MidnightQ4 wrote:Yes that's what he is saying. Let's just clear the air here:
1. We invaded a country that WAS a threat. We didn't invade a country that was not a threat. Based on our intelligence and our best understanding of the situation at the time, and the fact that Iraq was not cooperating with UN inspectors in any way, that means they were a threat by definition. So to say they were not a threat is simply false. Everyone in the UN agreed they were a threat, or else we would not have sent UN inspectors to Iraq to assess the situation!!! OMFG it's so obvious! So let's not call it invading a sovereign, non-threatening country cause that's nonsense.
The country was not a threat to US - nor to anyone but its own people. Everyone in the UN did not agree they were a threat -- sanctions were placed on Iraq because of their invasion of Kuwait, and UN weapons inspectors were sent in to make sure they destroyed all non-conventional weapons. Inspectors and our own intelligence services said that yes, they did destroy everything they had that was of any significance.
That testimony which was contradictory to the administration's stance, was not provided to Congress or the public, but instead we were given forged documents, aluminum tubes and "unmanned aerial vehicles," which were all completely fabricated.
MidnightQ4 wrote:2. So far as the "needing weapons to defend themselves" arguement goes. The real message we are sending is that if you try to develop these weapons, that is what will cause your country to be invaded, so don't do it. Otherwise if you have nothing to hide and cooperate with the UN inspectors, you have nothing to worry about. That is the message that we sent loud and clear. And yes I think North Korea and the other countries got that message. The next time we send UN inspectors somewhere evil dictators are going to think twice about fucking around with them. Because we made it perfectly clear what the result of that will be.
No, Iraq doesn't have any WMDs -- the real message we are sending with this war is "We don't care if you have WMDs or not, we will invade you if our president decides we should - and without consulting any experts if he doesn't want to." I thought you said this war had nothing to do with WMDs though? Didn't you just say that?
MidnightQ4 wrote:The thing is, you are failing to look at it from the long term point of view, or really any point of view other than a few people who are too stupid to not be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Seriously about that whole Fallugia thing, we told them we were coming and that anyone who didn't want to die needed to get the fuck out. So if anyone got burned up then it's their own fault for living amidst the insurgents. Guilty by association.
Now this is a very important point I'm going to make so I want you to read carefully:
Dropping nukes on Japan was imo the worst thing we ever had to do, but it was the right decision to overall save lives. However you would think that today Japan would hate our guts to this day for doing that. But they don't, Japan loves us. Why? Because we helped them rebuild their country, just like we are doing with Iraq.
Imagine Iraq will be like Japen in 30 years and love us for freeing them from the tyrany of Saddam, freedom from sanctions which starve their people because Saddam doesn't give a flying fuck, freedom from being raped and killed because they don't go along with Saddam's wishes. How could they not like us and thank us for helping them out so much? Ya they might hate us now, but in the future they will change their minds when they see how much better it is for them. When they have a thriving economy, with free trade and lots of jobs, they can thank the U.S. for putting them in that place.
Not to mention, when other countries see how well Iraq is doing thanks to us, they will want to do the same thing. So eventually it will change the whole area of the world to be more like Europe where everyone gets along and are not worried about who's going to attack who next.
The problem with that scenario, is that it is quickly becoming obvious even to people who wholeheartedly supported this war, that the scenario you are painting is not reality. There is nothing to suggest that we are rebuilding Iraq, or making things better for them in any recognizable way whatsoever. Next spring we will have been there for 3 years, and things are getting worse instead of better. We are over there actively making things worse. Rebuilding has been sidelined to pay for security because politicians are getting murdered daily, along with everyone else. Can you cite any specific reasons why you believe what you do? Not Japan, because that is a different country, different people, different circumstances. We didn't occupy Japan this way. I mean real, hard reasons specific to Iraq. What have you seen that makes you think things are looking up over there, or are going to due to our military presence? You don't believe it just because it happened that way in Japan do you?
midnightQ4 wrote:Well let's wait till push comes to shove and then see what Iran does. When we threaten to go in and remove the regime we'll see if they stand up to us then. That may sound like a cocky arrogant attitude, but you have to realize that it is the world as a whole that wants to prevent Iran from building nukes, not just the U.S.
Of course the whole world wants to prevent Iran from building nukes. But Israel and the US are the only countries in the world screaming that Iran is even trying to produce nukes. With the exception of Britain, it sounds just like the lead up to the Iraq war. And if you believe for a second that Iran would back down when "push comes to shove" then you aren't being honest with yourself. Every country in the world right now knows that our military is breaking its back in Iraq -- our own commanders have announced it publicly, so it must be pretty bad, eh -- not even fucking Argentina is scared to take us on militarily if we try to invade them. Sure, we have a massive amount of good people who will sign up and destroy some foreign ass if someone tries to invade us, but that's not quite the same, is it? Like Rummy said, "You go to war with the Army you have," and the one we have right now is gradually turning into one that doesn't scare anybody. And you can thank the Iraq war for that.
midnightQ4 wrote:Planting bases? Paying them less for oil? Oil is a world market my friend. If the price of crude is $50 a barrel, well that's the price of crude. Sure some people might work out a deal once in a while to get X barrels for Y price, but I don't buy the idea that we are getting special favors based on strong arm tactics.
Have you ever talked to anybody outside the US? :icon27:
midnightQ4 wrote:The only people we are killing are the insurgents and those that live amoungst them. I don't feel sorry for anyone killed in Fallugia, sorry but I just don't. They were hiding the enemy and living with them, therefore they are insurgents themselves.
Yea, those children who got shot in the back as they were running with white flags in their hands were hiding the enemy!!! :icon27:
midnightQ4 wrote:Because, again, you are looking so short term. You really need to stop that. In the long term, to stop terrorism we have to change the mindset of people overall. Basically we have to wake up the people over there and get them to realize that these insurgents really are the enemy so that they will not have anywhere to hide. Terrorists only exist because countries allow them to setup shop in their land.
Now you're using your head! So let's stop turning Iraq into the place that breeds terrorists. :icon27:
