U.S. Military Deaths reach all-time low in more than 4-years,

[Jonathan]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361168,00.html

[T2A`]

F**k Fox News.

Here's Jon Stewart owning Bush, McCain, and pretty much all the Neocons. As usual.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=170289&title=cash

[Jonathan]

So you would have rather had Al Gore or John Kerry in office?

And why would we care what John Stewart has to say?

[Crotale]

F*ck Jon Stewart. He's funny but he's no political pundit, IMO.

[Jonathan]

So anyway, back to the good news out of war.

[Fearless]

Probably the result of taking much less offensive missions in order to portray the republican party as the 'good guys' before the general election.

[Soggy_Popcorn]

F**k Fox News.

Here's Jon Stewart owning Bush, McCain, and pretty much all the Neocons. As usual.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=170289&title=cash

Define "neocon." I bet you can't, like most other people who use it as an insult.

Also, Jon Stewart has not an ounce of intelligence or analytical power beyond just repeating the words of ****ing Nancy Pelosi. :rolleyes:

Why can't you libs just be happy when U.S. deaths reach a low? Isn't that a GOOD THING??!!! I guess not for you.

[T2A`]

The only good news will be when we GTFO of there for good. I'm sure we won't, however, because some contrived, planned, and oh-so-convenient (oh, and totally spun to hell and back via Fox News) event will spur us into a never-ending war with Iran.

A Neocon is an ex-Republican who favors rich people, huge deficit spending, policing the world, corporations, big oil, security over liberty, etc. That is not the Republican mantra, so they are no longer Republicans.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/3621/mcbushuf0.jpg

[dub]

F**k Fox "News".

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Well, you would be correct that the war is just a whirlwind of misery and hopelessness, IF it didn't actually accomplish what we want; security here and abroad. And it is partially successful, since there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since the debacle began. True, Iraq is still looking kinda grim, but progress is being made. Not to mention that this war has some of the lowest casualties ever.

[Jonathan]

While I don't like Bush that much, IMO, he has been the only choice I have had to vote for for the past 8 years.

For this election, I don't even know if I'll be able to go vote, as I'll probably be sick if I have to vote for McCain.

Hopefully McCain will choose Huckabee as his VP, then McCain will resign as president, and then, Huckabee for president. :D

It's amazing, Huckabee would spend $100,000 in a place and win it, whereas another politician would spend $1-2 million and lose.

[Crotale]

Funny how every time the death count reaches another thousand mark, all the libs come out bashing the efforts in Iraq. Just a sidenote, in 2003, 5,570 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered—an average of 15 each day. Of these victims, 82% were killed with firearms. This is taken directly from the CDC's website. It is more likely the young soldiers would be killed in violence here in the States than in a forward "combat" zone in Iraq.

[Airmoran]

Funny how every time the death count reaches another thousand mark, all the libs come out bashing the efforts in Iraq. Just a sidenote, in 2003, 5,570 young people ages 10 to 24 were murdered—an average of 15 each day. Of these victims, 82% were killed with firearms. This is taken directly from the CDC's website. It is more likely the young soldiers would be killed in violence here in the States than in a forward "combat" zone in Iraq.

...unless there's only uhh... two (?) times more kids in the 'states then there are in Iraq, I'd call that a complete and utter failure in statistics.

[Jonathan]

The only good news will be when we GTFO of there for good. I'm sure we won't, however, because some contrived, planned, and oh-so-convenient (oh, and totally spun to hell and back via Fox News) event will spur us into a never-ending war with Iran.

A Neocon is an ex-Republican who favors rich people, huge deficit spending, policing the world, corporations, big oil, security over liberty, etc. That is not the Republican mantra, so they are no longer Republicans.

http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/3621/mcbushuf0.jpg
http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn277/theusernameisthebest/Jimmy_Bama.jpg

[Jonathan]

...unless there's only uhh... two (?) times more kids in the 'states then there are in Iraq, I'd call that a complete and utter failure in statistics.

I guess World War I and II were failures! We shouldn't have been "policing" Hitler, it was none of our business, it was just for greed to increase industrial production.

[Airmoran]

Learn English (and math), dude.

I was criticizing Crotale's statistics abilities... not whatever the f*ck you're on about with Hitler. I did some number crunching here.

If I'm doing the numbers right, *assuming* that our soldiers only are aged 10-24, then for Crotale's statement to be true, there has to be, at most... 3.3 million kids in America. That would be 1% of America.

In Crotale's fantasy America, there are apparently more Mormons than there are kids. Oh, the real percentage is ~22.1. Around 22% of Americans are aged 10 to 24.

If you're going to use numbers to demonstrate how safe Iraq (or how dangerous the US) is, make sure your numbers are valid and relevant. Otherwise, at best you're just playing into the stereotype that pro-war guys are somehow less educated than others. At worst, you're spewing propaganda.

[Fearless]

And it is partially successful, since there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since the debacle began.

What's the point? US Soldiers are just next door.. no need to travel to the US for to do that.

[ZenPirate]

Well, you would be correct that the war is just a whirlwind of misery and hopelessness, IF it didn't actually accomplish what we want; security here and abroad. And it is partially successful, since there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since the debacle began. True, Iraq is still looking kinda grim, but progress is being made. Not to mention that this war has some of the lowest casualties ever.

The Iraq invasion is not now, nor ever was about "security here and abroad". It's also foolish to equate the lack of attacks in the States with the war.

That said, I'm glad to see any death toll down. I wish there was a way to end this conflict without utterly failing the people of Iraq who we are now kind of responsible for. I imagine it will eventually be split into seperate countries, or in the hands of warlords/"evil".

[Lizard Of Oz]

The Iraq invasion is not now, nor ever was about "security here and abroad". It's also foolish to equate the lack of attacks in the States with the war.

That said, I'm glad to see any death toll down. I wish there was a way to end this conflict without utterly failing the people of Iraq who we are now kind of responsible for. I imagine it will eventually be split into seperate countries, or in the hands of warlords/"evil".

Bingo.

[Mister_Prophet]

So you would have rather had Al Gore or John Kerry in office?


I would, yeah.

[Crotale]

I was criticizing Crotale's statistics abilities... not whatever the f*ck you're on about with Hitler. I did some number crunching here.

If I'm doing the numbers right, *assuming* that our soldiers only are aged 10-24, then for Crotale's statement to be true, there has to be, at most... 3.3 million kids in America. That would be 1% of America.

In Crotale's fantasy America, there are apparently more Mormons than there are kids. Oh, the real percentage is ~22.1. Around 22% of Americans are aged 10 to 24.

If you're going to use numbers to demonstrate how safe Iraq (or how dangerous the US) is, make sure your numbers are valid and relevant. Otherwise, at best you're just playing into the stereotype that pro-war guys are somehow less educated than others. At worst, you're spewing propaganda.
Yeah, okay dude. You can spin it any way you want, but the fact of the matter is that I do not see anyone getting all upset over the thousands of young people getting killed here in the States (unless it happens to someone they know personally) but yet there is such an outcry about soldiers getting killed in Iraq. Hey, maybe the f*cking statistics I quoted don't tell the whole picture, but the fact is that if all you do is look at the actual number of deaths, an 18-24 year old a male in this country is more likely to be killed by violence here than be killed in action over in Iraq. Whether you or I personally agree that the soldiers in Iraq are fighting for a noble cause or not, it is no less a senseless death if they are killed in Iraq than if they are killed in gang shootings in LA, is it?

