Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2004-09-21 at 13:04:27
Yes yes, I know we already have a topic on Iraq, but it was pretty specific in what it was about. So, I'm making a slightly more ambiguous one.
At the moment, as you should know, the situation is Iraq is one of chaos. American hostage Eugene Armstrong has his head sawn off yesterday, and today could be the turn of the other American hostage and the British hostage to suffer the same fate. This spate of kidnappings, including two Italian women who have been 'sold' to the man personally responsible for the beheadings, has become a real issue.
Is there any way to stop these kidnappings? Should we pull out of Iraq and let the people sort it out for themselves? Is it Al-Qaeda that is responsible for the sudden increase in violence?
There are many issues raised by the situation in Iraq. Iraqis were complaining of American heavy-handedness last year. Has this heavy-handedness caused widespread discontent and revolt perhaps? I heard that the dealing with the radical Shia cleric, Al Sadr, caused outrage in previously peaceful areas of Iraq such as the south. These areas are still suffering from periodic uprisings.
To answer my first question, I believe that the only stance to take against these kidnappings is to stand firm. Any sign of weakness will be quickly picked up upon by the hostage takers. The result? More kidnappings and more murders.
Secondly, I think that pulling out of Iraq would be a big mistake, just like going into Iraq was a big mistake.
You see if we stay put, we will suffer more casualties and people will moan at us to cut our losses and get out of there, but we have a chance to stabilise the situation and will end up being heroes if Iraq eventualy becomes peaceful.
If we pull out now, our governments will take flak from other countries, who will look down on us with scorn because we failed to see things through to a conclusion. Right-wingers will ask why on Earth did we pull out when we still had a chance of stabilising the country.
One last problem that would rear its ugly head if we were to pull out is this:
A lack of foreign troops to keep Iraq reasonably stable would result in the complete disintegration of the interim government as a result of insurgency and less than 15% public support, leaving a very dangerous power vacuum. In the period that follows there would be civil war and a scramble for power, which would likely be won by the organisation that most badly wants us out of Iraq: Al Qaeda.
Do we want the most evil terrorists in the world to be in absolute control of a country? I think not.
I can't really respond to the other questions right now, they're difficult to answer accurately.
I will say that I believe that Al-Qaeda is a major factor in the increased frequency of kidnappings for a number of reasons though.
At the moment, as you should know, the situation is Iraq is one of chaos. American hostage Eugene Armstrong has his head sawn off yesterday, and today could be the turn of the other American hostage and the British hostage to suffer the same fate. This spate of kidnappings, including two Italian women who have been 'sold' to the man personally responsible for the beheadings, has become a real issue.
Is there any way to stop these kidnappings? Should we pull out of Iraq and let the people sort it out for themselves? Is it Al-Qaeda that is responsible for the sudden increase in violence?
There are many issues raised by the situation in Iraq. Iraqis were complaining of American heavy-handedness last year. Has this heavy-handedness caused widespread discontent and revolt perhaps? I heard that the dealing with the radical Shia cleric, Al Sadr, caused outrage in previously peaceful areas of Iraq such as the south. These areas are still suffering from periodic uprisings.
To answer my first question, I believe that the only stance to take against these kidnappings is to stand firm. Any sign of weakness will be quickly picked up upon by the hostage takers. The result? More kidnappings and more murders.
Secondly, I think that pulling out of Iraq would be a big mistake, just like going into Iraq was a big mistake.
You see if we stay put, we will suffer more casualties and people will moan at us to cut our losses and get out of there, but we have a chance to stabilise the situation and will end up being heroes if Iraq eventualy becomes peaceful.
If we pull out now, our governments will take flak from other countries, who will look down on us with scorn because we failed to see things through to a conclusion. Right-wingers will ask why on Earth did we pull out when we still had a chance of stabilising the country.
One last problem that would rear its ugly head if we were to pull out is this:
A lack of foreign troops to keep Iraq reasonably stable would result in the complete disintegration of the interim government as a result of insurgency and less than 15% public support, leaving a very dangerous power vacuum. In the period that follows there would be civil war and a scramble for power, which would likely be won by the organisation that most badly wants us out of Iraq: Al Qaeda.
