I think i have a good argument...

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

We want to fight terrorist in a place of OUR choosing not in our house, not in our country, and no where they want us to fight where they have the strategic advantage. I can’t believe anyone can’t see the advantage of bringing the fight TO Iraq, rather then trying to chase them.

In addition, a free Iraq will be a launching pad to spread freedom elsewhere in the Middle East. Once people are free, violence stops. You cant name a place where this WASNT the case, therefore it cant be doubted that democracy in the middle east ultimately brings freedom to the middle ease and that in turn ultimately brings PEACE to the middle east.

Ok, I'm about 2 minutes away from viewing this as a gimmicky attempt at pulling a WarFalcon (or that even worse American dude whose name evades me).

Para 1: Dude, you don't have the strategic advantage in Iraq. They know the place and don't have to fund an army across the other side of the world. Sun Tzu says you will fail.

Para 2: So I take it then you'll be advocating a free and democratic Palestinian state, so they stop blowing up Israelis?

Oh, and by saying that people being free stops violence is utter beloney. Is the United States 'free', as they style themselves so much. The freedom to bear arms essentially entails the freedom to commit acts of violence with greater frequency. Highest shooting rate in the world.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy, and your oh so precious freedom sucks. In a perfect state, people will have the freedom to do what I tell them. If they're violent towards someone, they get their shit messed up. We take their freedom away from them, fix up their mind, as they're obviously sick. That's what they get for harming another of my factors of production.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Summanus

WarFalcon (or that even worse American dude whose name evades me).

DavinBrahm.

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

DavinBrahm.

THE HORROR

I think I just lost 5 years of my life

[Phang]

I'd actually like to see QDS outline each of the follwing in full:

-Why he thinks the war started, and what the justification for starting the war is
-If it is a continuation of the war on terror, why probably the most stable and least terrorsome (ACE WORD) country in the region was chosen as the battleground;
-When he expects the war to end, and what state he expects Iraq to be in at that time
-If he thinks R1441 was working, like the UN claimed, or if 'IRAQ IS FULL OF TERROR AND WMD OMG' like George Bush claimed and then later decided not to;
-Who he thinks is controlling Afghanistan;
-If he thinks a 'democratic' government chosen while 20% of the country is in a state of what is essentially civil war against the concept and does not have the vote can even pretend to have de jure sovereignty;
-Whether he thinks Iraq is more 'free' now than it was under Saddam;
-Whether he thinks life is better for the average Iraqi now than it was under Saddam;
-Whether he thinks Iraq was less 'free' before the war than its neighbours;
-Whether he thinks the Iraqis should be grateful;
-Whether he thinks there is any link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam's government that doesn't include the term 'mortal combat'.

Incidentally, MM, on the Germany analogy - I have to reject the claim that there was something that close to security in Germany at pretty much any time during the Weimar period, and there wasn't anything approaching peace until, depending on interpretation, about 1946, or the fall of the Berlin Wall. I don't think Iraq at present is too far detatched from Germany in 1919 except that there is a greater polarisation and opposition of ideologies preventing an end to combat.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

What about internal issues, like genocide, etc? (Cf Kosovo)

somtimes i wonder what would happen if everyone on this world would only mind their own buiness, couldnt be much worse, could it?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Phang

Incidentally, MM, on the Germany analogy - I have to reject the claim that there was something that close to security in Germany at pretty much any time during the Weimar period,

Err, what? I was arguing that Weimar was full of political instability (Particularly up to 1923 or so.) and paramilitary violence - which it was.

Originally Posted by Phang

I don't think Iraq at present is too far detatched from Germany in 1919 except that there is a greater polarisation and opposition of ideologies preventing an end to combat.

I'd say there's less ideological polarisation. In 1919, You had all sorts of extremist violence, by the Spartacists, radical Nationalists, Freikorps, etc, and a huge division of opinion over practically every issue. In Iraq, we effectively have a sort of sole Nationalist ideology with some Islamic overtones battling against the government, along with some foreign terrorists/militants who are more radically Islamic.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Summanus

WarFalcon

he wasnt THAT bad, i mean, at least form his point of view all he said made sence, in some obscure way.

[Phang]

you said that security took about six months to happen after germany became free (assuming you mean scheidemann's proclamation of the republic). that's what i was disputing.

and as for the ideologies point, I should clear that up. Far more of the ideological extremists are militant in Iraq than were in Germany - you had the Reds striking and the Freikorps going in and murdering all of them, but outside the Freikorps there were very few people prepared to take up arms or give their life for their cause. And since the Freikorps were practically an instrument of government for most of their existence they had some form of vindication that other groups lacked.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Phang

you said that security took about six months to happen after germany became free (assuming you mean scheidemann's proclamation of the republic). that's what i was disputing.

I was refering to WW2 - I think QDS said something like 'Germany ... fifty years', and I responded. Sorry about that.

Originally Posted by Phang

and as for the ideologies point, I should clear that up. Far more of the ideological extremists are militant in Iraq than were in Germany

I'm not really sure how this can be judged effectively. Most of the people in Iraq equally are not extremists nor do they intend to be.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I was refering to WW2 - I think QDS said something like 'Germany ... fifty years', and I responded. Sorry about that.

ah, fair enough. I'll let you off this time.

I'm not really sure how this can be judged effectively. Most of the people in Iraq equally are not extremists nor do they intend to be.

No question, and I'd agree that there were more extemists in Germany than there are in Iraq. I just rather suspect the fanaticism is greater here. I don't think it would ever occur to al-Zarqawi and his ilk to play at politics like it did to Hitler or the other faction leaders (that sounds overly dramatic but oh well).

[Qdeathstar]

The UN decided to issue a new resolution, 1441, which stated that Iraq must disarm, and such progress, or lack of, was to be decided on by the Security Council collectively. When progress was made, Bush suddenly declared that progress wasn't being made, and issued the seven day ultimatum.

Such progress? No, the RESOLUTION called for emmediate and unwavering cooperation, and that wasnt happening. WHen ever the UN inspecters questioned a nuclear scientist, they were all surrounded by minders...

Democracy and freedom go hand in hand. If Iraqi democracy fails, then freedom in Iraq fails.

You cannot have freedom enforced by a dictator or an authoritarian state. I thought that much would be obvious to you.

Yeah, so, that statement is obvious and counters nothing i said, whats the point here.

Yes, we did. Pretty much. Not true recovery, but the security situation (Or indeed, the situation generally.) was nowhere comparable to the one in present-day Iraq.

no we didnt, berlin wall anyone? That was democracy, that was communism...

What possible basis do you have for claiming the moral high ground, when you repudiate any notion that your government acted in anything resembling a moral fashion?

Except, my government DID act morally. They got rid of a murderer and a tyrant. That is a moral objective, the means to achieving it were less than moral, but IMO the ends justify the means.

How is this a contradiction?

For instance: You have a seriously flawed and disjointed argument, but it could be worse.

Where's the contradiction?

Oh, and why are you even bothering arguing this point is beyond me, since you've already stated that you think WMD's had nothing to do with the war?

Its a contradiction becuase the resolution STATED that IRAQ had to comply FULLY, and if it didnt, serious consequences would apply. Iraq COULD HAVE done more, meaning that they WERENT complying completely.

I argue the point only becuase some one had claimed that the WAR in iraq was illegal, and it CLEARLY wasnt. You can argue over its morality, ect, but not its legality.

Qdeathstar, what is your definition of a terrorist?

A non-governmental militant that attacks civilians purposely with the intent of instilling fear amount the masses.

I'm sure the people of Iraq are really happy for you now that you've found an acceptable place to have your war ))

Well, i think that a lot of them are happy to get rid of Saddam, i think they are equally ready for us to get out... and we will, after we finish OUR war.

It seems a tad curious to me that people may wish to employ arguments which are not even accepted by Bush, are not in tune with the guiding principles of the operation, and don't make sense anyway, in support of it. But it takes all sorts, I suppose.

And how to you know how bush fills? What do you think would happen to his re-election chances if he went out and said guess what you ****ers, i lied to you? It wouldnt go over well would it, this is a more subtle way.

If it all works out somehow nobody can complain because george bush clearly knew precisely what he was doing and it's our fault because we lack faith.

No one, not even bush has said everything has went according to plan...

Para 1: Dude, you don't have the strategic advantage in Iraq. They know the place and don't have to fund an army across the other side of the world. Sun Tzu says you will fail.

you sound like a stoner, or like 13.. not gona was my time.

So I take it then you'll be advocating a free and democratic Palestinian state, so they stop blowing up Israelis?

yes, as long as Arafat isnt ruler.

-Why he thinks the war started, and what the justification for starting the war is, why IRAQ?

I think the war started because we were fighting a war on terrorism, and al qaeda. Al quaeda has a strong hold in the middle east that is mainly due the the disguntled people in the society who have little and don’t have the means for a higher education. This sadness, and desperation leads them to terrorism, and into a groupd of strong “brothers” when the common goal, the distruction of America. The best way to combat terrorists is to eliminate the sources of them, that is the rulers that cause the poverty and injustice; and by doing this spread freedom and justice and democracy. Sure you need to do it in more than one country, but one country is a start, and it will allow you to gain political leverage on less US friendly states.

Some would say, why not Iran, why not Syria, why not Saudia Arabia? Why Iraq first?

That is a very simple question to answer, Iran has a fairly well trained army and its people are split about rather they support the government or not. Plus, the United states at the time had little justification for even talking about getting rid of them. In Syria, we didn’t want to go after them because it would be a hard war logisticly to fight, with no close allies everything would have to be flown in. Iraq however, was an easy target. It had a week army whose people were mostly negative towards their leader. Also, Iraq had failed to comply with resolutions, giving the US a means of addressing IRAQ.

-If he thinks R1441 was working, like the UN claimed, or if 'IRAQ IS FULL OF TERROR AND WMD OMG' like George Bush claimed and then later decided not to;

I don’t think it matters If R1441 was working or not, despite the fact that it wasn’t. All the resolution did was bring up WMD again as a threat, so that America would have justification to get rid of Saddam Hussain.

-Who he thinks is controlling Afghanistan;

America.

-If he thinks a 'democratic' government chosen while 20% of the country is in a state of what is essentially civil war against the concept and does not have the vote can even pretend to have de jure sovereignty;

No. Not really, only a small percentage of people vote in America and Europe, so even if 20% of the people cant vote, 80% voting would still be higher than in America and most of Europe. Plus, its better than not having anyone vote at all and being under the rule of a one deranged dictator.

Plus, this is ONE election, its not iraqs whole intire future.

-Whether he thinks Iraq is more 'free' now than it was under Saddam;

No, but I think that in the future it will be because with president bush we will see to it that it is, because it is in OUR Best interest.

-Whether he thinks life is better for the average Iraqi now than it was under Saddam;

No, but I think that in the future it will be because with president bush we will see to it that it is, because it is in OUR Best interest.

-Whether he thinks Iraq was less 'free' before the war than its neighbours;
no, I think that that Iraq will serve was a means to spread freedom to other contries, but showing the citizens of the country what they are missing, given time. REPEAT, GIVEN TIME.

-Whether he thinks the Iraqis should be grateful;

Doesn’t matter what I think, they are grateful.

-Whether he thinks there is any link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam's government that doesn't include the term 'mortal combat'.

No, not really. Other than when America brought the fight to Iraq, Al-Qaeda moved in… and there were a couple suspicious meetings between al-quaeda and a couple of sadam leadership.. but no, Saddam was a secular leader.

[SYMM]

DId anyone see Bremner, Bird and Fortune last night?
One of their spoof-interviewees was using QDS's reasoning with regards to "taking the fight to Al Quaeda"...I laughed rather a lot

[Rumad]

Originally Posted by Leshy

Also, Ken Bigsley is supposed to be held by the so-called Tawhid wa Jihad group, not by Al Qaeda itself.

Zaqawi the leader is in charge of tawhid and Jihad group, and al qaeda may not be very active at present, but what Osama Bin Laden has done is he was able to create a loose network of terrorists to spread fear and hatred.

The recent chechen rebel leader who launched the attack on the school used some of Bin Ladens own men to help organise his terror rampage and in fact he (the rebel leader) was said to have received a letter of congratulations from Bin Laden himself.

Zaqawi himself had a letter intercepted which he was sending to Bin Laden recently and shows the close links he and his group have with Bin laden.

While Bin Laden cannot stay stationary I sincerely doubt his terror network is idle.

Most of the cell's in operation of these groups operate autonimously and don't require additional help or support from a central authority.

I think from what I have seen recently I would suggest that Al Quaeda is alive and kicking.

Now refering to the initial argument. I would say that the way in which we "took out" saddam and his ruling baarf party was pretty pathetic. By taking out the central administration it has been necessary to reconstruct the entire country.

Regarding Ken Bygly - Blair has been undone by his own silence. I am sure his handling f the situation has hurt him and his party politically.

Do I think taking saddam out was right? Onl if it meant the Iraqi people didn't suffer as much as under his rule and I would say they are suffering more at this present time.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Plus, this is ONE election, its not iraqs whole intire future.

I hear someone said that in Germany in early 1933. Do you know who?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Well, i think that a lot of them are happy to get rid of Saddam, i think they are equally ready for us to get out... and we will, after we finish OUR war.

[IncubusGod]

QDeathstar, please please please please please please piss off and die. Or at least stop posting this drivel. Your points are flawed at best, completley made up at worst and you will never ever convince anyone here that the U.S. was morally justified in going to war with a country that had no links to any terror networks.

You seem to live in a fantasy world where you think Iraqi's actually like America or Americans. (Why wouldn't they?! I mean, you only killed tens of thousands of civilians, devestated their infrastructure, failed to rebuild it, disbanded any semblence or order, failed to impose law, appointed a 'government' of American pawns with a known criminal and thug as leader as a "tough guy in a tough situation" is preferable)
You seem to live in a fantasy world where you think America is 'running' Afganistan.
You seem to live in a fantasy world where no matter how many countries, intellegence organisations and US enquires say that Iraq had no links to Al Queda or international terrorism, you still belive this to be the case.
You seem to live in a fantasy world where you believe Sadam, a man who couldn't possibly threaten any of his neighbours with any substantial force, was an imminant threat to the region.
You seem to live in a fantasy world. Full Stop.

Listen. It's not going to work. We hate your spoon fed, conservative led views on the world and how America is so ****ing great.

Just about everyone in the world hates you. I mean that, go ANYWHERE and your hated. This wasn't the case until recently. Way to go. Sit there with your apple pie, waving banner, hand on your heart at a baseball match and wipe that little tear of pride from your eye during the national anthem. Thats you with your head in the sand.
Your country has ****ed the world over. It's murdered, killed, maimed and scarred more innocent people in the past 3 years than ANY terrorists have. It's destablised regimes allowing terror to activly thrive where it was repressed. It's allowed Afganstian to produce 70% of the worlds opiates where previously the practice was being wiped out. It's allowed Isreal to continue with policies of ethnic cleansing, repression and bruatlity.

That makes you the biggest terrorists in the world.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Except, my government DID act morally. They got rid of a murderer and a tyrant. That is a moral objective, the means to achieving it were less than moral, but IMO the ends justify the means.

so if the us-goverment does something its 'morally right', if someone else does something its wrong?

Its a contradiction becuase the resolution STATED that IRAQ had to comply FULLY, and if it didnt, serious consequences would apply. Iraq COULD HAVE done more, meaning that they WERENT complying completely.
I argue the point only becuase some one had claimed that the WAR in iraq was illegal, and it CLEARLY wasnt. You can argue over its morality, ect, but not its legality.

and who says that 'serious consquences' would automatically mean war? that last resolution did not mention the use of force, because otherwise it would never have passed the security council. ofc it was an illegal war, bush doesnt give a damn about international institutions.

A non-governmental militant that attacks civilians purposely with the intent of instilling fear amount the masses.

how about govermental figthers who bomb civilians 'purposely with the intent of instilling fear amount the masses.' certainly that also is a form of terror, isnt it?

