"We Will WIn the War on Terror" -GWBush

[OTH man]

today Bush said "America doesnt run, we will stand and fight, and we will win the war on terror"

how do u all feel about that?

[amberdawn]

I agree completely with him on that.

[Quinton]

I feel neutral about that.

[Faith]

He can't really say either way, can he? :)

But good on him for trying to motivate peeps ;)

[Andrew]

He's been saying that since day one... I don't think today's reiteration is any different than the reiterations in the past.

[Kari]

Hm....:shrugs:
If he says so...

[Faith]

It's impossible to say that.

There will always be terrorists...

[Kari]

Especially, one has to regard that there are not only the Islamist terrorists...
the motives change with time. 30 years ago there was the RAF in Germany...they were terrorists, too...but it was different.

[Ol'blueyes]

Well nobody thought communism would be stopped, not saying that it is but it rarely exists today in most countries.

[Kari]

Communism and terrorism are to very different things, aren't they.
Considering some people were fighting their communist regime with violence, they'd be terrorists...

[Noah]

noah feels like: "NO RESOLVE!! WHOOOO!!! FREEDOM AIN'T FREE!!! THESE COLORS DON'T RUUUUUUUN!!!"

[Faith]

Kari, and then there were the Irish terrorists in the civil war....

There is no way to 'win the war.'

The battle will go on forever ;)

[Ashlyn]

You can't win a war on a concept.

[OTH man]

i think he ment we will win this war on terror so yeah

[tommygirl887]

You can't win a war on a concept.

Thank you!!! I agree. Because its the truth.

[Ashlyn]

i think he ment we will win this war on terror so yeah

What's the difference? What particular terror will this beat?

[OTH man]

it will beat the Islam Terror or at least the Iraq terror for now and then they will have a Democracy and finally create laws fair for everyone one of them will prob. be against terror so terrorism in Iraq will then slow to a halt

[tommygirl887]

But not all of the Muslim extremists are in Iraq. And if you rid the ones that are there, there are still terrorists all over the world, and terrorism is just always going to exist. There's not really a way to win a war against it.

[OTH man]

well true but if we eliminate it in Iraq where its a popular concept they wont have any1 to spread it to other middleeastern countries adventually stopping it completely from the ME the ME is the biggest terrorism area.. it will defeat a lot of it

[Ashlyn]

This occupation has really just helped spread hatred of our country. All I know is that no matter what you do, the concept of terrorism will not die. We can't "win" this war. It's simply inpossible.

[Quinton]

Yeah but there will always be terrorism somewhere. Sure, it's good to stamp it out in one area but an idiot with an agenda will always find a way to have their will done.

[tommygirl887]

Yeah, but you won't be able to stop it completely in the Middle East. There's just too many in almost every country in the middle east. And like Quinton said, if someones got an agenda, they're going to find a way to make whatever they want to happen actually happen. Democracy isn't going to stop them from doing what they believe is right.

And as a "normal" Muslim, it pisses me off that they're acting in the name of Islam, when what they're doing goes against it. But that's a whole different issue.

[Ol'blueyes]

So what should we do absolutely nothing?

[Ashlyn]

.... that's not what they're saying.

It's not a debate on the war... it's a debate on Bush's comment. He says we'll win the war on terror, and we're saying we CANT.

[Ol'blueyes]

Yes but by you stating the fact that war in this sense is completely futile since apparently we cannot defeat it, then when facing terrorism today, what are we supposed to do, nothing?

[OTH man]

yes if we dont have this war then the concept will spread and u guys are saying that this war is usless when its actually helping stop the spreading of terrorism

[Ashlyn]

I'm not saying we should do nothing. I don't think ANYBODY is saying that. I definately believe we should pick our battles. For instance, if we're going to bomb somebody because they have WMDs, we should make DAMN sure they actually have them first.

But.. this argument is on Bush's statement that we WILL win the war on terrorism.

That's just not true, because it's just not possible.

[Ol'blueyes]

It may be the arguement but it also entails other factors of why one would believe it could not be won.

Plus I don't think we've actually bombed the country. We have just fought the insurgents. Not to mention two other leaders, Vladmir Putin & Tony Blair told our President of the evidence, it wasn't like he just pulled it out of his ass.

[Quinton]

There are only two ways to completely stop terrorism.

1. Destroy every living organism on this planet.
2. Cross-breed telepathists with people capable of mental remote projection and you'll have the necessary power to track down terrorists. You could also mix in a little precognition.

lol.

[Andrew]

1. Destroy every living organism on this planet.

:: checks pulse ::

...damn

Let's just call that "Plan B"

[OTH man]

yeah im with andrew on Plan B I say we cross-breed first

we rnt guna defeat terrorism hes saying we will win this war we r in thats about terrorism

[Faith]

today Bush said "America doesnt run, we will stand and fight, and we will win the war on terror"

how do u all feel about that?

I liked how he just says America.

[Kari]

This quote...:no:

[OTH man]

well, he is the president of America and he has no power over your country

[HappyHamster]

It seems that we are confusing two things here. The war in Iraq is not the same as the War on Terror. The War on Terror is some vague phrase that is supposed to convey a feeling that we need to stand up to terrorism. In my opinion, terrorism is not something you can fight with a conventional war. Terrorist do not reside in just one country and you cannot hold an entire country resonpsible for the actions taken by some of its residents.

Yes, everything that can be done to stop terrorism needs to be done. This means acting on intelligence of terrorist plots, but it also means educating people and helping people out of poverty. Because as much as I would like it to be as simple as "they just hate our freedom" it just isn't that simple. Cos somebody needs to explain to me why a person half way across the world would simply just "hate our freedom." I think that person probably has bigger worries than whether or not we are "free." (which is actually a preposition I totally disagree with but that's a completely different thing all together)

The phrase War on Terror just seem awfully hollow to me. It reminds me of the War on Drugs and I don't recall hearing that that one has been won yet.

[Faith]

well, he is the president of America and he has no power over your country

Yet people feel it is okay to say 'oh well it wasn't just Georgey, it was Tony too!'... easy enough to share the blame but not the praise? :)

Here here Nat :) I feel everything you just said :lol:

[Quinton]

I think, if he wants to say "We Will WIn the War on Terror" then let him. It's really not worth the energy of a debate. There are far more important things going on at the moment.

just my two cents.

[Faith]

Yeah but still, its a very elaborate claim :)

[Quinton]

Yeah it's right up there with "man and fish can co-exist"

[Kari]

Well, I think the latter was a little more controversial...

[Ashlyn]

Yeah it's right up there with "man and fish can co-exist"

That's one fabulous thing about Bush.... he doesn't skirt around the issues. He came right down and said the truth... man and fish CAN co-exist. Any challengers? Psh.. didn't think so. :drunk:

[Kari]

I like the quote in your signature, Ashlyn. :)

[Ashlyn]

Thanks!

I'm falling in love with President Kennedy.

[Kari]

He is an intriguing person.
Well, though he didn't have this ability to show simple truths like George does.

[Ashlyn]

That's true.

I'm sure the people in his day were on the edge of their seats about the possibility of coexistence between fish and humans and their fearless leader gave them no answers.

[Ol'blueyes]

Ah yes and the same man once stated

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty".

[Ashlyn]

Ah yes and the same man once stated

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty".

... indeed he did.

He also said (one of my personal favorites)

Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.
John F. Kennedy, 1961

[Ol'blueyes]

well didn't he contradict himself? Now I get the whole John Kerry/JFK comparison.

[Ashlyn]

I don't really see the contradiction.

America WILL protect liberty. War destroys it. We must put an end to war. Sound all lined up to me.

I hate how people think these deaths (esp. in Vietnam and Iraq) are for liberty or freedom.

[Ol'blueyes]

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/images/twogirlsinred.jpg

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/images/smallkiss.jpg

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/images/wavinggirl.jpg

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/images/soldierandgirls.jpg

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/images/thumbsup1.jpg


War destroys liberty? What about World War II and the millions of people who were saved? That killed liberty? What about the thousands of iraqis who voted recently? That killed liberty?

I'll ask the question again, what were we supposed to do after 9/11 just sit around and do nothing? Have we been attacked since 9/11? The people that fight in this war believe in what they do they weren't forced and they aren't killing innocent people, its Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that are killing the innocent people.

[Ashlyn]

... and i'll say it once again, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with what happened on 9/11.

Saddam was a vocal opponent of Al Qaeda.

[Ol'blueyes]

“1)Saddam did support terrorists and housed them as well. He sent money to Palestinian suicide bombers families to the tune of 25,000$ per bomber.
2)”Abu Abbas, architect of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking recently was found living in Iraq, as was Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the alleged designer of the radio-bomb that demolished Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.”
3)”Mansoor Ijaz cites an Iraqi intelligence document in which the secret Mukhabarat invited a senior al Qaeda operative to Baghdad from the Sudan. The correspondence said: “We may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden.” The al Qaeda representative indeed visited Baghdad in March 1998, five months before the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania exploded, killing 224 people, 12 of them American, and wounding some 5,000 others, many of them Africans and Muslims.”


Who killed Nick Burg?

[Faith]

Have we been attacked since 9/11?

Maybe you haven't, but my country have, on 7/7...

Because of the war ;)

So it didn't solve everything, huh? :)

NB, total propaganda pictures, there are tonnes of happy ones and tonnes of not so happy ones :)

[Ashlyn]

Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.



After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection[b], but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years.[b] For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."




"Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This is part of his propaganda," adds Clarke.

"So what did we do after 9/11? We invade an oil-rich and occupy an oil-rich Arab country which was doing nothing to threaten us. In other words, we stepped right into bin Laden's propaganda. And the result of that is that al Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda have been greatly strengthened."



1. Supporting terrorists doesn't necessarily mean he had ANYTHING to do with the attacks on US, which is what people keep drawing a connection to, as though he had something to do with 9/11. We struck him first. WE are the bad guys.

[Faith]

I don't think either side is more to blame...

These things will and have always happened, you will never be able to pin point the exact cause or reason... And y'all will never agree, because everyones priniciples are different :)

All I know is that I was near London on 7/7 when terrorists bombed London because of the war in Iraq. I received the countless frightened phonecalls from people thinking I might have been killed in the attacks. That worry they felt, was so pointless... and I don't agree with war. I almost get why some people do, but I just don't...