While statistics are used for probabilities, they are easily manipulated. I'd rather look at actual numbers and go from there. And if you're going to chide me on my "statistics" then please read my entire post. By the way, I never stated that Iraq is safe. I work in air combat, so please do not preach to me about combat safety. I know the risks all our folks go through over there. I get regular briefings that you guys will never see, so I have a little better perspective on this. I also know of a lot of the good things our men and women are doing over there, stuff that somehow never makes it to the evening news. So unless you've been there, try to at least comprehend and respect my perspective.

[Plumb_Drumb]

I would, yeah.
Me too.
(heh, I made a "me too" comment)

[T2A`]

While statistics are used for probabilities, they are easily manipulated. I'd rather look at actual numbers and go from there.And by "go from there" you mean manipulate and present the data in an incorrect manner to try and prove a point that doesn't exist? D:

[Airmoran]

Yeah, okay dude. You can spin it any way you want, but the fact of the matter is that I do not see anyone getting all upset over the thousands of young people getting killed here in the States (unless it happens to someone they know personally) but yet there is such an outcry about soldiers getting killed in Iraq. Hey, maybe the f*cking statistics I quoted don't tell the whole picture, but the fact is that if all you do is look at the actual number of deaths, an 18-24 year old a male in this country is more likely to be killed by violence here than be killed in action over in Iraq. Whether you or I personally agree that the soldiers in Iraq are fighting for a noble cause or not, it is no less a senseless death if they are killed in Iraq than if they are killed in gang shootings in LA, is it?

While statistics are used for probabilities, they are easily manipulated. I'd rather look at actual numbers and go from there. And if you're going to chide me on my "statistics" then please read my entire post. By the way, I never stated that Iraq is safe. I work in air combat, so please do not preach to me about combat safety. I know the risks all our folks go through over there. I get regular briefings that you guys will never see, so I have a little better perspective on this. I also know of a lot of the good things our men and women are doing over there, stuff that somehow never makes it to the evening news. So unless you've been there, try to at least comprehend and respect my perspective.

You're the one who presented the statistic and you're the one who manipulated it to represent something it isn't. You said "It is more likely the young soldiers would be killed in violence here in the States than in a forward "combat" zone in Iraq." This is a lie. The same statistics you provided does not support this claim. According to the statistic you provided along with the information provided in the linked article (which, by all means, isn't complete), there is no information provided can support this claim. In fact, based on the best you can do with your info (by, for example, assuming that the age range of the troops is 10-24) overwhelmingly disagrees with your claim.

My "spin" was "Your spin is faulty".

I never said you said that Iraq was safe. I said "...to prove how safe Iraq is...". I said you were trying to demonstrate a quantification of how safe Iraq is for a soldier. Because you did make a claim involving the likelihood of death in Iraq compared to here in the States, you did indeed try to quantify the safety of troops in Iraq.

I don't know or care what your perspective is. That’s irrelevant. I do care that your facts don't check out. You have both a case of innumeracy and reading comprehension issues. Stay in school.

And oh, last I checked, people are pretty pissed at violent crime against kids. I'm not sure where you got the idea that people aren't.

[Crotale]

And by "go from there" you mean manipulate and present the data in an incorrect manner to try and prove a point that doesn't exist? D:No, what I mean is that you cannot use statistics to make the point. MAKE the point, not PROVE it. I have no proof that there is a less chance of dying for each individual, but it is less likely if you simply look at the number of deaths here stateside, which is the geographic reference, not Iraq. Besides, a generous portion of servicemen deaths over in Iraq have occurred during training exercises or other indirectly related combat duties.

In moving on, the simple fact of the matter is that we have lost an average of 800 members annually in Iraq. Out of somewhere in the ballpark of what I recall as being half a million or so US troops to have served there, we have lost 4000. Even though 4000 is not something to brag about, it could be a lot worse. The majority of actual combat losses occurred due to insurgents and IEDs. Considering that we did not overtake the country in a way that left no governing authority or infrastructure, the Iraqis have been slow to get things back to some kind of civilized state of normal, thanks to the Sunnis, Shia and Al Qaieda.

[Crotale]

Stuff
Well, I'll play nice, so I guess I'm just a f*cking idiot and you have all the f*cking answers. I like how you turned that around on me, what with you being the general and king and all. My original point was just that so many people want to sensationalize the military deaths in Iraq as useless deaths. Sure, people here state their disdain against local violence, but rarely do you see the scale of protesting that you see against a war that has not claimed as many lives of our youth as gang violence has. That was my point and I feel that I did not misrepresent data to make some grand assumption.

F*ck it, you guys know it all and I don't. Wow, nice discussion. Sorry I wasted my time.

[Plumb_Drumb]

okay calm down. I'm sure we all wish they would handle their own problems now that there is an opening to do so.

edit
sorry, that's a misnomer. :(

[Mister_Prophet]

Well, I'll play nice, so I guess I'm just a f*cking idiot and you have all the f*cking answers. I like how you turned that around on me, what with you being the general and king and all. My original point was just that so many people want to sensationalize the military deaths in Iraq as useless deaths. Sure, people here state their disdain against local violence, but rarely do you see the scale of protesting that you see against a war that has not claimed as many lives of our youth as gang violence has. That was my point and I feel that I did not misrepresent data to make some grand assumption.


I actually appreciate your point, even though I tend to disagree with it. Obviously people, at this point, generally consider any death over there "useless", because opinion on the war is typically negative. If people feel a war is useless, any death attributed would also (in their mind) be useless. What I find odd about your point is that, you seem to think people have more "disdain" for the the war then they do local violence, and that people make more of a big deal about the war then they do street crime. I don't think that's the case at all. Firstly, domestic crime and violence is a perpetual problem that's been around a lot longer than this current war, and it's a hugely broad area to cover. It's impossible to equate local crime to a war scenario. Wars are national endeavors while local crime varies from place to place. Secondly, I don't see how you can say that people are more up in arms about one over the other. I think it's unfair, and dishonest, to say that people all over the country don't take domestic issues as serious as they do the war...in fact I think it's quite the opposite. There are huge differences between activism against domestic problems then they are for international ones. People do care, much more, at the local level about domestic issues then they do about what's happening in Iraq. Turning on the TV and seeing reporters and pundits talk about the war day to day while local problems are covered in thirty second frames is not a good approach to weighing the national perception. The media is not the public, and it's no secret that the media is far from perfect (not to say that you were basing your point on press coverage). Thirdly, public reaction to a war tends to be different than it is to local issues.