Well, i think that a lot of them are happy to get rid of Saddam, i think they are equally ready for us to get out... and we will, after we finish OUR war.

yes, im sure they are happy to get mugged, raped, murdered and blown up by car bombs or us-airstrikes, all for the sake of freedom. hell, who wouldnt love that?

[Ste]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Such progress? No, the RESOLUTION called for emmediate and unwavering cooperation, and that wasnt happening. WHen ever the UN inspecters questioned a nuclear scientist, they were all surrounded by minders...

Its a contradiction becuase the resolution STATED that IRAQ had to comply FULLY, and if it didnt, serious consequences would apply. Iraq COULD HAVE done more, meaning that they WERENT complying completely.

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm
There's 1441 for you to read in full.

Where does it give the go-ahead for military action?

Incidentally other resolutions:

i) Article 41 is the article under which UN Sanctions are imposed. Note that it is the duty of every member of the UN to observe and implement sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council

(ii) Article 42 is the article under which the use of armed force is sanctioned. Note that under under Article 46, it is the Security Council and NOT the Member State(s) authorised to use force which is to decide how force is to be used.

Originally Posted by QDeathStar

I argue the point only becuase some one had claimed that the WAR in iraq was illegal, and it CLEARLY wasnt. You can argue over its morality, ect, but not its legality.

http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm
I know you won't read all of that, if any at all, and if you do I'm sure you won't understand it. But it's there.
IT WAS ILLEGAL.

Originally Posted by QDeathStar

you sound like a stoner, or like 13.. not gona was my time.

He sounds a lot more intelligent than you.
How Ironic.
Reply to his points, unless you don't have an answer.

Originally Posted by QDeathStar

I think the war started because we were fighting a war on terrorism, and al qaeda. Al quaeda has a strong hold in the middle east that is mainly due the the disguntled people in the society who have little and don’t have the means for a higher education. This sadness, and desperation leads them to terrorism, and into a groupd of strong “brothers” when the common goal, the distruction of America. The best way to combat terrorists is to eliminate the sources of them, that is the rulers that cause the poverty and injustice; and by doing this spread freedom and justice and democracy. Sure you need to do it in more than one country, but one country is a start, and it will allow you to gain political leverage on less US friendly states.

how many more times: TERRORISM DIDN'T EXIST IN IRAQ BEFORE THE WAR.
The only links to Al-quada in Iraq before the war was in the Kurdish areas. And they were anti-Saddam too.
Sources of Al-Quada? mostly Saudis aren't they? including mr Bin Laden himself.
The US has helped Al-Quada, not hindered them, by invading Iraq.

Originally Posted by QDeathStar

Some would say, why not Iran, why not Syria, why not Saudia Arabia? Why Iraq first?

That is a very simple question to answer, Iran has a fairly well trained army and its people are split about rather they support the government or not. Plus, the United states at the time had little justification for even talking about getting rid of them. In Syria, we didn’t want to go after them because it would be a hard war logisticly to fight, with no close allies everything would have to be flown in. Iraq however, was an easy target. It had a week army whose people were mostly negative towards their leader. Also, Iraq had failed to comply with resolutions, giving the US a means of addressing IRAQ.

So, you attacked them because they were an easy target and despite them not being anywhere near as bad as their neighbours?
Well I'm glad you admit that but it's a shame that you're proud of it.

Originally Posted by QDeathStar

I don’t think it matters If R1441 was working or not, despite the fact that it wasn’t. All the resolution did was bring up WMD again as a threat, so that America would have justification to get rid of Saddam Hussain.

Is that an admission of lying? There were and are no WMD. We thought they were but the inspectors needed more time.
Answer the question again - Why did America go to war in Iraq?

They knew there were no credible terrorist links.
They thought there were WMD but weren't prepared to prove there were and were proved wrong. (bad intelligence or doctored intelligence?)

Originally Posted by QDeathStar

No. Not really, only a small percentage of people vote in America and Europe, so even if 20% of the people cant vote, 80% voting would still be higher than in America and most of Europe. Plus, its better than not having anyone vote at all and being under the rule of a one deranged dictator.

Plus, this is ONE election, its not iraqs whole intire future.

Can you really see after the election the militants going "Oh well, the people have spoken, lets put down our weapons."?
Bullshit.
The Kurds will be pissed off, the Sunnis will be pissed off and the Shias will be pissed off.
None of them are going to get the representation they want.
I'd liken Iraq to a more unstable version of Yugoslavia.
The croats, slovenes, albanians etc were all pissed off with the amount of power the serbians had. This sparked a very bloody civil war. And now they are all seperate countries.
That is the only way I can see this going, and it will not be a nice thing to witness, especially with Turkey and Iran having special interests in the area.

Originally Posted by QDeathStar

Doesn’t matter what I think, they are grateful.

Some are, some aren't.
Noone really knows.
The longer the mess goes on the less grateful they are becoming.
And i don't think elections will solve it.

Originally Posted by QDeathStar

No, not really. Other than when America brought the fight to Iraq, Al-Qaeda moved in… and there were a couple suspicious meetings between al-quaeda and a couple of sadam leadership.. but no, Saddam was a secular leader.

HOLD ON A MINUTE, you said earlier in your post:

Originally Posted by QDeathStar

I think the war started because we were fighting a war on terrorism, and al qaeda.

And you admit there is no link?

