qaida, because all information must pass thru our " propaganda ministry " first.
 
Last edited:
  • #32
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
In only a short time since my last post in this thread my points have been proven. There are still Americans who believe terrorism was/is connected to Saddam/Iraq, and that there were WMD. They still believe the cost of the war in Iraq is worth it, but when they discuss this, the topic flip-flops from terrorism (i.e., 9-11, etc.) to ruthless dictatorship--no longer about the security of Americans, but freeing the Iraqi people. I wonder if the body count, tax dollars being spent, etc., are really sinking in--please read the OP over and over until it does.

So where is this reasoning (or lack of reasoning) coming from? Yes, please, let's see some evidence for all this nonsense. But we all know such evidence can't be produced because it's not there. So why do people continue to cling to this thinking? Pro-Bush Pride? Somewhat, but mostly ignorance and susceptibility to propaganda. This is far more frightening to me than terrorist attacks, because empires decline from within.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
288
0
I think it's pride.

I also think as much as Bush's promotion of polarisation shoves me further left, it also pulls conservatives (some of them) further right. I think some of them who would have assessed more objectively, now feel that they'll "stand by their man" come hell or high water.

I agree, it's depressing and more scary than terrorism. (Actually, terrorism itself doesn't really scare me much - our *response* to terrorism does. I had a few sleepless nights after 9/11, but nothing like what this administration has done to my mental state!)

The whole reaction says something about the human condition that doesn't bode well. Fortunately, there's lots of goodness in the human condition, too. Among all of us! If we can back in touch with our commonalities maybe we can find a reasonable path through the blunders that Bush has committed.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Art
It seems at least some people in Washington are facing up to the fact that winning in Iraq is going to take a lot more time, money and lives than the Bush administration is prepared to admit.
US must spend ‘billions’, retool Iraq strategy to win

WASHINGTON: Winning the war in Iraq will require at least a decade of US military involvement, spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and adopting a new strategy that would see more US troops killed, a top military analyst in Washington has said.
Andrew Krepinevich, director of the Centre for Strategic Assessments, said the US military has little chance of winning the counter-insurgency war in Iraq unless it focuses on protecting Iraqi civilians, instead of killing guerrillas.
The strategy, outlined in an essay in the journal Foreign Affairs, would also quash the Bush administration proposals to cut the number of US troops in Iraq to 60,000 in a year.
Krepinevich said his plan, which he has dubbed the “oil spot strategy,” gives the US its best chance to prevail in Iraq.
Current US operations, based on the same military offensive tactics that failed in Vietnam, are making “little progress” in defeating some 20,000 Iraqi rebels and their few hundred foreign allies.
Full text at http://www.bahraintribune.com/ArticleDetail.asp?CategoryId=2&ArticleId=78732
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
24
0
pattylou said:
I think it's pride.

I also think as much as Bush's promotion of polarisation shoves me further left, it also pulls conservatives (some of them) further right. I think some of them who would have assessed more objectively, now feel that they'll "stand by their man" come hell or high water.

I agree, it's depressing and more scary than terrorism. (Actually, terrorism itself doesn't really scare me much - our *response* to terrorism does. I had a few sleepless nights after 9/11, but nothing like what this administration has done to my mental state!)

The whole reaction says something about the human condition that doesn't bode well. Fortunately, there's lots of goodness in the human condition, too. Among all of us! If we can back in touch with our commonalities maybe we can find a reasonable path through the blunders that Bush has committed.
To add to this, those who would rather stand by their man than to admit that they are wrong are often those who tend to panic, get defensive and make rash decisions. The are also those who are most fearful, insecure and are unaware of their options due to undereducation, miseducation or some other cultural influence.

As it is also scary to wander away from the flock and be a contrarian in a state where a "management by fear" and strong arm influence exists (anywhere churches rule aka bible belt/ midwest/ i'm not picking on anyone specifically just trying to make a point), it is easier to just do what everyone else is doing cuz if I'm wrong, we're wrong... and so no one will feel like they need to bare all the guilt.

In my experiences talking to people, I find that some people, especially well educated people, tend to keep their vote a secret, even from their friends and family. While, on the flipside, those who are less educated will seek confirmation from those around them. This is the power of word-of-mouth advertising.

As an action to add to the goodness of the human condition point, those who are educated enough should not just stay within our communities of other smartasses cuz you are not "converting" votes. To you, you are making the smartest decision for yourself, while due to the belief that everyone is free to make their own decision, you let each person make their own undereducated choice, which is the same undereducated choice that all their brothers, sisters, step-brothers, aunts, uncles... etc are making.

These are the same people who would rather be popular than anything else (aka politically correct). So help them help themselves.
 
  • #36
Art
Seems Operation Iraqi Freedom is being scaled back to Operation a little bit of freedom.
U.S. scales down goals in Iraq

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of President George W. Bush is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Citing unnamed officials in Washington and Baghdad, the newspaper said Washington no longer expected to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society, in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges.
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=8/15/2005&Cat=4&Num=006 It appears the main concern of Bush and co. these days is no longer bringing democracy and the American dream to the middle east but how to get out of the nightmare mess they've created without losing too much face.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
Art
It appears even Fox News is losing faith;

Someone Tell the President the War Is Over

By FRANK RICH
Published: August 14, 2005
LIKE the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. "We will stay the course," he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man?
The president's cable cadre is in disarray as well. At Fox News Bill O'Reilly is trashing Donald Rumsfeld for his incompetence, and Ann Coulter is chiding Mr. O'Reilly for being a defeatist. In an emblematic gesture akin to waving a white flag, Robert Novak walked off a CNN set and possibly out of a job rather than answer questions about his role in smearing the man who helped expose the administration's prewar inflation of Saddam W.M.D.'s. (On this sinking ship, it's hard to know which rat to root for.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/14/opinion/14rich.html
 
  • #38
Art
Change might not be good for Iraqi women
By Marie Szaniszlo
Sunday, August 14, 2005 - Updated: 10:14 AM EST

In a chilling irony, women may actually have fewer rights under Iraq's new, ``democratic'' constitution than they did under Saddam Hussein.

``The United States government has poured millions of dollars into democracy training for Iraqi women, and more than 1,800 Americans have died for Iraqi freedom. But it may turn out to be for Iraqi male freedom,'' said Katheryn Coughlin, program administrator for the American Islamic Congress, a nonprofit doing democracy training in Iraq.
Things just keep getting better. :rolleyes: http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=97940 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on The Price of Victory

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
68
Views
9K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
7K
Top