Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blike

To those against war on Iraq

Recommended Posts

Is this thread pretty much done? I mean it is an interesting thread to read considering it's the begining of October now and the war is still fully in effect. I'm pretty embarassed that the president declared combat was over and now guerillas are killing U.S. troops. If the military doesn't kill Sadam Hussein the war is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The country isn't screwed up enough yet for us to walk out and leave them to it.

 

:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question. Over the centuries what is the most successful way to counter guerilla warfare and win? Everyone used guerilla tactics at some point and most of the time they were succesful in fighting off the enemy. What can the United States do without accepting defeat? By the way the Bush administration would never pull out of there if it would be perceived as a loss.

 

By the way I know that's really off topic but it is a political issue having to do with the war.

 

I can probably answer my own question anyways and the answer is a nuke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I guess there finally would be WMD (a nuke even!) in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A nuke is not the best weapon to use against guerilla factions unless you happen to know they're all clustered together nicely away from any major populations.

 

There really isn't any effective counter to guerilla attacks that have the benefit of being both fast and discriminate. That's why guerilla warfare lasts so long and is frequently adopted by an outnumbered or outgunned force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

very true sayonara.

 

for example, examine what Iraqis are doing right now. by continuing to attack US troops via any means necessary, they will eventually win their mini battle. that is, the American public will be frustrated with the high casualties of Iraq, lack of progress, and lack of pre-supposed oil profitability.

 

By continuing to attack American troops, helicopters, vehicles, (etc) they will stop the American presence in Iraq ever really achieving anything. After so long the US will withdraw all its forces from the region, exactly what the Iraqis in question want. Guerilla tactics will result in (what the militant iraqis preceive as) ultimate victory. the same people who bombed civilians' houses, hospitals and schools will be expelled from the 'motherland'.

 

After so many months and absolutely no WMD found, political pressure SHOULD be mounting on both UK and US governments. neither country's public cares any more. the issue has passed. as per usual, human lives abraod are worth nothing as back home our economy is recovering!!!!!!!!! roll on ther good times and expensive consumer goods!!!!!

 

the fact no WMDs have been found does not indicate there WERE no WMD, but it certainly does not bode well for pro-war persuavives. on the large scale, george bush has neither the intellectual ability nor the right to lead America for another electoral term. the man is ridiculed worldwide - and rightly so - HE'S STUPID!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rebuilding of Iraq hasn't begun yet though, and even Bush isn't stupid enough to leave his sponsers out in the cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rebuilding of Iraq has begun. I've had real people ring me up on my actual phone asking for stuff that they needed. Which was odd, as they were asking for stuff that I didn't have from my company, a company that sells nothing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

231

DAYS SINCE IRAQ ATTACK

NO WMD'S TO REPORT

 

that's right..

now do you believe that bush might not have told the truth and the true reason for this war was economical..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point does it really matter if there's no WMD's found? Those were the charges that were brought forth to justify the invasion but this war is turning into something different. I don't think the U.S. should leave Iraq out of consideration for the country. It's in turmoil and now the U.S. has to stay until it's stable or atleast semi-stable. The U.S. is stuck in there and I for one don't really feel any shame or feel that I should take back any feelings I had about the occupation. We're too far in it to turn back now. What the country should be focusing on is the carelessness with the troops that are causing these attacks by guerillas. It's a war zone and it needs to be treated as one. More bombing and more troops. If they're going to demoralize our country, we should demoralize them. There's no such thing as a humane war and the fact that the U.S. thinks they can fight one pisses me off. I love the United States and I want us to be victorious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'At this point does it really matter if there's no WMD's found?'

 

yes it matters, because it means the Blair/Bush syndicate either lied outright about the invasion and if so should both face war crime tribunals, or WMDs have found their way to neighbouring states. If you have a lok at a map of Iraq, the countries on its borders are hardly stable and western firendly.

 

more bombing and more troops? thank god people like you dont have a say in the coalition gameplan because thats utter rubbish. the people of iraq have been murdered by saddam fo decades thanks to successive US and UK regimes giving him arms, then bombed and shot by invading US and UK troops. how will the US be victorious? the war is over and its now a humanitarian operation, and it certainly isnt a warzone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg I have respect for you but I don't see how you could think Iraq is not a warzone. I assume that when the Iraqi military learned of the impending occupation, and the plans to bring democracy to the country, they took off their uniforms and assumed the roles of regular Iraqi citizens. It's a strategic move. That would be the smart thing to do anyways. Now those same men are probably the ones responsible for the deaths that happen every day. Every day a soldier is killed. Also you've heard news of the large explosions and the helicopters being shot down. Those are hostile attacks by an organized force. 16 soldiers died in that incident. To me, that's war. These aren't like street thugs doing these actions. They have to be military personnel. Like you said they're causing a slowdown of the humanitarian aid and the reconstruction. Red Cross is leaving because of the danger. It's a dangerous place. There's a resistance in the country and it's killing U.S. troops. Isn't that a war?

 

As for Bush. He's not the greatest U.S. President but do you really believe Bush and Blair would flat out lie about their WMD information? There has been evidence in the past of Husseins chemical weapons usage and I'm sure they had a recent source who provided them with information. If the source wasn't 100 percent accurate who's to blame for that? I can't say the President, or Blair.

 

All I'm saying is the U.S. is in too deep to even consider ending the occupation for the sole reason that there haven't been any WMD's found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unaware of any calls to pull out troops from the region due to no WMDs being found - I certainly wouldnt pull out troops in the first place because such action would be grossly arrogant and frankly disgusting. If the US is actually surprised at the current situation it clearly was misguided from the start.

 

There were HUNDREDS of people saying this would happen at anti war rallies across Europe. The US (and the UK) have, for the past 2 decades at least, been very selective over who they support in the region and hatred of both nations is perfectly understandable given what is happening in Israel.

 

The US and UK have a moral duty to remain in Iraq until the region has stabilised - you cant just invade a country with all guns blazing and then just bugger off because the locals aren't ecstatically happy to see you. From the average iraqis perspetive, ever since the coalition invaded family memebrs have been killed, their neighbourhood is a lawless wasteland, fuel queues are huge, water supplies and electricity is inconsistent at best and theres an American general in charge of the country. Why should they be happy?

 

I agree with you that the UK and US should definitely remain in Iraq for the time being but how can you say things like

 

'More bombing and more troops. If they're going to demoralize our country, we should demoralize them.'

 

??? That just implies the US has an axe to grind in Iraq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not so much an axe to grind with Iraq, but with the resistance which is woven into the Iraqi public. It's a sad truth but it's true. While the resisting forces are still around I really feel the U.S. is still at war. Also, troops will continue to get killed and yeah that does make me feel helpless because of the guerilla style tactics. If there's a way to end the resitance it should be taken advantage of in my opinion anyways, because this is a serious resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no war, there is a aggressive terrorist force in Iraq that is being attacked. Guess what, the terrorist's are from the US and UK. You can't cry about it because a country doesn’t appreciate being aggressively occupied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No ones crying, there just needs to be more aggressive and harsher action against the resisting force. No one expected the Iraqi public to welcome the U.S. with open arms, it's the downplaying that the U.S. government is doing in regards to the hostile action that makes me mad. That's all I'm complaining about. I hate how they're pretending there is no resisting force when they're obviously is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know the French had a resistance when Germany invaded? If only they had thought be more harsh when invading countries and flaunting international law.

 

Not that the UK is any better, following Bush around like a little puppy.

 

That's the reason why the UK and US are downplaying it; they are in an intractable position. In this situation, every act they make against the perpetrators of the attacks is an act of terrorism against the Iraq civilians. They made themselves viable targets by crossing the border into Iraq. The only attacks that are not justified are the attacks against the UN and the Red Cross, who are not involved in the conflict.

 

I have friends out in Iraq right now, getting put into situations where they are likely to be attacked by the religious factions, ex-military, or the nationals who are resisting the occupation. They can quite plainly see this is on the verge of another Somalia/Vietnam, because not everyone loves the Americans and the Americans just never seem to understand that until it’s far to late. If you can find an example of this sort of occupation turning out ok, you just let me know. History teaches us that people will resist, despite what the regime was like before. The Americans can’t just whop out guns and start shooting, on the off chance that it all turns out ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terrorism:

 

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

 

The US and UK claimed that they would invade Iraq despite UN regulations because they feared Iraq possessed WMD.

 

That makes us terrorists, even if WMD are found in Iraq eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand how that illiterate imbecile that calls himself president thinks this situation can be 'won'; this isnt a pitched battle. It certainly isnt a war in the conventional sense.

 

'agressive and harsher action against the resisting force'? They're being shot on sight, as well as any Iraqi civilians that happen to be standing nearby. The UK has been facing religous bigots, well armed and well trained militant nationalists, gangsters and plain old nutters in Ulster for decades now. Conflicts like these are never 'won', they just drag on and hopefully over time social and cultural lessons can bridge the divide, not carpet bombing and shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone should know there are a ton of double standards when it comes to war, and you just can't change it. The U.S. and anyone else who considers themselves at war kills civilians and soldiers because that's what war is. Sure, by definition you could consider the U.K. and U.S. terrorists but does the U.S. or U.K. kill civilians without warning? There's a huge amount of difference between the moral action of a group that car bombs or plane bombs an area with high civilian casualites and the choice to bomb a hostile area that has surrounding civilians who might get caught in the cross fire. That's just how it is and you can't change it. I accept that for what it is. It's just the double standards. What we do is okay and what they do isn't.

 

I can't give an example of an occupation like this that turned out good but I already know they usually don't.

 

As for Iraq turning into Somalia or Vietnam, I don't think that's quite fair to say. I say that because in vietnam there was a clear military faction that was considered an army. We don't know for sure what's happening in Iraq yet. MY knowledge is that the North Vietnamese army was huge, where Iraqs isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why again did the us, uk and oz go to iraq in the first place? cos iraq was according to them breaking international law. didn't us, uk and oz break international law when they attacked without un's approval?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US administration decided to go in to Iraq long before September 11th, an event which Iraq had nothing to do with. The control over the oil was the reasoning behind a report commisioned by 'the project for a new american century' in the late 90's. This lobbying group was set up for the interests of big buisness. Many of those in this group or associated with it, now make up Bush's administration or are key policy advisors. The war against Iraq was plotted by those who did not have direct power to turn policy in to reality. When Bush won the election this changed. The key reason for the war was the oil, although other birds were killed with the stone, for example the opportunity to demonstrate hegemony in the middle east and the chance for new military bases given the political instability of Saudi Arabia. Other things fall in to place, such as the massive domestic appetite of the US for oil. Keep the oil flowing and keep the votes coming. Threats to Iran are no coincedence, they too posses massive natural reserves. Democracy and liberation are big words but to put them forward as the reason behind this war are hypocritical. Equatorial Guinee supplys 15% of US domestic oil and Bush wants this to rise to 25%. Equatorial Guinee has a dictatorship, terrible poverty and a disgraceful human rights record. But the dictator there plays ball with the republican administration and so is left alone and his crimes are kept from the publics gaze. An infamous and evil dictator once said "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it". Not much has changed in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The US administration decided to go in to Iraq long before September 11th

It’s called the Persian Gulf War

 

The control over the oil was the reasoning behind a report commisioned by 'the project for a new american century' in the late 90's.

 

Oil conspiracy’s, it’s ok to disapprove of the war but it’s not ok when you make up things to justify your reasoning. Since you did not do it; here is a link to the supposed very bad and evil group http://www.newamericancentury.org/

 

Democracy and liberation are big words but to put them forward as the reason behind this war are hypocritical.

 

Democracy and liberation are very good words that have a very real and worthwhile meaning. Holds true for the reason behind the war and are not hypocritical.

 

Equatorial Guinee supplys 15% of US domestic oil and Bush wants this to rise to 25%.

 

Equatorial Guinea supplies 13% of its entire exports to the US, 53% to Spain and 26% to China. I am unable to find "oil exports" anywhere so I must ask where you get your information. I am sure its no where near 15-25% since US Oil - consumption is 19.65 million bbl/day (2001 est.) and Equatorial Guinea Oil - Production is 181,400 bbl/day (2001 est.). If that dictator plays ball with anyone it would be Spain or China.

 

Equatorial Guinee has a dictatorship, terrible poverty and a disgraceful human rights record.

 

Equatorial Guinea certainly does have a disgraceful human rights record, but do you see your country or any other for that matter doing anything about it? No..., it’s sad but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
newbie said in post #298 :

It’s called the Persian Gulf War. )Oh I beg your pardon but I personally don't know of this. A persian gulf war should surely engulf the persian gulf. As this war was in one country and not on your rug lets agree to call it the Iraq war.

 

 

 

Oil conspiracy’s, it’s ok to disapprove of the war but it’s not ok when you make up things to justify your reasoning. Since you did not do it; here is a link to the supposed very bad and evil group http://www.newamericancentury.org/

The Newamericancentury or whatever it is you love them for, are a lobby service for the large american companies such as Haliburton

Your from Jed country, and your love for right wing american vaules. Bush could not get elected in a scout group. He was elected on less than 25% of the vote. Some democracy.

 

 

 

Democracy and liberation are very good words that have a very real and worthwhile meaning. Holds true for the reason behind the war and are not hypocritical.

 

 

 

Equatorial Guinea supplies 13% of its entire exports to the US, 53% to Spain and 26% to China. I am unable to find "oil exports" anywhere so I must ask where you get your information. I am sure its no where near 15-25% since US Oil - consumption is 19.65 million bbl/day (2001 est.) and Equatorial Guinea Oil - Production is 181,400 bbl/day (2001 est.). If that dictator plays ball with anyone it would be Spain or China.

 

Egutorial Guinee supplies 15% of US oil import as per UN records. Channel 4 UK for original source. Repuiblican administration recomend this be increased to25% for putty reasons.

 

 

Equatorial Guinea certainly does have a disgraceful human rights record, but do you see your country or any other for that matter doing anything about it? No..., it’s sad but true.

True, *I dont see France and Germany go to war over this but is not that a compliment. Bush is a pro-haliburton/ twat and you are a repuiblican agitator. Why dont you wage war on the 69 countries who break the UN convention on human rights every day.

 

Hypocrit republican Bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rebeldog said in post #299 :

Oh I beg your pardon but I personally don't know of this. A persian gulf war should surely engulf the persian gulf.

 

FYI, the Persian Gulf War, conflict beginning in August 1990, was when Iraqi forces invaded and occupied Kuwait.

 

rebeldog said in post #299 :

The Newamericancentury or whatever it is you love them for, are a lobby service for the large american companies such as Haliburton

Your from Jed country, and your love for right wing american vaules. Bush could not get elected in a scout group. He was elected on less than 25% of the vote. Some democracy.

 

Hmmm, your oil conspiracy doesn’t hold why do you cling to it? Also I see you are uninformed of how Bush got elected. As your comment about be being in “Jed country’ and “love for right wing American values, I will only say you are wrong and I will not stoop to your level with ignorant assumptions.

 

rebeldog said in post #299 :

Egutorial Guinee supplies 15% of US oil import as per UN records. Channel 4 UK for original source. Repuiblican administration recomend this be increased to25% for putty reasons.

 

http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/11/week_3/18_guinea.html

Wasn’t hard to find that one, I believe this is where you get ‘your facts’.

I’m sorry but that’s wrong, and its upsetting to think you would claim a news station is credible. I even went to the Library just to check on this. Europa World Yearbook shows no such percentage of Oil exports to the US. I even checked the CIA World Fact book online with the same results. My original statement still stands.

 

rebeldog said in post #299 :

True, *I dont see France and Germany go to war over this but is not that a compliment. Bush is a pro-haliburton/ twat and you are a repuiblican agitator. Why dont you wage war on the 69 countries who break the UN convention on human rights every day.

 

Hypocrit republican Bastard.

 

Because I am a better person than you and since as Sayonara says I have a “problematic history on this forum” I won’t blast you for your attacks. I will simply laugh and state that unlike you I can actually make an assumption about you and be correct; you can’t spell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.