Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums

Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/index.php)
-   Critical Thinking (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/forumdisplay.php?f=33)
-   -   Political: Going Into Iraq/Bush (http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=9843)

DracIV 04-28-2004 05:05 PM

Political: Going Into Iraq/Bush
 
Okay, I know this is a topic a lot of people hear too often, but I want to have a focused debate about this. The central question is this: Should Bush have sent the soldiers into Iraq, and what effects does that action have? I am looking for all the views, facts, and general info anyone has, as well as opinions, effects on America, pro/con of going in, and just about everything except personal comments (i.e. Bush is an idiot, or PosterX is stupid). Try to stay on topic for awhile, but later in the thread it would be nice to spread from just this event to the rest of his presidency and the rest of the related politics.

I'll post my views first:
Bush had a long list of reasons for invading, not just WMDs. Saddam hates us, and if he could he would most definately attack us. In past years, he has been a nexus for terrorists. We know from the messages within the White House that Bush had been planning since the very beginning to assault terrorism. The fact that Iraq was a known nexus automatically put it on the list of enemies. When America was attacked, Bush immediately set into action to counterattack. No one who deserved to be our president could do less. Instead of just hunting down the perpetrator, he decided to take it to the next level. A war had been declared on America many years ago, yet nothing had been done. Now was the time to take it to the next level and start an all-out war. Terrorism was no longer a thing for the police, it was an international war. Soldiers were sent out to attack Osama, others were sent to hunt down others we knew. A thorough process began to reinforce our own structure while we also expanded to attack. A fool might have decided to hunt down individual terrorist groups, but there is an easier way; set a trap and lure them all in like moths to a flame. First, we gathered the support of dozens of countries, then we went and began the invasion. Soldiers stormed into Iraq, steadily wiping out the thugs that Saddam used to control the people. As our soldiers went through, they used a new tactic for a new kind of war. Terrorists are a tumor, one that must be removed, and so with surgical precision we went in to remove the thugs and practice our tactics. As we freed the people, we opened an important trade partner that we truly needed in another war, which I will mention later. Saddam was finally defeated, and so it was time to lay the trap. The act of doing what the UN refused to do on their own created enough publicity that the moths all turned to see the flame; who could resist attacking when their target was so close to home and easy to reach? All those who would have attacked out country instead flooded into Iraq, literally tens of thousands entering from every direction. Daily our people fight them, destroying far more than we lose. Every single day our country becomes safer, as does every other country in the world, even Iraq. As we fight the terrorists, we also work to help Iraq build up their own structure, creating a great country for the future. Little damage was done to their country in the original invasion, and now it is becoming much stronger. Even though we are struggling against a religious tyrant who made a power player to try and take control [Fallujah, etc.], we are making progress.

The main benefit of this is an ally, one who actually supports us. No matter how small the country, it has potential to become one of the greatest in the world. Our own media is bias towards the side against Bush, and so it may seem that things are going down the toilet, but that is not true. We are making a huge amount of progress every day. We cannot leave yet, because the trap is not finished and because we still need to be there until our ally is strong enough to beat down those who wish to become the dictator or tyrant of Iraq. When we finally do leave, the world will be much safer after we exterminate thousands upon thousands of enemies who wish nothing less than to destroy us utterly. In the future, we will wish we had an ally if we have not lost. If we have lost, so has everything we stand for, as well as the chance of peace in the world ever after. When our enemies see that taking down the strongest country in the world was possible, nothing at all can stop them from tearing down country after country, destroying all things they disagree with, and there is nothing that atleast one group doesn't hate. This literally is a World War to me, because everything that is valued in this world is what is at risk, because every single country is fighting this war now. This is a war of secrecy and selective destruction. No one is neutral here, because everyone is either the target or the attacker. No matter who you are, you can't say that your country and your ideals are not under attack from these type of people. We cannot let them control us, and Bush knows that. We should have started our end of the war years ago, but no one had the drive until Bush came into office. I would trust him to make the proper decisions about our country.