Most people can dismiss the war as a waste of time, or support it, with a modest bit of research and leave it at that. For example, look at this thread. It's a far simpler thing to discuss than street crime, because everyone can acquire enough information about the Iraq situation in relatively fast time in order to form an opinion about it. It's not so easy to discuss domestic violence, because it's a vastly diverse epidemic (oh boy did that sound white). National issues can be talked about by anyone, anywhere, and everyone will have the same body of information available to discuss it. Local stuff? You can make carpet bomb remarks about how bad violence is in general, but the meat of it is regional. I can talk all I want about drug and gang related crimes in Wyandanch, since it's a Long Island issue...but I'd have less luck talking about problems in New York city. It's easy to say "more education, better economic stability" as a magical fairy dust remedy to each domestic problem, but not every area is the same. That doesn't mean it doesn't bother me though. Or that it weighs on my mind more or less than a war that involves people I know dying in the sand of some country I couldn't give any less of a **** about. Comparatively, discussions about domestic issues are a lot more engaging and take a much more serious note while public discussion of the war tends to be knee-jerk depending on how you view the current government (again, this thread is a perfect indicator of this). When people talk about the war, they are just stating their opinions, not really having any say in it unless public outcry is strong enough (see Vietnam) Really, I just don't agree with your stance about people not talking about bigger number issues, because my own personal experience says otherwise...and the fact that there are more people giving a damn about domestic violence than violence in the war, on a local level. I also don't see why people have to take into account the problems in another area of society in order to express their concerns about another. That's like saying you can't mourn for Katrina victims and question government response time unless you take into account what's going on with the China Earthquake. I think most people are capable of discussing an issue one minute and then discussing another the next.

And besides, when this war is over...we'll still have domestic violence. Wars can end, crime can only get reduced.

[Crotale]

I tend to get a bit standoffish when I hear or see stuff about deaths in the war. Many of the regulars on this forum alone are very antiwar no matter what the war is about. Me, being a military type person does not mean that I am a warmonger, but I do have he opinion that war is sometimes necessary and at times inevitable due to human involvement. Period. And though our surges have been and are effective and combat deaths are down, you will still have the naysayers, because as you said, the war is over there on a piece of land they could give a crap about. Makes it easy to not care when it is so far away. Heck, I even met people from California who could give a rat's behind about the Twin Towers and all those who died there on 9/11.

Yeah, I can relate to the local issue of violence, but my point still stands that I have yet to see a national movement against violence anything like what I have seen regarding an antiwar movement. Heck, I've seen bigger local gatherings to protest harsh immigration laws and breast cancer than I have seen of movements against local violence. But yeah, I get more people in my circles talking about the war than about violence here in our neighborhoods. Maybe Las Vegas residents just like to bury their heads in the sand. Or they are afraid of gang reprisals, which I know to be an unfortunately strong factor. Or, maybe our brains are sunburnt. It probably accounts for my stupidity.

[DeeperShade]

I don't think people are 'naysaying' the war because they don't give a crap about Iraq.
They're naysaying it because we have no ****ing business being there in the first place.
Nice way to try and paint military types as the only ones that care though. Care at the touch of a laser guided bomb?

[Mister_Prophet]

I tend to get a bit standoffish when I hear or see stuff about deaths in the war. Many of the regulars on this forum alone are very antiwar no matter what the war is about. Me, being a military type person does not mean that I am a warmonger, but I do have he opinion that war is sometimes necessary and at times inevitable due to human involvement. Period. And though our surges have been and are effective and combat deaths are down, you will still have the naysayers, because as you said, the war is over there on a piece of land they could give a crap about. Makes it easy to not care when it is so far away. Heck, I even met people from California who could give a rat's behind about the Twin Towers and all those who died there on 9/11.

I get where you're coming from. Maybe I can't totally appreciate it, not being a military guy...but for me it's hard to be an American and not see how war is necessary at times. I'm far from anti-war (as the late Richard Jeni said, "War is one of the only ways to permanently solve anything"), although like a lot of people this current war frustrates me. For me, I admit that many of my reasons are selfish. A close friend of mine is going back over there for a 3rd tour and it's hard for me to see the necessity for it when I have a strong disapproval for this Iraq thing. When we were in Afghanistan I was all for it. Then they said, "we're going to the Iraq" and I was more or less like, "uh what?". But a lot of it is also political for me as well. I don't label myself democrat or republican, I just don't like Bush and his admin. My lack of faith in him and his cronies mirrors my lack of support for the Iraq war. My heart goes out for the troops, especially since I have a personal investment involved...I just don't have the same level of faith in those running the show.


Yeah, I can relate to the local issue of violence, but my point still stands that I have yet to see a national movement against violence anything like what I have seen regarding an antiwar movement. Heck, I've seen bigger local gatherings to protest harsh immigration laws and breast cancer than I have seen of movements against local violence. But yeah, I get more people in my circles talking about the war than about violence here in our neighborhoods. Maybe Las Vegas residents just like to bury their heads in the sand. Or they are afraid of gang reprisals, which I know to be an unfortunately strong factor. Or, maybe our brains are sunburnt. It probably accounts for my stupidity.

Unfortunately politics gets in the way of progress, at times. I think if governors, mayors, and local and national governments took as much interest in these things as the populace, there'd be better results. But it always seems like struggle. Politicians rarely get involved unless doing so furthers their own careers, and most of the ones who are willing to do things about it...well they aren't the higher ranking officials who really can get the ball rolling. Then take impoverished areas and ethnic division in account...well it's easy to see how so many people fall between the cracks. It's an uphill battle for sure, but I think the average person, especially those living in those areas, have the situation high on their priority list. It's getting the right people to listen and then finding out how they can deal with it while juggling the funding issues. Hence, why I say it's such a complicated issue and is harder to get in casual talks about it without avoiding the general remarks.

[das_ben]

There's a very interesting article (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080501faessay87305-p0/steven-simon/the-price-of-the-surge.html) by Steven Simon in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs that tries to explain the recent drop in violence in Iraq. According to him, it is due to extended co-operation with and appeasement towards local tribes that will hurt the stabilization effort in the long run.

[JaFO]

I wonder if the Iraqi citizens are as happy as the Americans ... they're still getting killed faster and in greater numbers than the guys that are supposed to 'protect' them.

[Jackal]

Funny, I just saw on the news (not Fox btw) that the death toll was up.

Even soldier suicide is up by like 30% or something.

[das_ben]

When in doubt, look it up (http://icasualties.org/oif/). The average deaths per day (of Coalition servicemen) are down significantly since last autumn.

[Fearless]

I feel the need to chime in one last time in this thread. I'm currently in the Canadian Naval Reserve.. not exactly the greatest title out there but I still have the chance to serve my country and I still can put my life on the line just like any other reg. force member. I fully support all Canadian/US troops... but that does NOT mean I support the man that tells them what to do. I am already considering a security position in Afghanistan (It'll be a few years down the road) and If I were to be killed.. I would die with honor, protecting Canadians from terror. On the other hand, If I was sent to Iraq I would be pissed. I would feel like a piece of ****, putting my life on the line for oil. I wouldn't be happy if we lost ONE soldier in Iraq let alone the number we lost last month.. that's still one brave US/Canadian citizen that lose their life to protect the interests of idiots in Washington.

