346 replies to this topic

[Reflectionist]

No.

The united states is doing enough to piss off Iraqi's just existing. Lets leave it at that.

[Vazor]

The united states is doing enough to piss off Iraqi's just existing. Lets leave it at that.

Dude, just...no. That's incorrect on so many levels I'm not even going to go into it. The reason you, as well as a large number of people, feel that the Iraquis don't want Americans there is because that's all the media is telling us: the negatives. It's not that they're so liberally biased (although the majority are), but that they simply want to make money. And to do that, they need to display the negatives. Bad news sells, and the media knows this. An unfotunate side-effect of their complete ignoring of all of the good things being done in the war, and the countless Iraquis who actually want us there, is that the media has convinced today's society that the war is wrong. Because this generation does not seem to know how to sift through the news for fact, they have essentially been brainwashed to the idea that American involvement is only negative, a concept which is obviously flawed.

[Wanchimaera]

Dropping a nuke is probably one of the biggest mistakes that the U.S. can make at this point. There was a time where I almost supported the war in Iraq, but I've had one friend killed over there already, and another is still over there right now. The U.S. needs to find a way to bring the troops home as quickly as possible without sacrificing what they've done in Iraq thus far.

... and I'm a conservative.

[Vazor]

I've got to half-agree with you. Obviously dropping a nuke is not an option. I mean, we've made so much progress, dropping a nuke would make all that effort, and the loss of many brave lives, in vain. No, a nuclear attack is not an option. That would undoubtably set off the chain of events which would ultimately result in, as some say, World War Four being fought with sticks and stones.
And, believe me I'm sorry that your friend had to die for the cause, but you've got to remember it's for the greater good. His life was not lost in vain, but it will have been if the U.S. gives up that easily. I say the troops need to still stay there for a while, at least until the Iraqi government is stable enough and their police force and military strong enough to solve its own internal conflicts. I'd give it a year to two years as of now.

[Dai Grepher]

I said drop a nuke before the invasion, then send in contractors and construction workers instead of troops. Flat surface, start over. Call it America Jr.
However, we cannot do that now. We've made too much progress without destroying the good people of Iraq. So is what we should do is bomb Syria, since that is the focal point of terrorist action. That is probably where all the weapons of mass destruction are hidden as well.
As for Iraq, I would say keep working with the Iraqi police and take Al Qaeda fighters hostage. Then torture them for information.

[Wanchimaera]

His life was not lost in vain, but it will have been if the U.S. gives up that easily. I say the troops need to still stay there for a while, at least until the Iraqi government is stable enough and their police force and military strong enough to solve its own internal conflicts. I'd give it a year to two years as of now.

Well, I guess that's sorta what I was trying to say. For the record, both of the guys I know who are/were over there are/were under the belief that they are/were doing the right thing.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I said drop a nuke before the invasion, then send in contractors and construction workers instead of troops. Flat surface, start over. Call it America Jr.

Please tell me you're kidding.

However, we cannot do that now. We've made too much progress without destroying the good people of Iraq. So is what we should do is bomb Syria, since that is the focal point of terrorist action. That is probably where all the weapons of mass destruction are hidden as well.
As for Iraq, I would say keep working with the Iraqi police and take Al Qaeda fighters hostage.

I don't know where to start on that. First, didn't the US already fight a war against Syria and Iran? Don't you think the US should finish up on one war before starting on another? I mean, the Battle for Iraq still hasn't been completely won. You've got children starving, Iraqi Christians being attacked (because now Saddam's SECULAR regime, which ironically protected the Christians from abuse, has been toppled), the entire country needing rebuilding from the top up.

I mean, we made a huge mess (infrastructurally speaking) of the place, we have to put things right again.

Do you really want a repeat of the current Iraq situation in Syria? Seriously, going after Syria is a bad idea. Besides, bombing the Middle East is a bad idea archaeologically speaking too. That's the Cradle of Civilisation you've got there and one of the Centres of Agriculture from which farming developed (there were several cradles of agriculture and the Middle East was one of them).

The War against Iraq nearly destroyed the precious seed bank that was in that country, a bank that was like the Noah's Ark of agricultural plants. Thank Goodness the scientists had the foresight to ship everything out of the country. Who knows what scientifically important institues might be in the other countries?

No. No more bombing until we've tried the diplomatic route and at least finished making Iraq a better place than we invaded.

Then torture them for information.

No seriously, please tell me you're kidding.

[Reflectionist]

Ok. Fine.

compare the number of American civilian deaths during 9/11 to the number of Iraqi deaths afterward. See how many times they are divisiible. Then sing songs about how nice of a guy Bush is. I mean, with his guantanamo with half naked chicks interrogating Iraqui "P.O.W.s (using the term very loosely)" because they have to keep themselves pure for Islam, and what not...

Try comparing Bush's Patriot act to Hitler's Enabling act. See how nice of a guy he is then. Also, another parallel, notice how Hitler blamed everything on the Jews, then invaded Poland, a country with a large concentration of them? Then Billy Bob Bush, wanting to please daddy and start a war, did (knowingly or not) THE SAME THING to Iraq, blaming every single man woman or child who had the 'nerve' to wear a turban and pray five times a day.

Pull the frick out of Iraq, and let the civilians go. TALK. Don't Pretend to talk, and then bomb the fuck out of everybody. Be an adult. Don't... be you. Ok?

If you want to talk more about the parallels between Bush and Hitler, feel free to PM me, and I will provide you with tons of proof of this. And then you can go on your merry little ways knowing that you have been pretty much brainwashed by the Good 'ol United States of America.

[Oberon Storm]

It's not that they're so liberally biased (although the majority are)..

Will someone please demonstrate this supposed liberal bias. Give some examples and evidence. Stop just saying it and expecting it to pass as fact.

And the polls show that a majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out.

Source - http://www.usatoday....aq-findings.htm

So is what we should do is bomb Syria, since that is the focal point of terrorist action. That is probably where all the weapons of mass destruction are hidden as well. As for Iraq, I would say keep working with the Iraqi police and take Al Qaeda fighters hostage. Then torture them for information

I will assume the first part about the nuke was a joke. I will also assume you have sources and evidence of you assertiona anbout Syria. And torture is always a great way to win the hearts and minds of those we are supposed to be liberating.

[Archaic Sage]

Torture also leads to fake confessions and fake information. The captives will confabulate so they can get themselves out of trouble. It just doesn't work.

Iraq should be re-built. We destroyed the country, a country that did not have a valid ground to be invaded, aside a dictator and there are more than one of them in the world. It's our right to rebuild the country and impose democracy on them.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Torture also leads to fake confessions and fake information. The captives will confabulate so they can get themselves out of trouble. It just doesn't work.

Unless of course you attempt it in the way described in George Orwell's 1984, although I have a sneaking suspicion they're cheating and using mind reading techniques in that story. (The torture is just sadistic and serves no real purpose, because the authorities realised it provided nothing but fake confessions).

Iraq should be re-built. We destroyed the country, a country that did not have a valid ground to be invaded, aside a dictator and there are more than one of them in the world. It's our right to rebuild the country and impose democracy on them.

Although imposing anything on someone isn't that good of an idea, even if it is democracy. Introducing, yes. Imposing? No.

[Alakhriveion]

Unless of course you attempt it in the way described in George Orwell's 1984, although I have a sneaking suspicion they're cheating and using mind reading techniques in that story. (The torture is just sadistic and serves no real purpose, because the authorities realised it provided nothing but fake confessions).

The point was never to get confessions or information. Remember, the entire Resistance Movement Winston got involved in was fake, at trap by miniluv. The point of the torture was just to break his spirit.

[Korhend]

I found that largely nothing they did was beyond an elaborate security system. The Stazi probably would be up to equall acts. Any sort of phobia would likely go down in NKVD/Gestapo/whatever records. As for his acts with the woman, such things can either be achieved by simultaneous interveiw, tails, or when all else fails, make shit up. Usually a person is so scared as to not remember the exact details of when and where they met with someone, that a secret police can convince them that they did.

[Black Knight]

This is my first thread i've created, and i want some of your guys opinions. I think we should continue fighting in Iraq and maybe bomb the cities a little bit more, but that's just my opinion. I say drop the nuke, but maybe you think differently, and if you do, tell me.

