Who do you want to win this election?
- Thread starter Gambit84
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I am displeased with only 3 votes
Try tying the other candidates to terrorists, and see if it works?
So I was at this guy's house the other day. I found a fuse or two, and a 20-ounce bottle or two of some chemicals that could make a bomb. And dude, he had tons of rat poison in his basement! He could have totally taken that stuff and dumped it in the local water tower.
The American people were told that Iraq had WMDs and was ready to roll. We were sold the war in Iraq based on the premise that Saddam was actively producing and had already produced significant weapons. That was a lie, plain and simple. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Iraq has never been directly involved in terrorist attacks against the United States. We had no valid reason for being there. Justifying it after the fact with the removal of Saddam does not change that. Bin Laden still lives, we abandoned the real war on terror for a target that Bush could publicize results on far more easily.
War on Terror. What the hell is this War on Terror? Did we learn nothing from our "War on Communism"? What happened the last time we waged a war against an idea? We had a decades-long stalemate with Russia that only ended when both sides got tired of hovering their fingers over the nuke button. We had wars in Korea and Vietnam that could favorably be called failures, and unfavorably called "those times when we got our asses kicked".
Something Bush, and most of the people that are really gung-ho about this War on Terror™ don't understand: you cannot kill an idea. Especially this particular one. What are we fighting now? Insurgents. And the more insurgents you kill, the more you create. Every single time you occupy a sovereign nation; every time you kill a husband, brother, son, or father you justify them. You give the ones still left even more reason to hate you. What would you do if foreign tanks were rolling down the streets of New York and foreign troops were killing your family members? It's real easy to enjoy a war when you're the one holding the gun. It's real easy to support a war when it's "those damned foreign insurgents" being gunned down, instead of your family and friends.
Americans are spoon fed war through the fluffy pillow filter of the media and their government. They're not exposed to the horrors of it. They're not given the opportunity to see it from the other side. It's an old cliche but it's so incredibly true and relevant: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There is not one person on this earth that wakes up in the morning and says "Hot damn, what a glorious day! I think I'll go out and do some evil!" Everyone does what they do for a reason. And despite what our glorious government tells us, that reason is not "THEY HAET AMERIKA AND FREEDUM".
Fighting the idea of terrorism is just about the most retarded concept for a war that there could be. Nobody that engages in those acts is going to look at US troops blowing the **** out of sovereign nations and say "Hmm, maybe they're on to something...". They look at it and say "Look, there goes the USA imposing their will on the people with violence again. Death to them." The more we 'surge' the more terrorists we create. This "War on Terror" will never end as long as we attempt to solve it by killing more people. That's the very reason there are terrorists in the first place.
Weapons of Mass Destruction, what a hilarious concept. It's all well and good to say "We're just keeping WMDs out of the hands of insane dictators", but has anybody stopped for two seconds to look at the situation from the other side? The US has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on earth. The US is the only nation to have ever used WMDs on a target. On civilian targets. Who in the **** do we think we are telling other people they can't have the same technology? What the hell do we expect them to say to that? What would you do if a nation with a giant stockpile of nukes came to you and said "So we heard you're making nukes. Stop that or we nuke you." You'd tell them to go **** themselves, and work as hard as you could to have a counter to their own nuclear power. The US has this twisted idea that the rest of the world doesn't think it odd that the only nation with a credible nuclear capability is bullying other nations around, telling them they can't have nukes. Of course they're building WMDs, they are trying to protect themselves from a cowboy nation with a hair trigger and silos full of nukes just waiting to fly.
I don't know why I bother though. These days if you're not ready to glass a foreign city at the drop of the word "terrorist" you're not patriotic enough. Support our troops!
So your idea is to just let them waltz around will-nilly and do whatever they want?
The fact of the matter is, we don't know what, if any, of what we knew about Iraq in 2003 was falsified. The people flinging conspiracy theories about it all day long aren't doing anything worthwhile. The point is, we are in Iraq and we want to get out. Who cares how we got there at this point? Let's learn from it, yes, but let's not rehash it for another 4 years...
But that's the entire point. We haven't learned from it. We won't learn from it. We don't ever learn from it. There are so many wars, declared and undeclared, that the US has been a part of that it never should have. So many conflicts over the years that were either started, perpetuated, or covered by lies from the US government to its people. Until we as a nation start holding the government responsible for this behavior it will never stop. People should care how we got there, because there should be people going to prison over it. We are far, far too lenient in letting our presidents and other top military/intelligence personnel just say "oops lol" when they **** up on this sort of scale. Whether or not we can know exactly how much of a lie we were told back then, everyone knows that we were not told the truth. Even Bush admits that there did not exist weapons on the scale that was being advertised to the public.
As for "letting them waltz around", let me pose it this way: several years and thousands of dead people later, what has changed? Bush and our military like to harp on how we're making the world better, people like to display images of how many dead terrorists there are and how there haven't been any terrorist attacks on the US since then (ignoring the fact that it's very likely because attacks on the scale of 9/11 take years to plan and execute). Is the world any safer of a place? Last I checked airlines were still denying people for having toenail clippers in their bags, we're still talking about insurgents and making only vague half-gestures about a pull-out date for Iraq, Al-Queda and the Taliban still exist, and now we're looking at Iran and possibly Pakistan. The 'democracy' we've set up in Iraq is tenuous at best, and still has to be protected by military personnel. Palestine and Israel are still trading bombs, and Russia's invaded Georgia.