Do we want the most evil terrorists in the world to be in absolute control of a country? I think not.
I can't really respond to the other questions right now, they're difficult to answer accurately.
I will say that I believe that Al-Qaeda is a major factor in the increased frequency of kidnappings for a number of reasons though.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Andy on 2004-09-21 at 15:27:35
Well, America has the means to go to Iraq and completely :censored:ing demolish all terrorism there. For some reason, all the countries in the world dont want to wipe out terrorism all at once. It could be done, there is no place for them to hide if everyplace wants to besafe from terrorism.
TIP OF THE DAY: don't go to Iraq.
TIP OF THE DAY: don't go to Iraq.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by €Hawk€ on 2004-09-21 at 17:28:24
I thought the reason we went to Iraq was to overthrow saddam and destroy the weapons of mass destruction. Why are we still there?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2004-09-21 at 17:36:42
To prevent the country from collapsing completely.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-09-21 at 18:12:16
huh..I thought it was because of oil ... I've been wrong before so this might be wrong 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TSoldier_Wol[f] on 2004-09-21 at 18:29:32
I don't get it. Why are other countries are trying to making Nuclear Warfare? They should know. When the Americans find out then they'll go over where ever the :censored:ing country is at.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2004-09-22 at 17:36:10
We don't actually know if other countries have nuclear weapons research programmes or not. Ok, so North Korea blatantly does, as the mushroom cloud over their country last week showed, but America isn't going to do anything about North Korea because of their powerful neighbours, China.
Britain and France are the only European countries with nuclear weapons. Germany and Italy, with their industrial and financial power, could easily develop nukes in a matter of a few years or even months but have never expressed any interest in doing so.
Besides, this is about Iraq.
In response to Cheeze, yes I think that oil was a factor in us going into Iraq and our continued presence there. I'm sure that you want fuel prices to drop though, which is exactly what the securing of a stable supply of oil from Iraq will cause.
Britain and France are the only European countries with nuclear weapons. Germany and Italy, with their industrial and financial power, could easily develop nukes in a matter of a few years or even months but have never expressed any interest in doing so.
Besides, this is about Iraq.
In response to Cheeze, yes I think that oil was a factor in us going into Iraq and our continued presence there. I'm sure that you want fuel prices to drop though, which is exactly what the securing of a stable supply of oil from Iraq will cause.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2004-09-22 at 18:49:39
Personally... I think Iraq is a lost case, seriously. I know it's just plain stupid to say that (and cruel), but USA should just remove their troups there and stop any more hostages hits and suicide guys (sorry... lack of english vocab.).
The best that will happen is that Iraq will (once again) fall into dispair and everyone would just start moving away.
On another side, if USA gets done with that, they'll have to get occupied with another country after this one; Araby, Korea, etc... Either ways, it's always gonna end up in bad ways, so why bother.
We're normal people, we basicaly can't do a thing for any of this. The whole conflict is about a President, and some suicidal
s killing random soldiers here and there.
The best that will happen is that Iraq will (once again) fall into dispair and everyone would just start moving away.
On another side, if USA gets done with that, they'll have to get occupied with another country after this one; Araby, Korea, etc... Either ways, it's always gonna end up in bad ways, so why bother.
We're normal people, we basicaly can't do a thing for any of this. The whole conflict is about a President, and some suicidal
s killing random soldiers here and there.Report, edit, etc...Posted by €Hawk€ on 2004-09-22 at 22:07:20
Every day I hear that a few soldiers were killed and many injured, and it seems all the soldiers are doing there is dying. Those terrorists know they can't beat the U.N.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2004-09-22 at 22:41:41
QUOTE(CaptainWill @ Sep 22 2004, 04:36 PM)
We don't actually know if other countries have nuclear weapons research programmes or not. Ok, so North Korea blatantly does, as the mushroom cloud over their country last week showed, but America isn't going to do anything about North Korea because of their powerful neighbours, China.
In response to Cheeze, yes I think that oil was a factor in us going into Iraq and our continued presence there. I'm sure that you want fuel prices to drop though, which is exactly what the securing of a stable supply of oil from Iraq will cause.
[right][snapback]77349[/snapback][/right]
In response to Cheeze, yes I think that oil was a factor in us going into Iraq and our continued presence there. I'm sure that you want fuel prices to drop though, which is exactly what the securing of a stable supply of oil from Iraq will cause.
[right][snapback]77349[/snapback][/right]
no, bush won't attack north korea because he is afraid of them using nuclear weapons OR... because they don't have oil. espcially true since china is allied with US not north korea (maybe them but I know US for sure so blah)
I do not want the fuel prices to drop if it would allow Iraq a more stable economy since Oil will defeintly give them more money. if you take money (oil) from an already poor state (iraq), then you're just being like monarchies. and what happened to them? they fell. usa claims to be a democracy, but it's not using it's "democracy policies" to help other countries...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TSoldier_Wol[f] on 2004-09-23 at 08:53:21
QUOTE(Mongoose @ Sep 22 2004, 09:07 PM)
Every day I hear that a few soldiers were killed and many injured, and it seems all the soldiers are doing there is dying. Those terrorists know they can't beat the U.N.
[right][snapback]77505[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]77505[/snapback][/right]
Ya, If the :censored:ing U.N. then the Terrorists will have to give up, Cause then there mine be alot of Troops Partoling everywhere. It just looks to me that the USA is only there to take out Saddam and takes some Oil. Since our Prices when up a few months ago!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2004-09-23 at 08:54:03
"The power of the country is to DO the opposite of what they publicly SAY they will do"
BTW the gaz price is once again reaching astronomic purposes... Two days ago, it was nearing 82ish CAN, and by today, it's now going for 93... It seriously is annoying.
BTW the gaz price is once again reaching astronomic purposes... Two days ago, it was nearing 82ish CAN, and by today, it's now going for 93... It seriously is annoying.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2004-09-23 at 13:44:18
Fuel prices here are absolutely sky-high. I think it's the equivalent of $4/gallon.
Oh, and you have to consider the consequences of America and the UK pulling out of Iraq. How will the people of those countries react? How will other powerful countries react? What will happen in Iraq?
Oh, and you have to consider the consequences of America and the UK pulling out of Iraq. How will the people of those countries react? How will other powerful countries react? What will happen in Iraq?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by NeoNightmareX on 2004-09-23 at 14:46:08
whoa $4?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?........!?
i think that the war is right, i mean saddam bought huge tins.....used for nuclear weapons. he had plans on how to build.....nuclear weapons. and he supposedly had scientists building.....nuclear weapons. and finally who do u think saddam woulve sold the weapons to, al queda, most of the countries in the mid east hate america, like most of the world its a no brainer on who the weapons were to be used on.
besides Bush knew that al queda did 9/11 not iraq, but when u declare war, u usually do it on a country, not a group so Bush attacked the person most suspicious of giving more weapons to al queda
i think that the war is right, i mean saddam bought huge tins.....used for nuclear weapons. he had plans on how to build.....nuclear weapons. and he supposedly had scientists building.....nuclear weapons. and finally who do u think saddam woulve sold the weapons to, al queda, most of the countries in the mid east hate america, like most of the world its a no brainer on who the weapons were to be used on.
besides Bush knew that al queda did 9/11 not iraq, but when u declare war, u usually do it on a country, not a group so Bush attacked the person most suspicious of giving more weapons to al queda
Report, edit, etc...Posted by @:@ on 2004-09-23 at 15:12:15
Terrorists will attack us as long as America supports Israel.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by .matrix//Merovingian on 2004-09-23 at 19:47:42
QUOTE(Mongoose @ Sep 22 2004, 07:07 PM)
Every day I hear that a few soldiers were killed and many injured, and it seems all the soldiers are doing there is dying. Those terrorists know they can't beat the U.N.
[right][snapback]77505[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]77505[/snapback][/right]
The United Nations was actually AGAINST the war in Iraq. Get your facts straight. The "coalition" in Iraq is just America, Great Britain, and a bunch of other countries with little or no military influence.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2004-09-23 at 21:00:18
Don't get anything wrong here, USA couldn't care less about UN... They're just a bunch of peace-keepers which most countries listen to cuz they're actually right...
USA does what is best for them, and put it on the world's shoulders.
USA does what is best for them, and put it on the world's shoulders.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by MillenniumArmy on 2004-09-23 at 21:47:30
This whole issue over Iraq has some bad aspects to it yet there are some good aspects to it.
First of all, reason we invaded Iraq is to make sure Saddam wont abuse his power by launching weapons of mass destruction on anyone. See if we hadn't of done this, i bet israel would probably have been blown up already. So we're just doing this to make sure that wouldnt happen.
Besides, Saddam IS a bad leader and he MUST be removed from power, even if he has no weapons of mass destruction. Now we've accomplished our mission.
With Saddam out of power Iraq is a weak nation, vulnerable to anyone so that's y we're still there. WE're trying to help Iraq develop a strong nation but the iraqi people still continue to attack us for absolutely no damn reason other than the fact that they hate us. But hey! We're just trying to help them
But yes there were many things i hated about this war. I didn't like the fact how 1000+ soldiers have died trying to help iraq and how much money we put into this.
So in conclusion, i really think this War isn't Bad or Good or nething. It's happened and its still happening; we can't stop now. All we can do is just see what God has coming up...
First of all, reason we invaded Iraq is to make sure Saddam wont abuse his power by launching weapons of mass destruction on anyone. See if we hadn't of done this, i bet israel would probably have been blown up already. So we're just doing this to make sure that wouldnt happen.
Besides, Saddam IS a bad leader and he MUST be removed from power, even if he has no weapons of mass destruction. Now we've accomplished our mission.
With Saddam out of power Iraq is a weak nation, vulnerable to anyone so that's y we're still there. WE're trying to help Iraq develop a strong nation but the iraqi people still continue to attack us for absolutely no damn reason other than the fact that they hate us. But hey! We're just trying to help them
But yes there were many things i hated about this war. I didn't like the fact how 1000+ soldiers have died trying to help iraq and how much money we put into this.
So in conclusion, i really think this War isn't Bad or Good or nething. It's happened and its still happening; we can't stop now. All we can do is just see what God has coming up...
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2004-09-24 at 10:48:48
QUOTE(MillenniumArmy @ Sep 24 2004, 02:47 AM)
This whole issue over Iraq has some bad aspects to it yet there are some good aspects to it.
First of all, reason we invaded Iraq is to make sure Saddam wont abuse his power by launching weapons of mass destruction on anyone. See if we hadn't of done this, i bet israel would probably have been blown up already. So we're just doing this to make sure that wouldnt happen.
Besides, Saddam IS a bad leader and he MUST be removed from power, even if he has no weapons of mass destruction. Now we've accomplished our mission.
With Saddam out of power Iraq is a weak nation, vulnerable to anyone so that's y we're still there. WE're trying to help Iraq develop a strong nation but the iraqi people still continue to attack us for absolutely no damn reason other than the fact that they hate us. But hey! We're just trying to help them
But yes there were many things i hated about this war. I didn't like the fact how 1000+ soldiers have died trying to help iraq and how much money we put into this.
So in conclusion, i really think this War isn't Bad or Good or nething. It's happened and its still happening; we can't stop now. All we can do is just see what God has coming up...
[right][snapback]78002[/snapback][/right]
First of all, reason we invaded Iraq is to make sure Saddam wont abuse his power by launching weapons of mass destruction on anyone. See if we hadn't of done this, i bet israel would probably have been blown up already. So we're just doing this to make sure that wouldnt happen.
Besides, Saddam IS a bad leader and he MUST be removed from power, even if he has no weapons of mass destruction. Now we've accomplished our mission.
With Saddam out of power Iraq is a weak nation, vulnerable to anyone so that's y we're still there. WE're trying to help Iraq develop a strong nation but the iraqi people still continue to attack us for absolutely no damn reason other than the fact that they hate us. But hey! We're just trying to help them
But yes there were many things i hated about this war. I didn't like the fact how 1000+ soldiers have died trying to help iraq and how much money we put into this.
So in conclusion, i really think this War isn't Bad or Good or nething. It's happened and its still happening; we can't stop now. All we can do is just see what God has coming up...