[Crotale]

Fearless, I have been looking at our mission in Iraq in a slightly different light than most. Although no ties were made between Al Qaieda and Saddam, he was funding most of the suicide bombing in the region. Since his demise as dictator, we have seen those bombings drop literally to nothing. This is only one tiny part of the effort to bring more stability to that part of the world. As for oil prices, futures trading has always been one of those things that I have a strong disliking for, but it exists for a reason and most traders are naturally skeptic of stability in Middle East and Southwestern Asia. Even if the U.S. took no military action after 9/11, gas prices would most likely still be exorbitant today because of the existence of organizations such Al Qaieda. Iraq is actually a smaller factor in the world commerce of oil than many want to believe or admit.

The biggest failure, aside from a subjective view on wehether we should BE in Iraq in the first place, is the lack of forethought in regards to the infighting amongst Iraqi clans and the local insurgents who hate America just because they hate America. Honestly, I think Saddam was just agging on the world hoping to cause problems to the point that the U.S. was "given" a reason to invade.

[JaFO]

They're too busy killing their own people and the Americans to use their bombs abroad.
The invasion merely ensured that the powderkeg that was Iraq exploded a little earlier.
Heck ... just look at the Soviet Union or whatever is left of it these days. They've got similar problems when compared to Iraq.

Al Qaeda isn't the reason the gas-prices are still up.
Simple economics of supply (limited) and demand (enormous, thanks to India and China).
That's all there's to it.

// Fearless :
IF you're having doubts as to which position you would like and which one you wouldn't then get out of the army while you still can make that choice before someone makes that choice for you.

[Vers Vlees]

I wonder if the Iraqi citizens are as happy as the Americans ... they're still getting killed faster and in greater numbers than the guys that are supposed to 'protect' them.

well offcourse those deaths dont count because its seen as "colleteral damage" Also I'm pretty sure most of these deaths are due to etnic groups killing eachother. Not to mention all those terror attacks

Another thing dat bugs me and correct me if I'm wrong but isnt there a US media restriction on airing the return of the bodies from American troops on the television. (the image of coffins being unloaded from the airplanes). But then again it seems the Pentagon has learned from the Vietnam war and hired some good spin doctors.

But the real losers in Iraq are the Assyrians(or Christians in general). A small Christian minority believed to be descended from the ancient Assyrians. Its quite sad because they are more indiginous to Iraq then the other etnich groups.

[-Zer0-]

F**k Fox News.




Also, lolol politics. D:

[Selerox]

Is there anyone out there who doesn't think that the war was, and is, a total unmitigated disaster?

The sheer fact that every publicly stated reason for the war (and they've changed a few times), has ended up being outright disproven.

WMD. None, whatsoever. Yes, Iraq used them. Yes, the people that did deserve to come back and dung beetles.

Security. As has been mentioned, it just wasn't going to happen. It made the region less stable, and as a result, less secure. It made the US, and the West more or a target.

Regime change. Agreed, Saddam was high up in the league of evil despots in the less than proud tradition of humanity. Agreed, he should have been removed. But not how we did it. We took a bad situation, and turned it into the stuff of nightmares.

It's a cluster**** of truly epic proportions. It's not going to get any better any time soon.

I just wish people would shut up and admit we ****ed up.

[TomWithTheWeather]

Is there anyone out there who doesn't think that the war was, and is, a total unmitigated disaster?...

...I just wish people would shut up and admit we ****ed up.

Don't worry. People are opening their eyes. The pro-war talking points and propaganda are becoming more and more shaky as time goes by. People who want this war to end will probably win landslide victories at all levels of government in 2008.

Bush's Approval rating - http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

McCain can't even be seen in public with Bush or Cheney any more because it's a risk to his campaign.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Here comes big post, the point is at the bottom.

I wish there was a way to end this conflict without utterly failing the people of Iraq who we are now kind of responsible for. I imagine it will eventually be split into seperate countries, or in the hands of warlords.

Well unfortunately that's the way it's heading. However, that is what we should have done from the beginning. That region of the world will never see peace. Never. Ever. Never. Ever-never.

The war itself, down to the principles of what it has accomplished (not the premises on which we sought it) is not such a bad thing. We removed a dictator who was clearly out of line, murdering mass numbers of his own people and whatnot and we have given them their first election under a sort-of-regular government. We have tried to let them stand on their own and propped them up with a trained army. That's all well and good.
The problem is that we had no exit strategy and that's why it's hard to call any news from the war "good" if it doesn't start with "Time to go!" We should no longer be there, we should have left by now, we should never gotten our feet so deep in their backyard dog sh*t.

By removing and rearranging their political structure we are now obligated to see certain things through with the Iraqi people. There's no reason for us to become as involved though as we are. Even if we had done everything perfect, executed a brilliant entry/exit plan and gave them a fully functioning democratic government up and running by the time we split the Middle East would fall right back into chaos shortly after. That's all that's gonna' happen, we're just delaying it while getting our boys shot up.

From the day we declared victory on the ground (captured Saddam, found and toppled the rest of his government) we should have just split the damn country into 3 regions; one for the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis and left. All you can hope to do is try and let them be content with equal parts of their holy land. Personally, I don't even think that will work for very long.
You know the Israeli's even gave up the Gaza strip just to try and appease the Palestinians in an effort to see peace. Israel had built massive greenhouses and experimented with numerous forms of agriculture and really made something of that otherwise desolate and arid space. What did those stupid as*hole Palestinians do as soon as they got control of the place? Destroyed and looted the greenhouses and farms and began rocket attacks around the small cities there.
Now it's just a bunch of sand and mud huts again and the Palestinians have shown no signs of following through on the effort of peace.

Nothing works for those people and they are too far gone for anything less than a drastic social change to rectify their shortcomings. It's too bad really, because if the people who rise to power in this region wanted to make a difference for the greater good of their race they absolutely could. It's all these oil sheiks and powerful warlords who end up taking control for long periods of time. They have so much damn money coming in for their family and "government" that there's just no excuse for them leave their people as far behind the curve as they are. They reject technology, both commercially and medically as well as basic necessities like running (and CLEAN) water and electricity.
You see areas like Dubai where the leaders are socially forward thinking and pour money into making a decent life for their citizens. They've provided them with a free market and made all the basic living luxuries available and those places have turned into pristine little gems amidst the sand dunes; Dubai in particular is very beautiful, commercially profitable, modernized and people there aren't living in holes shooting at each. Oh, and they let their women wear whatever they want and go outside!

The Point. These people have it easily within their means to change the worlds perception, to elevate their capita socioeconomic standing and to break out of this cycle of violence and oppression. They just choose not to.

This has been a really long way of saying that Iraq, the war, everything concerning that part of the world is mostly hopeless. Wake me up when once we've left, otherwise there's nothing good to report.