But that is not the only type of war we face. We also fight the war of commerce and economy. Recently, OPEC has attacked us. They purposefully raised the prices for an obvious reason: if they can hit us hard enough they can knock our economy back down. You may think I am paranoid, but this voluntary raising of the prices matches perfectly with the recovery of the American economy, and shows as we struggle against it to continue our daily lives and the economy slows down. However, a foresight by Bush may give us the boost we need to get back on our feet. Iraq is pretty large source of oil, and by setting the trap there we now have a fair ally with whom we can trade at reasonable prices. Many have accused Bush of doing this for money, but that is not true. Part of the reason was oil, but not for himself, instead for our country, to give us freedom. Right now, OPEC literally has control of us. If they wanted, they could almost totally shut down our markets by taking out our transportation. By entering Iraq, that can't happen. We can't run totally off of the oil from Iraq, but we can survive. The oil producing of Iraq is soaring with new technologies, and our ally may be able to support us enough that we cannot be controlled by OPEC. An even better thing to know is that much more oil is being discovered in Iraq than should be possible. The surveyors are mapping out the rest, and Iraq may be the largest resevoir of oil in the entire world. So much oil is being discovered that the science relating to oil is beginning to change. Too much oil is being found too deep all over the world, so much that scientists are beginning to think that oil is not created from rotted plants as we thought before, but from a natural process deep in the rocks. This means that oil may be renewing much faster than anyone thought, and that we have an ally who will trade us oil from the one of the largest resevoirs of oil in the world. Even though we found no WMDs, that originally had nearly no swaying power. His political enemies have focused a great deal on that one thing in a long list of reasons that was wrong, when so much else is working out so well. America will soon be the greatest it has ever been, exceeding anything anyone had ever planned. And if you are thinking of colonizing other planets in the future, Bush is supporting space travel a great deal so that we truly can achieve what many have dreamed of. We have to wait many years, but America will achieve a massive amount thanks to this invasion, enough that we may reach heights that no one imagined we could. What do you have to say?

Anonymous 04-28-2004 05:46 PM

I dont think the issue is "should it have been done" but "what gives America the right to decide it should be done."

Personally, I think that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, and that we have handled it as best as was foreseeable, but we are talking about a country that has had its soveriegnty taken away by force. Sure, maybe it is for the greater good of America, and maybe for the greater good of Iraq, but nothing ever gave us the right to "set a trap" in someone else's country.

How would people from Rhode Island feel if Texas came over and said, "we are gonna set a trap for terrorists here, first we are gonna invade (there are few deaths), then we are gonna stay here for a little bit while men with AK's take over churches and shoot at anything that moves, we'll do our best do defend you, but it might be a little violent for a while, with the explosions and all. Later on it will all be better than before."
Even if all of that is true, i can understand why the Iraqi people are pissed.

Thingy 04-28-2004 05:48 PM

^
|
|
|
|
was me.... it logged me out

IronMonk 04-28-2004 05:52 PM

you have some very good information of this current affair. but their are some interesting loopholes in your argument, in the beginning of bush's presidency it wasnt terrorism he wanted to attack, it was iraq and mainly saddam. also the other hole is that without the inreastructure of terrorist leaders/supliers, you dont have able bodied terrorists, you have stone throwers instead of suicide bombers. if you can cut off the $$ you can controle the weapons. another interesting fact. the us dictates what the price of the oil is that they sell to the united states. [interesting thought huh, i tell you how much this will cost. ] one more hole is that bush doesnt have the time or the funds left to finish what he started. after already spending what, 80 billion, he will need another 75 billion to finish it

so i wonder what sort of thing you can do with 150 billion, perhaps, cure cancer. that kills more lives then terrorists, how about fund electric car research, get rid of 80% of the need for oil. get rid of smoking, that kills more then terrorists do also. Get rid of drugs. But then if we can get rid of our need for oil, who looses money the oil industry, but then again guess who bush's buddies are, surprise surprise, the oil industry. bush wouldnt do that to friends now would he?

IronMonk 04-28-2004 05:55 PM

whoa glitch,

GuidoHunter 04-28-2004 06:41 PM

(I realize that my opinions are not necessarily....of the norm, so I speak for nobody other than myself and my feelings)

What gives America the right to go in and take away Iraq's sovereignty? The fact that we're the biggest gang with the most guns. Basically, we get to do what we want because we can, as the most powerful nation in the world.

Wouldn't you rather have stone throwers than suicide bombers? Something tells me the former is just a bit less destructive.

Even if the US dictates the price of oil sold back to the United States, those prices are still at the mercy of OPEC's regulations, as Drac said.

Regarding Bush not allowing enough time or funds, you can't guess how long a war's gonna take very accurately. Plus, if Bush allowed a very liberal estimate of time and money for the war, he would have gotten a bunch of flak for not making it speedy and spending too much on it.

What other things could Bush do with $150 billion spare? The only things I can think of besides support a war is give us a tax cut or pay off some debts. I would personally be quite angry if the government pumped that much money (or much money at all) into cancer or electric car research; that's not the government's job, whereas supporting wars is. Get rid of smoking and drugs? You couldn't do that with any measure of money.

Regarding Bush "helping out his oil buddies", you'd do it, too. If I could stimulate the economy, help America out, AND help out some friends, I'd do it in a heartbeat, and I'd think you would, too.

My ONLY problems with Bush going into Iraq are that it caused much gov't spending (which I'm sure he didn't want to do, but had to at the time), and that he didn't tell the UN to fuck off and go in earlier. Other than that, Drac's got a pretty good handle on the situation, and I agree with what he said.


P.S. Awesome analogy about Texas and Rhode Island. That would be totally hot to have control another state (although some feel Oklahoma's already our bitch). Of course, we probably wouldn't waste time with Rhode Island, but rather bring New York to it's knees.


--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

GuidoHunter 04-28-2004 06:42 PM

(I realize that my opinions are not necessarily....of the norm, so I speak for nobody other than myself and my feelings)

What gives America the right to go in and take away Iraq's sovereignty? The fact that we're the biggest gang with the most guns. Basically, we get to do what we want because we can, as the most powerful nation in the world.

Wouldn't you rather have stone throwers than suicide bombers? Something tells me the former is just a bit less destructive.

Even if the US dictates the price of oil sold back to the United States, those prices are still at the mercy of OPEC's regulations, as Drac said.

Regarding Bush not allowing enough time or funds, you can't guess how long a war's gonna take very accurately. Plus, if Bush allowed a very liberal estimate of time and money for the war, he would have gotten a bunch of flak for not making it speedy and spending too much on it.

What other things could Bush do with $150 billion spare? The only things I can think of besides support a war is give us a tax cut or pay off some debts. I would personally be quite angry if the government pumped that much money (or much money at all) into cancer or electric car research; that's not the government's job, whereas supporting wars is. Get rid of smoking and drugs? You couldn't do that with any measure of money.

Regarding Bush "helping out his oil buddies", you'd do it, too. If I could stimulate the economy, help America out, AND help out some friends, I'd do it in a heartbeat, and I'd think you would, too.

My ONLY problems with Bush going into Iraq are that it caused much gov't spending (which I'm sure he didn't want to do, but had to at the time), and that he didn't tell the UN to fuck off and go in earlier. Other than that, Drac's got a pretty good handle on the situation, and I agree with what he said.


P.S. Awesome analogy about Texas and Rhode Island. That would be totally hot to have control another state (although some feel Oklahoma's already our bitch). Of course, we probably wouldn't waste time with Rhode Island, but rather bring New York to it's knees.


--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

IronMonk 04-28-2004 06:50 PM

simply put, bush was just hot to get into a fight and try out the new toys. the rest just coincided nicely with everything

GuidoHunter 04-28-2004 06:59 PM

C'mon, at least put something like "Well, I just think..." in front of a comment like that considering the complete lack of factual basis for (or against) that statement. We don't want the wrong discussions being started in this thread, as Drac stated.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

DracIV 04-28-2004 08:13 PM

IronMonk, I can say plainly that you made mistakes. Bush was *not* planning on Iraq from the start, he was planning against terrorism. From Day 1 terrorism was on the Urgent Problems list, and they immediately started discussing and planning what to do. They would have probably done some obvious actions earlier if not for the problems with getting all of Clinton's people out that delayed them almost 3 months. Iraq didn't come up as a serious topic until after 9/11, when the attack plans were being set up and Saddam stupidly made everyone focus on him.

Also, getting rid of infrastructure doesn't make them go from suicide bombers to stone throws. It makes them go from planes to trucks. And besides, to remove the infrastructure means going into hundreds of countries, slaughtering millions, making war against every country in the world and destroying people who we think are enemies. It is only when we goad them into acting with a trap that we can actually catch them. No matter what they will still use RPGs and suicide bombings. Single people can do that stuff with no other support.

Thingy, we are the reason he gained his power. We screwed up and let him take power. Also, he was breaking the strictest international rule in existance; the UN should have kicked the shit out of him on their own, they had 10 years to do it! Also, the analogy is off. If Rhode Island had been conquered by Cuba a few years ago and Texas went over and did that, then you have it accurate. We had Iraq before and tried to set them on their feet but he stole the power. We just took it back again.

Last note: Didn't I ask you to avoid personal comments, IronMonk? What a waste of a post just to call him a baby and unskilled leader with 0 evidence on your part. Please don't do that. (and plz proofread for spelling and grammar to help us a bit)

chardish 04-28-2004 09:47 PM

ATTENTION

You are required to understand the fact that Saddam Hussein raped, tortured, and murdered over 100,000 of his own people in the last 5 years

You are required to understand the fact that Saddam Hussein refused to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441, unanimously voted on by the U.N. Security Council in November 2002, which stated that Saddam did have WMDs and was required to surrender them or face military action

You are required to understand the fact that Saddam Hussein stonewalled the efforts of U.N. weapons inspectors and repeatedly refused to comply with U.N. Resolution 1441

You are required to understand the fact that after many months of refusal to comply, the United States gave Saddam Hussein 30 days to comply with 1441 or face military action

You are required to understand that we have unearthed mass graves of countless Iraqi citizens murdered by Saddam's secret police in his rape rooms and torture chambers

IronMonk 04-28-2004 10:11 PM

you are required to know that cancer kills far more then 100000 people in 5 years, which is more important?

call me what you will. but you cant ignore the truth.

how many people do you know that have died of terrorism, how many people do you know have died of cancer, personnally i havent known a single person that died of cancer, so far 8 people i know have died of cancer.

further more, we didnt only let him get into power, we Fucking put him there. we gave him money and weapons to get there. and guess what! we have also put new people in charge in many other countries and the pattern holds, several of them have also gone brazerk and committed genocide in their countries. wanna know another happy fellow we put in charge? none other then our good friend osama. you all cite facts, where do you get them? american news american facts american propaganda. you want the real news. go talk to person living in iraq. then because they have also been force fed propaganda talkto a chinease person, a south american, somoen from france. gather information, dont just take it from the horses mouth.

wanna know another interesting thing, we changed their fucking flag! funny thing there. now it looks liek teh flag of guess who, their mortal rival, islam! that didnt go over well with iraqies let me tell you.

Omeganitros 04-28-2004 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IronMonk
you are required to know that cancer kills far more then 100000 people in 5 years, which is more important?

call me what you will. but you cant ignore the truth.

how many people do you know that have died of terrorism, how many people do you know have died of cancer, personnally i havent known a single person that died of cancer, so far 8 people i know have died of cancer.

He's got a point.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Then again, there really is no way to cure cancer(I mean in general, ALL types of cancer).

But then again, will getting rid of Saddam really stop the rape and torture?

chardish 04-28-2004 10:18 PM

The fact that Saddam killed 100,000 people in 5 years is not the most important fact here. The fact is that the other 25 million Iraqi people lived in constant fear, worrying they might be next if they so much as refused to bow before a statue of Saddam.

You clearly don't understand the terror that existed in that country.

IronMonk 04-28-2004 10:32 PM

how many people does it take to kill a dictator?

100, 000? thats approximatly how many their are. chances are there will be more.

as a good friend said, "use a scalple instead of a hammer"

10 000 americans have had to retourn home, either because they are dead, or they were wounded enough to warrent evacuation to the US

GuidoHunter 04-28-2004 10:41 PM

Quote:

But then again, will getting rid of Saddam really stop the rape and torture?
Of course not, but we have rape and torture here, too (okay, so not as much on the torture, but that's something caused by people who have power, e.g. Saddam's regime). All we can hope to do is bring it down to normal/reasonable levels.
Take all the rape and torture that Saddam and his regime caused (and there was a LOT of it) and throw it out the window. That'll probably bring it down to a more reasonable level.

Quote:

He's got a point.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
So we need to abandon everything else and devote all of our funds and time to finding a cure for cancer, automobile accidents, heart disease, etc.? The "few" wouldn't be too happy about that.

Quote:

how many people do you know that have died of terrorism, how many people do you know have died of cancer
How is that relevant? Do you WANT to live in fear of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction? I know that that threat can never fully be eliminated, but the removal of a large terrorism-supporting regime and the occupation of a terrorist hub can certainly deal a big blow to terrorists around the world.

Iron, regarding your stance about all news being propaganda: News is news. If it is all propaganda (which I don't believe it is), then you and I and everyone else around the world gets fed propaganda. We go with what we get. Nobody can find a completely credible source if you believe in such widespread propaganda techniques.

Oh, and Iron, please take Drac's advice and take the time to run your posts through a spelling/grammar checker. You make good points, but you were on the verge of incoherency at times, and it's hard to get a point across well if nobody can understand you.


--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

jewpinthethird 04-28-2004 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chardish
The fact that Saddam killed 100,000 people in 5 years is not the most important fact here. The fact is that the other 25 million Iraqi people lived in constant fear, worrying they might be next if they so much as refused to bow before a statue of Saddam.

You clearly don't understand the terror that existed in that country.

You clearly do not understand the terror that still exists in that country.

My opinion?

Afghanistan: Justified. We had solid evidence that Al Qaeda was linked to 9-11.

