rs_al

You mean before september 2001 after september 2001. As in, history up until september 2001 did not include these events, but they were easy to slip in afterwards.

It's like in back to the future 2, where marty goes back to the alternate 1985 where Biff runs the world, you know? Only without the use of a Delorian.

leejo

Are you serious? You must be borrowing Biff's brain if you don't recall the copius discussion about Saddam Hussein's support for Palestinian suicide bombers during the 90s. It was no secret. He gave their families $47k each. In public ceremonies. I saw them on the news way back when.

Google it. Jesus.

leejo

Still no word from what's-her-name. Drops this stinky fart of a thread on us then hops off the elevator. Nice.

mightyfee

How is it that 100,000 dead Iraqis are "free"?

__________________
But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore.
We're already overcrowded from your dirty little war.

TheFeniX

Aside: Some would argue that death is the only "true" freedom.

__________________

Buck Fush

OK. Guess I didn't read that properly. You said "Palestinian bombers". I got news for you. If Mexico invades America and we're left without an Army, I'm signing up to be the first one to march into Tijuana with explosives on my back. No, I'm not trying to act brave, just make a point. We support Israel, and to a lot of Muslim nations that looks like the Christians supporting the Jews. Who are we to say that Palestinian bombers aren't just? We supported the Taliban. You think they fought with any kind of honor? Honestly, with the crap that comes out of your mouth I think you might be an incurrable Republican. I don't care one iota if you take me seriously or not.

Cing, I know I touched on this once already, but the more I thought about this, the more I have to say. You done gone and hurt my southern pride. Are you a true American? How can you say Americans don't understand freedom? I don't know that a day of school passed without being reminded at least once of the great people who died for my freedom. We don't have a generation alive in America today that hasn't been touched by the war for freedom. Korea. Vietnam. Desert Sheild. And the most recent occupation. Americans believe so much in freedom that, to this day, all it takes is a thinly veiled lie by a president to make our youths volunteer to go fight for some one else's freedom. Americans know exactly what freedom is about because we fought for it and earned it. It is the Iraqi's who will never truely understand freedom because it was handed to them on a silver platter.

luna

Oh, stop your whining. I've been here- I have just been enjoying watching the lot of you discuss this. I posted it now because believe it or not, I just heard about it recently.

As for my opinion, it's still not entirely formed yet. Some of the main things I see though is that it should be no surprise that Bush was setting up to invade Iraq. We have been building up to this climax of events since the early 1990s. Clinton was ordering bombs dropped in Iraq- it has long been the objective of the US to push for a regime change. I didn't find this to be new information.

Regarding the statement that the US was "fixing" data to support the war, I think this needs clarification. By fixing, what does this guy mean? If I'm fixing dinner, it doesn't mean that I am lying- it means that I am gathering the needed ingredients to make a meal. If they needed to "fix" the data to support the assertion that Iraq had WMD's, why did they go on to consider the possibility of Saddam ordering the use of WMD's at the start of the war? If the data for WMD's needed to be "fixed", there would be no need to worry about him using them at all, right?

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

CingularDuality

Intentionally killing civilian men, women and children? Yeah, that's just...

I'm most certainly not a Republican. If you want to label me, I prefer "nationalistic libertarian".
When did you fight for your freedom?

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Buck Fush

OUR bombs in the "Shock and Awe" didn't kill innocents just as indescriminantly?


Only the last paragraph was directed at you. Everything else is for IceCold.


Desert Storm. You?

Pokerface

Point of order: unless my memory is failing me, Cing *IS* IceCold.

__________________

NS Game Officer. TF2 Admin. BF2 Admin / Scripter. PM with issues.
Tempus: Pokerface is nailing it right on the head. Everyone who is arguing against him is simply arguing against reality.
<anmuzi> it is not permitted to have privacy or anonymity
<LazyEye> yeah when I play on TG the server digs though my trash
Arm yourself with knowledge: TG NS TF2 BF2

SmokingTarpan

I see many problems with this conflict, more than I could list without giving myself carpal tunnel. However, here are my two biggest ones.

1) The invasion was launched on the premise of protecting the US from an eventual attack by WMD, whether nuclear/chemical/whatever. There were no WMD's found, it was a bold-faced lie. The lie is bad enough, but what's worse is the fact that when confronted with an actual WMD situation, the Bush administration does pretty much nothing. What I'm talking about is N. Korea's nuclear program. Allow me to say right up front, I am not for an invasion of N. Korea. However, I think it's pretty shameful that a "bad" government is toppled because we think they have nukes, but when another "bad" government comes out and says "yea, we're developing nukes, and you can't stop us" we suddenly develop a split-personality approach.

2) You can't give people freedom; they have to want it. Showing up and saying "hey guys, you're free!" is worthless. Had there been a revolt in process, and we showed up to help, I would have been more favorable to this whole thing. All we did is show up and force them to run a new style of government. Frankly, my personal opinion is that the majority of Iraqi people don't actually want to be free, or else I'm certain the insurgency would be over by now. I certainly don't recall pockets of resistance lingering for years after the American Revolution. All I see the people of Iraq doing is whatever we want them to until we finally leave their soil.

I support our troops, but I don't support this sham of an operation. I want our troops home safe, and right now. We are not the world police, and I don't want to sacrifice our men and women for people who don't give a damn in a conflict that doesn't affect us.

TheFeniX

There's a fine line between civilian casualties during a war when trying to destroy military targets and specifically targeting civilian targets in suicide runs.

Your line of reasoning would assume it was wrong of American and British forces to bomb Germany during the closing of WWII because we knew some civilians would die while we attempted to replace their government.

__________________

Buck Fush

Really? I see posts in this thread under both names.


When a bomb is dropped from the air, it's civilian causualties? How convienient for your argument. We've given it a different name. So if a country's army is too poor to afford the equipment necessary to drop their bombs from 10,000 ft they should just give up and surrender? I abhor suicide bombing, but unfortunately, I understand their place in this type of warfare. Civilians are targeted because these countries lack the means to attack millitary installations. Might I remind you of the night Atlanta burned? All of Atlanta was not a military target. Civilian casualties are necessary in war.

My line of reasoning? That sounds more like your line of reasoning. In WWII we didn't have precision bombs. We did what was known as carpet bombing. That means we flew over a city and dropped as many bombs as we could over businesses, houses AND schools. That sounds like targeting civilians to me. When it comes down to it, if one decides to start a war, they shouldn't get mad cause the other guy didn't play by the arbitrary rules they made up.

Buck Fush

Actually, the "insurgency" is being led by al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian leader of al-Qaeda and has nothing to do with Iraqi freedom fighters. Not to mention the fact that their numbers would actually make up a very small percentage of that country's 26 million inhabitants.

TheFeniX

It is isn't it?As in?Hell yea. This isn't BF: Desert Combat. This is real life. If you're outmatched, TS. There is nothing fair or unfair about war.

Yes they are. But when you specifically target civilians for the shock value to demoralize a stronger opponent: you lose any moral high-ground you think you may have.

If my wife died in an accidental car wreck, that would be horrible, but I wouldn't wish death upon the person who made that mistake. If someone murdered my wife intentionally: that's a completely different story.

You just said "our bombs killed civilians so that's the same as intentionally targetting civilians." Your analogy was wrong and I pointed that out.You're telling me that American troops specifically targetted schools instead of say.... a weapons factory? We'd rather bomb a bunch of kids in school than hit military targets?

Not to mention that in Afganistan and Iraq: their military routinely hid themselves in churches, hospitals, and other non-combat areas near civilians hoping we wouldn't attack them in those areas.Ideals are a good thing until real life comes into play.

You know what, I understand the arguement you're trying to make. And I almost agree with you. If you took more time on your posts and thought about your wording, you could make a much more effective arguement.

__________________