What have we learned from Iraq?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
I suppose some of you guys would like to see us invade Syria next?

If choosing by need, Sudan would be my choice.

[Lancer]

"I suppose some of you guys would like to see us invade Syria next?"-Ted

How else are we going to get Saddam's WMD?

Relax pal, this is Poly. Nothing said here changes anything anywhere. Also, at the heart of almost everyone's motives is peace and freedom. People just have different opinions about how to attain these ends.

[Seeker]

Well, we've learned that nothing really ever changes.

Governments still practice the same mass of blatant lies, stupidity, and cruelty that they always have while the common man suffers.

[Patroklos]

If choosing by need, Sudan would be my choice.

No chance. Apparently genocide, rape and torture are not motives the libs take seriously.

[Ted Striker]

[Pekka]

Lancer, well it's all about the views. Because what is fact there might not be a fact in here, and vice versa. What do you believe in, what do I believe in etc. What's it worth to you, or me? It is ironical, me being in the minority. I'm nto ashamed to say it. I'm not using it as an ace, to work a debate 'being on both sides'. ****, I still hope that especially now Euro countries WOULD gear up, go on and help the operation, help rebuilding, because it doesn't help any to object now, because it's over already.

I just think that relations between countries, some view them very emotional, where I personally view them as business. But friendliness is good business. For example, in 100 years, we could be the worst enemies, if the circumtances were so. I don't think it will happen, but it could. And that's exactly why I feel we shouldn't so much be allied with countries. Because to me, it means we go to victory with them, or to hell. Even it we are wrong, we go, and go all the way. That's what real alliance is. So.. I would not want to be obligated to do it, if the situation was nto good for us and reasons were.. stupid, so I wouldn't want to put myself in a position where I' dhave to do it. Rather just have friendly nations. Who could help, out of their own wish, but if not, then well.. fine.

I do also have the mentality from the WW2 era, where no one helped us, except nazis did. But evne before nazis came in, it was pure communist invasion in here, and no one helped, against individual volunteers, mostly from Sweden. Everyone else pretty much said screw you I don't want to help, too risky. It was the first frontier of democracy, truly, in a face of being wiped out, and against odds it survived it's system and independence. But no one gave a ****. Everyone knew it was bogus reasons, and SU got kicked out of the league of nations. Kind of what UN does these days. Signs few papers. Does nothing.

If it were to happen again, I am absolutely convinced no one would come and help us. Except MAYBE Sweden. But that's it. And no, it's not me being cynical, it's me being realistical, and I already know how it would go down. It wouldn't be fair, but then again, world hardly is fair. Let me repeat, we would be alone. Sure, some countries would send some aid packages and food, maybe even gun and ammo, but that would be it.

So no, the touchy feely won't work for me at all. I'm not bitter at all though.. just realistic about the future as well. Injustice has nothing to do with politics these days. And no I'm not leftist either. I deal with issues, not with spectrum of political belief, which is IMO stupid idea to begin with.

[Ted Striker]

SUpercitizen, I'd come help you.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Boris, you such ****ing dumb ass.

OooOOOOoooh. I'm rubber, you're glue...

But to be more to the point, since as usual things must be spoon fed to you, not only did Germany and Fance puss out, they also went on a smear campaign for no other reason to keep their illegal oil profits.

Uh-huh, right. Or maybe it was because they saw through the admin's BS about the war rationale and realized this was a U.S. grab for ME dominance. One doesn't have to research much into neocon ravings to find out what the admin's true intention was.

Without that not only would we have them and their significant reseources, but probobly a dozen other countries.

Considering their "significant resources" were being tied up in Afghanistan at the moment, I'd love to see numbers on how much they really could have contributed. Of course, I'm still perplexed as to why they should contribute anything to a war they oppose...

In other words we would have that percieved international legitimacy instead of just actual, and according to you and your ilk Boris, that apparently cures everything from popular uprisings to cancer to boils.

Why should they give legitimacy to an action they viewed as improper? You still seem to be operating under the stupid mindset that what the U.S. wanted to do was right. It wasn't, and they knew it.

Things like have a pool of another 100,000 troops to work with and people other than us rebuilding the place tend to improve things a bit no? Or are you a proponent of unilateralism?

Pop quiz: How many nations have dropped out of the Iraq effort since the invasion and it became obvious no WMDs were to be found? Maybe part of the problem of a lack of support is that countries have seen they were duped into supporting a war that, in the long run, was waged on phony pretenses.

The resistance would have been waged regardless. And the resistance is quite apt at adapting to changing situations, we've discovered. It would just mean more and more people getting killed.

If the U.S. wanted to avoid resistance, we should have A) secured all the arms depots we knew were there but ignored and B) Oh, I dunno, not go around invading another country of a culture that, by and large, tends to view the U.S. as an oppressive bully.

Now back to your ravings Boris

Forget our ritalin today, did we?

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Patroklos


No chance. Apparently genocide, rape and torture are not motives the libs take seriously.

I know, if i'm not wrong, then it's called "not interfere into a soverign states internal affairs".

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by BlackCat
That's just because you haven't experienced real lefties demonizing people that disagrees with them. According to them, everybody with a political viewpoint to the right of them is a "godwin word".

You apparently haven't seen real righties demonizing their foes. Read Ann Coulter or listen to any Faux News pundits. Coulter and her ilk believe anyone who is to the left of them is a communist.

[Lancer]

"I do also have the mentality from the WW2 era, where no one helped us, except nazis did."

Pekka, I quite agree. Remember that the US was isolationist at the time. This was a mistake at the time, just as it was with the old euros (except the Danes ) and Iraq.

This is also why Finland should join NATO if it hasn't already, because neutrality is no shield. If you bury your head in the sand don't be too surprised if you get kicked in the ass. That said, I don't know if Finland had the option join the western alliance prior to the communist Russian invasion, or how much good it would have done with leaders like Chamberlain in power...

However they can join NATO now and enjoy the protection of countries like France and Germ...umm, nevermind.

[Pekka]

Ted, yeah I know you would . Individual level is different. But when it coems to nations, it's a bigger scheme of things. I mean .. you can't have too much emotional leadership. More managment type, you have to rely on FACTS ONLY. Then enter other feelings, but facts first, and if they match, then play ball but if they aren't supporting you and then you go on anyway, I mean.. what the hell are you doing? Dubya thought there were WMDs, so, in a way he wasn't going against this strategy, but those who did not join, they figured they need more facts to make it count. Hey.. they did listen after being whiny girls for a while, but then wanted more facts. The fact that their own intelligence _suggested_ Iraq had WMDs, and still they wanted more evidence only tells me that they wanted to be sure first, absolutely sure. At the end, they were not sure, so their decision was based on that, and that's the way to do it. Even if in the backround there was some dealings going on, the fact that they decision still lined with this makes it the right decision. For them. And that's the only thing that counts. For them.

But anyway, too much about this.. let's make a positive comment, if Europe would see US in real danger, we WOULD come to aid and gear up. Right now Europe does not feel US is in danger though. But if it would go down, we would throw down as well, with you and against most anyone, so there, and that's a fact as well.

[Ned]

There is a movie on HBO called "Air America." It's all about the new leftist radio network. In one segment, a called said that he would support Kerry if it could be shown that Bush lied about Iraq. At that point, the woman DJ, I think it was Gerafalo(sp") adopted a shocked expression, and said, "Oh, wow!" "I thought it was so OBVIOUS." She then stares around the room. Everyone nods their agreement. She punches up the next caller, but never answers the question.

During the Democrat convention, Michael Moore said the evidence that Bush lied was the fact that no WMD's were found in Iraq.

That's it.

To anyone who is not completely disingenous, it is clear that the left is willing to believe the worst conspiracy theories about Bush, or at least pretend that they do, without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

Now, much of the opposition to the Iraq war, both here and in Europe, I am sure, is that the war opponents appear to have believed that the US fixation on WMD was a "pretext" and the real reason that Bush wanted the war was the US Imperialist desire to control Iraqi OIL.

[Ted Striker]

Ned, there is footage of his entire administration, including Cheney and Rumsfeld, saying that they knew for a fact that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

That's a fact regardless of who is saying it.

[Ted Striker]

MEANWHILE IT'S BEEN 4 ****ING YEARS AND WE STILL DO NOT HAVE OSAMA BIN LADEN.