Iraq War Thread Continued

[OP2Patriot]

I was saying that the UN, Germans, and French were more at fault. It seemed that you blamed the US entirely for the current condition of Iraq. Just opportunists? It seems you were not entirely enformed about what was going on. I only found about the Food for Oil Scandel on Tuesday, and word about it got out on Friday. In your portrayal of "evil," it seems that you did forget the French, Germans, and the UN.

Most of the looting wasn't for goods. It was people looking for records of their lost relatives. To see where they were if they still were alive, and what fate they met. Why wouldn't they want to know about their families. Also they were taking back in a sense what Saddam took from them and to have bread on the table. However, I'd like it if they get their looting limited former Iraqi government buildings, not hospitals and muesums.

---philipu2001                    

[new-er-bie]

"Also they were taking back in a sense what Saddam took from them and to have bread on the table"

---philipu2001

                   Around here we call that stealing, you can word it however you want.

If the US did it's aid job then they wouldn't need to put food on the table.

Looting for family records? Bull, since when are family records kept in museums? They did loot for personal gain, t.v's artifacts, anything worth money, you name it.

And I think the US is to blame for the current position in iraq, they made iraq how it is. The war machine, they supplied it to waste iran, and then turned against it. Germans, French, UN, whoever made money off it, they would've never got involved if the US didn't use iraq like it did. The US started this all by using iraq to attack iran, maybe you were misinformed? Or maybe you don't wanna be informed....                    

[OP2Patriot]

The only blame the US should have is for not finishing the job in '91. Then a lot of problems would have been avoided. I didn't say that muesums would have records:

However, I'd like it if they get their looting limited former Iraqi government buildings, not hospitals and muesums.

I said I wish they wouldn't raid muesums. Me thinks you spent 1 minute typing. Read my posts s  l  o  w  l  y before replying. You think the French, Germans, and UN played a small part in their sceme, it seems. Billions and billions of dollars flowed to the French, Germans, and Russians. (I forgot the Russians earlier) I'm short on time, so I have to go now.

---philipu2001                    

[new-er-bie]

Yeah but the US started this whole thing.                    

[OP2Patriot]

You are arguing with "the US started this whole thing!" For something to start, like a war, two parties usually have to be involved. If the second party, in this case Iraq, was more cooperative, then we would not be arguing.

---philipu2001                    

[new-er-bie]

Okay well your saying that it was between iraq and the US. It wasn't, the first gulf war was about iraq and kuwait, it had nothing to do with the US. The US only got involved cause of it's 'good will'. And even before that, the US created the iraqi war machine. How could they be so stupid to think that something like the invasion of kuwait wouldn't happen when they encouraged iraq to invade iran and have a a war for so many years. How could they be so stupid to think that after they armed bin laden that he would just always be a mindless follower of the US. Phil, iraq and bin laden used the US, just like the US used them. They all had thier motives. But in the end it all comes down to the US supplying them, if they never got supplied they couldn't have done so much damage at such a high scale. All I'm saying is that all this was created by the US. Am I wrong to think that?                    

[OP2Patriot]

As I said before, a sad result of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy. Not much more can be said, other than those were other administrations, and this Bush probably wouldn't try that policy. (Unless you think he is a dumb cowboy, although he is purty smart, getting a harvard degree and all) History will tell who Bush really is, not the critical media.

We were looking out for our best interests and the best interests of the world at the time, and to prevent Saddam from going into Saudi Arabia and getting more oil. Considering that Iraq had the third biggest army in the world at the time, the world really wanted the US to go in. Yes, the US could be considerable a major (or maybe the) factor for Iraq, but there are also other factors to consider. Iraq could have chosen to be peaceful and soforth, but they weren't, so they had to be dealt with. The US is a major factor in the world, and for that reason I am not an isolationist.

---philipu2001                    

[new-er-bie]

We were looking...to prevent Saddam from going into Saudi Arabia and getting more oil.
---philipu2001

Thats the stupidest thing I ever heard. I mean seriously man, what is he gonna do with more oil? Sell it to frenchies through the UN (remmeber they're all evil) for some cash?

You don't impress me by saying bush got a harvard degree. It's the same thing with all these damn saudi princes, they get all these oxford 'educations' and get degrees from these big name colleges. And what do they learn? Nothing, they paid they're whole way through. It just makes them look good, they're still idiots.  

Iraq could have chosen to be peaceful, you say. Yeah but also like you say the US is a major influence in the world, and they influenced iraq to be aggressive. Iraq is full of oil, so even if it wasn't a war for oil, it'll pay itself off. It's got like 3 major different ethnicities, so it's easy to break up. The muslims there are mostly shiy' ate, did I spell it right? So they could go the way or iran. It's all a political screw up, how are they gonna make a government there? I can't believe I'm saying it, but you know it was kind of good with saddam, everything wasn't perfect, but it worked. It's like getting rid of 1 evil and then worse evil coming after that. I'm glad he's gone, I won't sleep better at night thinking I'm safe, I'll sleep better at night knowing those iraqi's are safe. But seriously, how are they gonna make a government there, when they can't even get afganistan up and running? Whats your opinoin phil?

[OP2Patriot]

It's shi'ite. In Afganistan, the contractors won't start for some reason. That is why the Bush administration picked a couple a companies to work on Iraq, and one of them was the same company that built the Hoover Dam. There were some mistakes made with Afghanistan that hopefully will not be made again with Iraq.

Saddam with control over a lot of oil, he'd could have some control on gas prices and the economy. Usually when a place is invaded by dictators, that are after the money. power out, ups kicking in, wrapping up buisness

-philipu2001                    

[new-er-bie]

Shi'ite, oops my bad.

In iraq it's a whole different story, you don't need to fight for companies, they'll come to you to ask to work in the iraq oil fields. They fight so they can drill, they want the business.

Saddam already controlled a lot of oil, he just couldn't use it to his gain, legally that is. If the saudi's didn't help bin laden what makes you think they'll help saddam, after all he's iraqi not saudi.

"Saddam with control over a lot of oil, he'd could have some control on gas prices and the economy. Usually when a place is invaded by dictators, that are after the money. power out, ups kicking in, wrapping up buisness"

Whats the difference when a democracy does it?  

I'm sure you heard about how the economy sucks nowadays. Lets talk about the euro. The euro beat the dollar, I'm talking before the war. Iraq started using the euro as it's oil currency, making it higher than the dollar. When the Us goes in with the US dollar which do you think will be worth more? If tobacco companies, alchohol companies, and pharmecutical companies don't care about lives just as long as they make thier money, what makes you think that the US cares about anyone else as long as it makes its money.

This is how the article says it:

Iraq is a European Union beachhead in that confrontation. America had a monopoly on the oil trade, with the US dollar being the fiat currency, but Iraq broke ranks in 1999, started to trade oil in the EU's euros, and profited. If America invades Iraq and takes over, it will hurl the EU and its euro back into the sea and make America's position as the dominant economic power in the world all but impregnable.

Oh yeah, you cleverly avioded the question of how you think iraq's new gov. is gonna be like? Need more time to think? Just say so, cause I'm sitting here waiting!                    

[OP2Patriot]

Iraq's new government will more likely be a bit un-American, but probably not hostile. I did not say that Saudis would join Saddam, I said Saddam would take over the Saudis. More and more countries are accepting the American Dollar was their currency. (Some Central American and South American countries) Last I heard, Mexico was considering to change its currency to the dollar. All the better for us if we can monopolize oil. "Ye who has the oil makes the rules." Outpost Forums 4:5. Honestly, if this war was for oil, all the better for us. If you don't like it, sell oil cheap to other people's of the world. New-er-bie, what buisness of yours to defend the Euro? Why debate currencies? The economy has grown 1.6 percent of this year. It hasn't gone down, but up. And with the war over, the economy will get better. There will be more job oppertunities. BREAKING NEWS: Hard evidence of Al-Queda and Iraq link found.

---philipu2001
                   

[new-er-bie]

Whoever said I defended the Euro? I just used it to prove my point. And even if I did, what's it to you?

The economy sucks, it might have gone up a little, and that might be good enough for you. But it's not as good as it was before.

If the war couldn't get the economy up like crazy then what makes you think it'll just magically happen after the war?

What I was trying to say is that the US is unfairly making an influence grab. Their currency sucks, so they can't get it up playing by the rules, so to beat the euro they go and invade someone. Yeah it's good the US has the oil, that'll help the economy, but the ethical question is if it was a war for oil is soildiers lives worth the oil? Don't you remember seeing the "no blood for oil" signs at all those protests? Or did your daddy say that all that bull? j/k

How is there supposed to be more jobs just cause the war is done? Maybe in iraq, but how in the US. Plz explain to me?

You actually think that some south/central american countries taking up the dollar is gonna matter? They have like a revolution everyday and a new gov the next, how stable.

What hard evidence? I R A Q and A L - Q A E D A, they both have Q's right? Got that from a politcal cartoon, no time to find it though.                    

[OP2Patriot]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/26/...q.ap/index.html
That is from CNN, the people who had their own reporters tortured by Saddam, but didn't see it as newsworthy, and held their anti-war stand. The proof for the link!

In the course of history, the economy has always had an upward trend. You say it is bad now, but it will get better, and is getting better. You are complaining about a job in progress in my opinion. It seems you fail to look at the long term. The US Dollar is one of the most stable currencies of the world, and the temporary currency of choice for the interim government of Iraq. Ethics questions? Was the war worth it? We liberated Iraqis and have proof that those Iraqis try to ship away and destroy their WMDs as soon as we came in. Imagine it, if we had not followed through, they would not have destroyed some of their WMDs. You do remember the cyanide and mustard gus dump into the Euphrates River, right?

The world economy is in a bad state, so technically ALL CURRENCIES MIGHT SUCK BE YOUR CRITICAL STANDARDS! (Sorry, I had to get that out of me, I'm tired of people saying the economy is really bad off and so forth, even though it is getting better) In history, they will remember that the economy was bad for this period, but they will remember, it got better. The downward trend started before Bush even got into office, meaning that Clinton was still in charge. If you ask me, it is sort of irresponsible to leave a mess like that to clean up. (Also, if you ask me, I'd say that the Clintons should not have looted the White House before they left)

Don't you remember seeing the "no blood for oil" signs at all those protests? Or did your daddy say that all that bull? j/k

See one rally with 20 people, you've seen them all. Besides, what type of education do most of those protesters have anyway? They hate Bush, therefore they must stop what he does.

How is there supposed to be more jobs just cause the war is done? Maybe in iraq, but how in the US. Plz explain to me?

Short term, there will have to be people to fill the vacant places of those in Iraq. Thus, more hirings. Long term, the economy is getting better, more money, more jobs. (Unless those you have jobs oppress the unemployed by getting 2x their salary, however an unlikely scenario, just made for humor-sake) From what you have been telling me, the governments in Central America will be more stable than Iraq.

You want to war with cartoons? I got cartoons. In conclusion, I see your critism as pointless, because there are already people to work to solve the current problems, and they are paid to do it right. Think in the long term, not the short term. Good chess strategy, and works for many other games. Why would it not work for real life? Yes, there are things that must be done in the short term, but they shouldn't always be for the short term, but in most cases be for the long term.

---philipu2001

[size=8]Edit: NOTE TO XFIR, Why must the / m e command exist? It is pointless, and will hurt my link posting.[/size]
[size=8]Edit: Link fixed.[/size]                    

[xfir]

[ Hmm.. the / me command is being problematic.. I shall remove it. ]

What would you like me to say new-er-bie?

Yes, I think Saddam was a rutheless leader. He would kill anyone who was found to be Thinking about bad things toward him. The Iraqi people saw his face no matter where they looked. Could you imagine seeing the same face everywhere you looked? Including in your cup of coffee? Or favorite movie?

As for money related issues, I say let all the stock investors figure something out.

Have you seen the latest news? How the Iraqis are now calling the US a "leader much like Saddam" in effect? They are mad because we won't let them loot and destroy and kill. They want their own government that has no ties to the US. They want us out of there... What are they trying to hide?                    

[new-er-bie]

See one rally with 20 people, you've seen them all. Besides, what type of education do most of those protesters have anyway? They hate Bush, therefore they must stop what he does.

                   There you go generalizing. Every protestor's gotta be stupid, they all have to hate bush, they're not being 'patriotic'.

Dammit xfir, you post about the / me thing, but you can't write a little about this topic!

I'm not complaining about the economy or job trends, your just saying the economy's getting better, I'm saying that the amount that it got better dosen't even matter. Since you like to go with history, history proves that during and after wars, economies go up. And they don't just improve a little, they get up there.

All currencies might suck, but what was happening was that the euro was beating the mighty dollar, can't have that happening now can we?

Man your still with the WMD's, even if they did have'em what makes you think that they would use them against the US? The US was the instigator, they were the 'badguys'. All this propeganda to make them look like liberators is probably what your seeing. Yeah they did a good job getting rid of saddam, but why do they make it out like they went in there to liberate? They don't give a damn about the iraqi's, and everyone knows that.                    

[OP2Patriot]

Why do I have to repeat myself? Anyway, earlier I said that the war was for the WMDs. The Iraqi liberation is a side effect of the war.

The Iraqis may want autonomy over there own affairs, but before we leave, we better make sure those autonomous people do have no ill plans to the US. We liberated the Iraqis to remove their former regime that was a danger to America, and set up a better government in its place.

There I go generalizing? I saw one, then the one after that one was like the one before that, and the one after the one after that one was like the one after the one that was like the one before that and so forth. I did see different protests, but they are all very alike. Who said it was not patriotic to use your freedom of speech? What is unpatriotic is the fact they tie up traffic and are a civil disturbance.

---philipu2001                    

[new-er-bie]

What WMD's? They're still looking for them.

As you say the iraqi's want autonomy over thier governement, they also want control of thier oil, but you know thats not gonna happen.

Yeah your generalizing, so was I saying that anyone that speaks out is being 'unpatriotic'. We all do it, you just didn't catch me, don't cry about it man, just admit that you do it. Yeah it's civil disobedience, when they tie up traffic, but thats not the majority of the protests. Just a couple of people that wanna get run over, it's not like you see the 100,000 people marches blocking traffic. You saw the bad side of the protests, most of them were peaceful. And I'm sure you only saw the US ones, they're were protests going on all around the world. Don't try to downplay the protests as some stupid demonstration that don't even have the right permits to do the damn march or whatever.  :angry:

What took you so long to post anyway?  :blink:                    

[OP2Patriot]

BWA HA HA! It is so good to be so unilateral! (That is because the other side is stupid, that is why I am no longer a liberal) The peaceful ones I don't see on TV, probably because less bad stuff happens on them. Now, there were more pro-troops rallies than peace demonstrations, why didn't those pro-troops rallies get on TV? The current theatre of politics I am talking of now is the US, not France (in your response to world protests, yes there were others in the world, but most were in France).

WMDs, we have the cyanide and mustard gas dumped into the Euphrates. We find a place with high radiation levels, and preliminary tests suggest suspicious elements were weapons-grade plutonium. We've got the 300,000 boxes suspicious chemicals with the chemical warfare manuals and the antidote. We have conclusive evidence that Saddam tried to destroy and ship off his WMDs. We've found a subway made for "moving chemical weapons around." We know for sure the WMDs were there before we got there. If you doubt some of what I said, show me an article with contradictions to what I just said.

Who said it was not patriotic to use your freedom of speech?

I was talking about the hostile protests, the ones on the news, being violent. It seems interesting other than debating with facts, you've launched a personal attack. Did you run out of "facts?"

What took you so long to post anyway?

I couldn't post on Sunday night because of some forum error. Some of us do have a life, so I won't criticize waiting 24 hours for you to post.

---philipu2001                    

[new-er-bie]

Some of us do have a life, so I won't criticize waiting 24 hours for you to post.

---philipu2001

                   Ouch. Weren't you the one that said that you got most of your social contact from the forums? Yes Phil, your so interesting and cool that I have been waiting 24/7 at this forum. Seriously, don't you see that I'm always logged on?  

I live on the east coast of the US and you live in georgia, so we have the same time zone. I usually do all my homework on the computer at night, and of course while I'm doing work I'm also at a bunch of forums. I do my work and also post, so as I'm doing work I wait for the replies.

Since your posting an article about the WMD's, take a look at this site. No it's not a long article, it only takes a sec to look. http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

And there is no real proof, hard evidence that they're were WMD's, just the US's word vs. iraq. There have been plenty of times when they thought they found something and they were wrong.

Most of the peace protests were in france? Man you gotta watch t.v. and learn to pay attention, open your eyes. Maybe you didn't hear, or maybe you don't care but here goes... There were peace protests in spain, austrailia, US, germany, south korea, and of course france. I'm not sure but 1 time there was like 1 million protestors, maybe in australia or spain. Most of the peace protests were definetly not in france, maybe you just think that cause the french gov. is so agianst the war. The gov is different than the people, you get me?

No I didn't launch a personal attack on you. Every little kid online thinks he has balls, and tries to act macho and tough, I just think it's gay. How can I debate with facts? What I was trying to prove, there were no facts for, or I don't know about it. Maybe cause it's my opinion!!! I'm allowed to say my opinion right? Jeez man, chill out. I could say that your launching the attack on me.


                   

[OP2Patriot]

AAAAAG! I lost my post, because I browsed off to get some articles. This is for the special ops success:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200304...07-78970959.htm
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/n...war-side07.html

Weapons of Mass Destruction:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/apr03/131713.asp (Nerve Gas, this story was a bit hard to find)
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main..../ixnewstop.html (Chemical Euphrates dump)

(Read very carefully before replying, then show me your evidence)

You are keeping tally on the protests? I'm talking about the harmful ones. Like the destructions of McDonalds in France, due to protestors. Are you personally going to start your own vomit-fest? (Remember the one in San Francisco?) There are peaceful ones, but those aren't on TV that much. No, I see enough TV. There is too much garbage on there. (I'm not talking about the news) I watch NBC for my TV news.

I'm conservative and proud of it. If you are offended, then try not to be offended. If people would take less offense to things, we'd have less kangaroo court trials (good for the people, bad for the lawyers) and a lot of "racial discrimation" blather would not be heard. I have not been brainwashed. I have spent my lifetime picking my political views, and it turns out, conservatism is right, liberalism is wrong. Offended?

---philipu2001                    

[new-er-bie]

I'll listen to you and won't reply till I read the articles. But I don't have time, and it's pretty late so I have to go.

As for the French protests, you can't say that they were all violent. Your just taking a couple of bad examples and generalizing. Not all frenchies are like that, I know you hate them, but have you ever met someone french? Not someone "french" kid in school that grew up in the US, but someone that lived in france? They have a brain of thier own and know how to think, their country dosen't need US aid so they have the balls to say what they wanna say knowing they won't get screwed, economically. But as for the mcdonalds thing, the economy part can be argued. But seriosly, there's always gonna be some violent protest, just like there's always gonna be civilian casualties in war. You don't see me crying about every civilian the US killed in afganistan, in iraq; and yeah they killed a lot.

I'm not offended by your stuff. I don't care what you are, liberal / conservative.

You say "racial discrimination blather" like it's all fake. Being a white boy in the US I'm sure you haven't experienced it, but if you were black you probably would have. Even in the US, the greatest nation in the world (Phil's opinion  :rolleyes: ) stuff like that still goes on. Yeah some of it's exaggerated, but some of it's not.                    

[OP2Patriot]

You haven't read my articles. I never said they were all violent. Where did I say something to the extent of, "all of them are violent. You are trying to use things I didn't say against me. And you still have not try to show me your "evidence." And you keep on saying, "Oh, well, I guess you don't know the other half of the story," or something to that extent. Did you know minorities have been richer during the Bush administration than the Clinton Administration? Oh, do you want the article? I have posted more articles, yet most of what you debate with is more opinion based than backed up. There will always be discrimination, but only harmful discrimination should be censored. (Not the type where that n word is said, and they lose 9 days of work. In that case, they are incapable of handling what comes their way, and is their fault for the lost work)

---philipu2001                    

[new-er-bie]

Yeah but your implying that french people only protest like that. But other than that, yeah your right, I screwed up, sorry.

Well as for the articles I read the WMD's articles. The first article is what they think they found in a mobile lab thing. There are so many articles like that and so many mobile labs, and yet they still don't have any hard evidence. They still get 'positive' tests, and then when they get the experts to do them, they come back negative. You really must believe that there are WMD's in iraq just cause bush said so.

And you still have not try to show me your "evidence." --Phil

Well it's 'innocent until proven guilty'. Or did you not know that? That's how it is in the US, and of course your gonna say that with iraq it's different, we all know the US's double standards. But there still isn't any real hard evidence. And I don't need to give you any articles, I don't need to prove anything. You need to prove with your dumb articles that they found something. And you can't so you post some dumb little chemical thing that they're not even sure of. To this day they still haven't found any real proof, believe me man if they did it would be all over the news. The gov would shove it in the face of france and germany just to show them they were right. At the begging of the war bush said it was to get rid of the WMD's, and then later he changed the reason to 'regime change'. Don't waste your time giving me some gay articles, if you really believe that they have WMD's then wait and when it's all over the news shove it in my face. This isn't a little kiddie thing where I say that they dont' have any and you say they do. If you wanna prove it, then prove it, and until then they are innocent and you should shut up with these stupid articles that you hold so high. Man, think before you your stuff, cause it's pissing me off.  :angry:

I got a whole paragraph out of him just by calling him a white boy.  

Maybe I came off too strong? It's not gonna get anywhere if you say something about me and then I start crying, lets stick to the issue at hand. Advice to me more than anyone else.                    

[new-er-bie]

Since Phil thinks anything that I say isn't credible and he loves articles heres 1 found that fits my side:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082419/

"Remember Saddam's weapons of mass destruction—the ones whose concealment justified the invasion of Iraq? A week ago, the Washington Post reported that 38 days after entering Iraq, the United States had "yet to find weapons of mass destruction at any of the locations that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell cited in his key presentation to the U.N. Security Council in February." We hadn't even "produced Iraqi scientists with evidence about them." The only thing Bush said we had learned from interrogating Saddam's scientists was that "perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some."

What about Saddam's links to terror? Bush repeated Thursday that the Iraq war had "removed an ally of al-Qaida." Really? According to the Post, U.S. officials "have not turned up anything to support Powell's claim to the Security Council that 'nearly two dozen' al Qaeda terrorists lived in and operated from Baghdad." A Los Angeles Times investigation of the al-Qaida affiliate touted by Powell found "no strong evidence of connections to Baghdad" and concluded that the group lacked "the capability to muster a serious threat beyond its mountain borders." Saddam didn't even "control the region where the [group's] camps were located."
"
                   

[OP2Patriot]

Sgt. Todd Ruggles, a biochemical expert attached to the 2nd Brigade of the 101st Airborne said, "I was right" that chemical agents Iraq has denied having were present.

Chemical tests for nerve agents in the warehouse came back positive for so-called G-Series nerve agents, which include sarin and Tabun, both of which Iraq has been known to possess. More than a dozen infantry soldiers who guarded the military compound Saturday night came down with symptoms consistent with exposure to very low levels of nerve agent, including vomiting, dizziness and skin blotches.

The first was from a chemical expert in the first article.

And the second article, what do you have to say of the mustard gas dumped into the Euphrates? Maybe the mainstream media doesn't want to make a big deal of it. Just because you never heard of it doesn't mean it exists. Too bad Saddam tried to destroy and send off must of the WMDs, then finding them would have been a bit easier, but we've found them. We've found the dumped chemicals, we've found plenty of suspicious things, we know for sure the WMDs were there very shortly before the war. Innocent until proven guilty, but there is enough evidence already for a verdict. Just because this wasn't on the mainstream news does not mean it is not true.

That article is written by the ignorant.

Saddam didn't even "control the region where the [group's] camps were located."

That is pretty lame and old statement. There is definite proof of the link, how do you think the dictator that killed relatives doesn't know about a terrorist camp he was helping out. Obviously Saddam and Al-Qaeda had a partnership, or did you not read my article?

---philipu2001