barack obama just signed bill to...

[crazytp93]

Some of the post in this thread have to be some jokes... We invaded Iraq for no reason? Does anyone not have any knowledge of what has been going on there for hundreds of years... recently it struck the WTC in the 1990's and then again in 2001. Do you guys realize what has been changed over there? Does anyone not think for one moment that some good actually did come out of the war. I'm all for Ron Paul, who wants to bring all troops home, but the war actually did good. They're now becoming a more stabilized country and at least the civil war they've been fighting for hundreds of years has taken a yield. Seriously... Bush may have been a ****ty president, but all presidents do good and he's brought some to us and Iraq. Funny thing is, we all want to criticize him for going over there, but ya know what? We've been safe now for over seven years without a terrorist attack. The men in the Army are willing to risk their lives for us. No one takes a moment to realize that. Every time I see someone in the Army, I thank them for their service. At least Iraq isn't as corrupted as some of our thoughts.

[/end_of_rant]

Non-existent threat?
I really don't know how to respond to someone who feels they were a non-existent threat...

And we didn't "put" him in charge. At that time, he was not in charge, but Iraq had already attacked a defenseless country in hopes to expend their rule and attempt to take over the Persian Gulf. Just because Hussein himself wasn't in power at that time doesn't mean their government wasn't still corrupted back then. Say we don't go over, they invade Kuwait, ect. where do we end up? Still with a crazy, dictator leader over there doing what they do best.

ita x100.

 

[BabyPiglet]

I don't necassarily blame Bush for invading Iraq, as he had the best of intentions. But all of our plans for the country have kind of gone to hell. IMO it's best to pull out now and re-evaluate/find another solution for all the injustice going on.

For you who say that the state of Iraq doesn't affect us, it does. When Al-Qaeda is over there recruiting children to be radical terrorists so they can have more of a chance of destroying our country, it becomes our business.

Sure, on the 'outside', you would think we'd need to just stop poking our noses into other country's business. But what other countries do, have a major impact on us.

 

[Axel]

Non-existent threat?
I really don't know how to respond to someone who feels they were a non-existent threat...

And we didn't "put" him in charge. At that time, he was not in charge, but Iraq had already attacked a defenseless country in hopes to expend their rule and attempt to take over the Persian Gulf. Just because Hussein himself wasn't in power at that time doesn't mean their government wasn't still corrupted back then. Say we don't go over, they invade Kuwait, ect. where do we end up? Still with a crazy, dictator leader over there doing what they do best.

A. The non-existent threat I was referring to was Russia, TYVM. Cold War, here.

B. Your history lesson of the day:

We'll start with JFK. JFK was obsessed with the third world. Lenin writes: "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" which states that the communist revolution will start in the third world and that communism wil liberate colonized third world countries. Thus, the Peace Corps was designed in order to win over the support of thrid world countries by providing aid. In 1959 in Cuba, we see Castro launch his revolution against the American puppet dictator Batista (we have had several puppet dictators in the course of our history). Thus, JFK begins to plot Castro's assasination. Through this we see the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is paranoia. Cuba (nor Russia) never made a move against us directly.


After this, JFK subtly starts to try and control Vietnam (and this is where we can really start drawing similarities between then and now). When Ho Chi Minh was originally fighting the French occupation, he said he would fight off the Japanese (WWII) after France fell (which it did) and this made him our ally. We began arming Vietnamese troops so they could fight Japan for us. This is where they got many of the weapons they used in the Vietnam war. Later, after France tries to take over Vietnam again, we enter the Geneva Accords. In which we (being everybody but Vietnam) agree to split the country along the 17th parallel. Ho Chi Minh would take control of the North while Diem (another puppet dictator) would take control of the south under the promise that in 1956 free elections would be held to choose who the people wanted to run a united country. When it becomes clear that Ho Chi Minh (a communist) would win, JFK sends in the OSS to try and turn the north against Ho Chi Minh. When that fails, the elections are cancelled completely. So, Ho Chi Minh launches a war to unite the country. Eventually this all leads to a misunderstanding at the Gulf of Tonkin that lights the way for the Vietnam War.

At the end of the war (thanks to Nixon) when Reagan comes to power, he says that it isn't enough to simply contain the communists, we must destroy them completely through force. Of course, we can't do anything directly because attacking Russia would have sparked off WWIII and thus a nuclear winter. So, we find the Somoza Family in Nucaragua. They were a vicious crime family, but they were anti-communist. When teh Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza Family in the 1980s, Reagan wanted to arm the Contras (the Somozas who survived). Unfortunately, only congress can raise funds for war and this idea is shot down. So, Reagan comes up with the idea of selling weapons abroad. We sell arms to Iran and Iraq (and this is where Saddam comes into power- he'd been on the CIA's payroll since 1959, though. He was our ally- it was all a plot to get rid of the Communists in Iraq and Iran) thus, we have sold them the weapons they're using to fight us now. In Afghanistan at the same time, the Russians invade. We can't do anything to stop them because it would start WWIII (but really, we have no reason to stop them- we have no interests in Afghanistan). We arm the Muhajadeen ("the holy warriors") who beat the Soviets badly. Through this, Osama Bin Laden comes to power and forms Al-Queda ("the connection") by contacting all the surviving members of the Muhajadeen.