Please stop spouting the propaganda that is being fed to you and research your points before posting.
Maybe you'll realise just how wrong you are.

[Zar]

Qdeathyank

Honestly tell me:

Are you more pleased that America won the war, and Saddam was ousted?

or

Are you more pleased that the average Iraqi might have a better more "free" life?

I'm willing to bet the first one, because it seems that you Americans only use the latter to justify the war to those of us who were against it in the first place. That you war loving freaks are actually more pleased that American interests have been served, rather than caring about what you lot really think of as "rag-head, allah loving, terrorists"

[wu_trax]

maybe Qdeathstar is in fact Zar (or some other anti-war person aroundv here), who tries to make all americans look like blood-thirsty idiots?
i mean he certainly doesnt make a very good pro-american statement here.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

maybe Qdeathstar is in fact Zar, who tries to make all americans look like blood-thirsty idiots?

I dont have to make them look like blood-thirsty idiots. They already are.

additionally: i would never ever defend the USA (on this topic - or probably ever), even as a gimmick.

I also lament the fact that qdeathyank uses caps to highlight some of his words. I can't stand it when people do that (sometimes it is ok - but using it on every other word isnt).

[JammyJim]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

The Iraq war was just, and it’s not bad at all.

Look, despite the beheadings, and despite the suicide bombings, in 4 of Iraqis 97 counties, 93 counties are secured and in peace (Info from Prime Minister of Iraq). That means that 93 counties are waiting for the vote, expecting the vote, and steadily moving toward a more democratic state.

No one EVER said that it was going to be a breeze. The administration thought it would go better, but they still knew it was going to be a struggle.

No they didnt....There were no post-war plans for Iraq. This has been confirmed by the very highest levels of power in both the United States and Great Britain. We had no definitive plans for postwar reconstruction of filling the power void. Hence the continued violence and nearly 1000 american soldiers dead on the ground. This sounds like youve been listening to Rumsfeld and Foxnews far too much btw......

They knew that it was going to be an unpopular for them both at home and abroad as the poles had shown that. Still the knew, that the war in Iraq would flock terrorists THERE to Iraq so that instead of having to fight for them where ever they may and may not be we decide to fight them in a space where we knew where they would be at, By starting the war, we brought Al Qaeda to Iraq. You can’t deny that. Now that they are there, in one confined space, regardless of how hard the struggle may currently be, having them all in one place will ultimately make it easy for us to kick them off the face of the earth.

oh my good lord.

TERORRISM 101 :

Terrorism by its very nature is a fluid entity comprising of 'cells'. These cells are spread throughout the world and form a widespread chain. When one cell is destroyed another takes its place...much like a virus. The cells are ever increasing and multiplying rapidly as more disaffected young muslims become involved.

Do you really think every evil terrorist is in Iraq??? Yes its true some will be. Some will be there to cause continued instability etc but all of them? This sounds like conservative media fed tripe to me!

And that’s what we want. We want to fight terrorist in a place of OUR choosing not in our house, not in our country, and no where they want us to fight where they have the strategic advantage. I can’t believe anyone can’t see the advantage of bringing the fight TO Iraq, rather then trying to chase them.

But your not fighting them.....our troops are getting killed daily because of car bombs or rocket attacks. Thats hardly 'fighting them'. and most of these attacks come from Iraqis who want us out of their country.

Iraq had very very tenuous links to al qaida in the first place....even the US secretary of state Colin Powell admitted to this....

In addition, a free Iraq will be a launching pad to spread freedom elsewhere in the Middle East. Once people are free, violence stops. You cant name a place where this WASNT the case, therefore it cant be doubted that democracy in the middle east ultimately brings freedom to the middle ease and that in turn ultimately brings PEACE to the middle east.

you self righteous biggot.

this entire piece sounds very much like something from Fox News or another ultra right wing group would come up with. Youve been spoon fed propaganda and youve loved every minute of it.
Iraq wont be a launching pad to spread freedom. Unless of course you replace the word 'freedom' with 'planes and troops'. to other ME countries.

People are supposedly free now.....violence hasnt stopped.....as was pointed out earlier. It didnt stop in germany after WW1 and they wernt even a puppet state.


Peace in the middle east has never been an Iraq problem. Iraq is not the place that peace will grow from. Your a fool with no understanding of history if you think this. The only way in which the middle east will become peaceful is through the solving of the Palestinian issue.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM.


I am probably right in assuming that if America invaded any of the following countries with simliar 'were bringing them freedom' rhetoric youd be more than happy :


China,
North Korea,
Chechnya,
Iran,
Saudi Arabia,
Cuba,

etc etc


tootle over to www.foxnews.com/forum/

to get the kind of 'YEAH MAN YOUR ****ING RIGHT AWESOME...LETS GO KICK SOME RAG HEAD ASS AND SHOW THEM THE AMERICAN WAY' response you were most likely aiming for....



Incidently i suggest you read Al frankens new book. Its quite funny (him being a comedian you see).

Its called

Lies and the Liars who tell them. A fair and balanced look at the Right.
Its a very good book.
you will like.

