Articles | Forums | Polls | Quotes | Who's Online | Store
Signup | Lost Password
"And though the rules of the road have been lodged, It's only people's games that you got to dodge. And it's alright, Ma, I can make it." - Bob Dylan
Latest:Booky

Controlling the masses
Main -> Social Awareness -> Politics and Current Events  | NewPosts

American warmongers

USER THREAD
2203 Posts / 65M
     :   49yrs   :  
okcitykid

I think getting rid of Saddam was a good idea, but it did not require a war. We have killed more people then we have saved and the fighting still continues. Our economy is in a shambles while the environment worsens. I don't see that the Iraqi people appreciate what we did, obviously it wasn't right. And this Jesus guy did live under such conditions and was still against war - to that I can only say - read for yourself.


"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

93 Posts / 58M
     :   22yrs   :  
Warriors_X

"I mean, how does it make sense that we blame him and jail him and kill Iraqis for a mistake that was literally the exact result of our own doing? "
True, it was our doing by putting him in power, but it was his doing in abusing that power.

He had like 9 palaces all over Iraq and he had a double who had a facelift to look just like him and he never spent more than one night in a palace.

"I think getting rid of Saddam was a good idea, but it did not require a war."
Was there any other way to do it? An ultimatum was given to excile him from Iraq, he chose to go against it.

"If the world believed that the US was actually going to liberate Iraq and not monopolize their natural resources, the UN would have supported the war. "
I am very aware that America only went to war because of the oil reserves. Even for selfish reasons a good thing did come out of it.

Saddams War Crimes:
http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99h.htm


If he governed Australia would you not want this man removed from power? And under Dictatorship no one had any say, so if America would have invaded and removed him, in a way we would be liberated, even if they did have alterior motives.

"A majority of the planet was against it, as were the majority of Iraqis. "
As i have not personally interviewed Iraqi's, my notion of them being liberated is a assuption of what we would be feeling if saddam ruled over us. Personally, i do not beleive most of the things shown on TV, as they are usually monitored by the Government

I do remember however a story about Saddam's son Raping a younger girl, and he was not punished for it because of the Dictatorship. Does anyone else know anything about it or am i wrong???

"Jesus guy did live under such conditions and was still against war"
I bet he didnt live under the conditions of the Jews in WW2.

Well, what do you guys think?


"No matter how fast light thinks it is, it will always find that Drakness has beaten it and is already waiting..."

1669 Posts / 62M
     :   21yrs   :  
Angelfire

"Many of the stories you hear about Saddam gassing his own people was in full view and apathetic support of the US.

I mean, how does it make sense that we blame him and jail him and kill Iraqis for a mistake that was literally the exact result of our own doing?

By that rational a parent is permitted to kill their child after they raise them incorrectly."
Wrong. By that rational, a parent is permitted to spank/reeducate her child if said child has been biting other children.


"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

2203 Posts / 65M
     :   49yrs   :  
okcitykid

Bush was doing a real good job of scaring Saddam, the Russians were working out a deal. The local Arab countries asked us to stay out, saying they would take care of it, and I believe they would have. Bush had to have his war. Only Bush really knows why, I have my theory. We didn't need a war. As a matter of fact, it turns out that Saddam's own generals took out his WMD without him knowing. Obviously he was on his way out. If we would have just waited, we would have seen Saddam fall. I was really surprised when we declared war, because we had him cornered, why were we going to war?

DumbTeen - You are right. I'm sick and tired of hearing about how Saddam is our fault. We didn't make Saddam, we just made a deal with him. We didn't sanction any crimes he committed, we just failed to take notice. We are not perfect, we have our faults. But who blames God for creating Satan. No one would dare preach such a thing. But because Saddam did some bad things, we are to blame? Because we believe we are responsible for the world, the world believes it too. How do these delusions of grander flourish?


"A fool says I know and a wise man says I wonder."

93 Posts / 58M
     :   22yrs   :  
Warriors_X

How would have saddam fallen? He ruled in dictatorship over Iraq, had america not interfered then Saddam might still had his WMD.

And the Russians were probably dealing some sort of treaty so they can also have front row seats to Americas Destruction.

"Bush had to have his war"

It was America who put him in a position of power, so it is only fitting that they take it away from him again. I dont think other arab countries would have done much. If they tried they would have probably been bombed and begged for help from the US anyway.

"If we would have just waited, we would have seen Saddam fall."

Maybe, but it was waiting the nearly lost the allies WW2.

"because we had him cornered, why were we going to war? "

Also not forgetting the oil reserves that lie there, other Arab countries might not have had the power to put out the flames that were lit there, or maybe they wouldnt bother as it would hurt america more than them. How else remove Saddam from power if he ignore an order from the UN. (The ultimatum)

Also probably other misc Government consipiracies.

"Six Carefully placed Neaclear Bombs can wipe out the US"


"No matter how fast light thinks it is, it will always find that Drakness has beaten it and is already waiting..."