[Crotale]

Good post Jack. We've no real exit strategy and it shows. But, at the same time, you don't post such things into the public world and expect the insurgents to kick back and not plan to take action when you take your "pre-planned and pre-announced" exit. IMO, it's a cluster**** and a catch 22. Could it have ben avoided, yeah. But then that Saddam prick would still be a pain in the ass and the suicide bombers would be just as busy as they were a few years ago.

Selerox, I agree that we f*cked up, but it is not an unmitigated disaster, IMO. The fact that no WMDs showed up does change a lot of pro-war attitudes, but the facts still remain that Saddam had materials and industry to weaponize chemicals and nerve agents. He just did not have them in a weaponized state, which required for the WMD classification. Technically, he had the makings for WMDs, but legally, he had no WMDs.

TWTW, funny thing about Bush's approval rating being at an all time low. I've noticed that the Congressional leaders' approval ratings are even lower than Geedub's. The Dems promised us all kinds of changes 17 months ago and I have seen diddly squat for change, good or bad.

[Mr. UglyPants]

So you would have rather had Al Gore or John Kerry in office?

And why would we care what John Stewart has to say?


Gore would have been WAY better as president than bush or even now.

[TomWithTheWeather]

TWTW, funny thing about Bush's approval rating being at an all time low. I've noticed that the Congressional leaders' approval ratings are even lower than Geedub's. The Dems promised us all kinds of changes 17 months ago and I have seen diddly squat for change, good or bad.

The reason we haven't seen much change yet is because while the Dems do have a majority in the House and Senate, they don't yet have a large enough majority to override Bush's veto's. I remember reading that the Congressional leaders' approval ratings were as low as Bush's, but that was like a year or two ago when Bush was around 40%. I wonder if that has changed any or held the same?

[Azura]

I visited Omaha Beach and the American Cemetary in Normandy this weekend. With what's happening in the world today I'd be tempted to say that the sacrifices of then might be have gone to waste.

With that said do you think that any memorials will be erected in Afghanistan and Iraq ? I somehow doubt it personally and that's kind of a sad thought.

[-Jes-]

Technically, he had the makings for WMDs, but legally, he had no WMDs.Iraq had a weapons' cache of 10+ years old mustard gas tank shells.

That's it.

Not exactly what I'd call the "Nuclear weapons" Bush's spat about at least 25 times on primetime tv, and even claimed to know the location of..
Heck, all the pre-1991 material was scrapped in order to appease UN sanctions, and no new material was acquired for future use.

But I guess the post-war findings - available here (http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf) - stating that Iraq had done NOTHING since 1991 to produce or procure any form of WMD isn't "fact" enough these days...

[Armagon917]

The reason American deaths are at an all time low in mroe then 4 years is because of General Petraeus. His new strategy from what I understand is to clear out an area and make sure its stable before moving on. From what I understand America used to engage and then leave. When we would leave an area the insurgency would ramp back up again.

For the record I'm an independent. I'm agnostic and don't go to church but have no problems with people of faith. I did vote for Bush twice. Its always been my stance to not dismiss a persons political views but try to understand where they're coming from and why they think what they do. Basically who am I to judge someone elses beliefs in all things.

I support the war in Iraq. For whatever reason we invaded and found terrorists which was the argument Bush was trying to make all along. That Iraq was part of the war on terrorism. I believe that when people blow up other people of other faiths tehn they're terrorists. I know the war was mishandled but I think the US is getting it right now. But war is never right. Sadly sometimes necessary. Maybe Iraq wasn't now but it would have been down the road. An Uday or Qusay regime. Oh that would be a happy country that surely wouldn't violate human rights on the most grotesque level.

I suppose its all how you see the world. I think the human race needs to evolve and human rights should be paramount. Unfortunately the methods for achieving that are at odds with human rights in the first place. Do the ends justify the means. Sadly I think so in this case because Iraq will never change without help I think.

I know I don't have the entire picture but I try to see from all perspectives and I think in the long run this is whats best. Its just very sad. Just remember don't get caught up in political propaganda from the left or the right. Go find out for yourself by reading many sources. Political hate sites will never admit to being wrong and thats just stupid. But mainly VOTE! America has a pathetic voter turn out.

Those talking about approval rating should look back at history. Washington was unpopular for signing a treaty with Britain. I believe it was the the Jay Treaty.

Wikipedia

Washington avoided the temptation of war and began a decade of peace with Britain via the Jay Treaty in 1795; he used his prestige to get it ratified over intense opposition from the Jeffersonians. Although never officially joining the Federalist Party, he supported its programs and was its inspirational leader. Washington's farewell address was a primer on republican virtue and a stern warning against involvement in foreign wars.

Signing this treaty though the American people believed Washington sold out teh United States to Great Britain. There were burning effigys of Washington in the streets. Sound familiar. Also I have not been called in any approval rating polls. Nobody I know has. One important thing though. Nobody is going to make a post and change anyone's mind. I won't argue or tell anyone they're wrong. I'm just happy that not as many Americans are dying and I HOPE we an all agree that is a great thing.

Liberals, oh I'm sorry Progressives you can flame me now. Its cool. You're likely going to win this next election anyway so you should cheer up. I swear I am Independent.

[Crotale]

Jes, I said they had "non-weaponized" assets. Those assets that could have been weaponized for mass destruction if the right facilities were in place. I find it rather disturbing that the overabundance of commercial grade chlorine was being produced and stored even though Iraq imported most of its chlorine. Still think a few old mustard gas canisters was all they had? Try this... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/fallujah_2.htm

[Armagon917]

I guess World War I and II were failures! We shouldn't have been "policing" Hitler, it was none of our business, it was just for greed to increase industrial production.

hahaha nice! There were people at that time who opposed the US getting involved in WW2 as well. They did what to the Jews? oh.........ummm

[Armagon917]

Originally Posted by Soggy_Popcorn
And it is partially successful, since there have been no terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since the debacle began.

What's the point? US Soldiers are just next door.. no need to travel to the US for to do that.


Well if that is the point then I think its better for them to attack military personnel over my little sister at Starbucks.

[gregori]

Its great that there are less deaths.

It would have been even greater had the US not gone to war in Iraq since their would have been practically no pointless deaths.

Its pretty unbelievable that the US went to Iraq to stop Saddam because he was brutal dictator. They supported him for years prior when he was commiting some of his worse crimes and still support regimes like Saudi Arabia (selling the later 20 Billion $ worth of millitary hardware)

Iraqis don't generally believe in that sales pitch.

[Armagon917]

Its great that there are less deaths.

It would have been even greater had the US not gone to war in Iraq since their would have been practically no pointless deaths.

Its pretty unbelievable that the US went to Iraq to stop Saddam because he was brutal dictator. They supported him for years prior when he was commiting some of his worse crimes and still support regimes like Saudi Arabia (selling the later 20 Billion $ worth of millitary hardware)

Iraqis don't generally believe in that sales pitch.

Yeah we play that game. We chose to support who we thought was the lesser of two evils. Did the same type of thing with Stalin. I think it had to do with Iran's stance on Israel. I would not call US deaths pointless. Even if you're against the war, maybe a soldier died trying to diffuse an IED and maybe that IED would've killed some Iraqi civilians. The people we're fighting over there show that they don't care who dies as long as they get to take a shot at an american.

You can argue a pointless war but to say that americans are dying for nothing is disrespectful. (I dont think thats exactly what you meant though)

[das_ben]

...and the suicide bombers would be just as busy as they were a few years ago.

Which suicide bombers from Iraq?

[gregori]

Yeah we play that game. We chose to support who we thought was the lesser of two evils. Did the same type of thing with Stalin. I think it had to do with Iran's stance on Israel. I would not call US deaths pointless. Even if you're against the war, maybe a soldier died trying to diffuse an IED and maybe that IED would've killed some Iraqi civilians. The people we're fighting over there show that they don't care who dies as long as they get to take a shot at an american.

You can argue a pointless war but to say that americans are dying for nothing is disrespectful. (I dont think thats exactly what you meant though)


Hardly.

IEDs are targeteting US millitary vehicles. US presence in Iraq is attracting a lot of the violence. Had there been no US soldiers there, the civilians wouldn't be at risk from IED's and neither would the US soldiers who are being targeted.
Everybody wins!!

I wouldn't want to disrespect any of the soldiers in Iraq. They're probably pretty brave having served in such a dangerous place and probably have good intentions. In respect of all the soldiers, they shouldn't have been sent into that ****hole to fight such a pointless war on the behalf of incompetent leaders and rich men who couldn't give a crap about their welfare.

[das_ben]

From the day we declared victory on the ground (captured Saddam, found and toppled the rest of his government) we should have just split the damn country into 3 regions; one for the Kurds, the Shiites, and the Sunnis and left.

While the Kurds and the Shiites would be fairly happy with that solution, it offers a multitude of new problems: the Sunnis would be left in poor, mostly desert regions with relatively low oil supplies, which they certainly would not accept given they've been the rulers of Iraq for decades; the Shiites would be likely to co-operate to a large extent with Iran, which is not in the interest of the United States (to say the least); and the existance of a Kurdish nation-state could possibly lead to Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria trying to break off and join that state as well, further destabilizing the area.

There are no easy solutions for the situation in Iraq anymore, but I'm convinced the success of any solution depends on the world's ability to preserve Iraq's integrity. Autonomous regions in a federal state are a possibility (although empiricism suggests that autonomy can lead to further enstrangement from central authority), as are models involving proportional representation of the ethnic groups including veto powers for the "big three". However, a simple withdrawal of the international community (and especially the Coalition) from Iraq won't help solve problems but simply create new ones, issues so large that they will negatively affect stability in the region (and perhaps even beyond). The international community as a whole, not just the United States (who nevertheless should take a leading role to reflect their involvement in the situation as well as their importance in the world), has a responsibility to act.

[Vers Vlees]

Its pretty unbelievable that the US went to Iraq to stop Saddam because he was brutal dictator. They supported him for years prior when he was commiting some of his worse crimes and still support regimes like Saudi Arabia (selling the later 20 Billion $ worth of millitary hardware)


but yeah he was fighting them evil Iranians. Didnt Saddam's brutal oppression kinda prevented Iraq from turning into Iran II.

remember its alright to support a brutal dictator as long as he kisses Western Ass.

hahaha nice! There were people at that time who opposed the US getting involved in WW2 as well. They did what to the Jews? oh.........ummm

That was more due to the fact that the Euro trash were killing eachother
and the Yanks had no desire to get involved AGAIN.

Besides if IIRC if the US should go to war wasnt the American public more in favour of going to war with Japan because of China. Because them Chinese were victims of Japanese agression while the Eurotrash were at eachothers throats again just 20 years after WOI.

What kinda pissed me off is the whole WMD disscussion. Its funny how the US talks smack on other countries how they cannot have weapons of mass destruction while they have enough loads of bio, chem and nukes to destroy the world dozens of times. Sure its not cool when those evil dictators have them but dont bitch if you have that kind of crap yourself.
Besides even if they would have found WMD's they would probally been labed with made in USA or EU anyway.

Also Mustard gas weapon of mass destruction? Didnt we throw that **** on eachother by the buck load in the Great War.

[DeeperShade]

For whatever reason we invaded and found terrorists which was the argument Bush was trying to make all along.

Wrong.
We invaded, found Iraqi's defending their nation. And once we'd removed them, there was no one to stop the terrorists from moving in.

You do know that Saddam used to kill terrorists don't you?

[gregori]

Yup, the whole invasion attracted terrorists to the region making it a training ground for them. Al Qaida and Terrorism (although very serious) are proabably the least of Iraq's concerns atm. The various groups and militias that are fighting are of a more nationalistic character. They care about local issues and getting their piece of the pie.

A western occupation in the Middle East looks really bad in the minds of muslims though. They think crusades when they see that **** go down and its not so difficult to suck in volunteers to the cause. The Iraq war, far from fighting terrorism has increased it about six-fold, around the world - not just in Iraq.

The majority of Iraqis are in favour of attacks on US soldiers, which is hardly a good situation.

The western nations in general need to try a new approach in the Middle East that doesn't involve throwing fuel on the flames.

[Crotale]

Which suicide bombers from Iraq?Not IN Iraq, but Saddam funded suicide bombers in Israel, for example.

[das_ben]

...and you seriously believe the suicide attacks in Israel are down due to the cessation of funding from Iraq?

[Azura]

...and you seriously believe the suicide attacks in Israel are down due to the cessation of funding from Iraq?

Of course they are. Contrary to the classical dictator Saddam funded terrorism because he wanted the attention and to live the excitement of putting his position at risk. This business about Saoudi funding is all nonsense because they're the nice people that give us our oil.

[Armagon917]

Wrong.
We invaded, found Iraqi's defending their nation. And once we'd removed them, there was no one to stop the terrorists from moving in.

You do know that Saddam used to kill terrorists don't you?

Hussein killing terrorists. Who cares the man was a terrorist himself on EPIC proportions. That is a weak point to make. As far as there nobody to stop terrorist from moving in. Well we could do that. But it would involve using the same tactics Hussein used which would turn us into criminals. We try and seperate the innocent from the guilty while Hussein didn't care and usually just cleared out the entire problematic area. The Nazis did the same kind of thing. And if terrorists are moving in by your own words then that is a regional problem like I said.

So how do we deal with that? History has proved isolationism which is what people against the war are mostly supporting has been disasterous in the past. We didn't want to get involved in World War 2 until we were hit at Pearl Harbor. And we didn't realize the full potential of the threat posed by terrorist cells in the middle east until 911.

I agree with you on one thing sort of. We did make a mistake by removing all Baathist from holding positions of power and important jobs. We thought those people were Hussein supporters when in fact you had to get Baath party approval to do anything. Be a dentist, or a Dr. for example. So we hurt a lot of people economically and thats when survival mentality sets in. People wonder how am I going to feed my family? Right when we started doing that is when the looting began. We also disbanded the Iraqi Army which was a mistake. We should have put them under new management to as Iraq's security force during the transition. But many people in the Iraqi Army were the people who carried out Husseins atrocities. Many tough decisions had to be made on how to proceed.