[Qdeathstar]

You seem to live in a fantasy world where you think Iraqi's actually like America or Americans. (Why wouldn't they?! I mean, you only killed tens of thousands of civilians, devestated their infrastructure, failed to rebuild it, disbanded any semblence or order, failed to impose law, appointed a 'government' of American pawns with a known criminal and thug as leader as a "tough guy in a tough situation" is preferable)

Actually. As in my previous posts, I don’t think that Iraqi’s like America. I don’t think that matters either. The rest of your post you just whine and go one and on about the same points made more, which aren’t really points at all, so whaevea.

so if the us-goverment does something its 'morally right', if someone else does something its wrong?

how did you get that from what I said? I said that although bush deceived us, the war In IRAQ was moral because it had moral goals.

and who says that 'serious consquences' would automatically mean war? that last resolution did not mention the use of force, because otherwise it would never have passed the security council. ofc it was an illegal war, bush doesnt give a damn about international institutions.

It was obvious that Serious consequences ment war, and the United states SAID that. And the IRAQ war was not an illegal war, president bush had 14 resolutions providing him with justification.

how about govermental figthers who bomb civilians 'purposely with the intent of instilling fear amount the masses.' certainly that also is a form of terror, isnt it?

It’s a form of terror, but its not a terrorist. It’s a soldier at that point.

yes, im sure they are happy to get mugged, raped, murdered and blown up by car bombs or us-airstrikes, all for the sake of freedom. hell, who wouldnt love that?

But your wrong, that only happens to a very small percent of Iraqis. And it happends now. I cant see why you liberals who like to invision the world how it should be cane picture Iraq as a stable and prosperous country?.


I gave you my answers, now, I would like mine. Why cant you see Iraq stable sometime within the next 7 years? And if you can, doesn’t that mean that your arguments about the struggles NOW are pointless?

Where does it give the go-ahead for military action?

It doesn’t directly, I didn’t say it did. But by saying that “serious consequences would apply” it implied war. America didn’t think saddam was complying, therefore serious consequences applied, and for America was justified. Im not argueing that it was good justification, or that there were WMD’s, im just saying that the justifications were valid and therefore the war was NOT illegal

And don’t give me that crap about “spoon fed conservative” dribble, you pour in the liberal drama every chance you get, so don’t bother attacking me for it when you the same thing. Also, first you say that im the only one with theses views, and then in the very next breath, when you have no reasonable argument, you say “spoon fed conservatism” Nice label O.o

I know you won't read all of that, if any at all, and if you do I'm sure you won't understand it. But it's there.
IT WAS ILLEGAL.

I read it.. and I understood it, it wasn’t that hard, im actually pretty good in English. But, that is written with an anti-american biases so the layers there are only looking and things that would make it an illegal war… so their point is not really valid, since there are other more powerful things that would make it allowed. Not to menchion the fact that a nation is allowed to defend itself without approval for the UN. At the time, most of the worlds governments thought Iraq had WMD including france, germany and Russia.

He sounds a lot more intelligent than you.
How Ironic.
Reply to his points, unless you don't have an answer.

Yeah, im sure he does. I responded to what was worthwhile and hadn’t already been repeated

how many more times: TERRORISM DIDN'T EXIST IN IRAQ BEFORE THE WAR.

If you had of read it all…

How many more times: I DIDN’T SAY THAT, I SAID THE WAR IN IRAQ CAUSED AL-QAEDA TO MOVE IN, MAKING THEM EASY TARGETS, AND THAT AL QAEDA HAS A STRONG HOLD IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND A DEMOCRATIC NATION IN THE HEART OF THE MIDDLE EAST WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR THEM TO OPERATE. Please please please read before you post.

Is that an admission of lying? There were and are no WMD. We thought they were but the inspectors needed more time.
Answer the question again - Why did America go to war in Iraq?

I already answered the question about why America went to war in Iraq, read what I posted, then ask questions.

Can you really see after the election the militants going "Oh well, the people have spoken, lets put down our weapons."?
Bullshit.
The Kurds will be pissed off, the Sunnis will be pissed off and the Shias will be pissed off.
None of them are going to get the representation they want.
I'd liken Iraq to a more unstable version of Yugoslavia.
The croats, slovenes, albanians etc were all pissed off with the amount of power the serbians had. This sparked a very bloody civil war. And now they are all seperate countries.
That is the only way I can see this going, and it will not be a nice thing to witness, especially with Turkey and Iran having special interests in the area.

Not all at once, but eventually more and more militants will give up seeing that what they are attempting to do is wrong, and also seeing that things are improving.

And you admit there is no link?

Please stop spouting the propaganda that is being fed to you and research your points before posting.
Maybe you'll realise just how wrong you are.

I didn’t contradict myself there, you just failed to read…. Read again, most other people here get what im saying, they just think its retarted, you seem to have no clue at all.

Please stop spouting garbage and read before posting.

Are you more pleased that America won the war, and Saddam was ousted?

or

are you more pleased that the average Iraqi might have a better more "free" life?

First, I think your groupings arnt fair, secondly America hasn’t won the war yet, nor have I ever made the claim that it was. Im happy that saddam is ousted for the Iraqi people, and im happy that the Iraqi people will have a better more free life. But it the nature of man to act in self interest, and thus I am certain that when the Iraqi covernment, and America’s coalition when the war in Iraq, that the world will certainly be a safer place for the REASONS I menchioned above numerous times. FOR THOSE WHO WILL QUOTE THIS AND ASK HOW, read above please.

also lament the fact that qdeathyank uses caps to highlight some of his words.

A lot of people, including people posting this thread do it, so get off my nuts ;-)

No they didnt....There were no post-war plans for Iraq. This has been confirmed by the very highest levels of power in both the United States and Great Britain

Show me the info.. or don’t make claims. They did have post war plans for Iraq, but the citizens of iraq were more wearing of America and the “invaders” than America thought they would be, so adjustments need and have been made.

Do you really think every evil terrorist is in Iraq??? Yes its true some will be. Some will be there to cause continued instability etc but all of them? This sounds like conservative media fed tripe to me!

No, not every terrorist, but enough so that Al Qaedas resources will be used in iraq rather than in America. And conservative media has nothing to do with this, have you heard this theory on television anywhere, or do you not watch TV that opposes your views?

But your not fighting them.....our troops are getting killed daily because of car bombs or rocket attacks. Thats hardly 'fighting them'. and most of these attacks come from Iraqis who want us out of their country.

They kill thousands of us, we arrest THOUSANDS of them and kill thousands more. Their attacks are acts of desperation. Not of achievement. They havent achieved anything.

nless of course you replace the word 'freedom' with 'planes and troops'. to other ME countries

By whatever means necessary as far as im concerned. The reason it sounds like conservative TV is because what, you don’t ever watch it? I don’t watch fox news at all. MSNBC, CBS (a really liberal news channel, they lied about Bush documents to attack him), and CBS. Those are either centrist or liberal media. On occasion I watch BBC news, when it comes on here, but not that often… you don’t ever hear them menchion the successes in Iraq.

I am probably right in assuming that if America invaded any of the following countries with simliar 'were bringing them freedom' rhetoric youd be more than happy :

If I thought we had a legitimate ability to win, yes.

o get the kind of 'YEAH MAN YOUR ****ING RIGHT AWESOME...LETS GO KICK SOME RAG HEAD ASS AND SHOW THEM THE AMERICAN WAY' response you were most likely aiming for....

Um, no, ive been posting at planetarion forums for a long time, and I know that there are A lot of liberals here. I posted because I don’t mind debate, even if it is 20 blindfolded liberals 1 reasonable person who still things im wrong, but admits my strongpoints, and 1 conservtive who can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

[IncubusGod]

Once again QDeathstar you amaze me with more confirmation of your slim understanding of the real world.

To be honest, refuting your points once more (as just about everyone here has ripped you to shreads justifably) would take a long long long time and clearly would never illustrate to you how blind you are to reality so I'm just going to shake my head

*shakes head*

And pity you.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Actually. As in my previous posts, I don’t think that Iraqi’s like America. I don’t think that matters either. The rest of your post you just whine and go one and on about the same points made more, which aren’t really points at all, so whaevea.

you can force them to want 'freedom and democarcy. it wont work, if you dont have the support of the local population you cant win a war (see ww2, vietnam, afganistan, whatever).

how did you get that from what I said? I said that although bush deceived us, the war In IRAQ was moral because it had moral goals.

it would also be morally right to shoot you in the face. who gives you the right to decide whats best for iraq? you dont know a shit about their values and their culture, so how dare you enforce your values on them?

It was obvious that Serious consequences ment war, and the United states SAID that. And the IRAQ war was not an illegal war, president bush had 14 resolutions providing him with justification.

well, the United Nations didnt, therefore, illegal.

It’s a form of terror, but its not a terrorist. It’s a soldier at that point.

i see, so there is no big problem with carpet bombing falluja, is there?

But your wrong, that only happens to a very small percent of Iraqis. And it happends now. I cant see why you liberals who like to invision the world how it should be cane picture Iraq as a stable and prosperous country?.

i dont exactly understand that sentence. define 'very small percentage of the population', its worse than with saddam, the crime rate at least. there pracdtically is no public order and if some insane people try to join the police they get blown up.

I gave you my answers, now, I would like mine. Why cant you see Iraq stable sometime within the next 7 years? And if you can, doesn’t that mean that your arguments about the struggles NOW are pointless?

i can also imagine world peace and the destruction of all nuclear weapons, i dont see that happening though.

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by QDeathstar

It was obvious that Serious consequences ment war, and the United states SAID that. And the IRAQ war was not an illegal war, president bush had 14 resolutions providing him with justification.

Oh this is just taking the piss. He only needed one clear resolution that gave the approval for war. None, not one, of those resolutions said that war was necessary, justified or allowed.

Making Bush and Blair's actions illegal within international law.

Not to menchion the fact that a nation is allowed to defend itself without approval for the UN.

So you're just making things up now? Maybe reasonable action within your borders is allowed. I certainly dont think that going halfway across the world to bomb a country that posed no threat to American in the slightest is justified. Shut up.

At the time, most of the worlds governments thought Iraq had WMD including france, germany and Russia.

Thats a lie too. None of these countries said that. Infact only American and Britian said that Iraq had WMD. Everyone else was waiting to hear from the UN Weapons Inspectors.

But, that is written with an anti-american biases so the layers there are only looking and things that would make it an illegal war… so their point is not really valid, since there are other more powerful things that would make it allowed

What shit are you spouting now?!>!
Anti-American lawyers? Experts in international law say something is illegal in the context of international law yet their opinon doesn't count as they are "anti-american"????!?"?
"since there are other more powerful things that would make it allowed"<--- This is the clearest example that you are either a Troll gimmick account or incredibly incredibly stupid.

**** off an die.

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

It doesn’t directly, I didn’t say it did. But by saying that “serious consequences would apply” it implied war. America didn’t think saddam was complying, therefore serious consequences applied, and for America was justified. Im not argueing that it was good justification, or that there were WMD’s, im just saying that the justifications were valid and therefore the war was NOT illegal

I maybe wrong, but i'm under the impression that in order to invade another country you need UN approval, which as far as i can remember, wasn't present, hence the war was illegal.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

I read it.. and I understood it, it wasn’t that hard, im actually pretty good in English. But, that is written with an anti-american biases so the layers there are only looking and things that would make it an illegal war… so their point is not really valid, since there are other more powerful things that would make it allowed. Not to menchion the fact that a nation is allowed to defend itself without approval for the UN. At the time, most of the worlds governments thought Iraq had WMD including france, germany and Russia.

How can you justify that as defending yourself? Bin Laden and Saddam don't like each other, so you can't use terrorism as much of an excuse. Now with most of the world disapproving of the war, you've just incited the Muslim world and made things 100 times worse. France, Germany and Russia also wanted the inspectors to do the work, and can you prove that those countries thought they had WMD?

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

How many more times: I DIDN’T SAY THAT, I SAID THE WAR IN IRAQ CAUSED AL-QAEDA TO MOVE IN, MAKING THEM EASY TARGETS, AND THAT AL QAEDA HAS A STRONG HOLD IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND A DEMOCRATIC NATION IN THE HEART OF THE MIDDLE EAST WILL MAKE IT HARDER FOR THEM TO OPERATE.

I don't think a democratic nation in the Middle East will hinder Al Qaeda much to be honest.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

No, not every terrorist, but enough so that Al Qaedas resources will be used in iraq rather than in America. And conservative media has nothing to do with this, have you heard this theory on television anywhere, or do you not watch TV that opposes your views?

But they're still operating in America and other countries just incase you're vision is blinkered by Fox.

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

They kill thousands of us, we arrest THOUSANDS of them and kill thousands more. Their attacks are acts of desperation. Not of achievement. They havent achieved anything.

I think you'll find that they've achieved quite a lot since the beginning of the war. More people are anti-Bush and Blair than they were before, they've got countries to pull their troops from Iraq after the train bombings in Madrid and some other Asian country pulling out after a couple of their citizens were kidnapped, Phillippines i think?

[mist]

i was under the impression that bush and blair tried, and failed, to get a UN resolution which justified the war on iraq. why would they be doing that if they already had however many to back them up?

ofc, this is relying on my memory, so may be utter bollocks

-mist

[Ste]

Just wrote a long post then computer crashed will try again...

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

I read it.. and I understood it, it wasn’t that hard, im actually pretty good in English. But, that is written with an anti-american biases so the layers there are only looking and things that would make it an illegal war… so their point is not really valid, since there are other more powerful things that would make it allowed. Not to menchion the fact that a nation is allowed to defend itself without approval for the UN. At the time, most of the worlds governments thought Iraq had WMD including france, germany and Russia.

Well I don't think you did understand it then.
Just because something disagrees with you doesn't mean it's biased.
The war was illegal under international law.
Kofi Annan says it was.
Hans Blix says it was.
The consensus among International lawyers is that it was.
Senior Foreign Office ministers have said it was.
Even The British Attorney General warned Blair that the UN would deem it illegal.
(all above links found in the earlier link: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm)

The undersigned jurists regret, on the one hand, this banalisation of war and, on the other, the indifference regarding the legal dimension, which is one of the most fundamental aspects of international relations.

On this last point, the signatories of this declaration recall that there exists no conception of a "new world order" that allows resort to a unilateral use of force by some states to supposedly guarantee the respect of international law. One of the great achievements of the twentieth century is precisely the prohibition of war, in particular through the United Nations Charter in which the following fundamental principles are elaborated:

- The threat or use of force is prohibited and states are required to settle their disputes peacefully;

- A war of aggression constitutes a crime against peace;

- Self defence presupposes the existence of a prior armed attack; consequently, "preventive self defence", is not admissible under international law;

- The Security Council is entrusted with the principal responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security.

This can be found here in a larger article in many languages: http://www.ulb.ac.be/droit/cdi/appel...lish%20version
Check here for the undersigned.
Oh wait, they're all biased anti-americans too

1441 Does Not Authorise Force.

In the UN charter:

Chapter VII, Article 51 preserves the right of Members to act in self-defence:-

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

This is incompatible with Bush's Pre-emptive war.

War On Iraq Was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers
More anti-americans? 6 top professors? wow one's even american. Must be a Liberal READ what they say. They know about law. YOU don't.

You really are living up to the American stereotype.

Please - back up what you are saying or shut up about it. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

Um, no, ive been posting at planetarion forums for a long time, and I know that there are A lot of liberals here. I posted because I don’t mind debate, even if it is 20 blindfolded liberals 1 reasonable person who still things im wrong, but admits my strongpoints, and 1 conservtive who can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Would you please stop using your inane political definitions.

[Leshy]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

A non-governmental militant that attacks civilians purposely with the intent of instilling fear amount the masses.

So by definition, the people your army is fighting are not terrorists. Because they would go after civilians, not armed forces.

[Kurashima]

I only had to look at the author of this thread to realise there was no point in me reading it, as i have neither the time nor the patience to pick apart his poorly thought out, badly sourced world commentary.

[Qdeathstar]

so kurashima, your only posting here to spam... hmm

[IncubusGod]

Originally Posted by Qdeathstar

so kurashima, your only posting here to spam... hmm

Given up have we?

Been schooled a little?

[wu_trax]

oh, and if you still think most of iraq is doing fine, here is some map about whats going on:
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...320586,00.html