[right][snapback]78002[/snapback][/right]
You realise that the only chemical weapons that we found were some bottles of Tide under Saddam's sink, right? He didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. The UN inspected the country and didn't find anything. We inspected it after conquering it and...didn't find anything.
Saddam was a bad dictator, I agree with you, but there are many other dictatorships out there, some of them worse. Many African countries would be good examples. So why did we attack him?
The reason that we're still there is to stop the situation in Iraq from mushrooming into a full civil war before a democracy is installed. If we leave now then the interim government will collapse and Al Qaeda will come to power, which is not a nice thought.
And you do realise that it is Al Qaeda responsible for most attacks in Iraq, don't you? They're trying to make us leave so they can seize power.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Dark Templar on 2004-09-24 at 15:15:32
QUOTE(CaptainWill @ Sep 24 2004, 08:48 AM)
Saddam was a bad dictator, I agree with you, but there are many other dictatorships out there, some of them worse. Many African countries would be good examples. So why did we attack him?
[right][snapback]78194[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]78194[/snapback][/right]
What were we supposed to do? Put the names of all the evil dictators in a hat and close our eyes? He has been a thorn in the world's side for many decades, and he had been in power, terrorizing his country for too long. Sure, some other dictators should be taken out, such as Fidel Castro, but Saddam needed to be taken out, and he needed to be taken out as soon as possible.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2004-09-24 at 16:16:07
Castro is a fairly benign dictator actually.
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe 'Prime Minister'), who rigged his elections in 2002 has been in power for longer than Saddam was. He also initiated a campaign of violence against Zimbabwe's white minority - seizing their land without compensation and often murdering them. Nothing was done about that except finally making economic sanctions in 2003 which have ruined one of Africa's most prosperous countries.
Saddam wasn't going to be able to do much damage to the rest of the world, but he did like to persecute his own people. It's hard to say why we invaded Iraq this time around.
Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe 'Prime Minister'), who rigged his elections in 2002 has been in power for longer than Saddam was. He also initiated a campaign of violence against Zimbabwe's white minority - seizing their land without compensation and often murdering them. Nothing was done about that except finally making economic sanctions in 2003 which have ruined one of Africa's most prosperous countries.
Saddam wasn't going to be able to do much damage to the rest of the world, but he did like to persecute his own people. It's hard to say why we invaded Iraq this time around.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by .matrix//Merovingian on 2004-09-24 at 19:17:51
QUOTE(Dark Templar @ Sep 24 2004, 12:15 PM)
What were we supposed to do? Put the names of all the evil dictators in a hat and close our eyes? He has been a thorn in the world's side for many decades, and he had been in power, terrorizing his country for too long. Sure, some other dictators should be taken out, such as Fidel Castro, but Saddam needed to be taken out, and he needed to be taken out as soon as possible.
[right][snapback]78243[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]78243[/snapback][/right]
I agree with CaptainWill; Fidel Castro isn't that evil. He hasn't done anything to piss us off, unlike Saddam, so why should we mind him? And you know why Bush hasn't gone after Robert Mugabe and the other African dictators? They don't have any natural resources, like oil. Bush was in for the oil and nothing else other than his vendetta against Saddam.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Areneous on 2004-09-28 at 20:21:32
Wow. CaptainWill, I'm impressed.
I read this disscussion, eager to badmouth Dubya and state my opinions, but after reading your blurb, I was genuinely impressed.
That's got to be some of the levelest thinking I've heard in a long time. You're right, of course that going into Iraq was a bad idea, and you've convinced me that pulling out is not the best plan of action. Standing firm is a good choice, as long as the US pays close attention to the phrase 'peacekeeping force' - They are there to keep the peace, to hold back violence. Not to retaliate, not to force their will upon others.
I read this disscussion, eager to badmouth Dubya and state my opinions, but after reading your blurb, I was genuinely impressed.
That's got to be some of the levelest thinking I've heard in a long time. You're right, of course that going into Iraq was a bad idea, and you've convinced me that pulling out is not the best plan of action. Standing firm is a good choice, as long as the US pays close attention to the phrase 'peacekeeping force' - They are there to keep the peace, to hold back violence. Not to retaliate, not to force their will upon others.