|
|
Post by Patjade on Jun 28, 2004 21:12:35 GMT -5
So, Iraq is now "Sovereign". Now what?
I think is was a ploy to get as much good press as possible.
Like selling stale bread before the mold really started showing.
Getting rid of the lemon in the used car sales lot before anyone bothered to look under the hood.
I can go on and on.
Does anything think things will magically get better? I don't. I think that if Dubya starts claiming a great victory, someone should kick his butt back to Crawford, Texas. He UNLOADED it so that he can blame the "sovereign" government is failing the task.
And that's my two Dinar's worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 28, 2004 21:22:30 GMT -5
Wow, Pat. And weren't you one of the ones clamoring for us to get out of there to begin with? The type saying that Bush needs to be the President of our country and not of Iraq (not that he was even trying to with Iraq)?
The plans were for the Iraqi people to start governing themselves. This date has been set up for awhile now as the day in which we'd turn over power of the government.
Great victory? I'd say it's been one. Hussein and a lot of his cronies are out of power, Iraq is safer than it was before...
But I think it's folly to think that democracy will work over there. It won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Jun 28, 2004 21:29:33 GMT -5
I didn't think we needed to be there at all. The motive was personal vengeance on Dubya's end.
What he did was lie to get his way.
Sure, Hussein was bad. So are a lot of people. We didn't go attack them for being bad, have we? Sudan? Syria? Iran? North Korea?
Give me a break. The mess is all in Dubya's lap.
And what about Afghanistan? Where are they now? THAT was justified. This was not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 28, 2004 21:42:28 GMT -5
I didn't think we needed to be there at all. The motive was personal vengeance on Dubya's end. What he did was lie to get his way. Sure, Hussein was bad. So are a lot of people. We didn't go attack them for being bad, have we? Sudan? Syria? Iran? North Korea? Give me a break. The mess is all in Dubya's lap. And what about Afhanistan? Where are they now? THAT was justified. This was not. Hmmm...I really don't think Bush lied. After all Hussein had how long to move his WMDs from the time talks began? You can say it was all a personal vendetta if you wish. The funny thing here is Clinton made these same accusations and same comments about Hussein and how we needed to go in and take him out when he was in power. What happened to there? He was praised for his comments. Many of the people that are opposing Bush for his actions now were supporting Clinton in his 'desire' to do it back then. JOHN KERRY was one of these people who supported it and said we had every right to go in. But we never did it. Why? Because Clinton was a piece of crap for a President. He did nothing good at all. He was just there. Bush on the other hand has the balls to do things the other wusses in the government don't. They don't want to because of what "The world will think about us" or how other nations may get mad. Trying to be "Politically correct." Well who cares. We don't need their approval on anything. We were enforcing the UNs own freakin' rules when we went in. The ones they were too stupid to enforce in the first place. Also, if it was a personal vendetta, and if it was all about the oil, then where is it? Where're the spoils we should be getting? Our "spoils" don't exist because that line of reasoning is just a load of crap. And maybe we haven't attacked the others yet because Iraq is simply the first step. You can't fight a bunch of wars at once, now can you? We're all ready split between Afghanistan and Iraq (Yeah, Afghan things are still happening. We just don't hear about it on the news simply because the media doesn't care about Afghanistan anymore). You can say we're unjustified all you want. In the end though, I believe you to be wrong. Very wrong. Just as you believe me to be very wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by KittyKadaveral on Jun 28, 2004 22:07:27 GMT -5
Sovereign ummm ok, i'm unedumakated how you pronounce dat word?  and what does it mean for that matter ::hides under a rock for being a dumdum:: |
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Jun 28, 2004 22:55:08 GMT -5
You know... I think Bush is going to be one of those presidents, where people ask "What wouldve happened if we voted for the other guy?" As for what I think about Iraq? I dont. Because if we worry about what Bush is doing, and what his motives were, then we will start to shift our attention to him, and not the soldiers that are there. I pray that every soldier will see their families again, and hope that they can come home alive. I salute those who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes... we are so worried about Bush that we arent even paying attention to what is happening in Afghanistan. Soldiers have to stay there to make sure the Taliban doesnt come back and start mistreating women and promoting more terrorism and hatred towards the U.S. So I think we shouldnt worry about the political part of the war right now. That comes later. We need to be worried about the troops in both of those countries right now. Remember: They need all the love and support they can get.  |
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Jun 28, 2004 23:05:46 GMT -5
Sovereign ummm ok, i'm unedumakated how you pronounce dat word? and what does it mean for that matter ::hides under a rock for being a dumdum:: Sovereign means "Absolute and total rulership". It means that if the newly elected council were to state that the US troops leave, we would have to pack up and leave. Want to bet that if they said that the US would laugh at them? Do you think they are really "Sovereign"? I think they were handed the responsibility without the authority to do much. And Stalos, please tell me where Iraq was an imminent threat TO THE UNITED STATES. The fact is that Al Queda, the people who did the attacks, were rejected by Iraq, and Osama Bin Ladin (remember that guy?) was all for having Saddam taken out of power as much as Bush was. SO Bush did Osama a favor, opening Iraq to be a haven for the terrorists fleeing Afghanistan. |