What has any of it accomplished, aside from letting a few people display bumper stickers?
But he didn't admit that they fabricated the earlier numbers.
As far as you've been able to show, anyone who voted to go to Iraq should be imprisoned, which seems ridiculous to me. I'm guessing you are one of the people that found Fahrenheit 9/11 to be a truthful documentary as well?
It does sound ridiculous, and it's not at all what I said. The people that voted to go to Iraq were acting on the information being presented to them. That information was false, either through outright fabrication or through negligence in its collection and assembly. Those presenting the information should be held accountable for it. Given that the presentation of that false information has cost thousands of lives, the presenters should, at the very least, be behind bars for a very, very long time.
Again, this doesn't even need a conspiracy theory, and certainly not a trashy Moore documentary. It is a known and established fact that we went to war over false information. That we have done so repeatedly throughout history. The 'conspiracy theories' come in when we try to explain why false information was presented, and that's beyond the scope of what I'm talking about here. Regardless of how the falsities were constructed, somebody should have paid the price for them.
Again, this doesn't even need a conspiracy theory, and certainly not a trashy Moore documentary. It is a known and established fact that we went to war over false information. That we have done so repeatedly throughout history. The 'conspiracy theories' come in when we try to explain why false information was presented, and that's beyond the scope of what I'm talking about here. Regardless of how the falsities were constructed, somebody should have paid the price for them.
All I read was "blah, blah blah..."
The real fact of the matter, if you knew anything at all about intelligence gathering, is that in Iraq, we had to rely on internal sources that we could verify as best we could to be legitimate (re:honest) sources. It seems that after we entered into Iraq and found the real story, things were quite different than the picture provided to us by those inside sources. Is this failure on Bush's part? I'm not not sure that it is.
As for your complaint about us trying to win a war against an idea, what the **** do you think post-invasion Iraq is all about? It is about bringing some form of democracy to that region,giving all the peoples in Southwest Asia and the Middle East an opportunity, or at the least, the possibility of an opportunity, to break from the oppressive rule of most governments in those regions of the world.
About the deaths of my fellow servicemen in Iraq, yes it is quite sad they had to give their lives, but those lives were not given in vain, my friend. People that use the death numbers to speak against the war are using these honorable deaths for a less than honorable purpose. I decided to put these deaths into perspective. Did you know that in 2001, about 1700 alcohol related unintentional injury deaths claimed the lives of persons of ages 18-24, the same age group that has seen the most casualties in Iraq? That figure is close to the national annual average and yet, I hear no public outcry against drinking like the one against war in Iraq. I guess those alcohol-related deaths are much more acceptable than some bull**** like serving one's country.
Edit: my original post had the ages 8-24, should be 18-24.
Last edited:
Democracy is certainly a noble ideal, but we have for some time been talking about Iran, for example. So what does our government propose we do? Systematically destroy the infrastructure of every single non-democracy on earth to supplant them with democratic systems? That is insane. And whether or not we're leaving democracy in our wake, the war is pitched -- to this day -- as the War on Terror. And we are still talking about Terrorists. And in that regard, democracy or no, there has been little if any success.
We have laws against drunk driving that are an automatic outcry against alcohol-related deaths. When such deaths happen, somebody goes to jail. Somebody is punished. It is already handled because the outcry already happened, and was dealt with. This isn't cheapening the deaths of servicepeople, this is stating that there is a very real human toll for this war, and it has not accomplished its goal. That its stated goal, to wipe out terrorism, is impossible. I support our troops, but supporting them doesn't have to mean giving them guns and ammo to go blow up more stuff and get more people killed (including themselves). I support removing them from harm's way, I support getting them out of the line of danger fighting a battle they cannot win. Because as I said before, as long as you fight Terrorism by killing people, you will never stop it, because you simply keep giving Terrorists more reason to do what they do.
And if the battle is really The War for Establishing Global Democracy, it should be pitched as such, as crazy and irresponsible as that is.
We have laws against drunk driving that are an automatic outcry against alcohol-related deaths. When such deaths happen, somebody goes to jail. Somebody is punished. It is already handled because the outcry already happened, and was dealt with. This isn't cheapening the deaths of servicepeople, this is stating that there is a very real human toll for this war, and it has not accomplished its goal. That its stated goal, to wipe out terrorism, is impossible. I support our troops, but supporting them doesn't have to mean giving them guns and ammo to go blow up more stuff and get more people killed (including themselves). I support removing them from harm's way, I support getting them out of the line of danger fighting a battle they cannot win. Because as I said before, as long as you fight Terrorism by killing people, you will never stop it, because you simply keep giving Terrorists more reason to do what they do.
And if the battle is really The War for Establishing Global Democracy, it should be pitched as such, as crazy and irresponsible as that is.