The western nations in general need to try a new approach in the Middle East that doesn't involve throwing fuel on the flames.

I hear this all the time and we heard it in the general election from John Kerry and he wanted to talk to France!? Everything he said on his policy in Iraq was virtually identical to what Bush was already doing. What is this new approach? Thats all I ever hear is we need a new approach. We have one and under General Petraeus since he took over there things have gotten better. Many people won't even give it a chance even though good results are staring you right in the face. And its all because you don't like who occupies the white house. Look past your own disdain for Bush and objectively look at the new strategy thats been implemented and then ask yourself specifics. Grand beautiful speaches are nothign without specifics. Obama is very charismatic but I haven't heard any specifics from him.

What do we need for some people to realize that this is a regional problem? Sadly I think it will take another attack on US soil for many of you to wake up. I hope that never happens. But then it will probably be twisted and ironically the left will say Bush isn't doing enough about terrorism. I can hear Pelosi and Kennedy now. Isolationism doesn't work. These people will hate us no matter what we do. You can't make friends with a snake, you have to chop its ****ing head off.

Speaking of Kennedy how can people vote for someone who left his date to drown? I'm amazed he isn't in jail. If I did that tomorrow I would be slapped with Manslaughter and locked up. Yes I know you're likely going to say how can you vote for Bush? Simple, action or no action against the problem. I chose action.

[gregori]

I hear this all the time and we heard it in the general election from John Kerry and he wanted to talk to France!? Everything he said on his policy in Iraq was virtually identical to what Bush was already doing. What is this new approach? Thats all I ever hear is we need a new approach. We have one and under General Petraeus since he took over there things have gotten better. Many people won't even give it a chance even though good results are staring you right in the face.

The good results? Like there are slightly less deaths here and there, but the country is still totally wrecked with very little hope of recovering. Slightly less deaths is still far too many. The fact that Iraq is conpletely ****ed up should be staring everybody in the face. It has become the most dangerous place in the world. As a general change in policy, perhaps millitary intervention in the Middle East is not the way to go.

And its all because you don't like who occupies the white house. Look past your own disdain for Bush and objectively look at the new strategy thats been implemented and then ask yourself specifics.

No, It all because its not really working. I usually don't like anybody who is in the White House. People don't hate Bush because of a personal vendetta, they hate that has wrecked so much of politics both in his own country and abroad. The new strategy doesn't have any plans for eventually withdrawing from Iraq and it doesn't have any plans to make this a working country.

Grand beautiful speaches are nothign without specifics. Obama is very charismatic but I haven't heard any specifics from him.

I don't really care for Obama (esp since he theatened Pakistan and Iran)
For some reason there is an assumption that if you criticize the actions of Bush-Cheney, you are obviously a supporter of the Democrats. Wrong, I despise them equally and many of their policies throughout the 20th Century are responsible for the horrible state we're all in with regard to the Middle East.

What do we need for some people to realize that this is a regional problem? Sadly I think it will take another attack on US soil for many of you to wake up. I hope that never happens. But then it will probably be twisted and ironically the left will say Bush isn't doing enough about terrorism. I can hear Pelosi and Kennedy now. Isolationism doesn't work. These people will hate us no matter what we do. You can't make friends with a snake, you have to chop its ****ing head off.

'Isolationism' was hardly the policy prior to the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia was being occupied by US troops - a fact that Bin Laden criticized and demanded to be changed. US had been heavily supporting Israel in opressing Palestinians, funding with money, weapons and vetos at the UN security council. They're was also the various wars in the Lebanon were US interfered. Iran's Islamic Republic was set up after toppling a US installed dictator, the Shah. Iraq was suffering horrendously under sanctions - they are thought to have caused half a million deaths, they were attacked multiple times by the US etc etc Based on that, its hard to convince me that 'intervention' works. For starters, it causing more terrorism.

Thats is not to say that all those things caused 9/11, nor did 9/11 cause the Iraq war. It was just a good thing to manipulate at the time. US would have tried to invade Iraq anyway. Its all about the oil.

The more the US is entangled with the politics of the Middle East (esp in such a negative way) the more risk there will be another attack on US soil. Levels of terrorism around the globe increased six fold as a result of the Iraq war.

[Azura]

Hussein killing terrorists. Who cares the man was a terrorist himself on EPIC proportions. That is a weak point to make.

I think you missed the point I was making with my sarcasm there. Hussein was first and foremost a dictator. That doesn't mean he wasn't involved in terrorism but he had no interest whatsoever in provoking any reprisals unless he'd totally lost his mind.

[Plumb_Drumb]

well, it's not like people are going to suddenly change now that we've all heard it for the 10 billionth time.

[DeeperShade]

Hussien was not a terrorist. He was a lot of things, but misusing the word Terrorist and applying it improperly, dissolves its meaning.

Furthermore, it may be a regional problem, but another invasion, will not and can not solve that problem.

Perhaps accepting that America and Britain have made massive errors of judgement and improper actions in that region of the world, and attempting to mend those errors alongside INTERNATIONAL (not just the US/UK) police action would solve more than the current 'lets just bomb them and see what happens' strategy.

[Azura]

well, it's not like people are going to suddenly change now that we've all heard it for the 10 billionth time.

Well there's having an personal opinion and just regurgitating what someone else said. If you can't think for yourself on issues like this then you'd there's no point in debating.

[Armagon917]

'Isolationism' was hardly the policy prior to the 9/11 attacks. Saudi Arabia was being occupied by US troops - a fact that Bin Laden criticized and demanded to be changed. US had been heavily supporting Israel in opressing Palestinians, funding with money, weapons and vetos at the UN security council. They're was also the various wars in the Lebanon were US interfered. Iran's Islamic Republic was set up after toppling a US installed dictator, the Shah. Iraq was suffering horrendously under sanctions - they are thought to have caused half a million deaths, they were attacked multiple times by the US etc etc Based on that, its hard to convince me that 'intervention' works. For starters, it causing more terrorism.

Thats is not to say that all those things caused 9/11, nor did 9/11 cause the Iraq war. It was just a good thing to manipulate at the time. US would have tried to invade Iraq anyway. Its all about the oil.



We were in Saudi Arabia to protect their oil fields with PERMISSION of their government. You might even go as far to say... we were helping Saudi Arabia? This was back in 1990. But its an Occupation!? Oh cmon. Your use of words is way off the actual facts. We had a continued presence there with PERMISSION again to deter Hussein from any wild ideas. They were in US military bases! This was part of Operation Southern Watch which was to ensure a no fly zone in southern Iraq for saftey of northern Saudi Arabia and to protect their oil fields from Hussein.

So Saudi Arabia was being OCCUPIED by US troops. Yeah what were we thinking helping them out? **** Bin Laden he hated the US from day one and this was just an excuse.

Your use of words are misleading and no offense show that you aren't familiar with the facts. Theres debate and I respect peoples opinions except when they're based on or represented completely incorrect. Respectfully go do some research. America is not the problem.

Iraq suffering - Saudi Arabia occupied by US troops - supporting Israel in opressing Palestinians <--------that one, WOW.:rolleyes:

I love my country and can admit when it does something wrong. You just seem to think thats all it does. If I'm wrong then whats up with the wording. Do most people in Dublin or Baile Atha think the way you do? I'm just curious being Irish myself.

[gregori]

We were in Saudi Arabia to protect their oil fields with PERMISSION of their government. You might even go as far to say... we were helping Saudi Arabia? This was back in 1990. But its an Occupation!? Oh cmon. Your use of words is way off the actual facts. We had a continued presence there with PERMISSION again to deter Hussein from any wild ideas. They were in US military bases! This was part of Operation Southern Watch which was to ensure a no fly zone in southern Iraq for saftey of northern Saudi Arabia and to protect their oil fields from Hussein.

The Saudi goverment is hardly a democracy were the public's opinion counts.
Its hardly legitimate if its goverment gives permission or not. The public of Saudi weren't particularily happy with US troops still in the Holy Land.

So Saudi Arabia was being OCCUPIED by US troops. Yeah what were we thinking helping them out? **** Bin Laden he hated the US from day one and this was just an excuse.
That 'they just hate america' is just an excuse that avoids some of the very real problems that people in the region have with US foreign policy. Its easy and comforting to believe but not entirely true. I'm pretty sure US wouldn't tolerate bases and forces of a foreign power set up inside its own country nor would the public be pretty happy with that.

Your use of words are misleading and no offense show that you aren't familiar with the facts. Theres debate and I respect peoples opinions except when they're based on or represented completely incorrect. Respectfully go do some research. America is not the problem. Respectively follow your own advice. Whether America is the problem or not is a matter of opinion, not as statement of fact.


Iraq suffering - Saudi Arabia occupied by US troops - supporting Israel in opressing Palestinians <--------that one, WOW.:rolleyes: Roll your eyes all you want but all these things have created a lot of resentment of the US in the Middle East and the list goes on. Anybody serious about countering terrorism would look at all these things and take them into consideration.


I love my country and can admit when it does something wrong. You just seem to think thats all it does. If I'm wrong then whats up with the wording. Do most people in Dublin or Baile Atha think the way you do? I'm just curious being Irish myself.

No, I don't think all it does is wrong but I'm not afraid to point out when its doing wrong. I speak for myself, ask some other Irish people if you want their opinion. I'm not overly interested in making this personal.

[DeeperShade]

My families Irish, would you like to ask me a question Armagon?

[Soggy_Popcorn]

I think you missed the point I was making with my sarcasm there. Hussein was first and foremost a dictator. That doesn't mean he wasn't involved in terrorism but he had no interest whatsoever in provoking any reprisals unless he'd totally lost his mind.

Oh right, because North Korea and Iran don't have insane dictators making crazy-ass moves against the West every day, "putting their positions at risk." :rolleyes:

[Azura]

That's what dictatorships do: challenge democracies.

[DeeperShade]

I hope i'm not the only one that views soggy's posts at the blathering rantings of an angry illinformed man.

[Mister_Prophet]

You're not. But I like his avatar :D

[Kantham]

F**k Fox News.


Join the club. (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/group.php?groupid=15)

[Jonathan]

Hussien was not a terrorist. He was a lot of things, but misusing the word Terrorist and applying it improperly, dissolves its meaning.


So Hussein causes terror upon tons of people by bombing them with mustard gas, torturing them, breaking their arms, chopping off appendages, blowing them up one-by-one, and a host of other things, and isn't a terrorist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSKKQ4qvOY8

[DeeperShade]

No, because terrorism is an entirely different act.
What Hussein attempted was closer to genocide.

Please don't misuse words of such gravity. It diminishes their meaning.
Also, although an interesting video, it is edited, and specifically designed to 'pull heartstrings'. Present your arguments with facts, not videos designed to manipulate.
What hussein did was disturbing enough without skewing it further.

[Armagon917]

Join the club. (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/group.php?groupid=15)

I'm sorry but I have yet to see a completely unbiased news network. Fox leans right but MSNBC leans wayy left. I'd join the f**ck all news networks club. :lol:

[Mister_Prophet]

Sign me up too.

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

Yeah we really need a "F*ck American journalism" group, cover all the bases.

[GotBeer?]

Yeah we really need a "F*ck American journalism" group, cover all the bases.

http://forums.beyondunreal.com/group.php?groupid=37&gmid=448#gmessage448

[Armagon917]

Yeah we really need a "F*ck American journalism" group, cover all the bases.

Why just American journalism. I've seen the BBC and Al Jazeera obviously state complete crap as well. Heres what I would like to see. No more commentators. I really don't need some guy telling me his opinion and then another guy bickering back to him about various points. How about this happened and then slap the person who says thats aweful or thats great because we can determine that for ourselves.

What we need is statements only. Questions can be biased and thats where the problem is. Heres the story, here liberal guyor gal and now conservative guy or gals statement. Perfect, no interjection of crap from the news networks trying to sway you to one side. Just the story then a statement from the opposing sides. Interviews should always be done by someone with the exact opposite political view. We don't need people patting each other on the back in interviews and having no tough questions asked. Of course this will never happen. I'm also tired of seeing political adds right after a news story. That should not be on that channel. Any other channels are fine. The reason I think this is because along with a friendly interview with a senator where the interviewer is practically giving the senator a hug during the interview and then when you cut to the commercials you see that senator's campaign commercial. The network has easily just leaned heavily to one side right there.

But this is hardly limited to American jouranalism. Widen your scope please. :lol:

[Jacks:SmirkingRevenge]

I'm not saying it's limited only to America. I say American because that is where I reside, that's what I see every day.

[Armagon917]

So Hussein causes terror upon tons of people by bombing them with mustard gas, torturing them, breaking their arms, chopping off appendages, blowing them up one-by-one, and a host of other things, and isn't a terrorist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSKKQ4qvOY8

Oh, you missed the rape rooms. Don't be a pretty girl under the regime.

Wikipedia

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[1] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition.

But I'm going to go out on a limb here and go ahead and call him a terrorist among the many other negative things he is as well. He used terror/fear to control people. Oh and bullets as well. He also gave money to families of suicide bombers attacking Israel's population. You might even say those people who attack Israel in that manner are terrorists too. :)

Edit ^^^ Jacks:SmirkingRevenge sorry I just see a lot of America bashing so I get touchy when I think people aren't looking at their own countries as well. Misunderstanding.

[Soggy_Popcorn]

Angry? I would certainly hope that anyone who has heard, seen or known of these atrocities would be pretty mad. As for ill-informed, I think it's pretty hard to not see the situation for what it is, though you do well at that.

[Balton]

But I'm going to go out on a limb here and go ahead and call him a terrorist among the many other negative things he is as well. He used terror/fear to control people.

By that definition my former boss was a terrorist.