The war on terrorism...but what about...

Sunshine.... No worries here. In fact I agree with you. More should be done. I also agree Saddam had to go, but I too question the reasoning behind going in. In my opinion removal of Saddam should not have been something we now needed to do.... i think it should have been done the first time round.

Also to all... I've been a little fed up with the wishy washy ness of the whole deal.... Like I said if you want our help fine if you don't fine but make up your mind. Do we ( the US ) doing things the wrong way or for the wrong reasons yes. Do we ( as the US government ) do things that we shouldn't... absolutely. But when we do something right or try to do the right thing we get jumped on!!! Oh and excuse me I DID NOT elect the current government. Nor do I have the power to change it. nor do I have power to change what my government does. ( to some degree yes but not at the moment... ) A lot of Americans are sheep. They follow whereever someone leads and things are only going to get worse as the government cuts spending to educate our youth AND continues to Alienate people....

// climbs down from soap box.... breathe breathe okay you can go back to your normal lives now.... thank you for tuning into the Shard rant channel!!

The war on Terror is about two things....

Tower 1 and Tower 2.... :knife:

Afghanistand and IRAQ :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cleetus

I have no problem in now saying that I am truly embarassed and ashamed the Bush came out of my great state.

---

How DARE you say such things about the President!!! Quick, we must boycott Cleetus' concerts and burn his CD's!!!

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orangeman

The war on Terror is about two things....

Tower 1 and Tower 2.... :knife:

Afghanistand and IRAQ :devil:

---

It really is about more than that, but you still hit a solid nail on the head, two of them.

Why do we have to justify to anyone, including US citizens, when it comes to national security? No WMD, big F'n deal! Everything else was there. But because Bush made the simple mistake of offering CIA intel to the world which turned out to be flawed, he is now labeled as a killer, and a hasty warmonger because he “failed to deliver”.

Sadam’s regime and the Taliban were the enemy here, don’t any of you forget that! The President did what had to be done...period! All of the rest of the details are simple logistics which never seems to have enough room for error in the civilian perspective. But on the battle field, we kicked a$$, and we are still kicking a$$!

I may be one of only a few here at Windrivers that feels this way, but a good percentage of the US population agrees with me.

Cleetus - you were all for the war to remove Sadam before, why the turnaround now? Just wondering. I'm not trying to slam you or start an argument, I'm just wondering.




The UN decided to do something about Sadam 12 years ago and then dragged it's feet after the first invasion to remove him from Kuwait. At the time people complained that we only went because we had oil interests in Kuwait and bitched that if we didn't have a monetary stake in the country we wouldn't go. Well we invaded Afghanistan and kicked the Taliban out to the jeers of the world. Why the turn around?

In the 80's people used to bitch and piss and moan when terrorists were bombing their countries before and we didn't react. Now people are bitching and pissing and moaning that we reacted. Why the turn around?

We bombed aggressive military forces in serbia/herzigovina/kosovo/whatevertheheckit'scalledtoday because people wanted the US to intervene in the genocide that was occurring in the country and people bitched after we did. Why the turn around?

My country is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. The people of the world complained when the US was not taking a larger role in world politics and now it bitches when we do. Sadam killed all the Kurds with chemical weapons he reported he didn't have and when we reacted to the threat that presented itself to us the world bitched that we should have done something for the Kurds then.

WMD. Well I can tell you I am sick as hell to hear about this crap every day I see it in the news. This whole topic that has been debated over and over is such a crock of $h!+ that I can't stand it anymore. Instead of asking where the WMD were you should be asking yourselves where they might be and should be $h!++ing you pants realizing that they might be in the hands of someone that will have no problem using them on you, you family and friends and has no problem staring off a really big war that does kill millions. Sadam actually used chemical weapons on people, what more proof do you need that they existed at one time in his possession. The weapon inspectors had decided that there was something going on and that the Iraqis delayed them at every turn and denied them access to everything they needed access to long enough for any weapons to be produced, hidden or removed from the country.

OK, we don't have anything. Did you know that the USA and the Soviets both had large groups that would travel to each other’s country to look for WMD every single year and they didn't really find very much if anything. Well, guess what, nobody is going to bull$h!+ me and tell me that the USA and Soviets didn't and don't have a $h!+load of WMD stashed away somewhere all along. If you think they never existed in Iraq, that's all well and good but why did you ignore the weapon inspectors that went there at your behest over the years they were allowed in? The inspectors even said there was something going on, something being made though we hadn’t found it yet. Were we to wait until mustard gas poured out into London, Tel Aviv or New York killing thousand, maybe millions or were we to act proactively? When your company sees an issue with a mission critical server's hard drive do you study the issue and the bad sectors for years waiting for the thing to fail and loose all it's data or do you act and resolve the issue?

Why the change?

I just reread the 2003 State of the Union, multiple paragraphs on WMD, on other weapons, several of those statements have been proven as out right lies leading to the fall of others, yet for some reason not Bush

Only 2 paragraphs on the horrors Sadam unleashed on his people.

Then weeks later Powell went in front of the UN, nothing but WMDs, not the horrors of the Saddam regime. We were battleing terrorism.

Months later, we easily win the war. My friends started returning talking about how most were happy, some were not, how they will never forget the smell of multiple burning bodies nor the sight of them being run over by tank after tank. Then the whole lie and bs of the Jessica Lynch story, don't think I have to repeat how the wool was pulled over our eyes on that one.

Saddam is still unaccounted for, Osama is still unaccounted for, the WMD's are still unaccounted for, N. Korea continues to build nuclear programs and are infinitly worse to their people, Africa is full of strife, and surprise terrorism is still happening.

And I won't even go into the Patriot Act.

Bush has shown himself to be infinetly worse then Clinton. He went in front of the nation and lied, bold face lied to us, there have been no proofs, billions have been spent, lives have been lost. We aren't talking about the definition of is, or oral sex, but lives, real lives.

Destroying American credit and attacks on nations are not things that I hold dear abot my country.

You give me proof that we are in danger, than I want them dead, like I showed in my posts on this board. But, after all this time, those proofs are torn down, then I can easily show how that is the wrong blood lust to have.

Listen to talk radio, listen to those that still support, listen to Fox, no body mentions the WMD's, now we are made to feel that the entire war was to help the people of Iraq and kill a dictator. No, these were not my reasons.

They proved that they were no threat, not one chemical weapon was used, nothing has been found.

I am ashamed that Bush came from Texas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ya_know

If you are not with us you are against us. :guns:
We will get to you sooner or later!

---

LMAO!

As for the thread, some war is always being fought everywhere. The only time it reaches the popular media (and the front lobes of a wave of people who define their world by it) is when politics and big money are involved.

Hi there,

I think the US is the one who is making and fueling terroist for digging their noses into something that they shouldn't go into. They fight for peace for humanity, as if... Right now, I wouldn't go visit the US now, since the borders are now become a racist and decrimination doze, targeting innocent peoples base where they came from. It's no free country anymore.

Ju Leon...

Hi there,

Forgot to mention, I do want to point out that the US do have nuclear, bio and chemical weapons at their disposal. Do the UN bitch about them?

Ju Leon...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inferno_gn

Hi there,

Forgot to mention, I do want to point out that the US do have nuclear, bio and chemical weapons at their disposal. Do the UN bitch about them?

Ju Leon...

---

I was trying to ignore this thread having been there for the 'first episode' & subsequently put on alert to go second time (though only as far as Germany to replace regular troops) but this statement 'annoys' me too much to ignore.

Even though I think the decision this time was 'ill considered' (just look at the 'crap' the US & Britain are in now !), neither 'us' (the UK) nor the US has ever used those weapons on their own people - try asking the kurds (if there are any left) what they think about biological weapons...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NooNoo

It is terribly easy to be an armchair analyst isn't it?

---

Too bloody right it is !

So until you know WTF you are talking about shut up, or I mightn't be the only one around here with a war wound ! :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confus-ed

neither 'us' (the UK) nor the US has ever used those weapons on their own people - try asking the kurds (if there are any left) ....

---

I too have tried to disregard this thread - I didn't want to be thought as "THE guy from Israel who knows $hit about terrorism".
But this is not Entirely true -
a. Iraq don't see the Kurds as part of their people - and Neither Turkey nor Syria does.
b. Try looking in some history files - the US (and many other countries) did use Chemical and Nuclear warfare. and I must regret that is still going.
not to plunge into oblivion - the US (and other countries) used and still does, phosphoric and Naplam based weapons. Most armies of the world use "Uranium Defleted shells" which means that Tank's Shells are coated with Uranium (for better "penetration" an impact).

as a general remark on the whole subject - I see the terrorism as a legitimate way of warfare. as same as dropping a bomb on populated ares. as same as propoganda. and as same as fighting with Tanks and guns. Terrorism is not new.

Don't forget there is a mere difference between a terrorist and a Hero (or freedom fighter) - which side you are.

WE, as a specie haven't evolved to the point of understanding that we have enough space and resource that will be sufficient to all of us. WE, as a specie haven't evolved to the point of thriving to better knowldge, better science etc.
We are the ONLY specie upon this earth that constantly "Invent" means to destroy itself.

We are Bloody stupid.

and now after being so Serious - I have to joke:
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/e-osama.php

Go there and laugh - REMARK - this is not work and childeren aafe.

G'day,
Gabriel

I don't normally comment on things like this - I usually stick to football (kicking not throwing) however, these comments really annoyed me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inferno_gn

Hi there,

Forgot to mention, I do want to point out that the US do have nuclear, bio and chemical weapons at their disposal. Do the UN bitch about them?

Ju Leon...