1669 Posts / 62M
     :   21yrs   :  
Angelfire

"Six Carefully placed Neaclear Bombs can wipe out the US"
Saddam didn't have nukes, there was no question. If the US went to Iraq for nukes it should have went to Pakistan, North Korea or even Iran and Lybia.

The Iraq war was not good because of some nukes, the UN said he had none and he had none.
The Iraq was good because it gives the opportunity for the US to liberate a people and install democracy in a place where good democracies are scarce (only turkey so far, and its flimsy). Why liberate and not an obscure African nation? Because Iraq has other interests in it, namely the very slight possibility of WMDs being there, the removing of an aggressive source of instability in the ME (Saddam) and ultimately the possibility of more stable oil prices which benefits everyone.


"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

1 Posts / 55M
     :   27yrs   :  
Tom Robson

perhaps i'm in a easier place to judge seeing as i am english, but there does seem to be a great deal of hypocracy in america's foriegn policy. for instance we are told by america that iraq must be disarmed, it has weapons of mass destruction and is an aggressive nation. ok, first of all it does NOT have weapons of mass destruction, and secondly the notion of america persecuting any nation for being aggressive is so far beyond hypocrytical it's laughable. i don't want to sound as if i think i know it all, but to my understanding america is the best example of a democracy in the world, in theory. the government is not supposed to be able to act against the peoples wishes. the fact that bush's mass genocide of any nation which dares to disobey him still goes on puts you the people in a bad light globally. people in england for instance, we don't hate you lot, but we are left with two options to choose from; either you agree with the slaughter of these people which is terrible, or you just won't put the effort into stopping him, which is even worse. come on yanks, stand up for yourselves, micheal moore has proved some of you care, don't let bush turn you into the butt of the worlds jokes, and into a target for the remainder of nations bush destroys.


"hope springs eternal"

1669 Posts / 62M
     :   21yrs   :  
Angelfire

Bush doesn't commit genocide. If that was his intent he would have nuked the place to hell.


"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

1788 Posts / 65M
     :   56yrs   :  
cturtle

Come on Teen, the use of nuclear weapons would have galvanised the world and the people against the government that would be self destruction on the government (the shadow government) as it exist today.


"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

1669 Posts / 62M
     :   21yrs   :  
Angelfire

Are you suggesting that he purposefully attempting to wipe out a people?
Nonesense, he is neither intentionally or unintentionally doing anything near genocide.
The low number of deaths in these recent wars keep being brought up and exaggerated to such an extreme.
There was a time when you feared millions of dead (if not Billions during the cold war) as opposed to the wimpy insignificant wars Bush has caused.

Not to demean the dead, but put things in perspective. These wars and genocide are on such different scales its inconceivable to compare them.


"Durch Nacht und Blut das Licht"

1788 Posts / 65M
     :   56yrs   :  
cturtle

quote:
Are you suggesting that he purposefully attempting to wipe out a people?
Nonesense, he is neither intentionally or unintentionally doing anything near genocide.
You are correct in these statements. (my opinion) But like the A-bombs used in Japan, he would be tempted to do so to Bagdad (sp). To form a desisive victory over a long term war and lose of life.
So Iran & Iraq share in a glorious despot put into power to promote capitalic gains? I had not been aware that we (CIA) had been the instrument of covert actions establishing Saddam's rule . . . a little like Castro, ehh


"Terrorist or tyrant, few may come to the Truth that both are poor choice."

233 Posts / 65M
     :   42yrs   :  
Dreamer

To begin with God allows wars. He does not relish in it, but He does allow this because the hard hearts that rule. But, noteworthy is the way that the current war is actually defensive.

You say no. But over 3000 innocent civilians were lost to a tragic and impossible regime who planned that attack for many many years. Note how they trained in our achools for aeronautic information. They have cells of men here in america. They plotted murders of our soldiers over the years under the rule of Clinton. Osama Bin Laden had been practically given to Clinton, but he ignored it. Even after our men were killed in other lands by his attacks.

The regime, the training camps for Al Quieda are all located in southern Iraq. Making Saddam either a very ignorant and stupid leader who had no knowledge of what was happening under his nose, or a very cunning and exploitive hard core murderer even by association.

His country the master mind behind germ warfare. The potential to mass destroy a town by germ warfare. Either he bragged it, or he created it.

Look at the mere fact we do NOT have Osama Bun Laden. Where is he?
Since he is impossibly hidden from society, how can the weapons also be NOT hidden just as well.

As for the innocent lives in Iraq, as per the reporting I hear, and not so sure what anyone else knows, but the terrorists are the ones killing the people of Iraq. They are doing this with either suicide bombers, or bombs. They are purportedly blaming America. Again a well thought out plan. To alienate america when we need our allies.

It has been such a devised and well schemed plan, it has even divided the nation of America. Their fighting lacks organization, but the fact they are willing to fight and are willing to commit suicide shows they are brainwashed against america, and that Bin needs caught. The money that resulted in their planning efforts has been nullified by Bush. That in itself is good.