You did have a valid reason. It was for Kuweit and the oil. WMDs were just an excuse. I can even tell you where this idea of WMDs came from. Saddam was using gas on the kurd minority.
Last edited:
Isn't the CIA responsable for this intelligence gathering you speak of ? Are they bad at what they do ? Or was the issue warped by political agendas ?
Sorry if I appear rude but I call bull**** on that one. Anyone who's sane would realize the hornet's nest that was and is still the middle east. You simply don't intervene and expect a newly established local government to hold by itself. Also, any of the servicemen that went over there and understood what was happening also understood that this "war" was going to last a few years. That's why some of them refused to go over there at the risk of some heavy sanctions.
If you actually believe in this idea of democracy then how come the same wasn't done in Iran ? If the people over there are of so much value then what was this business about embargos stopping them getting much needed medicine ? So you can promote democracy but you also punish the population that you want to sell the idea to. Come on !
Maybe you should be sent to Afghanistan.
Last edited:
Way to read what I said. I said "post-invasion" Iraq. Saddam would not have stopped his BS had we ignored him. As for the other countries in those regions, it would be up to their citizens to decide if they wanted to continue living in oppression. Our mission is not necessarily to bring democracy, but without giving these people some hope for a better and freer future, how else do you stamp out the root causes of what entices these same people to join radical groups such as Al Qaeda? If you have a better answer, I'm all ears. IMO, by giving the peoples of the nations the idea that there is something better than living under oppressive rule is a way to accomplish what you are saying, but it unfortunately cannot be done without military involvement due to the nature of the oppressive beasts.
Iraq had nothing to do directly with 9/11, but if you sum up all the involvement the US has had in that region of the world over the years, and much of it seen in the eyes of many people there as aggression, you can see where it was and is an integral part of Al Qaeda's motive. The UN, with us as a major participant, had tried to maintain a stranglehold on the Iraqi government for years. This was a major reason for Al Qaeda claiming we were the aggressors. Bin Laden didn't give two ****s about Iraq; he merely used it to fuel his own fire to rally more members to his cause.
Although the War on Terror began after 9/11, Bush stated from the outset that we weren't just after those who committed those heinous acts of aggression, but all groups and governments who support global-scale terrorism. And before you go off about Saddam's regime not committing global-scale terrorism, please keep in mind that his funding of suicide bombers had a ripple effect across the globe, because if he and those terrorists succeeded and threw Israel into a full war with the surrounding nations, well, who knows what fuel prices might be at right now. And if you don't think that would **** up our global economy and possibly bring more countries to war over resources, well...
Yes, but our resources were limited, as it was extremely difficult to get access for our own agents. Therefore, we had to rely on what appeared to be legit sources from inside Iraq, many of whom had ulterior motives, unbeknownst to us at the time.
Last edited:
The CIA is one of the best if not the best intelligence agencies in the world. The only problem there might have been was finding people that could pass themselves off as locals or that could be trusted. They've dealt with dictatorships before (Kadafi/Lybia).
Also, don't you find it odd that WMDs were reported as a possibility in Iraq but not one shred of information came up on the terrorist act that would result in 9/11 ? If things were in your hands, which one these issues would you give priority to ?
Last edited:
It isn't always as easy or simple as it would appear. The issue was with finding locals that could be trusted; they gave enough information to appear legit based upon other intel sources.
Iraq and Al Qaeda never worked together. Besides, it would have been darned near impossible for Al Qaeda to bring usable quantities of such supplies into the US. That is why they chose the "airliner as a missile" option for 9/11. It was a very small investment and minimized the possibility of being detected before the strike.
Why was it easier in other dictatorships ? Maybe because Sadam became paranoid ?
Iraq and Al Qaeda never worked together ... so why is Iraq brought up in this "war against terror" ?
Usable quantities of what ? Sarin gas ? Mustard gas ? That's the sort of stuff Iraq was making and it was probably to get rid of Kurds anyway.
Oh, so that's why it's so convenient (or inconvenient ?) to have these reports of these middle-eastern types learning how to fly surface just after the WTC was hit.
But this information was it gathered before or after ?
I'm not sure it was easier with other governments, but may have been more practical. Edit;?Ousting a government for the sake of taking over a country or simply getting rid of a person in power is one thing, but to help establish a new type of government takes on a symbiotic relationship with those that stand to lose the most in such a struggle. That is where we stood in Iraq before the invasion and where we stood in Afghanistan is the mountains when we "lost" Bin Laden.
That was another part of it. Getting anywhere near Saddam or his "people" was next to impossible.
I already spoke about it.
It is extremely difficult to get those types of quantities needed, as well as all the required components, past customs.
No, it was not about "convenience." One of the biggest failures in the intel community regarding 9/11 was the lack of inter-departmental/agency communications. The 9/11 Commission wrote about the effects of these issues on the happenings of 9/11, and, the Bush Administration has taken great measures to try and resolves these types of failures. Heck, this was primary reason for creation of DHS.
Last edited:
Not unless they make more than $250,000 a year, and even then it would be a fairly minimal amount.