Occupation death toll of U.S. troops equal to that of war

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Sava

hahah you are getting slow!

That's an insult Sava -- guess you get banned.

[Sava]

Sava, people want freedom when they know it is achievable and we are trying to deliver that or a chance for them. I have never known anybody to turn down freedom of their own will.

I don't think you can accurately say what ethnic peoples in that region want. With respect, you are trying to see things through American eyes. I recall the mantra after Saddam's removal... "no bush, no saddam, yes yes for Islam".

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Defiant
It boils down to FREEDOM vs. THEIR CULTURE.

Nope.

It boils down to your attempt to establish a puppet vs their efforts in drawing blood.

This "freedom" thing rings so hollow now...

[Ming]

Originally posted by MrFun
That's an insult Sava -- guess you get banned.

Nahhh... but you remain just a simple post away from getting toasted.

[The Andy-Man]

no one is free except the hermit who lives on an island.

[Defiant]

"I guess my problem is that people are equating Iraq with 9-11 without proof. I was all for going into Afghanistan and kicking some Taliban ass because they were harboring Al Qaeda and OBL. My criticism of the administration have to deal with the lack of stabilization in the region. If you are going to go in and kill off a regime, you need to replace it with something stable and peaceful. What's the point of killing an oppressive, hostile regime if you are leaving a power vaccuum where another will step in and take it's place. That's part of the reason why the war on drugs is failing... I see the same thing happening with the war on terror."

Iraq was the best attack point for a presence in the ME, this has nothing to do with a bad dictator(many in africa), or oil, something to do with WMD but mostly because we want a presence in the ME and to start formulation a democracy which we are hoping to spread throughout the ME and the other ME nations know this, that is why they are funneling money to terrorists(from Saudi, primarily), they don't want to lose what they have and a democracy is a threat to them.

"no bush, no saddam, yes yes for Islam".

Alreay they are voicing their opinion, that's freedom, we haven't killed them yet for voicing it, that's their right.
But as you know as well as I, we cannot leave that country in a vacuum, we cannot leave until a real democracy is achieved.

[Defiant]

"Nahhh... but you remain just a simple post away from getting toasted."

Ming, are you salivating yet.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by GePap
...(no one was advocating invading Northern ireland to end terrorism there in the mid-80's, IIRC) ...

Thatcher?

[GePap]

The Brirts sent the army in before her time (besides, we are speaking strictily about American here..keep your ugly English women out of it!)

[Sava]

Iraq was the best attack point for a presence in the ME, this has nothing to do with a bad dictator(many in africa), or oil, something to do with WMD but mostly because we want a presence in the ME and to start formulation a democracy which we are hoping to spread throughout the ME and the other ME nations know this, that is why they are funneling money to terrorists(from Saudi, primarily), they don't want to lose what they have and a democracy is a threat to them.

oil played a MAJOR role in war in the region. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. You can't tell me (without lying or being wrong ) that oil didn't play a part in the decision to go in. Proof is in the pudding. US Special Forces, in the first stages of the war, went straight for oil fields and refineries. Halliburton then received a no bid, no competition contract to handle all oil-related "rebuilding" efforts.

Alreay they are voicing their opinion, that's freedom, we haven't killed them yet for voicing it, that's their right.
But as you know as well as I, we cannot leave that country in a vacuum, we cannot leave until a real democracy is achieved.

Trust me, you don't want a democracy in Iraq... because Democracy in Iraq would mean a few things:
1. Fundie gov't like Iran
2. Shi'ite rule... which will spark ethnic violence
3. US loss of control of oil production (while I despise US profiteering off of the oil, it's favorable to Islamic elements holding us hostage like OPEC does)

The best solution to Iraq is a secular, representative Republic... look at what Western powers have historically done in the region. The Brit's went in and created Jordan, a constitutional monarchy... Iraq, originally the same thing... Iran... originally a monarchy again. The goal was to seperate things so that a large, unified Arab empire could not arise to rival Western powers. I don't really blame the Brits for the current problems, because had an Arab empire rose up around WWI - WW2... the Axis powers of the day would no doubt have had another ally.

[Defiant]

"oil played a MAJOR role in war in the region. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. You can't tell me (without lying or being wrong ) that oil didn't play a part in the decision to go in. Proof is in the pudding. US Special Forces, in the first stages of the war, went straight for oil fields and refineries. Halliburton then received a no bid, no competition contract to handle all oil-related "rebuilding" efforts."

This wasn't about oil and I don't think I am wrong. Sure we captured the oil fields, what are we going to build a new Iraq with, no much good if they are destroyed. And, I am all for taking 10% off the top for payment of the war effort, help them with technology to build new wells and get that country out of the cellar.

[Sava]

This wasn't about oil and I don't think I am wrong. Sure we captured the oil fields, what are we going to build a new Iraq with, no much good if they are destroyed. And, I am all for taking 10% off the top for payment of the war effort, help them with technology to build new wells and get that country out of the cellar.

well look at a ton of other examples around the world... Liberia... no oil, same violence, oppressive regime... little US interest in peace. In fact, marines just recently withdrew back to the ships off the coast.

look at North Korea... more dangerous WMD's situation... arguably more distasterous human rights violations... but... no oil... and Kim Jong Il gets treated with kid gloves.

look at Iran... more support of terrorism... probably the same status of WMD operations (although closer to nukes from what I hear)... no oil... little talk of military action...

IMO, Bush had a hardon for Saddam for a few reasons...
1. "he tried to kill my daddy" probably the strongest motivation
2. oil
3. WMD programs and weapons provided by US... if Iraq attacks US with WMD's in the form of terrorism, who do you think will get blamed for supplying Saddam with WMD's in the first place... IMO, this was more about CYA (covering your ass) than an imminent danger of WMD attack

far down the list of priorities was the oppressive nature of the regime and human rights abuses... such things don't bother the US as long as the dictator(s) plays ball... case in point, Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, attitude towards Taliban (BUSH: "give up OBL and we leave you alone")

[Defiant]

"well look at a ton of other examples around the world... Liberia... no oil, same violence, oppressive regime... little US interest in peace. In fact, marines just recently withdrew back to the ships off the coast.

look at North Korea... more dangerous WMD's situation... arguably more distasterous human rights violations... but... no oil... and Kim Jong Il gets treated with kid gloves.

look at Iran... more support of terrorism... probably the same status of WMD operations (although closer to nukes from what I hear)... no oil... little talk of military action...

IMO, Bush had a hardon for Saddam for a few reasons...
1. "he tried to kill my daddy" probably the strongest motivation
2. oil
3. WMD programs and weapons provided by US... if Iraq attacks US with WMD's in the form of terrorism, who do you think will get blamed for supplying Saddam with WMD's in the first place... IMO, this was more about CYA (covering your ass) than an imminent danger of WMD attack

far down the list of priorities was the oppressive nature of the regime and human rights abuses... such things don't bother the US as long as the dictator(s) plays ball... case in point, Saudi's, Kuwaiti's, attitude towards Taliban (BUSH: "give up OBL and we leave you alone")

Sava,
You have to remember my choice for Iraq was because we needed a presence in the ME. Sure Taliban in Afghan were harboring OBL and that is why we attacked there first, but 15/19 terrorists came from Saudi(ME). Now we can attack Saudi and maybe we should have but MECCA is there and we had better be prepared to kill alot of Muslims because they would have came out of the woodwork. We could have done it, but do we need to, yet. NK, has to be dealt with, no doubt about it, but they are stronger as well is Iran, the best numbers game in loss of American lives comes with the attack on Iraq. We did it with less than 300 souls lost to date and we are trying to achieve democracy there(and we have to). If we can do this, we did it with the best efficiency.
Doesn't that make sense?
NK, is a different subject, but still has to be dealt with.

[Sava]

You have to remember my choice for Iraq was because we needed a presence in the ME.

our presence in the region is the key cause behind terrorisms' existence and it's focus on us...

Sure Taliban in Afghan were harboring OBL and that is why we attacked there first, but 15/19 terrorists came from Saudi(ME).

And you don't think Osama chose those guys because of the relationship between SA and the US? It was his intent to create a rift between Arabs and the US.

Now we can attack Saudi and maybe we should have but MECCA is there and we had better be prepared to kill alot of Muslims because they would have came out of the woodwork.

If you attack Saudi Arabia, you create WW3... good plan

We did it with less than 300 souls lost to date and we are trying to achieve democracy there(and we have to).

We don't have to create democracy in Iraq... we need to stabilize the country. The security and safety of America is my primary concern... a stable Iraq is in everyone's best interest. Bush's strategy is destabilizing the region. It's like a grease fire... instinct tells you that water puts out fire... but throwing water on a grease fire is the wrong way to extinguish it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Defiant
Agathon,
What if a asteroid hit the earth and we all die, 100/day, what do you base that on, dumbass, rediculous argument.
Here is one for you, we do nothing and they load up a whole lot more planes and we lose thousands more, anything possible in "what if" scenarios.

P-p-p-p-p-p-p-paranoia!

And what does September the 11th have to do with Iraq? Nothing, until GWB attacked it and gave AQ a shot in the arm.

Nice one Georgie....

And the word is "ridiculous" dear boy...