War on Terror Options

[USCavalry]

so what do you all think about the war on terror? is it justified? is it looking hopefull?

i think it's a load of bs, how does hunting for bin laden in Afghanistan turn into what we now have in Iraq? WMDs were non existent. The only viable reason for going to Iraq in my mind would fall under the category of libertion, but i don't think that was worth what we got ourselves and iraq into.

[cori-catastrophe]

i agree with you. at first, something needed to be done but it got ridiculous. no one even really knows what we are fighting for as of now. it's turning into another vietnam. we are in unfamiliar places. and that's not the only similarity.

[Simba]

It's dragged out too long.

[kimmytree]

I think we had every reason to invade Afghanistan. But Iraq? We have NO reason to be there, or to have overthrown and executed Saddam Hussein. Yeah, he was a really bad guy... but what about Castro, Chavez, etc? Saddam was not a serious threat to the US. We broke international law when we went against the UN before they could ever finish their inspections... because we KNEW they wouldnt find any. And how can we be so sure Saddam had financial ties to Bin Laden?

Ughhh. I cant believe we've been over there so long, and how 3,500 soilders have died for what seems to be nothing.

[Ington]

I can't believe there's ANOTHER thread about this.

How about, for the sake of making this slightly original, we discuss global war on terrorism, not specifically America's invasion of Iraq. You know, there are other terrorists out there.

War on terror =/= America's war on terror

How about the whiplash America and Israel are getting by Amnesty International after Israel's war with Lebanon? Israel is being accused of war crimes for 'intentionally targeting civilian residencies'. AI fails to mention the fact that the terrorists bombing Israel every day were a great portion of the civilians. Also, it fails to recognize that the terrorists were hiding behind innocent people, calling basements their military bases. Half of the attacks on Israel and its US support were physical. The other half is the ethical attacks launched by European anti-semitic nations.

[*karmakiller*]

If we leave Iraq their government will fall apart, everything that we've done over there won't be continued. There's many other things going on around the world and I've replied in too many of these topics.

[kimmytree]

^ Yeah, that's true. But what major progress have we made lately? I dont think we will ever succeed in Iraq. So whether we get out now, or stay - we're going to lose either way. No matter if it's now or ten years from now, as soon as we leave it's all going to fall apart. So why waste more American lives and money?

[USCavalry]

I can't believe there's ANOTHER thread about this.

How about, for the sake of making this slightly original, we discuss global war on terrorism, not specifically America's invasion of Iraq. You know, there are other terrorists out there.

War on terror =/= America's war on terror

How about the whiplash America and Israel are getting by Amnesty International after Israel's war with Lebanon? Israel is being accused of war crimes for 'intentionally targeting civilian residencies'. AI fails to mention the fact that the terrorists bombing Israel every day were a great portion of the civilians. Also, it fails to recognize that the terrorists were hiding behind innocent people, calling basements their military bases. Half of the attacks on Israel and its US support were physical. The other half is the ethical attacks launched by European anti-semitic nations.

i used the title "war on terror" simply for it's cliché affect, not to be politically correct. and if you are interested in all these other topics why don't you start one? maybe i don't feel like being original in this particular thread, so get off my back already... plz

[medic]

The War in Iraq is justified because he had the ability to create weapons of mass destruction. Notice how I said ability, and it is true, so don't pull the "we didn't find any" shit. He used it on the Kurds. Which comes to another point, Saddam was a ticking time bomb, he killed 100,000 Kurds because they didn't follow the same religion he did. He did not gas these ones, he put them on buses, and took the out to the field, gunned them down, and buried them in mass graves, the man dissevered to be taken out of power and killed. This really is used to justify it on some levels, but not all. Not only that, the people of Iraq deserver a democracy, and a lot of them want it and are working with America to get the job done. The war will not end anytime soon, even when the Democrats take office in 2008.

When the war begun, it was in the best interest and safety of the US to get into it. If the UN would have done their job, we wouldn't be in the war to start off with.

[kimmytree]

^ It's not like he was the only one though. What about Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc? Saddam was no worse. Look at all the Cubans escaping Communism into Florida - I think something should have been done about Cuba before Iraq. They're only 90 miles off the coast of Florida. [/offtopic]

But reguardless, I think Saddam having weapons was just an excuse for us.

[*steve330*]

^ Yeah, that's true. But what major progress have we made lately? I dont think we will ever succeed in Iraq. So whether we get out now, or stay - we're going to lose either way. No matter if it's now or ten years from now, as soon as we leave it's all going to fall apart. So why waste more American lives and money?

Or we could support America and her troops instead of bashing it every time we see fit. I mean it's not like their morale is low or anything.

[kimmytree]

^ Most people who are against the war DO support the troops. Who's bashing? Just because you disagree with something doesnt mean you're bashing it.

[*karmakiller*]

I know plenty of people that are opposed to the war, but they still support the troops. They just support the troops, not the war.

[kimmytree]

^ Yeah. I hate the common misconception that anti war = anti troops. It seems like that's something alot of Republicans like to claim. *shrug*

[1angel3]

I don't know whats the point of this war, I really hate it. I want my family back.