|
|
|
Post by The Wanderer on Jun 28, 2004 23:36:16 GMT -5
The fact is that Al Queda, the people who did the attacks, were rejected by Iraq, and Osama Bin Ladin (remember that guy?) was all for having Saddam taken out of power as much as Bush was. SO Bush did Osama a favor, opening Iraq to be a haven for the terrorists fleeing Afghanistan. Well... I cant deny that factor... nope, nope, nope... But my point still stands: Pray for our troops! |
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Jun 29, 2004 0:11:37 GMT -5
Sovereign means "Absolute and total rulership". It means that if the newly elected council were to state that the US troops leave, we would have to pack up and leave. Want to bet that if they said that the US would laugh at them? Do you think they are really "Sovereign"? I think they were handed the responsibility without the authority to do much. And Stalos, please tell me where Iraq was an imminent threat TO THE UNITED STATES. The fact is that Al Queda, the people who did the attacks, were rejected by Iraq, and Osama Bin Ladin (remember that guy?) was all for having Saddam taken out of power as much as Bush was. SO Bush did Osama a favor, opening Iraq to be a haven for the terrorists fleeing Afghanistan. You just pretty much contradicted yourself there. NO country could ever possibly just have an evil dictator taken out of power, a few months of anarchy, and then handed their power on a silver plate, with the ones who kept whatever peace was possible packing up and leaving. darn straight we're staying - at least for a little while, until they're back on their feet. Did you honestly want us to go in there, stir up some conflict to take down their government, and then walk away, leaving them clueless? Al Queda doesn't have a chance of getting into Iraq right now. The US won't ever leave, as you said. We'll always have soldiers stationed there, with an embassy of some sort - I'd like to see the Taliban try to sneak their way in now. It could hardly be called a haven for them. As for Iraq being an imminent threat, when is any anti-America terrorist NOT a threat, especially in a post 9/11 world? ALL terrorists are a threat, and they had some good intelligence that Hussein was going to inflict even more pain on our post-trauma country. A year. An entire year while the UN wasted time arguing about it. Hussein wouldn't have kept them there if we were threatening to look for them. Personally, I believe that they're in France. France was the only country that was almost completely outspoken against the Iraq war - maybe they had originally sold the weapons to Iraq. I don't really know, it's just my theory. What I don't get is that a lot of people claim that Bush had intelligence about 9/11, that it could have been prevented. They did have SOME intelligence, yes, but it was as vague as "Attacks - Transportation," if even that. Of course, once the attacks took place, the white house started looking veeery closely at the intelligence they were receiving. As soon as they got wind that Hussein had WMD, we tried to go in. We battled with the UN for a while before finally going in ourselves. It isn't over yet. We haven't proven or disproven the existence of WMD. What if we hadn't gone to the UN, though, and had just completely ignored the intelligence? What if we had been attacked with biological warfare? Would we not be saying, "See! They had intelligence! They could have prevented it, but they didn't! They didn't go to Iraq!" Just something to think about. |
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Jun 29, 2004 0:33:49 GMT -5
You just pretty much contradicted yourself there. I did not contradict myself. I stated a hypothetical question. IF the Iraqi council asked the US to leave, WOULD we? As a SOVEREIGN nation, we would HAVE to. I doubt Bush would honor it. We never should have been there in the first place. We should have stabilized Afghanistan, first. What about all these infiltrators Bush talks about? Where did they come from, the moon? Insurgents that have come from other countries. Taking hostages and cutting off heads. All claim to be Al Queda. Most appearing AFTER we invaded Iraq. Not before. From Al Queda. NOT from Iraq. The only link between the two is the letter Q and A in the names. The country was blocked and sanctioned. Get the facts straight A-L Q-U-E-D-A. Not I-R-A-Q. The only thing Iraq had was a person that Bush wanted to punish for plotting the assasination of his daddy and losing his daddy the election in 1992. Remember that sanction? We were boarding and searching ships leaving Iraq. There were no airlines capable of carring WMD's and the French transporters are notorious for having dilithium problems. The thing to think about was that Bush was reading to school kids when the first attack took place by Al Queda, and ignored it because he didn't want to be disturbed, He only said it was some "terrible pilot" in that plane. He did NOTHING (except read to kids) for 20 minutes while we were under attack. Footage of when he REALIZED what was going on show him looking like a deer in the headlights, frozen on the spot, allowing the remaining planes to hit their targets. Except for one where the PASSENGERS stopped it. Not Bush. Please get the facts straight. IRAQ did not attack the USA, Al Queda did. And I approved of attacking Afghanistan, where Al Queda was based. To capture Bin Laden (remember him?), the mastermind of the attacks. They still haven't captured Bin Laden (remember him?). |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2004 2:20:23 GMT -5
I must agree with you, patjade.
Bush wants the war in Iraq to resemble World War II, not Viet Nam, like many people say it does.
I would have to agree with both. It is like World War II, but contrary to Bush's ideas, Saddam isn't Hitler. Bush is. He's taking out opponents and forcing them to follow our ways. As for the fighting itself, that is Viet Nam. Soldiers are dying for an unjust cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Jun 29, 2004 10:26:29 GMT -5
The thing to think about was that Bush was reading to school kids when the first attack took place by Al Queda, and ignored it because he didn't want to be disturbed, He only said it was some "terrible pilot" in that plane. He did NOTHING (except read to kids) for 20 minutes while we were under attack. Footage of when he REALIZED what was going on show him looking like a deer in the headlights, frozen on the spot, allowing the remaining planes to hit their targets. Except for one where the PASSENGERS stopped it. Not Bush. Pat, how about you get your facts straight? When the first plane hit, Bush was informed as he read the book to the children. BUT facts on that information was still difficult to come by at that time...he was told that a private jet had crashed into one of the towers and they weren't sure if it was an accident or an attack. Okay, so what's he supposed to do? Stop reading because of an accident? No, he continued to read. The second plane hit, and he was told. They were sure it was an attack now. But he kept reading for 7 minutes. 7 Minutes from the time the second plane hit. Let me ask you...if he had left the second he was told about the second plane...what would he have done? He couldn't have done anything. We didn't know where they were and in what planes. PLUS there were CHAIN-OF-COMMAND protocols inacted and things were being taken care of to insure further safety. Bush could've done nothing at that point. As for his looking like a deer in the headlights? WELL DUH. He's human too and it must've been a great shock to him just as it was to everyone else in the United States to find out we were under attack. And you ignored the point Smiley made. Smiley said we had intelligence that Iraq was planning on attacking us and that we had intelligence they had WMDs. What were we supposed to do with that intelligence? Ignore it? Oh yeah, and then as Iraq attacked us and people saw that it could've been prevented there'd be an outrage. Would invasion into Iraq have been justified at that point? Only after they've attacked? Certainly not. This preventive measure was excellent and justified. As well, the sanction you're talking about wasn't imposed immediately. There were trucks seen leaving in huge caravans! Going to countries such as Jordan, Iran, Syria...in other words, other terrorist nations. Taliban soldiers have also probably been in Iraq for awhile now. You can't claim that they only came in now that the US had control. You know just as well as I do about things such as sleeper agents, plants, informants, long-term stations, etc. We're only seeing them now that the US has invaded. Why? Taliban's ticked off at us right now and wants us to leave. Well, we don't give into terrorists (unlike Spain) demands. You also keep implying we've totally lost focus on Bin Laden. Oh no, we haven't. We're still in Afghanistan and still hunting for Bin Laden. But the people don't hear about it, because we only hear what the media wants us to hear. Nothing more. So just because you don't hear about it, don't think we're not doing anything there. |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Jun 29, 2004 10:34:21 GMT -5
A year. An entire year while the UN wasted time arguing about it. Hussein wouldn't have kept them there if we were threatening to look for them. This point always bothers me. It simply makes no sense. Now, when we're talking about WMDs, understand, we're not speaking of suitcase bombs here - we're talking about huge mega-ton warheads. Now, in the months leading up to the war, every intelligence agency in the world would've been focused on Iraq. It's highly implausable that Saddam would've been able to move any sort of weapon out of Iraq in that time. And then, to where? No country in the world would've taken them in - they would've had to be insane! Nobody could possibly be that stupid, they just couldn't be. As for the war, well, we didn't do what we wanted to do, but I think this could still work out well, if done right. And I think that we may have done some good things. Mainly, that we showed the rest of the countries there that we're not messing around. Whereas, before, a lot of them were less-than enthusiastic to help us, now a lot of them are doing they're best to stay on our good side (at least, publicly). They know we mean business. On that same note, whos to say how much fuel we've added to the perverbial anti-U.S. fire. We've got more people who hate us now than ever. And it's not just centered in the middle east - that hatred of our ways and policies is spreading. You may say "Screw them! We don't need them! We'll do what we want!". Well, if we keep up that attitude, the superpower that the U.S. is now will quickly dissolve and erode away. Don't think we can remain a superpower on our own - we can't. I'm not saying we should have to answer to people for every step that we make. But there needs to be a line between "Screw you!" and "Lets work together". We need all the allies we can get. Alienating friends for short-term gain will do nothing for us in the long run. To simply take the mindset of not caring what everyone else thinks will be the main thing that will lead to our demise. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Jun 29, 2004 13:50:56 GMT -5
Personally, I believe that they're in France. France was the only country that was almost completely outspoken against the Iraq war - maybe they had originally sold the weapons to Iraq. I don't really know, it's just my theory. I somehow doubt France would allow mega-ton warheads to be shipped into their country, especially considering there is anti- Western feeling, not just anti-American feeling behind the terrorist organisations. No, but it's considered polite to ask the UN's approval. What can the UN do? Nothing - America virtually funds the whole thing. But it would be nice to, say, consult other countries, because the repercussions reach far beyond America itself. I have not many views on the war itself, because I don't believe I know the truth and can thus offer a proper view. I will, however, quote one Iraqi: Iraq needs to be stabilised, and I'm betting that the US-council appointed Iraqi President will be blown up pretty soon, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Post by Patjade on Jun 29, 2004 16:01:33 GMT -5
The second plane hit, and he was told. They were sure it was an attack now. But he kept reading for 7 minutes. 7 Minutes from the time the second plane hit. Let me ask you...if he had left the second he was told about the second plane...what would he have done? He couldn't have done anything. We didn't know where they were and in what planes. PLUS there were CHAIN-OF-COMMAND protocols inacted and things were being taken care of to insure further safety. Bush could've done nothing at that point. Read the chain of events sequences quoted by the 9/11 commission. Yep, that describes Dubya quite well. Evidence please. So far, the people that said Iraq was planning an attack are the SAME ONES that said they were planning to buying nuclear material from Africa, had TONS of WMD's, and all the other stuff. It was pure fabrication. Remember, Iraq was sanctioned and isolated, and didn't have a way to execute anything other than their own people. The sanction had been in place since 1991. How long do you need? And based on your comment, why haven't we attacked Syria, Iran, Jordan, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and all those other countries harboring terrorists and having WMD's? Why ONLY Iraq, who was the LEAST threat of them all. And let's not forget North Korea. They fit ALL the categories Dubya used. If we hadn't faked the charges and attacked Iraq, none of this would have happened. Dubya hasn't mentioned Bin Laden since he focussed on Saddam Hussein. Donb't get me wrong. I supported George Bush (the elder) during the fiorst Gulf War. That was justified. I supported going into Afghanistan. Thaat was where Al Queda was based. I originally supported looking at Iraq, UNTIL all the facts started coming in and the lies were shown the light of day. Not from one or two, but DOZENS of sources. The entire Iraq campaign was fabricated, perpetrated, and sold the American people, wrapped in a US flag. With statements of "Either you are with us or you are the enemy". It was done Hitler-style, and the US has started down the road of becoming the next fascist state. I have seen the results here. I support the military, and I support my country. I did for the 20 years I wore the uniform, and for over 9 years since I retired. But Bush is for Bush and NOT for the USA. He is for his friends. he doesn't give a hoot about anything other than his own little fantasies. I shall be happy to see him go. |
|
and what does it mean for that matter ::hides under a rock for being a dumdum::