Innocent people die because of 'civilised' people deciding they know what is best.

[Faith]

My point is...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4668245.stm

How is that a good thing?

[Kari]

I have been wondering about this thread. Jut recently there was a huge debate about whether the thread with Bush quotes should be merged into the Liberal thread.
It was, pointlessly though, moved then.
But this is a thread about one single Bush quote. Now, I find that a little contradictory.
One thread with a bunch of Bush quotes and people talk about how they feel about the inability of the president to form a proper sentence, while the other side says being a bad public speaker doesn't mean being stupid or a bad president.
Another thread about one Bush quote, a bunch of people saying what a great dude he is and the other saying he is not...this could as well be moved in the Conservative Thread.

[shamelessOne]

This war truly has absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. So why are we still there? For freedom? This isn't freedom. I guess some people may think it is, but it's not. Maybe this is just because I don't really agree with Bush on anything, but maybe it's just because I think we have lost enough people from our country in this war. We just need to stop, go home, and let Iraq clean itself up.

[Faith]

I'm worried... another british guy has been kidnapped off the streets in Iraq... I really hope he is okay, and it isn't another case of what happened to Ken Biggley... I feel physically sick whenever I think about what happened to that poor man... :(

[Kari]

A German woman has been kidnapped, too, but I don't really know the background of that so far.

[Heather]

America WILL protect liberty. War destroys it. We must put an end to war. Sound all lined up to me.

I hate how people think these deaths (esp. in Vietnam and Iraq) are for liberty or freedom.

Vietnam was a war based on Communism v. Democracy, becayuse that was the tone of the times. That no loner applies. If we want to debate based on history, we need to go back to WW2, democracy v. tyranny. Because that is what Hitler was, a tryrant, and that is what Suddam Hussein was. He can hide against his religion, and make it seem like the Crusades 1000 years later, but the fact of the matter is the fight against him was a fight against tryanny, totolaritism, and human injustice.

I'll ask the question again, what were we supposed to do after 9/11 just sit around and do nothing? Have we been attacked since 9/11? The people that fight in this war believe in what they do they weren't forced and they aren't killing innocent people, its Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that are killing the innocent people.
Exactly, Bridget. The best offense is a good defense. And I think it is quite telling that since we took the fight to them, since we put them on the run, we have not been attacked on our own shores.

If only Clinton had followed through with his threats to them in th '90s, then maybe 9/11 would never have happened.

I'll ask the question again, what were we supposed to do after 9/11 just sit around and do nothing? Have we been attacked since 9/11? The people that fight in this war believe in what they do they weren't forced and they aren't killing innocent people, its Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that are killing the innocent people.
Im sorry...where do you get your news from?

He ran terror camps in Iraq FUNDED by Al Queda.

He offered over $20000 to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Yeah, really swell guy there.

Who killed Nick Burg?
EXACTLY!!!!!

I would like to point out that Saddam was a member of the MINORITY party, and tortured and viciously killed those who opposed him.

I would also like to point out that the insurgents are either of that MINORITY party, or not Iraqi. Most of the insurgents in fact come from Syria. So this whole "occupation" "they dont want us there" is a bunch of complete and utter crap.

NB, total propaganda pictures, there are tonnes of happy ones and tonnes of not so happy ones
Propoganda pictures? Should I post the ones I was sent from Baghdad? Or just do what I did previously, and let a soldier speak under my name. Last time I did that, it brought a silence to the thread, because while people have no problem going against what I say, on the same token, they wont debate a soldier who says that SAME DAMN THING.

1. Supporting terrorists doesn't necessarily mean he had ANYTHING to do with the attacks on US, which is what people keep drawing a connection to, as though he had something to do with 9/11. We struck him first. WE are the bad guys.
Before we invaded Iraq, he went on TV and said that if the US invaded his country, 9/11 would look like a walk in the park compared to what would follow. Swell guy you're supporting there.

Or should we ignore the mass graves, the terror camps, the absolute fear of him in the people of his OWN country.

You're all about speaking for others. What about them? Does their voice not count? Should their pain and suffering be ignored? How would you like it if your father/mother/relative was taken by the government, never seen/heard from again, until their corpse showed up?

But I keep forgetting, you think Saddam wasnt a BAD guy, who needed to be removed.

All I know is that I was near London on 7/7 when terrorists bombed London because of the war in Iraq. I received the countless frightened phonecalls from people thinking I might have been killed in the attacks. That worry they felt, was so pointless... and I don't agree with war. I almost get why some people do, but I just don't...
Now you know how I feel. I cant tell you the number of people I knew in Manhatten that day, or my best friend, who works in Washington. The utter fear of not knowing whether they were alive or dead, and you didnt find out until weeks later. My friend in DC....Chris, one of the best friends Ive ever had, his mom emailing him, "If you're alive, CALL ME!!!" Me, leaving twenty messages on his voicemail, crying, "Chris...please be okay...call me if you're alive and okay."

Thats why we're fighting this war. Why our soldiers are risking their lives. To make sure that never happens again. And while my heart goes out to Britain, as our friend and ally, what happened in London is nothing compared to what happened here. Entire cities were destroyed, several thousand were dead. You havent had to deal with it to that magnitude. We have. Which is why we will never stop fighting. Because we wont let that happen again.