You're sick. How could you want more murder and destruction?

[Reflectionist]

Ah, see.... nobody wants to talk about what I put up there. you people are in denial. Typical of the blind Americans.

[Vazor]

We're the brainwashed ones? Funny how you sound exactly like every single liberal I know...

[Selena]

Aw, don't knock all us left-wingers. There's gotta be a cool one out there sooomewhere.




But Reflectionist, just because somebody hasn't replied to your post doesn't mean we're all brainwashed typical Americans. It simply means no one thought of something to reply in regards to it. Simple as that. Caaalm yourself.




Anyway, Iraq is such a mess right now that it'd be stupid to simply pull out our troops. I'm a little torn about what exactly should be done about it, though. I wish the military brass would put their heads together and try harder to get things done more quickly. On one hand, I'd think NATO might do well to get things done and reduce the loss of American (and hopefully Iraqi) lives. On the other... heh, we started the mess, so it's kind of our responsibility to clean it up without putting others in danger.

We had good planning when it came to initial attacks and military side of things, but now it sounds like more effort should have been made to plan out the humanitarian side. A lot of people over there are still without power, water and medicine after all. From a few reports I heard, it sounds like things are making progress... just very slowly.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

We're the brainwashed ones? Funny how you sound exactly like every single liberal I know...

That phrase really irks me. I can appreciate your views and I may share some of them, but statements like that really get on my nerves.

Everywhere I look in forums where Americans are the majority there's always that talk about "you typical liberals" and "you typical Republicans". It's sickening. There are no typical liberals and no typical Republicans. There's liberal bashing on one side and conservative bashing on the other.

I just want to run up to these guys, shake them to bits and say, Stop it.

The Iraqi situation is now beyond partisan politics. A combination of left-wing and right-wing policies is what is needed and there must be a balance between the two for anything to work.

[Reflectionist]

hey vazor, did you read my post up there? might want to do that. because every the post i made in here was to you, not really anybody else.

[Korhend]

Ah, see.... nobody wants to talk about what I put up there. you people are in denial. Typical of the blind Americans.

Of course it could be that no one felt it deserved being replied to.

[Archaic Sage]

Ah, see.... nobody wants to talk about what I put up there. you people are in denial. Typical of the blind Americans.

Excuse me, I'm English. And from the beginning I was against the war in Iraq, and still am.

I did not comment on that area of your post because frankly it's not worth my time. The ridiculous views that you are entitled to are yours, and I'm not wasting my time disagreeing with nuclear weaponry. Besides, anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows what the effects of nuclear warfare is.

Although imposing anything on someone isn't that good of an idea, even if it is democracy. Introducing, yes. Imposing? No.

The play on words was deliberate. It's just my viewpoint on the Iraq war. They did not ask for democracy. A large part of the population did not vote (granted, out of fear for their lives, but if they wanted democracy that much they would have done. If something is important enough you will risk your life for it [WW1+2 for freedom].) and that just shows that we're enforcing it on them. But that's not for this thread.

[SOAP]

This is my first thread i've created, and i want some of your guys opinions. I think we should continue fighting in Iraq and maybe bomb the cities a little bit more, but that's just my opinion. I say drop the nuke, but maybe you think differently, and if you do, tell me.

Dude, just...no. That's incorrect on so many levels I'm not even going to go into it. The reason you, as well as a large number of people, feel that the Iraquis don't want Americans there is because that's all the media is telling us: the negatives. It's not that they're so liberally biased (although the majority are), but that they simply want to make money. And to do that, they need to display the negatives. Bad news sells, and the media knows this. An unfotunate side-effect of their complete ignoring of all of the good things being done in the war, and the countless Iraquis who actually want us there, is that the media has convinced today's society that the war is wrong. Because this generation does not seem to know how to sift through the news for fact, they have essentially been brainwashed to the idea that American involvement is only negative, a concept which is obviously flawed.