I have alot of theories, as does anyone else, why Bush would do this, but only he has the INTELLIGENCE reports to go by. Top secret and all that.

HERE IS A QUESTION I LAY DOWN BEFORE ALL OF YOU.

IS it good we had 911 happen?
And if you were in Bush's shoes, what would you have done?


(Keep in mind, you have a nation and allies to protect)


"Even though is difficult, I can still dream."

233 Posts / 65M
     :   42yrs   :  
Dreamer

Let me add something I copied elsewhere. Because at the beginning of this thread I noticed the statement that the last war 'Desert Storm' was a waste. Or something along those lines.

WHO: Iraq versus Kuwait (backed by the United States).
WHERE: The Middle East

WHEN: August 2, 1990--April 3, 1991

WHY: A long-standing unresolved disagreement over the right to exploit certain oilfields led to border debates

WHAT: Iraq and Kuwait had already been quarreling about border discrepancies for the Rumailah oilfield as well as Kuwait's islands, Bubiyan and Warbah. Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq, claimed that Kuwait's high oil production was glutting the market and driving down the world price for oil to $18 a barrel. At the same time, Kuwait wanted Iraq to repay the loans it had received during the Iran-Iraq War. Iraq wanted the debt cancelled noting that the . In hopes of squashing the dispute OPEC raised the price of oil to $21 a barrel on July 27, 1990. On August 2, Iraqi tanks invade Kuwait and take Kuwait City. The UN condemns Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and issues Resolution 660. On August 3, governments around the world freeze Iraq's assets and suspend international trend. Three days later the UN issues Resolution 661 placing a trade embargo on Iraq. On August 8, Saddam announces that Iraq has annexed Kuwait. UN Resolution 662 formed on August 10 unanimously condemns Iraq's annexation of Kuwait

Is this why people confuse the reason for the war in Iraq now for oil now?


"Even though is difficult, I can still dream."

SITE ADMIN
2841 Posts / 92M
     :   28yrs   :  
Decius

I would assume a defensive stance and dissengage any involvement in middle-eastern affairs for the best interests of my fellow countrymen. Cut and dry.

Funny how you blame Clinton for allowing Osama Bin Laden to get away yet you use him still being hidden as a fear tactic to promote more force.

Your entire post contradicts so many well known facts it is almost nauseating. I suppose it is these overlooked points that bridge the very large gaps in possibly viewing Bush's actions as "defensive".

When terrorists attack during Clinton's reign, he let it happen. When it happens during Bush's reign, it's those evil terrorists not the administration.


"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

233 Posts / 65M
     :   42yrs   :  
Dreamer

quote:
perhaps i'm in a easier place to judge seeing as i am english, but there does seem to be a great deal of hypocracy in america's foriegn policy. for instance we are told by america that iraq must be disarmed, it has weapons of mass destruction and is an aggressive nation. ok, first of all it does NOT have weapons of mass destruction, and secondly the notion of america persecuting any nation for being aggressive is so far beyond hypocrytical it's laughable. i don't want to sound as if i think i know it all, but to my understanding america is the best example of a democracy in the world, in theory. the government is not supposed to be able to act against the peoples wishes. the fact that bush's mass genocide of any nation which dares to disobey him still goes on puts you the people in a bad light globally. people in england for instance, we don't hate you lot, but we are left with two options to choose from; either you agree with the slaughter of these people which is terrible, or you just won't put the effort into stopping him, which is even worse. come on yanks, stand up for yourselves, micheal moore has proved some of you care, don't let bush turn you into the butt of the worlds jokes, and into a target for the remainder of nations bush destroys.



The difference between a nation who uses their weapons for defense (America), and a nation who would use their weapons to over run and manipulate an entire world (Iraq) is a vast and extraordinarily marked differnce. IF a nation is allowing, or is attacking other nations, there are to be dealt with. We cannot allow the entire world peace to lie on the unknown of a leader who would think nothing of annihilating any other country or peoples. When as a rule of thumb, he destroyed his own without batting an eye.

NO one knows for certain if Iraq has weapons of mass destruction or not. That remains to be seen. But certainly he was bold in his DICTATORSHIP. I cannot say definitely if there are weapons or not. But his actions and his conspired actions speak for themselves that IF indeed we did take the chance of him owning them, certainly he would think nothing of using them. As he is aligned with Osama who also is conscience free.
Even though they should feel remorse and guilt, it is absent by their actions.

I believe you are incorrect on who would commit genocide. It has not been Bush, who has been aligning a free government for the Iraqi people who are now almost free to find a lifestyle you are already accustomed to, and take for granted.

Their 30 year oppresion has given NO freedom to children, women, or men. They live in fear no matter. The only ones who courageously fought in 1991, were made examples of in their own country, when 1st their children (100's) were killed before their eyes, and then they themselves were killed execution style. Because they sought FREEDOM....that which you already have.

Remember to walk in another's shoes before you decide you know.






"Even though is difficult, I can still dream."

American warmongers
A1F1T0T1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9T10T11T12T13T14T15T16