This war truly has absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. So why are we still there? For freedom? This isn't freedom. I guess some people may think it is, but it's not. Maybe this is just because I don't really agree with Bush on anything, but maybe it's just because I think we have lost enough people from our country in this war. We just need to stop, go home, and let Iraq clean itself up.
Yeah, because leaving will help. :sarcasm:

Dont you get it? The situation in Iraq is spreading freedom throughout the Middle East. There is documented proof of that! If we leave now, the enemy takes over. ANd it will undo all we've accomplished. Thats why we dont give the terrorists a time table. Same reason.

Yes, the people of Iraq need to take over, and they will. We're just making it possible for them to do so, by fighting the very people who seek to eliminate them. You think the terrorists are just after the allies? Think again.

[Faith]

Exactly, Bridget. The best offense is a good defense. And I think it is quite telling that since we took the fight to them, since we put them on the run, we have not been attacked on our own shores.

We have been bombed in Britain, because of the war. Does that not count though? Because it's not America? It doesn't matter how many people die, and that is what you don't seem to get! The fact is, they did die! Because of the war! But that's okay, right? As long as America is all safe...

Propoganda pictures? Should I post the ones I was sent from Baghdad? Or just do what I did previously, and let a soldier speak under my name.

Erm... yes, they are propaganda pictures. I would say the same of someone who posted a thread full of pictures about the devastation of the war, it works both ways.

And while my heart goes out to Britain, as our friend and ally, what happened in London is nothing compared to what happened here. Entire cities were destroyed, several thousand were dead. You havent had to deal with it to that magnitude. We have.

Well I'm sure I speak on behalf of my whole nation when I say, gee whiz, thanks for the concern and all! How many people would have had to die in the London bombings for me to be able to use it as a reason I don't support war... a few more hundred? A thousand?

Hev, I don't believe in the war. I understand why some do. But statements such as 'this is creating freedom' as complete bull! You don't know for sure whether the war is good or bad, we don't know the long term effects... so everyone should get to chose a side and be respected for it!

[Heather]

We have been bombed in Britain, because of the war. Does that not count though? Because it's not America? It doesn't matter how many people die, and that is what you don't seem to get! The fact is, they did die! Because of the war! But that's okay, right? As long as America is all safe...
That is totally not what I meant. OF course what happened in Britain and Spain was tragic, but the devastation was not as great as it was here, which makes it easier to forget exactly why we are there to begin with. Its not about keeping America safe, but all of Western civilization, and preserving our way of life, which they seek to destroy.

Hev, I don't believe in the war. I understand why some do. But statements such as 'this is creating freedom' as complete bull! You don't know for sure whether the war is good or bad, we don't know the long term effects... so everyone should get to chose a side and be respected for it!
I know that freedom is now spreading in an area where it was previously a pipe dream. I know that women are finally starting to get the rights they deserve, the rights taken away by the Taliban, and Hussein. I know that schools are opening and children can finally get an education.

If people can rant about why this war is such a travesty, I can rant about the positive things coming from it.

[Melanie]

I have a philosophy on war:

Why are there winners and losers? Both sides lose people, both sides die. How is that winning? What's a "winner", anyways?

In this particular war . . . it's like, terrorism is never just going to go away. There are still going to be people who want to hurt others, even if you lock up all of the rest of them. So how are we winning? I don't support the war right now, because I don't support any war. But I respect your opinions :)

[Ashlyn]

I have a philosophy on war:

Why are there winners and losers? Both sides lose people, both sides die. How is that winning? What's a "winner", anyways?

In this particular war . . . it's like, terrorism is never just going to go away. There are still going to be people who want to hurt others, even if you lock up all of the rest of them. So how are we winning? I don't support the war right now, because I don't support any war. But I respect your opinions :)

:heart:

I will never support a war where we strike first.

Secondly, so Saadam threatened to stike back if we attached his country? And that is supposed to be proof of why it was a good thing that we did?

We would definately strike back if somebody attacked us and we were sure of who it was.

[Heather]

Secondly, so Saadam threatened to stike back if we attached his country? And that is supposed to be proof of why it was a good thing that we did?
You seem to be conveniently forgetting that Saddam violated numerous UN sanctions, and refused to let the inspectors in. Now, you in the past, have touted about the greatness of the UN, and how it should be the voice of reason, etc, yet he violated sanction after sanction. It was time that someone stood up and put an end to it.

[Faith]

God bless America!

What about Ken Bigley? That was due to the war... and if that tale doesn't make you physically sick to the stomach, then... *shrugs*

[Heather]

Well, honestly, I cant remember how he died. I know that sounds terrible, but if it was anything like what happened to Nick Berg, and I have a feeling that it was, then my heart went out to him and his family.

But thats another thing...they arent doing that to soldiers...they are doing that to civilians...what does that say about these people?

And Gem, you werent attacked because of the war. You were attacked because you, like us, have a way of life that they abhor, and seek to destroy. Even if we werent in Iraq right now, you still would have been attacked.

I will never support a war where we strike first.
We didnt strike first.

[Faith]

That is totally not what I meant. OF course what happened in Britain and Spain was tragic, but the devastation was not as great as it was here.


Maybe it was not as great to you. But to the family of the people that died, it was just as tremendous a loss, and it was just as davastating.