Iraq: Not Justified. The main evidence used to justify invasion was proven to be LIES. I dont get this, first, everyone in the Bush Administration blames 9-11 on intelligence failure...however GWB constantly says that the CIA is doing their job just fine. Everyone is too busy blaming 9-11 on one another, the true American way....

I am not saying that Saddam was good. I am just saying that the timing was not appropriate. YOU DO NOT REDECORATE WHEN YOUR HOUSE IS ON FIRE. Also, pack up from the U.N. would have been nice (funny thing about telling the U.N to fuck off...you never know when you might need their help again). Or maybe a PEACEFUL SOLUTION.

I dont care what anyone says. WAR IS THE LAST FUCKING RESORT.

Here is a list the the all powerful "coaliton":
Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Thailand, the Philippines, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.

Most of which are either U.S commonwealth (ex. Phillipines), or are in need of U.S. support (ex. Japan with N.Korea).

And here is a list of those who died for "Iraqi freedom" which ironically isnt "free" yet and the "War" ended long ago:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/ira...es/casualties/
(note how it is updated regularly) My sympathy goes out to all the families who have lost Fathers, Mothers, Brothers, Spouses, Sisters, Uncles, Aunts, Friends, and Neighbors. If you support Bush's "war" so much, then you go fight it. Are you really willing to give up your life?

jewpinthethird 04-28-2004 11:32 PM

-1,220,000 people are diagnosed with cancer each year... 552,200 people die of cancer each year
-Over 43,000 people die from Automobile accidents each year.
-Every day, more than 2600 Americans die from cardiovascular disease, which amounts to 1 death every 33 seconds. That is about 949,000 people a year.
-In totally, that is 1,544,200 people a year. To put that in contrast approx. 11 million people died during the Holocaust which lasted about 6 years, and who were the "few"? Nazi Germany.

GEE, BUSH REALLY DOES HAVE HIS FUCKING PRIORITIES STRAIGHT, DOESN'T HE?!

Guido, I have read some really stupid, insensitve, ignorant, arrogant, and disgusting things on this forum. But by far "The 'few' wouldn't be too happy about that." has to be the worst thing I have ever read.

GuidoHunter 04-29-2004 12:14 AM

How is the fact (I knowingly chose that word) that a man like Saddam Hussein had access to weapons of mass destruction and harbored terrorists a lie? I think the potential threat on us and our friends by him and the terrorists he supported is justification for an invasion and removal from power.

The timing of the Iraq invasion was inappropriate? When would the apprpriate time have been? When they first showed threatening signs? GHWB took care of that time. Over the years 1992-2000? Clinton wouldn't have touched it, unfortunately. Since 2000? Well, GWB's taking care of that right now. Later? After Saddam's had time to do something huge and be responsible for the deaths of many, many people? Keeping Saddam in power any longer would have been a bad idea. Also, what kind of peaceful solution would you expect to happen when you're dealing with Saddam Hussein? He wouldn't even let weapons inspectors come and look around for WMD's, so why do you think he'd be up for a peaceful solution?

I don't care what you have to say, war shouldn't always be the last resort. It seems we're at odds here.

Quote:

If you support Bush's "war" so much, then you go fight it. Are you really willing to give up your life?
That's what we have a military for. Anyone who joins it shows that they're willing. I, for one, believe in compulsatory military service and plan on joining the military for some period of time at some point in my life. When I serve, I will gladly put my life at risk for my country.

I certainly didn't mean that 'few' comment in any insensitive way... What I was trying to say is that resources should be split at times, now being a good example. With the WWII example, had we devoted all our time and resources to domestic issues (in which case the "many" would be our own people), the process of the war would have been considerably different. Had we completely focused on the war, Americans wouldn't have liked their government caring more about foreign peoples. "You shouldn't completely sacrifice the few for the good of the many" is probably a better way to put it.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com/

perfect_fat 04-29-2004 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chardish
The fact that Saddam killed 100,000 people in 5 years is not the most important fact here. The fact is that the other 25 million Iraqi people lived in constant fear, worrying they might be next if they so much as refused to bow before a statue of Saddam.

You clearly don't understand the terror that existed in that country.

That terror still exists. They have americans coming into their homes to take them away from their families if they don't believe in democracy. Same shit, different ideology.

Did you see the 60 minutes expose on american soldiers' treatment of iraqi prisoners?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1097471.htm

There's a link for you. Read it, then tell me about how these Iraqis have such a better life. And don't forget to read up on how the rebuillding of the sewage systems in the poor neighbourhoods in Baghdad is going.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:26 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution