Thread: The War in Iraq
View Single Post
Old 07-16-2004, 10:39 PM   #15
Junior Member
boranchistanger's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Death Star
Posts: 281
FUNDAMENTALIST is the key word there. Fundamentalists will do some CRAZY things in the name of their religion, and feel that they have the backin of God. Ever heard of the Crusades? Salem Witch Trials? Countless Jihads in Islamic countries? I can go on, but I think you get the picture. The fact is that while YOU may not see them as religious, they are in fact doing what THEY feel is right by THEIR God.
Alright, let me get this straight, you feel that Usoma Bin Ladin is a religious man? You honestly think that he believes that crashing planes into building which means death for thousands of people is what God wants? Do you honestly think Yasser Arafat is a religious man? He straps bombs to little children, telling them if they blow themselves up in a supermarket they will go to paradise?

Now, still on Arafat. In the 90's, Israel proposed a treaty with the PLO which would of forced Israel to give up ALL conquered land that Israel has done since 1948. What did Arafat say? No. You know why he said no? Because with israel weak he is out of buisiness. It's all politics. And also remember, follow the money.

And even the crusaders worked with those who didn't believe in what they did. The Catholic crusaders worked with the Orthodox Byzantines in order to successfully retake the holey land. The Catholic and Orthodox churches could not stand each other, yet when they both had a common goal they worked together. That is Saddam and Bin Ladin.

We may have had genuine reasons (or not) for going over there, but at this point we're doing more harm than good. Don't think anyone can disagree with that.
I disagree big time. You understand that right now the coalition troops ar ethe only security Iraq has right now? The Iraqi force is still being formed, trained and armed. That akes a long time. A pullout by the coalition now means the complete undoing of all work which has been done of the past year along with a bloody civil war which wouls take the lives of at least a million Iraqis.

Coalition troops will be needed until at least the beginning of 2005. Hopefully by the time of the Iraqi elections the Iraqi government will have sufficient police and military force to partially defend themselves. This means that coalition troops can begin being pulled out. I estimate that by 2007 all coalition troops will be out of Iraq and Iraq will be secure and stable along with democratic.

Lets take the congo for example. Roving bands of cannibalistic militia men slaughtering whole villages of people.....
OH ya...all good stuff.
Along with most of Africa. But remember, Africa has no US interests in it. African countries pose no threat to American security. We are fighting a war on terrorism, not a war against tyranny and human rights violations. The UN is in charge of places like Africa, not the US. The Middle East is where the greatest terrorist threat to the United States is along with other interests like oil and Israel. Both are essential to the US.

Remember, US foreign policy rightfully revolves around two things in the proper order:

1. US interests
2. Promoting democracy and improving the world

If the first part is missing the US should never go in another country. It is the job of the UN to take care of the second one. The US cannot and will not police the world!

Unfortinately this is looked over by Democrat presidents. Clinton sent our troops into Bosnia, an operation in which there was absolutely no US interests involved. Hundreds of Americans died for nothing except a country which is screwed up to this day.

There is a far more selfish reason that they went into iraq then a selfless, "help your common man" was not on their mind.
The powers to be that got that war rolling didn'tt give a rats ass about helping people or freeing them from oppression.
it is the UN's job to "help the common man." The US and other countries should never send their men and women oversees unless what they are doing is in their country's interests.

Iraq is in the interests of the United States because once the operation in iraq is completed, which may take awhile, the War on Terror will begin to turn to our side. A democratic and free Iraq will be a crushing blow to the terrorists like I described in a past post. And oil production will increase with the introduction of some capitalism and that will also benefit the US, along with every other country in the world.

Its an added bonus once the war goes on. People support the war if they think that they are helping people and that they were directly threatened and it had to be done.
Did Iraq have to be done? No. Iraq wasn't going to invade the US or anything. Was it a good thing to do? Definately.

And there have been other wars in which we didn't have to go in. Vietnam, World War I, Spanish American War, Mexican War and the War of 1812 to name a few. Yet it was always the right thing to do to go to war. And I am very optimistic about the future because of Iraq.

Very similar to Germany, 1939.
this is nothing compared the Germany in 1939. Nothing. It is a slap in the face when you sday that. You guys acvt like Bush is a facist for god's sake.


Leader of the Imperial Expeditionary Force, the first clan created for Battlefront.
boranchistanger is offline   you may: