262 replies to this topic

[Grateful_soldier]

whether or not I predicted bush would be elected or not. lol. That is the democracy 2,000 of our soldiers have died for.
RR

Well, atleast we have come to the agreement that they have died for democracy, died for a democracy where people can freely elect their leaders. Thats what the United States military is all about, we have always said that we will help any oppresed people fight for freedom, atleast our president has the balls to stick to that philosophy!

[Hippie3]

the winners' names haven't even been formally announced yet,
let alone any government formed.
the simple truth is that rodger has no idea
who won any of the elections in iraq.
he doesn't even know who the next prime minister will be,
because no one does,
yet.
:lol:
don't let him bluff ya.

[Grateful_soldier]

Well, all I can really say to that is that if you really believe that this war has anything to do with Bush getting his hands on their oil, your an idiot. As far as oil goes, it probably does play a part though, Think about it, our country depends heavily on oil, middle eastern oil. Wouldnt it be in the best interest of our country, a matter of national security even, to assure that the oil we rely on stays in the hands of a stable, reliable government?

[Raul del Angelo]

The US was solely responsible for the withholding of water and sewage parts and chemicals. The sanctions allowed the US to approve or reject any hardware or chemicals going into Iraq and the US tactic was to let the paperwork sit which stopped the flow of materials. The US is responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths of children. Quotes from Air Force Generals show that it was our intention to conduct war in this manner. Our country used our power to conduct war against children.

All the objections that you raise take more time than it takes to use Google, do some searches and learn the truth. Its hard to take responsiblilty for electing leaders that would do such things. If we don't learn the truth and spread the truth and stop such outragous use of our countries power then we accept the karma for so many murders.

Perhaps it would make you feel better to know that this is a plan that Clinton approved and continued but so did both Bushes.

Raul

[golly]

And the beat goes on:eusa_snoo

[Hippie3]

:lol:

note how my point was dodged-
no denial of the truth,
just ignored
:lol:
not one of you anti-war 'critics' have posted hard evidence to show
that your claims are true,
instead you just keep repeating yourselves
as if saying something
over and over will make it true.
:lol:
this thread served its' purpose,
i'm quite certain no one here knew
that we lost 2400 fewer men last year
than we did the year before.

further grateful soldier provided eyewitness accounts
from inside iraq , as an american soldier.

and raul-
your claim that clinton approved the 'plan'
does not work as you intend.
i couldn't care less about geo. bush,
that is not why i take my position.
you are just wrong to claim the us bears responsibility
no matter which president initiated the policies.
saddam fired the first shots.
you cannot dodge that fact.

[Hippie3]

Provided they have oil.
RR

another lie.
we fought the germans, twice
but they had no oil.
we fought the japanese and the italians too,
neither had any oil.
we supported the koreans, the philippines too,
no oil there.
we supported the vietnamese,
no oil there.
we supported the bosnians,
no oil there.
we tried to help the somalis, ethiopia-
no oil there.
we are in afghanistan,
no oil there either.

in fact
iraq is the ONLY oil-rich nation we have ever
tried to install a democracy in by force-
there are NO other cases
as rodger incorrectly implies.
yet another 'point' based on deception.
:lol:

[Hippie3]

the congress of the united states voted to authorize the use of force against iraq, so your pathetic attempt to label it as just bush's war is laughable.
the american public validated its' support for the war by re-electing bush.
hard facts even harder for you to swallow.

bush invaded afghansitan too and there was no oil there
so your point is still invalid.
:lol:

[Hippie3]

What are you trying to do here? Blame saddam for 911 again? :lol:
RR

get a clue rodger.
you know what i'm talking about
but let me repeat
s l o w l y this time-
saddam invaded kuwait
which is the reason all this happened.
if not for his actions
there would have been
no sanctions, no inspectors,
no no-fly zones,
no american army in kuwait & saudi arabia,
etc.

9/11 is just one day and not the subject of this thread at all.
comprende ?
you are the one trying to confuse the issue by playing games.
i'm talking about saddam and iraq,
not 9/11.
got it ?

[Grateful_soldier]

I really wish I was going to have the chance to continue with this thread, I have to go away for a couple weeks, maybe a month. Hopfully this conversation will still be going on when i get home! I should be leaving in the morning, I am waiting for a bed at the treatment facility but they say tomorrow looks good. Take care, ---Mike

[Hippie3]

desert storm did not end with a peace treaty-
all that happened was a
conditional cease-fire.

the cease-fire laid the legal foundations
for all subsequent conditions that were
imposed on iraq by the UN-
as you well know
we did not invade iraq because of 9-11,
neither did congress authorize force against iraq
because of 9/11.

rather
the entire legal basis for war
was built
on saddam's failure to comply with
the conditions of the cease fire that stopped our offensive operations against iraq-
notably the condition that required him
to account for all the materials, documents, personnel, etc.
from his WMD and conventional weapons programs.

the UN inspections
were a direct result of desert storm,
and saddam's failure to comply
was the direct cause for the 2nd invasion,
operation iraqi freedom.

the whole world watched the UN security council
cite saddam for his failure to comply
and threaten dire consequences
if he did not immediately and fully comply.

he did not,
according the the report of the inspectors.

therefore
he was held to be in material breach of the
cease fire
which was then terminated
and our offensive operations resumed.

this current war is a direct result
of saddam's invasion of kuwait,
we simply would not be in the situation
if saddam had not waged war on his neighbors.

the only relevance of 9-11 is the
psychological effect of the attacks
on the american public,
the congress and the president,
which caused them to
re-evaluate the priority assigned to
a threat perceived
not just by bush
but by most of the world's intelligence agencies, the un,
and previous administrations and congresses
which had already targeted iraq in many resolutions.

[Hippie3]

i tend to agree.
the sunni really have little choice in the long run
as the shia with the kurds
have enough power to crush them in time.
but you know as well as i do
that one slowly, cautiously disengages from
a fight with a dangerous enemy.
we cannot simply
run for the border.
within a few years,
i'd say by the end of the bush administration
the us will leave iraq to its' fate
as we'll be too busy
with iran.