Yes, we were attacked because of the war. The bombers, (from the town next door to me, btw,) said so in a video they made about it.

Ken Bigly was a relief worker guy... they took him from the streets... Made him made videos that they kept sending to us and showing on the press... Promising they would let him go alive if they got what they wanted... they filmed him locked in a cage...

And then they filmed be-heading him.

[Heather]

Thats what they did to Nick Berg, too. Who was a contractor.

[Ashlyn]

Well, honestly, I cant remember how he died. I know that sounds terrible, but if it was anything like what happened to Nick Berg, and I have a feeling that it was, then my heart went out to him and his family.

But thats another thing...they arent doing that to soldiers...they are doing that to civilians...what does that say about these people?

And Gem, you werent attacked because of the war. You were attacked because you, like us, have a way of life that they abhor, and seek to destroy. Even if we werent in Iraq right now, you still would have been attacked.


We didnt strike first.

When did Iraq bomb us? :rolleyes:

[Quinton]

Anyone keeping an eye out on the trial? What a fiasco! It's almost as entertaining as the Michael Jackson trial.

They totally need to make it into a reality show.

[Heather]

The complete lack of control that judge has in that courtroom is completely ridiculous. He should not be allowed to make the outbursts he does on a daily basis. Its a travesty.

When did Iraq bomb us?
He helped to fund and support Al Queda. But you seem to constantly disregard that, because it doesnt mesh with your anti-war ideals.

[OTH man]

Propoganda pictures? Should I post the ones I was sent from Baghdad? Or just do what I did previously, and let a soldier speak under my name. Last time I did that, it brought a silence to the thread, because while people have no problem going against what I say, on the same token, they wont debate a soldier who says that SAME DAMN THING.

that was cool bcuz everyone shut up for one minuite cuz they realized SOMEbODY WHO WAS/IS THERE thinks they have no clue whatthey are talking about i dont really either ill admit that but what your brother said is a lot like what i think...

:lol: Quinton

yes im sure a reality show :-\

it is retarded! hes like yelling in trial yes saddam pleez keep yelling..its really helping you...

[Ol'blueyes]

Thats what they did to Nick Berg, too. Who was a contractor.


I'm sad to say I actually watched that and it really really really justified every feeling about my support of the war.

[Quinton]

I'm sad to say I actually watched that and it really really really justified every feeling about my support of the war.
Why are you sad about that?

[OTH man]

^^bcuz its sad about what happend to an innocent American

[Ol'blueyes]

I'm sad because it happened and after I watched it, I was like emotionally in shock for 24 hours.

[Ashlyn]

"no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

From the 9/11 Commission.

[XDDD]

El presidente de EE.UU., George Bush, calculó que alrededor de 30.000 personas murieron desde el inicio de la guerra en Irak, en marzo de 2003.

Bush mencionó por primera vez en un discurso el número de bajas iraquíes, a las que hay que sumar los alrededor de 2.140 soldados estadounidenses que también perdieron la vida en la contienda.


(The US president, Geore Bush, estimated that around 3.000 people [civils!] died in Iraq since the war started in mars 2003.
Bush mentioned for the first time in a speech the number of loses in Iraq, to wich we can add around 2.140 american soldiers who also lost their lifes in the war.)

All I have to say is... is it really worth it???

[Heather]

Why dont you ask the people who turned out and voted last week, what they think. How it feels to be able to live without fear of torture and murder looming over their heads, and see what they tell you?

[XDDD]

What people are you talking about?

[Jon]

Heather's referring to the many Iraqi citizens that came out and voted in droves.

[XDDD]

Oh. And she's referring to them as people who "live without fear of torture and murder looming over their heads"????

I have actually talked with Iraqi people. My arabic teacher, for instance, is from Iraq. And I can tell you he doesn't live without fear of torture and murder. There are a lot of deaths every day in Iraq (and I'm not talking about who causes them). The whole country is a mess.

Yes. People are happy that Sadam is no longer in charge, for he was cruel, a murderer, he had no loyalty to anyone but himself.
Yes. They are happy they are able to vote.

But they are not happy that another country has chosen for them. They are not happy about the presence of soldiers in their country. They are not happy that this war has caused even more caos in the country. And they are not happy about the 3.000 civils that have died because of this war.

Why don't you ask their families... if they're still alive.

[Heather]

Why don't you ask their families... if they're still alive.
For the record, I know people who have. People who have been embraced (literally, and figuratively) by the Iraqi people. Who have thanked them for giving them a chance. People who actually live in Iraq NOW, not those who escaped and then badmouth what is going on over there.

Seriously, you sound like John Kerry and Jane Fonda (not a compliment, btw). Our soldiers are murderers. What a crock. Anyone who knows soldiers (and I know alot of soldiers), will tell you that that is complete BS. Anytime they kill, its in self defence, and its not against civilians but against terrorists, who, btw...arent from Iraq!!!! (or, for the 1% that are, arent the majjority of Iraqis).

Why dont you go ask your Arabic teacher about that. Or about the Iraqis who go up to soldiers, to turn in their own father, or brother? But I guess they dont count, because their on the side of freedom. And who cares about freedom, right?

[XDDD]

First of all: I never said or implied anything about soldiers being murderers. I don't think they are.

eople who actually live in Iraq NOW, not those who escaped and then badmouth what is going on over there.
My teacher lives in Spain now, but his family doesn't. He's got a wife and two kids living in Iraq, so he's not just someone who's escaped and badmouth about what's going on over there.

[marianne]

To quote Harold Pinter:

At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks.

[Faith]

I wish people would stop speaking 'on behalf of Iraqi's.'

Just because you know 'some' with one view, doesn't mean that is the majoity view. You can't expect an Iraqi to talk to someone from America that supports the war, and then make the assumption that everyone in America supports the war, therefore concluding that America is blood hungry.

[marianne]

What I've been trying to say for a very long time ^^. So yeah, agreed.

[Ol'blueyes]

First of all: I never said or implied anything about soldiers being murderers. I don't think they are.


Ok well then you just contradicted yourself. You're stating that iraqis are being killed right? ok now who would be killing those "innocent iraqis?" The soldiers in your viewpoint.. so then how are you not calling them murderers?

[Kari]

How it feels to be able to live without fear of torture and murder looming over their heads, and see what they tell you?Whoever can live without that fear?
I mean, Iraqis living in Europe were kidnapped and dragged to prisons in countries where kinds of torture are allowed that certainly are feared...and that out of suspense.
It's phenomenal...:shrugs:

[Heather]

Well, if someone can say that "I know someone from Iraq, therefore I know everything," to support their point of view, than I can do the same thing to defend mine.

[XDDD]

Ok well then you just contradicted yourself. You're stating that iraqis are being killed right? ok now who would be killing those "innocent iraqis?" The soldiers in your viewpoint.. so then how are you not calling them murderers?

I'm sorry, when did I say something about iraqis being killed??????


Whoever can live without that fear?
I mean, Iraqis living in Europe were kidnapped and dragged to prisons in countries where kinds of torture are allowed that certainly are feared...and that out of suspense.
It's phenomenal...:shrugs:
Good point.

[*gwen*~*grover*]

ok, where to start.

first, i just want to respond to what heather said about the fear coming with 9/11. now, im not saying that it wasnt valid, because it is, but i live in manhattan and feel very strongly about this. in terms of personal stories, how about my best friend watched the towers go down from her window and wasnt allowed back into her house for weeks, and my parent forgetting their anniversary because the smell or buring steel, and bodies in our neighborood was too strong and we couldnt concentrate on much else, and tons of close friends who went to school right next to the two towers having to run away in the middle of the day. or even just seeing the cars coming uptown covered in a foot of debris, my aunt worked there, thankfully she got to work late and had to see it go down. but i know many people who died, and to think about a country who went through this, and even my experiences, and then thinking about us bombing civilians in Iraq (and again Iraq?...) just upssets me, i actually started to cry when i was reading this. now, i understand the 'war on terror', something being done, but what has changed besides saddam is not in the country? honestly, i havent been reading the papers that much, but so many civilians killed, and show me concrete evidence that the middle east is now going "oh, they are free, the americans are cool, why dont we become free also?!" and i know that i have "utopian anti-war ideals" that are flawed, there is no way to get rid of war altogether, but this is just... i dont know, i feel very strongly (obviously) and cant think straight now... sorry if that was all incoherent...

*****
edit: im sorry if that sounded like i was personally attacking anyone... just, you know, i havent really thought about it in a long time, and i was upset...

[Ol'blueyes]

And they are not happy about the 3.000 civils that have died because of this war.

Why don't you ask their families... if they're still alive.


right you've never said about them being killed.

[*gwen*~*grover*]

before, im not sure if she was saying that the soldiers are the ones to blame necessiarily...

[Ol'blueyes]

ok but then who would be killing them?

[marianne]

I don't get why you are obsessing over this?
Does the american soldiers kill Iraqis? Yes they do. What's your point?

[Ol'blueyes]

OK first off i'm not obsessing, I'm allowed to state an opinion and 2nd off i'm trying to make a point. You all say you support the troops and don't call them murderers but yet you say that they kill people. It doesn't make any sense, you completely contradict yourself.

[XDDD]

First of all: I've always talked about deaths, not murderers. Which, by the way, is the same word Bush used to refer to them. So, if I'm implying that those Iraqis have been killed, so is he.

Second. In my first post I was talking about both iraqis and american soldiers' deaths. I don't think anything is worth them.
Now, I'm going to add something to that: the soldiers chose to be there. The iraqis had no choice.

(And I'm not contradicting myself. You keep putting words in my mouth: I never said I supported the troops. I said that I don't think their murderers, which is not the same. I don't blame them for the deaths... they weren't the ones that started the war.) <---- I'm guessing you weren't talking about me :S Sorry :lol:

[*gwen*~*grover*]

sorry, an incomplete thought...
two things... when i said that the troops werent murderers, i meant it in the way of, yes they kill people, but theyre doing it on orders, and in a life threatening position, what are you going to do. now this is probably a romanticized vision,... i support the troops becasue they are people, now if they were over there going "im gonna kill some muslim mofos because i hate them", (and it wasnt a self defence kind of thing) i would have less appreciation (wrong word...), so in that sense i dont think of them as murdererd, then again, im not there, so i dont really know what its like.
i would also like to say that not everyone who is there had a choice... sure, most are probably volunteers, but a lot of people end up in iraq bc they need money, have no where else to go, the list goes on...

[Heather]

Do you know that alot of soldiers over there actually VOLUNTEER to go, because of all the bonuses the US government gives them for just spending a year over there?

As for nothing being done. The Conservatives in this forum have been posting nonstop about all the positive changes being done over there, and it goes ignored. The President tonight spoke and listed several examples of all the good being done over there. Are you going to ignore his words too?

As for 9/11, you are not the only one who felt the effects of that day, and still live with the memory of it. Bridget is from NYC, Im from right across the Hudson. Shirphie and Andrew are also from NYC. (Shirphie is from Queens, and I think Andrew lives in Brooklyn.)

As for me that day. I have cousins on the NYPD, and for weeks didnt know if they were alive or dead, my uncle saved 800 people when the South Tower was hit, and got them across the Hudson to safety at Liberty State Park.

[Ol'blueyes]

Not to mention both Heather and I have had relatives who were troops in Iraq and they never not ONCE killed an innocent person nor have any of the other troops. The innocent iraqis you speak of are being killed by their own people. How many times in a day do you hear the word, "car-bomb?" These people are never forced they volunteer because they love their country.

[Heather]

both Heather and I have had relatives who were troops in Iraq and they never not ONCE killed an innocent person nor have any of the other troops.

No, they didnt. I know someone who died in an accident...a car accident in a military vehicle, and we still mourn his death. My brother has a permanent memorial to him tattooed on his arm, actually.

As for killing, yes, my brother has killed, as have the other soldiers I know who served over there. But I think my brother summed it up nicely.

"Someone starts shooting at me, Im gonna shoot back. If, at the end of the day, its a choice between him going home, or me coming home to my family, I pick me."

[marianne]

I'm just going to post this again:

Quoting Harold Pinter:
At least 100,000 Iraqis were killed by American bombs and missiles before the Iraq insurgency began. These people are of no moment. Their deaths don't exist. They are blank. They are not even recorded as being dead. 'We don't do body counts,' said the American general Tommy Franks.

Wouldn't you say those are innocent people dying? People that had no choice?

[Heather]

If the deaths arent recorded, I would like to know how he came up with that number? Did he personally go to Iraq and do a hand count?

[marianne]

He's a very smart man. I guess he did some logical thiniking of some sort and came up with an "about" number. Don't ask me, it's not my speech. It did win the nobel prize and he is a very respected and intelligent man. I'm sure we can trust what he's saying. And I kind of think the worst part is that there might be alot more than 100,000 for all we know.

[Kari]

It's war, people get killed. Yeah, it is war.
I mean, I once read a comment that said something about some men having the courage to throw an atomic bomb in Hiroshima?
How many innocents died there and how many had to live with the consequences of it afterwards. Those weren't all murderers, there were children and women between them who probably never even touched a gun!
But it is justified because of war? No, sorry to me it isn't.

I guess that is just a thing you can either think or not. Some think war justifies the deaths of innocents for some 'higher reason' - because there just is no war without innocents dying - and some don't.
I don't.
I would never blame a soldier who kills out of self defense. If somebody would shoot at me and I had a weapon I would shoot back, too. Yeah.
I also won't call any soldier murder, because if they kill they are doing it because of orders.

But after all, war kills. I am probably not the most educated person around, but I really can't spontaneously think of a war without innocent victims and I am sure this war had innocent victims, too.
That is why I don't support war.

[Ol'blueyes]

Because of Hiroshima, many lives were saved because if we hadn't dropped a bomb, there would be a full out war in asia but the atomic bomb prevented this. I know it sounds wrong but more lives could have been lost.

[Heather]

Exactly, Bridget.

While what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was horrible, it wasnt a decision that Truman made lightly. And in the end, it saved more lives than it took.

It ended the War in the Pacific. And as horrible as it sounds, it was a case of the ends justifiying the means.

[Kari]

I can't accept that. Sorry.
I know that Truman was a great man and that he didn't just go and decide this non-chalantly after tea and I know that Einstein didn't just send these instructions for the atomic bombs without thinking before.
But I just can't believe a such thing. Probably there wasn't todays awareness for what the atomic bomb would actually cause. But the world saw what it did cause.
Nothing justifies the use of an atomic bomb for me. I know, this is a matter of personal attitude but it is something I am deeply convinced of.

[Quinton]

Because of Hiroshima, many lives were saved because if we hadn't dropped a bomb, there would be a full out war in asia but the atomic bomb prevented this. I know it sounds wrong but more lives could have been lost.omg.

"Hi yellow people... we're gonna kill you now. Don't worry it's better this way. So long so long so long and thanks for all the fish!"

*BOOM*

:O

[Heather]

Are you serious, Quinton? Do you think that that was a decision that Truman made lightly, based on race? That is ridiculous, not to mention false.

He wrestled with the decision, knowing what it would mean.

I guess you guys need a history lesson. Japan was famous for their Kamikaze fighters. People who would fight to the end...to their death, and bring down whoever they could in the process (kind of like the modern day terrorists).

He saw this as a way to save lives. Yes, he was tormented by it. Yes, he mourned the loss of innocent life. But it ended a horrible war.

If he had not done what he did, WW2 (the Pacific forum) would have lasted much longer, because...much like today, they were dealing with people who werent afraid to die, and were willing to take out whoever they could.

You want to make that a racial issue? Ridiculous! It wasnt a racial issue. It was a "We need to end this war, how do we do that?" issue.

Seriously, time and again, you seem to bring up race. Why? Why is race so prevalent to you? Why do you find the need to bring into most discussions? Most of us in this forum, dont look at history in terms of race. Why do you continue to make it a factor, when it isnt?

[Quinton]

I'm not looking at anything anymore. Over it.

What's in the past is in the past nothing's gonna change it.

CMARBMABAGOI

[Faith]

Wow everyone is getting a bit too personal...

[HappyHamster]

If he had not done what he did, WW2 (the Pacific forum) would have lasted much longer, because...much like today, they were dealing with people who werent afraid to die, and were willing to take out whoever they could.

How do you know for sure though? I was reading up about the subject on the internet (it had been a while since I last read up about it) and came across this:

Military specialists who have examined Japanese decision-making have added to the modern understanding that the bombing was unnecessary. For instance, political scientist Robert Pape's study, "Why Japan Surrendered," which appeared in the Fall 1993 issue of International Security, details Japan's military vulnerability, particularly its shortages of everything from ammunition to fuel to trained personnel: "Japan's military position was so poor that its leaders would likely have surrendered before invasion, and at roughly the same time in August 1945, even if the United States had not employed strategic bombing or the atomic bomb." In this situation, Pape stresses, "The Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9 raised Japan's military vulnerability to a very high level. The Soviet offensive ruptured Japanese lines immediately, and rapidly penetrated deep into the rear.

Which I got from here (http://www.ncesa.org/html/hiroshima.html).

[Ol'blueyes]

Not to mention the Japanese people were given warning before.....

[*gwen*~*grover*]

sorry, i didnt want to offend anyone, i figured other people here were from NYC, obviously everyone's life was affected, i just wanted to make the point that after seeing what happened, and not even getting the worst of it, its not something that i want to think about happening to so many more people in Iraq... i agree with Kari, its really something that you believe or you dont, and i dont support war bc of the death of civilians.
i know a lot people volunteered for the army for the benefits, and volunteered bc they genuinely believe in the war, but i think that this gets into other issues besides the morals behind the war...

anyway, i have to go eat, but theres more i want to say, haha...

[Andrew]

Most who volunteered after 9/11 volunteered because of what happened on that day. And there goes the invasion of Afghanistan.

Then "intelligence" said that Iraq had WMD and was involved with 9/11. So we invaded Iraq.

We didn't find any WMDs (and before you distort it; WMD meaning actual weapons/bombs of mass destruction... not some metaphoric twist like "Oh... but Saddam IS the WMD"). So then attention shifted to the "Iraq/Saddam was involved with 9/11"

That was disproven. So then, the focal part of it was shifted towards "liberating Iraq"

We can debate on whether or not that's happening, but regardless, in the midst of all that, somehow I feel our main objective was lost.

Call it selfish... call it vengeful... I don't care: I (including others) want Osama Bin Laden captured. But 4, almost 5 years after, I'm still wondering where he is.


And reiterating a past point: you can support the troop's safety while also opposing the war.

[*gwen*~*grover*]

alright, so lets see how i write this out

i really think it is unwinnable... i just think that when they started the war, they did not think past "get sadaam out"
the war on iraq: i know its great that there was a democratic election, but hypothetical situation- what if a shiite leader comes out on top... then it is very probable that a civil war breaks out with the shiites against the suniis and the curds. now we have however many troops in iraq and who do we side with? if we side with the shiites, then the curds would want to susceed, (therefore leading to another probable war between turkey and the curds), and if we side with the curds or suniis, then the idea of a democratic election is really lost and we are back to square one. altogether, the middle east is not a peaceful area (obviously), and the problems cannot be fixed only by example. im sure that everyone here knows about how the borders between the countries were drawn after WWI, and how that was in no way based on how the people of the countries thought... therefore, the chance of internal wars during the "remaking of the middle east" is very high, and can, in no way be resolved in the time they have allotted. to resolve them, entire ideologies would have to be changes, and well... which brings me to the whole idea of the "war on terror"...
in every speech bush says that "we are fighing a different kind of war" and whatnot, yet he invades iraq using conventional warfare, and lo and behold, we have no allies. i think that if he approached this from an intillectual level, and maybe maintained the ideas of democracy, saw where the country and its political conflicts were heading, kept some of our allies (because, really, no country as a whole in the middle east is fond of americans)
and i am supportive of getting saddam out of iraq and getting the citizens equal rights, but i still dont think that it was a thoughtful response to the aftermath of 9/11, as darad10 said, the connections were still very weak... i mean, when we were invaded afghanistan, we had allies, and yes, i think that attack was more so justified than this one (not that i support it, but still justafied)...

alright, thats all can think of right now...

[danyjoncew]

Win wars? Do people still use the word WIN there these days? And war on Terror??? I mean, how can you fight an emotion with guns and weapons? Maybe he should try "war on terrorism/terrorists"? I think Bush is an american terrorist and that's all.