Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / OReillys solution for Iraq

"Also don't even say bush is bad. Now your probly all like omg bush is the dumbest pres ever. Well it would take a retart to not go to war. 1. His dad went to war with iraq. 2. Saddam was crazy. 3. Saddam killed thousandes with gases. 4. Bush's top intelggence ppl said Saddam had nukes. I mean ffs why wouldn't you go to war after all these facts!"

Oh dear Lord. Let's review. Bush is probably pretty smart and the whole 'Bush-isms' have to be the best front ever, making him appear harmless. Now then, another Bush was in power way back when and he's got connections to a nice little country that produces this thing called oil. You may have heard of it, it's where the Bush family is getting its cash.

Now anyways, this little country was invaded because Saddam (who probably is having bummsecks with Satan like South Park suggests) got a little greedy. Now at that time, we had just cause to go in there with the world and lay a beating on him. In this Iraq 'war', we're the aggressors. Saddam's power was merely an illusion. However the way we're treating it just wrong.

Now you're probably saying, 'Rommel, wtf do you mean man?'. I'm glad you asked. We call this thing a war however have you ever heard of congress voting to put us in a state of war? Nope. We're over there treating this as a police action. Worse yet, our career politicians are making us fight the thing while being politically correct.

In World War 2, while fighting the Third Reich, we shelled/bombed towns where we knew they were dug in. Nothing was spared, even churches got hit. If the enemy could've used it to hide out, we blasted it. Not so in this 'war'. If a bunch of 'terrorists' (or freedom fighters, pick your own label) run into a mosque. We can't hit it because it'd 'offend' the Arab nations.

Now, imagine in World War 2 if we were facing this scenario: 'Um, General Patton, you're required to take the Nazis out of such-and-such town, however you're required to not use artillery or air support because we don't want to hit 'civillian' targets or places of worship because it'd offend the other Christian nations.' (Using Christianity because it's the major religion in the area, also lumping Catholicism in with it.)

Did this happen over there? HECK NO. Frankly everyone wanted Saddam out of power and were willing to do anything to get it done. The same should be done with Iraq. If we hear about a pocket of resistance, blow the crap out of the town. Heck, it'd probably be the best thing that'd ever happen to them because then America would go in and spend a bunch of cash to rebuild the thing. (Ask Japan).

So in the end, if we're going to war. Let's do it for a right reason (though it's probably too late for that now), and let's go all out.

o ya and about bombing them dang do you even think of what you say? Think 10's of thousands of terrorits are bad? Well then think of hunreds of millions...

Funny that you say the reason for firebombing over a million civilians in germany and japan is because the Nazis could hide there. Why would you then avoid bombing the industry areas where the nazi war machine was built (could it be because humans are cheap compared to machines?).

And really Heero what defines a terrorist? Is it someone who kills civilians? Then america is todays largest terrorist. During world war 2 in norway, norvegian busdrivers who where told to drive germans drove the busses down the cliffs, suicided and taking a busses full of germans with them. Would you describe them as freedom fighters or terrorists? Also the press describes ressistance missile attacks as suicide bombings so it dosnt sound like they are cililized. Have u ever heard of an iraq ressistance missile attack on the news? On the vid I posted they show like 50 of them. A people always have the right to defend against a forgein invasion.

The lack of respect for human lives both rommel and heero seems to have is both  freightening and sickening. Was the 4 million people then after american wars in vietnam and the rest of southeast asia all terrorists, if it was today you would describe them as that no doubt.

I watched your vids Heero. It's extremely weird how you still think that Iraq and WTC had ANYTHING in common. Even after Bush himself has admitted they don't.
You must be watching Fox News...

Deathace the WTC did have something to do with what I'm talking about. The war in iraq is wiping out terrorits so they can't do anything like that again. Also still with the bombing...doesn't matter if you dont kill the citizens its the buildings....if we nuked mecca every faincal muslim would strap a bomb tothemsels and run into a europeanamerican building..... O and Ghouma if the we weren't for a FACT giving back there power to gorvern themselves after then they would be freeom fighter...however they are just fighting so a leader of there group can take power and rule their nation that is not a freedom fighter...aslo never think i dont have respect for human life. Theres nothing i've said that should even make you suggest that commetn-_-. Also even if ghouma your right about we've killed the most citizens worldwide(show some proof not just something you wrote)it's not like we held a gun to somones head and pulled the trigger...unlike the nazis.
(Edited by Mr. Heero 1/7/2007 8:07:35 AM)

DANG thats alot of words...... :P

Cheers @ Architect <3

Alright Architect, I'm game.

You're bringing up Sept. 11th, which alot of people would. Now, Osama and company were hiding out in the little ol' country of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been the home of the Taliban for quite some time.

Now since we're not debating about America dropping 43 million dollars in the Taliban's lap four months prior to 9-11 (http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/taliban.htm), or the Bush family's connection with Osama (too many articles to pick just one). We'll focus on the aftermath of 9-11.

So, when we finally get to the point where America strikes back. We find ourselves in Afghanistan (not Iraq). We go in, bomb the crap out of them dig them out of tunnels and all-in-all it was quite successful except for the fact that we didn't get Bin-Laden. Oh well, no biggie, right?

Now it's no doubt that we 'invaded' Afghanistan due to the fact it's its own country with borders, etc. Also, theplace was run by the Taliban, the group that pulled off 9-11. So, we have an American invasion, but we have a just cause to start fighting, so everyone didn't have any problems. Heck, I think everyone wanted some payback for 9-11.

So now you talk about once we were in Afghanistan, taking out Saddam was a 'goal within our reach'. That's fine, however what was our concrete REASON to attack over there? Now, I know of the attrocities that Saddam performed over there, everyone's known of that for a long time. (i.e. using chemical weapons on the Kurds) but that wasn't enough for people to take him out. You could also tell me we went in there to take out Saddam's WMDs, but if that was the basis for our invasion (and the lack of them withstanding) then why aren't we going to take out countries like North Korea or Iran?

So in the end, we've got oil, the 'hotbed' of terrorism, or we've got Jr. wanting to one-up his dad. Like in Vietnam, the American public don't have a clue why we're over there. Especially since Bush stated 'Mission Accomplished a year or so back.

So in the second citation of myself, you pointed out my phrase of we should be doing it for the right reason, and then cite Sept. 11th again. Once again, that's the reason we went to Afghanistan. Having it apply to Iraq is quite a stretch. What's Iraq got to do with Sept 11th? Are they harboring terrorists? Perhaps, if we're listening to Fox News. However, weren't terrorists hiding out on American soil? Shouldn't we declare war on America to find them? Oh wait, that's the Patriot Act, I'm sorry. Then what? Funding? America's just as guilty of that.

Show me a concrete reason that we're over there and we're still hanging around.

Honestly, I have no idea why we are still hanging around over there, I think its long past time that we need to get out of there.  However, we have been installing a new government for Iraq and it is not quite finished yet.  To pull out of there now would leave them worse off then they were before, though I dont think we need quite as many troops as we have over there to accomplish this.  But to pull out could be disasterous.

"You could also tell me we went in there to take out Saddam's WMDs, but if that was the basis for our invasion (and the lack of them withstanding) then why aren't we going to take out countries like North Korea or Iran?"

Personally, I believe it was because of convenience.  It has been a long-standing goal to take him out, several presidents before Bush have tried one way or another and since we are right next door, whats keeping us from finally doing this?  Not a whole lot, in fact nothing anymore, its done and I dont think anyone is having second thoughts about that one.  As well as our reasons for going into Iraq, the Taliban are not only in Afghanistan.  They are spread out over several countrys, one of those being Iraq.  Leaders of the TAliban were also based in Iraq, and it being our goal to take the main figure heads out, it only makes sense to go after them there also.  That is how I am linking Sept. 11th, Afghanistan and Iraq together.  I'll make a tree for ya:

                                                   September 11th 2001
                                                                |
                                                        TALIBAN
                                           /                    |                        \
                                    Iraq              Afghanistan               Iran
                                       \                        |                           /
                                       |   Figure Heads in All 3 Countries
                                      /                                                     
         Saddam, possible WMD's                       

So, Sept. 11th lead us to take out the Taliban, who had figure heads in the 3 countries, and since we were already in Iraq, Saddam was just another step away.  As far as not going after Iran, well, we already know they have Nukes, or at east Neuclear power plants and after that, its not a far stretch to get to a working Nulear Bomb, and I believe they even stated they have them a while back, though I cant dig up the Article to confirm right now, not enough time, gotta go work.  Also, our best informants had told us through the CIA that Iraq did have WMD's, and what if they would have?  If they would have then this whole thing would be alot different, but the fact is that they didn't.  So yes, We made a mistake in going after something that wasn't there, but since we had every reason to believe that they did exist there, we had every reason to attempt to take them out.

Deathace- I dont have time to read your whole post right now cause I gotta go to work shortly but I read the beginning and I gotta say this...

"Architect: No offence (or you can be offended if you like), but I don't think your mentality is much better than that of a nazies, in fact, yours is even worse in the way that you want to just kill everyone and only reason you state you can't do it, is because you have bunch of lefties (wussies like you would probably like to call them) who start whining when you kill people. In comparison nazies only killed jews, colored people, retards and other such to "clean" the population, but they wanted to get the rest of the people (the arian race then) on their side by getting them to accept their worldview and create one big country in which they don't kill each other randomly."

See, this is where you are getting me wrong.  I'm not wanting to nuke em because I am trying to "clean" the poulation, or because I dont like them, and if you have read my posts I have also stated that innocent civilians should not be touched, however many have provided safe harbor to the enemy and as stated and agreed upon by other above, they are then no better.  The Nazi's however would kill all because their hair is black/brown, or because their eyes are not blue...  The main reason I even said this is to get across the point that I want our troops out of there and fast.

And, would you care to explain how I'm a Wuss?  I support this war of ours, I want it to end yes, but mostly because our guys are dying over there and things here are going down the drain.  Things on the Home front are degrading fast and its because of this war.  We gotta focus on  things like education a little more here, but we cant because of this war.  This is my reason fro wanting to get out of there. but I ahve also stated why we cant do this, and not only because we got a bunch of "lefties" as you call em.

Anyways, I gotta go to work, I'll be back to answer to the rest of your guys' posts.

~The Architect~

The one gripe I have about the whole situation, is the way the troops are being treated.

One can debate the war for all of eternity.  One can stand in front of the capital and protest Bush and call him an *beep* and say he is ruining the States.  One can yell that America is killing people for no reason but for oil, while one can argue that they are just doing their job and being a responsible democracy leader.  Either way, there is no way to prove who is wrong, or who is right.

I could care less what people think of the war, we are all allowed on our opinions, that is what makes our country, whereas one can also argue that it is our greatest downfall.

But, we have soldiers there, not just US soldiers, but coalition soldiers, all who are just doing their jobs, doing for their country, regardless whether or not they even should be there.  Why?  They believe in something that most people forget, for when things go wrong they want to start to play the blame game.  They believe in their country, and they are serving, they should not be degraded, put down insulted for trying to keep the world safe, even if it going about it the wrong way. 

I have had family serve tours in Baghdad, and soon a very close member of my family will be deployed in the area. 

Our troops need our support.  They are doing what needs to be done, and that is to stabilize a country.  It has cost lives.  One soldier's death is one too many in my book.  But to not support the troops, it is just wrong. 

To say to get them out and that it was all wrong, to me, just degrades every soldier's death. 

Sorry, on a tangent, been debating this all night with someone and just needed to vent :(

Well said Arien.  Only history will decide whether the "war" was right or wrong - and probably not till well after we're all gone!

But for the serving soldier to take blame for doing the duty he has committed his life to is appalling and shameful.  Of course, part of what that Soldier is committed to defend is his own countryman's right to blame him and dishonour the commitment he demonstrates!

For those who've never served, the whole point is that a soldier MUST obey the orders he's given (provided he has reasonable grounds to think they're legal), and that applies from the lowest footsoldier to the highest commander.  So, if the government tells the commanders "go to war" then they MUST obey, regardless of their personal views.

Would anyone rather live in a country where a heavily armed military could do whatever the hell it felt like?

"As far as not going after Iran, well, we already know they have Nukes, or at east Neuclear power plants and after that, its not a far stretch to get to a working Nulear Bomb, and I believe they even stated they have them a while back, though I cant dig up the Article to confirm right now, not enough time, gotta go work."

Where did you get that idea? Can I guess Fox News again? As far as I know Iran is 4-10 years away from nukes.
Here's some articles for you which aren't really too objective in the classical sense of News which is supposed to give equal rights to each side of the story to give their opinion on things, but it is giving more space to the western side (US & EU & co) and it is western news channels mostly so you should have no problems trusting them. If Fox News has told you that Iran has nuclear weapons why not change your source of information...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4606356.stm <-- especially read this one, this has some nice opinions in it and also a statement that CIA said it would take 10 years...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5039956.stm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5341043
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTQ/is_2005_August_2/ai_n14892889

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact <-- this seems to be a pretty nice compilation of opinions from the senators and whitehouse members etc etc on the Iran issue and how it's being dealt with

Also, US really is the one to tell other countries not to make nukes...
"The Bush Administration has renounced the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, and backed away from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The Bush administration's recent Nuclear Posture Review calls for a reliance on nuclear weapons for decades to come."
"The United States is modifying a trusty warhead for a new mission. The improved B-61 is intended to penetrate deep into the earth, to knock out underground factories and bunkers. Critics charge that the "bunker buster" is a retreat from treaty obligations and represents a trend toward greater reliance on nuclear weapons (see "Nuclear Study..." in the bibliography)."
Quotes taken from and a lot more on nukes and things relating to them here: http://whyfiles.org/167new_nukes/


Make up your mind already, which was it then, Taliban or Al-Qaeda?

I also found it weird, maybe I'm stupid, but wouldn't FBI put WTC on their webpage under Osama's crimes list if they really knew it was him that organized it? I mean, it surely must be a bigger reason to get him than some embassies in some third world countries which have resulted in little more than 200 dead?


"See, this is where you are getting me wrong.  I'm not wanting to nuke em because I am trying to "clean" the poulation, or because I dont like them, and if you have read my posts I have also stated that innocent civilians should not be touched, however many have provided safe harbor to the enemy and as stated and agreed upon by other above, they are then no better."

You know, living in a former Soviet Union state I am far too familiar with the "liberation" concept. Soviet forces also came to "liberate" us (which they claim even to this day) and built permanent military bases here (like you guys do in Iraq, was it 11 bases or..?). They indeed "liberated" us for a few decades. Everyone who fought for independence (so-called enemies of the state) with either weapons or even were accused of thinking badly of the government or just random people were put on trains and taken away to prison camps/"work" camps and such in Siberia etc. (Oh wait, don't you guys have a similar kind of a camp in Cuba, Guantanamo Bay or what was it called? But I think that Soviet government actually bothered to make up accusations and convicted our people of something, not too sure on that one though.)
Of course they also arrested the people who harbored/helped our freedom fighters (kind of the same logic as you use). As Borat would say: "You opened my eyes, my country WAS liberated after all for all those decades by Soviet Union, praise them...NOOTT!!!!"

You see why the native people there would consider you as an occupying force and in a sense be right about it? If not entirely right.
Also your claim that after attacking Afghanistan you had troops in the region. Well, US had troops in the region since the first Gulf War making sure Iraq wouldn't get strong or whatever the reason. In addition you had military bases in Saudi Arabia which have been/are being relocated to Iraq and other bases in the region.

Never mind, after refreshing my memory, the number of those permanent bases  in Iraq is 14, not 11.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2004/040323-enduring-bases.htm

A nice read on US military bases and such in the past and almost present http://www.monthlyreview.org/0302editr.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2005/03/enduring_bases_iraq.html <--- most likely you won't believe a word they say on this one, but  just for the fun of it, I'll post it anyways

And as for the reason that "we fight terrorism there", it's actually creating terrorism there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


To whoever said that it's civilian's own fault they stay in a war zone. Well, if staying at home is good enough reason to be killed by US troops in your opinion, then I sure as hell hope you don't have kids and you won't live too long to poison other people's minds with your opinions, or go get some psychological help before it's too late...

"Only history will decide whether the "war" was right or wrong - and probably not till well after we're all gone!"
Ever heard an expression that winners make/write the history? (not sure if it is used in such words exactly for I haven't really heard it in English)


And Heero, get real. In every war there are random civilian killings/rapings whatever. Even US soldiers do it. Guess you haven't really seen much of the war footage from Vietnam. I'm pretty sure the main reason you don't see any footage similar to that from Iraq war is because of the embedding (a reporter is going along with a military unit, unlike in the old times, where he thought there was something to be reported). So obviously reporters are kept away from locations where a scandal could erupt, or that makes no sense to you? In my opinion the embedding system is only a nice way to control media and what gets reported. You may say that it is good for the war to not report all sorts of things that aren't good for the morale and support of your troops, but then again, you are fighting for freedom of information and freedom of speech and democracy and all those nice and desired things, aren't you? If you agree that those are the reasons but still say that civilian deaths and random killings and such should not be reported if they're bad for US morale or any other of that stuff, then maybe you haven't had any of those freedoms for a while over there so you wouldn't recognize the lack of them.


It is a long post already, but.
Just some extra reading if you want to get a better overview of things in that region, it can't hurt to know more;)
Or maybe you'd just like to know how much money Israel is costing you:
http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm

Well you've never seen an american news for very long Death...they dont hide much of what happens and only report bad things. Also i'd be more than glad to pay a few dollars more on stuff to help support Israel. Mostly becuase there the only middle east nation who dont want us ALL dead....

Heero: It might be the case now that the country is "liberated", but it sure wasn't so when the invasion began and was still going on with reporters only embedded with US military units.
And by bad things I mean the cases like in Vietnam where US soldiers torched a village and killed civilians etc.

wow this thread is still alive

heres the basic's

This is a Greatly reduced version of the Iraq war

 so im sitting  here playing my computer and a egg hits my window, i wipe it off and go out and throw a carton of egg's at the culprit's house, now, my sister tells me my neighbour has a firecracker in his house, ( even though i have probably 10k+ roman candles in my house) . so now i have the right to break into his house, beat down his family, install the cat as head honcho of the house, and occupy it for a few years, not only that i invite 10 or so friends to come occupy it aswell, while i am stealing cable from there house( which annoyingly they light on fire when i invaded). now, being bored i allow the original owners of my house sit ungaurded in a room and make a plan to kill me and my friends occupying there house ..

this may be a stupid way of putting it but this is illegal to do.

what gives america the right to do it? they still havent found WMD

sry for the uhm extreme statement uhm i dont refer to everyone
 he people i refer to are some ppl most likely never seen a muslim who dont know what they are talking about and seem to be so certain about alot of this.

O reilly? Oh really?

uhm i hear no solution from u eiher  :D

or do i ? oh the solution is tell other ppl to think and find the solution.(blame?)

"I don't support Bush nor the war in Iraq, but he was kind of faced with a situation and did what he thought was best. For whatever reasons he had at that time."

Situation was what? We have fed so much false intelligence info to the public that now we just have to go to war?:)
And yeah, I just love the attitude that "what's done is done, let's just forget it and not be mad at Bush & co and try to think what to do with Iraq now...". That's some genuine bs...no offence there but yeah. Why not use the same attitude after 9/11 and just start rebuilding instead of going to kill people that had nothing to do with it...

I mean, come on, I'm not gonna say the evil dictator's name here (no, I don't mean Saddam, although he would apply too), but most of the murderers and other criminals also make decisions and do what they think/feel is best for whatever reasons they have at that time. Why make them go to jail or give them death sentence? Why are they different? "Come on, forget about the murder, let's just try and get some solutions to make this situation work..."
Yup, just gotta love that attitude ;)
Too bad it only seems to work on some occasions only for some people...

Lol

Whether or not Saddam ever had WMDs...

he sure doesn't now.

As someone else once said, with all the lies about Iraq... I just hope there's really oil there!

we dont

Racist!

jk