[*karmakiller*]

^ Yeah, it's sad that people are dying and coming back with PTSD when there could've been other ways to handle the issues in Iraq than sending troops over.

[*steve330*]

I never said they weren't supporting the troops. I was trying to convey that it's kinda demoralizing to know you're fighting a war your country isn't backing. If you felt like you had some kind of purpose to be in Iraq fighting for your country, even if it is for wrong reasons, it would boost their morale to know they had the whole country backing what they're doing and backing them as troops.

[xKatt]

War on terror = too broad of a subject to justify/discord.

[medic]

^ It's not like he was the only one though. What about Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc? Saddam was no worse. Look at all the Cubans escaping Communism into Florida - I think something should have been done about Cuba before Iraq. They're only 90 miles off the coast of Florida. [/offtopic]

But reguardless, I think Saddam having weapons was just an excuse for us.

Actually, Cuba agreed to stop what they were doing, they may not like us anymore, but they are within UN sanctions. North Korea is sitting down and speaking with the UN, and as for Iran, its only time before we are at war with them, so thats not a good argument. Cuba is not that bad actually, I am guessing you have never been there. Castro is a diplomat that has his countries interest in his mind, he just doesn't show it much.

Saddam having weapons was a reason to go to war, and it apparently worked. He is out of power and dead, and we are STILL looking for WMD's, until they have combed that entire country with a toothbrush they could be anywhere.

^ Yeah, it's sad that people are dying and coming back with PTSD when there could've been other ways to handle the issues in Iraq than sending troops over.

Well, the UN is suppose to keep countries from not going to war, and well look how that ended.

I will admit they are getting some headway with North Korea, but that is only because China would LOVE to take over the NK.

[illriginal]

so what do you all think about the war on terror? is it justified? is it looking hopefull?

i think it's a load of bs, how does hunting for bin laden in Afghanistan turn into what we now have in Iraq? WMDs were non existent. The only viable reason for going to Iraq in my mind would fall under the category of libertion, but i don't think that was worth what we got ourselves and iraq into.

It's horror with a comedian as the narrator. You just sit there and wonder when the hell is the joke over?

But anyhow, I see you're trying to figure things out, right?

Do a little history research on Vietnam. Study the strategies, the presidency, the senate/congress, the rest of the politics. You'll find a brutal comparison.

Just to knock your hopes out, the war on terror isn't real. It's just racism, imperialism, and fascism, mixed with a little bit of genocide. I heard it tastes as good as a bloody mary on the rocks.

[kimmytree]

Actually, Cuba agreed to stop what they were doing, they may not like us anymore, but they are within UN sanctions. North Korea is sitting down and speaking with the UN, and as for Iran, its only time before we are at war with them, so thats not a good argument. Cuba is not that bad actually, I am guessing you have never been there. Castro is a diplomat that has his countries interest in his mind, he just doesn't show it much.

Saddam having weapons was a reason to go to war, and it apparently worked. He is out of power and dead, and we are STILL looking for WMD's, until they have combed that entire country with a toothbrush they could be anywhere.



Well, the UN is suppose to keep countries from not going to war, and well look how that ended.

I will admit they are getting some headway with North Korea, but that is only because China would LOVE to take over the NK.

So why didnt we give Iraq the same chance then? We just used 9/11 as an excuse to invade them, with the claim that they supposedly had WMD. Before the UN could even finish their inspections, we jumped the gun. If there really were weapons, who's to say that Iraq couldnt be handled the same way Cuba, North Korea, and Iran have been?

No, I havent. As far as I know, we dont even fly planes over the country... so how could I have? Millions of Cubans have risked their lives on freaking rafts trying to escape, and still are. So it's obviously bad enough if people are taking that kind of risk to get out of there.

Oh, btw - how the heck did you get there and back? You must have swimmed.

[medic]

So why didnt we give Iraq the same chance then? We just used 9/11 as an excuse to invade them, with the claim that they supposedly had WMD. Before the UN could even finish their inspections, we jumped the gun. If there really were weapons, who's to say that Iraq couldnt be handled the same way Cuba, North Korea, and Iran have been?

No, I havent. As far as I know, we dont even fly planes over the country... so how could I have? Millions of Cubans have risked their lives on freaking rafts trying to escape, and still are. So it's obviously bad enough if people are taking that kind of risk to get out of there.

Oh, btw - how the heck did you get there and back? You must have swimmed.

We did give Iraq the chance, they denied UN agreements and talks, they took UN inspectors on a game hunt. Also, using Iran as a argument, Iran is doing exactly what Saddam has done. They are in a higher stage of it, they are being watched, and I can guarantee you that the US will soon be at war with Iran. They have reached the point where they no longer send diplomats to the UN to try and talk. North Korea did, and has openly accepted agreements, Saddam DENIED them, and continued putting the UN inspectors through a hunt to find nothing. Taking them to fake plants, all of that was shown in the UN report. It a good read by the way if you can get your hands on a copy.

So, people are leaving Cuba to the US, so it obviously has to be a horrible country. What about China, Mexico, and other countries, a raft is bad I guess. What about cramming hundreds of Chinease Asians into a container, place it on a ship, with not food or water, and letting them cross the ocean? Is China a bad country because of it? Is Mexico a bad country because people decide to come to America illegally? Last time I checked people still go to Mexico and China on vacation, so it musnt be that bad. Also, we fly planes into Cuba from Mexico, the government does not support it, but they can not do anything about it. I have family that lives down there, and they enjoy the country.

[illriginal]

So why didnt we give Iraq the same chance then? We just used 9/11 as an excuse to invade them, with the claim that they supposedly had WMD. Before the UN could even finish their inspections, we jumped the gun. If there really were weapons, who's to say that Iraq couldnt be handled the same way Cuba, North Korea, and Iran have been?

No, I havent. As far as I know, we dont even fly planes over the country... so how could I have? Millions of Cubans have risked their lives on freaking rafts trying to escape, and still are. So it's obviously bad enough if people are taking that kind of risk to get out of there.

Oh, btw - how the heck did you get there and back? You must have swimmed.

Because the REAL Weapon Of Mass Destruction was the economy. It was the oil. You see, if you did your little history, you would see that at that time; Suddam wanted to change the currency for oil. From the U.S. Currency (Dollar) to the Euro Currency (Pound). And who would blame him? He wanted more value in the currency he received for his precious oil.

Now anyone who knows their economics, specifically between the value of the American Dollar compared to the Euro Pound... we all know that the Pound has more value than the Dollar. Why? Because we have stupid politicians who make stupid decisions of over-developing too much "paper" that our gold cannot back up.

SO! With the threat of Suddam changing the currency trade for oil.. Bush in a panic had to use the idea of WMD being developed and obtained by Suddam. Though there is some truth to that, the fact that we gave them WMD when they were fightin USSR (who of course is our enemy).

But c'mon... the WMD were too old for shit, what good would they be? They'd most likely explode as soon as they were launched, too risky to use. Anyone with intelligence in weaponry would know that weapons do in fact EXPIRE. And any one with this knowledge would most likely be in the military or some how connected, and I'm sure they'd let their officials know.


So the true WMD was the changing of currency, because IF it did happen, we'd be paying nearly if not MORE than $10 per what? Litre? Not even a damn gallon. And just about our whole industry/economy runs on oil/gasoline.

We would have been in a horrifying depression, one that would have most likely not been regulated for another 10 years.

But I gotta think like Suddam, did he think of changing the currency because of wealth? Or was it because we were in Afghanistan and Suddam felt threatened?

I don't think Suddam would change the currency to benefit himself, just for the fact that we helped him out from gettin OWNED. And saved their country's existence and their oil.

[illriginal]

Not trying to cause any trouble but the UN has NO honor. And to believe any of their reports is like attempted to believe the official 9/11 report even though there's too many holes in their report to make any good sense.

[medic]

Because the REAL Weapon Of Mass Destruction was the economy. It was the oil. You see, if you did your little history, you would see that at that time; Suddam wanted to change the currency for oil. From the U.S. Currency (Dollar) to the Euro Currency (Pound). And who would blame him? He wanted more value in the currency he received for his precious oil.

Now anyone who knows their economics, specifically between the value of the American Dollar compared to the Euro Pound... we all know that the Pound has more value than the Dollar. Why? Because we have stupid politicians who make stupid decisions of over-developing too much "paper" that our gold cannot back up.

SO! With the threat of Suddam changing the currency trade for oil.. Bush in a panic had to use the idea of WMD being developed and obtained by Suddam. Though there is some truth to that, the fact that we gave them WMD when they were fightin USSR (who of course is our enemy).

But c'mon... the WMD were too old for shit, what good would they be? They'd most likely explode as soon as they were launched, too risky to use. Anyone with intelligence in weaponry would know that weapons do in fact EXPIRE. And any one with this knowledge would most likely be in the military or some how connected, and I'm sure they'd let their officials know.
So the true WMD was the changing of currency, because IF it did happen, we'd be paying nearly if not MORE than $10 per what? Litre? Not even a damn gallon. And just about our whole industry/economy runs on oil/gasoline.

We would have been in a horrifying depression, one that would have most likely not been regulated for another 10 years.

But I gotta think like Suddam, did he think of changing the currency because of wealth? Or was it because we were in Afghanistan and Suddam felt threatened?

I don't think Suddam would change the currency to benefit himself, just for the fact that we helped him out from gettin OWNED. And saved their country's existence and their oil.

Wow, thats quite a conspiracy theory there. Too bad at the time of war, the Euro was actually starting to fall again after a all time LOW of 2002, while it did game a couple cents during the begging of 2003, in March when the war was launched, the Euro was falling, by about 5 cents. Though it did have a high value compared to the dollar, at that same time China invested around $200 billion into the US dollar, which actually put it higher than the Euro for a few weeks.

Not trying to cause any trouble but the UN has NO honor. And to believe any of their reports is like attempted to believe the official 9/11 report even though there's too many holes in their report to make any good sense.

We could compare it to the "fake" moon landing.