I said drop a nuke before the invasion, then send in contractors and construction workers instead of troops. Flat surface, start over. Call it America Jr.
However, we cannot do that now. We've made too much progress without destroying the good people of Iraq. So is what we should do is bomb Syria, since that is the focal point of terrorist action. That is probably where all the weapons of mass destruction are hidden as well.
As for Iraq, I would say keep working with the Iraqi police and take Al Qaeda fighters hostage. Then torture them for information.

What the hell is wrong with you people?

[Goose]

Several things, but we cant go into that.

[SOAP]

I don't know whether they're joking, stupid, or just plain sick. It saddens me when people think problems can be solved by nuking first, ask questions later. Bombs should only be a last resort and only to stop further unneccessary bloodshed. Not as an arrogant display of power.

[Archaic Sage]

I don't understand why u think there's something wrong. There's something wrong with the terrorists over there trying to take innocent americans lives. Why would you say something that ridiculous when they are the one's who bombed us.

Let's reverse this on it's head. Who invaded someone else's country, without UN backing. Who killed many hundreds of civilians lives here? I think you will find that the Coillition(sp) did this. We went into someone else's country, and bombed it.

Further, we bombed them first. The Iraqi's did not attack the US. The US attacked Iraq. They were not involved in 9/11 and the only reason why we went in was on the premise of WoMD. Where are they?

Now as the situation in Iraq, i believe that we can't drop the nuke because we have done too much in that country to do that. We have made progress. There has been less figthing going on and less rebelling and that might send a signal to the people of iraq, they might just want a democratic country. You can't always believe what the news says because they always say the bad things and nothing good. We should keep the troops there for a while, maybe 2-3 years, to have them calm down, and let them have elections.

Bias news. Bias. The news reports positive and negative things. Iraq has many 'terrorist' attacks a day. Further, they have had elections, granted a large number did not vote out of protest, but they have had our democracy imposed on them.

They also want us out, and we don't want to stay.

Now syria, that's a different story. We should look to see if they have any allies that have nuclear weapons and if they do, we can't nuke them, because there might be a chance that they will drop it on us. But if they dont, then i say bomb the heck out of them. And i mean destroy everything, cities, their government, their weapons of mass destruction, but most of all, the terrorists. There is no reason to not go after syria. But we can't do it right now, we are helping iraq reach a democratic society.

What about Afghanistan? Or has that dropped of the face of the Earth. Afghanistan was the first on the US's list, and I was totally for the war on Afghanistan. They attacked the US, and threatened many countries in Europe. So we go there, kill loads of people and leave a hundred members of the army there. Then we take more away to fight in Iraq. We need to stabilise the countries that we have invaded before we invade another.

Also, bombing nukes is not a good idea. Not only because they explode, but because of the detrimental world environmental effects they have.

[SOAP]

I don't understand why u think there's something wrong. There's something wrong with the terrorists over there trying to take innocent americans lives. Why would you say something that ridiculous when they are the one's who bombed us.

Now as the situation in Iraq, i believe that we can't drop the nuke because we have done too much in that country to do that. We have made progress. There has been less figthing going on and less rebelling and that might send a signal to the people of iraq, they might just want a democratic country. You can't always believe what the news says because they always say the bad things and nothing good. We should keep the troops there for a while, maybe 2-3 years, to have them calm down, and let them have elections. Now syria, that's a different story. We should look to see if they have any allies that have nuclear weapons and if they do, we can't nuke them, because there might be a chance that they will drop it on us. But if they dont, then i say bomb the heck out of them. And i mean destroy everything, cities, their government, their weapons of mass destruction, but most of all, the terrorists. There is no reason to not go after syria. But we can't do it right now, we are helping iraq reach a democratic society.

There's so many things wrong with that post I don't even know where to start. First off, Iraq didn't attack us. We attacked them. Afghanistan was the one that attacked us. More specifically it was Al Queda. Iraq had no ties with Al Queda and no weapons of Mass Destruction where ever found in Iraq were there?

Secondly, you can be;lieve what you want about the news. I know for a fact that nearly everyone in this country, including the news reporters, have loved ones over there. I think good news would probably be prefered over bad news.

Thirdly. You're a sick, sick person. And that goes for anyone else who think vaporizing a whole country and starting over with a clean slate will end terrorism.