---

Well spotted, yes the US does have Nukes. However your argument about the UN bitching about it does not hold water. The US has never lied about having nukes (or other WMD's) The US also allows itself and its nuclear programs (weapons or otherwise) to be governed by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and is therefore subject to random testing of facilities, stockpile levels etc etc. If you actually read the news over the last ten years or so, you'll realise that it has been a bit of a bone of contention (understatement) that Iraq would not submit to giving similarly unfettered access to their nuclear program. You might want to do some research before you start jumping up and down about stuff like this, otherwise you just sound uninformed and kind of whiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inferno_gn

Hi there,

I think the US is the one who is making and fueling terroist for digging their noses into something that they shouldn't go into. They fight for peace for humanity, as if... Right now, I wouldn't go visit the US now, since the borders are now become a racist and decrimination doze, targeting innocent peoples base where they came from. It's no free country anymore.

Ju Leon...

---

I'm not even a US citizen and I find these statements horrendously insulting, and grossly inaccurate. Basically what you are saying is that it's ok to sit idly by while a dictator massacres his own people, due to the fact that they aren't of the same ethnic background as him, or that it's fine for people to strap explosives to themselves and blow themselves up on buses, and in nightclubs, or to fly passenger planes into buildings. [sarcasm]You're absolutely right, the US only have themselves to blame, if only they'd made their borders a "racist and discimatory zone" SOONER none of this would of happened.[/sarcasm]

You're also right about the US not being a free country - if nothing else, 9/11 saw to that - but according to you that's all America's fault isn't it? :mad: :mad: :rolleyes:

Ok, my $.02 (and I'm dating myself here):

Regarding the statement earlier about "waiting for UN approval" before moving into Iraq, I can dig up an interesting fact....did France ask for prior UN approval before occupying Vietnam oh so long ago? Not that I specifically wanted to use France as an example, but it's ironic how one of the first countries decrying the Iraq action is guilty of the same thing themselves.

In this case, as noted before, the UN was busy dragging its collective feet for 12 years, and still could not muster the courage to actually do anything. So much for a much-vaunted organization that promotes mass murderers to head the Committee for Human Rights, and promotes leaders in search of more weaponry to chair the Committee for General Disarmament.

Nor am I defending the actions of the US government, either...there's a LOT of questionable things going on, from the VERY mislabeled "Patriot Act", a Homeland Security department (Stasi, anyone?), a "representative government" that does nothing but represent itself once it's in office, and a level of public apathy bordering on the insane when it comes to these issues.

"Stop the world, I want to get off..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraflyer

Ok, my $.02 (and I'm dating myself here):

Regarding the statement earlier about "waiting for UN approval" before moving into Iraq, I can dig up an interesting fact....did France ask for prior UN approval before occupying Vietnam oh so long ago? Not that I specifically wanted to use France as an example, but it's ironic how one of the first countries decrying the Iraq action is guilty of the same thing themselves.

---

To quote the World Fact Book on Vietnam: "France occupied all of Vietnam by 1884. Independence was declared after World War II, but the French continued to rule until 1954 when they were defeated by Communist forces..."
Sure, France should have left when Independance was declared, but how many countries will leave, of their own accord, once they've occupied them? Not too many.
According to the UN website: "The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories."

France couldn't have asked the UN for approval before entering Vietnam, because the UN didn't exist yet. As a matter of fact, they were one of the founding countries.

But that's neither here nor there. In 5 or so years, nobody will care who fired the first shot in Iraq. The only thing that'll matter is that the bloody dictator is gone. Hopefully, by then, he'll have been 'killed in action' by a stray missle.

As far as travelling to the US... I just flew to the US on business, and had absolutely no difficulties...even though I look of Eurpoean decent (I look more French than Indian). So, yes, they're keeping a tight grip on the border, but wouldn't you if your country was the target of such hatred?
The US keeping WMD is a topic befitting another thread all together, but one that can easily be explained in everyday terms... If the police didn't have guns...how long do you think the streets would be safe? We'd be overrun by the gangs in no time flat. Same thing goes for the US's WMD (nukes). Just think how scared we'd be if N. Korea was the only country with nukes....I don't even want to think about it. So, if one country has the means to keep the "baddies" in check...would you really want them to destroy them? I surely don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inferno_gn

Hi there,

I think the US is the one who is making and fueling terroist for digging their noses into something that they shouldn't go into. They fight for peace for humanity, as if... Right now, I wouldn't go visit the US now, since the borders are now become a racist and decrimination doze, targeting innocent peoples base where they came from. It's no free country anymore.

Ju Leon...

---

Sorry Jules, that's just wrong IMO.

Remember the saying "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’"? I respect Edmund Burke for taking a stand on this issue - and wish more men could also do the same today.

And although I'm not blind to the financial and geo-political advantages for the US to be actively involved in the Middle East, that's just the way war is: to the victor go the spoils. The reasons presented publicly were most probably not the only ones used by the Bush administration to justify this incursion. But then again when have governments told the entire truth to the masses and would that have changed the fact that Hussein needed to be removed from power?

Don't get me wrong, Hussein's Iraq is not the only country where intervention was/is required, but I do believe that at the current time, it was the best possible way for the US to display a show of force while making it possible to get a stronger foothold in the heartland of terrorism.

And to prove once again that I'm an oddball, I don't just speak french, my ancestry can be traced right back to France. But I was born in the US, raised in Canada and I must say - for my part - that the only country I would not be embarassed to call my own would be the US right now.