Now, in regards to the First Gulf War (when Iraq invaded Kuwait), I'm going to quote an article I've read:

In 1990, with Iraq's economy devastated by the war with Iran, Saddam invaded Kuwait-but only after consulting with the Bush administration. The State Department informed Saddam that Washington had "no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait." And later, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, "We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Foreign Policy, in its January-February 2003 issue noted that the "United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did."

link: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Iraq/Saddam's_Hidden_History.html

There you have it. All the reasons (ok, I'm probably missing a couple) that it's our fault. We're an overly paranoid society. We need to get over that. Because from this, if you replace "communism" with "radical muslim terrorists" and "JFK and Reagan" with "George Bush" and "Vietnam" with "Iraq", it's pretty much the same situation.

Oh, and as for why we invaded Iraq: we "thought" there were WMDs. Look here for proof we knew there weren't any in 2005. And look here to see that we invaded in 2003, but UN and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors had found no WMDs of any sort before we invaded. And we found none afterward.

 

[BabyPiglet]

A. The non-existent threat I was referring to was Russia, TYVM. Cold War, here.

B. Your history lesson of the day:

We'll start with JFK. JFK was obsessed with the third world. Lenin writes: "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" which states that the communist revolution will start in the third world and that communism wil liberate colonized third world countries. Thus, the Peace Corps was designed in order to win over the support of thrid world countries by providing aid. In 1959 in Cuba, we see Castro launch his revolution against the American puppet dictator Batista (we have had several puppet dictators in the course of our history). Thus, JFK begins to plot Castro's assasination. Through this we see the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is paranoia. Cuba (nor Russia) never made a move against us directly.


After this, JFK subtly starts to try and control Vietnam (and this is where we can really start drawing similarities between then and now). When Ho Chi Minh was originally fighting the French occupation, he said he would fight off the Japanese (WWII) after France fell (which it did) and this made him our ally. We began arming Vietnamese troops so they could fight Japan for us. This is where they got many of the weapons they used in the Vietnam war. Later, after France tries to take over Vietnam again, we enter the Geneva Accords. In which we (being everybody but Vietnam) agree to split the country along the 17th parallel. Ho Chi Minh would take control of the North while Diem (another puppet dictator) would take control of the south under the promise that in 1956 free elections would be held to choose who the people wanted to run a united country. When it becomes clear that Ho Chi Minh (a communist) would win, JFK sends in the OSS to try and turn the north against Ho Chi Minh. When that fails, the elections are cancelled completely. So, Ho Chi Minh launches a war to unite the country. Eventually this all leads to a misunderstanding at the Gulf of Tonkin that lights the way for the Vietnam War.

At the end of the war (thanks to Nixon) when Reagan comes to power, he says that it isn't enough to simply contain the communists, we must destroy them completely through force. Of course, we can't do anything directly because attacking Russia would have sparked off WWIII and thus a nuclear winter. So, we find the Somoza Family in Nucaragua. They were a vicious crime family, but they were anti-communist. When teh Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza Family in the 1980s, Reagan wanted to arm the Contras (the Somozas who survived). Unfortunately, only congress can raise funds for war and this idea is shot down. So, Reagan comes up with the idea of selling weapons abroad. We sell arms to Iran and Iraq (and this is where Saddam comes into power- he'd been on the CIA's payroll since 1959, though. He was our ally- it was all a plot to get rid of the Communists in Iraq and Iran) thus, we have sold them the weapons they're using to fight us now. In Afghanistan at the same time, the Russians invade. We can't do anything to stop them because it would start WWIII (but really, we have no reason to stop them- we have no interests in Afghanistan). We arm the Muhajadeen ("the holy warriors") who beat the Soviets badly. Through this, Osama Bin Laden comes to power and forms Al-Queda ("the connection") by contacting all the surviving members of the Muhajadeen.

Now, in regards to the First Gulf War (when Iraq invaded Kuwait), I'm going to quote an article I've read:

There you have it. All the reasons (ok, I'm probably missing a couple) that it's our fault. We're an overly paranoid society. We need to get over that. Because from this, if you replace "communism" with "radical muslim terrorists" and "JFK and Reagan" with "George Bush" and "Vietnam" with "Iraq", it's pretty much the same situation.

Oh, and as for why we invaded Iraq: we "thought" there were WMDs. Look here for proof we knew there weren't any in 2005. And look here to see that we invaded in 2003, but UN and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors had found no WMDs of any sort before we invaded. And we found none afterward.

Well ain't America a great and noble country.

 

[tinkerbellbailey]

Wait, so they're basically letting terrorists walk free? If so, I've got a problem with that.

i have a problem with that too!

 

[Columba]

It has turned out to be true.. Date back to the Ottomans in the lower part of Europe/middle east. That can be lead back to the renaissance period. That can go back to the ____ time. That can lead back to the Greek, which back to the Romans. It's been going on FOREVER. Once again.. there's no solution.

I'm a little confused here. You cite a bunch of foreign invasions and occupations of the region and claim that 'these people' have been fighting an endless civil war?

Fun facts - The Ottoman Era = Renaissance Era and the Greek/Macedonian occupation of the region was before the Roman one

 

[Disney Dork]

Personally, I'm glad he shut it down.

I don't care what they say those people were guilty of. Torturing them does nothing but put us on the same level. And from what I've heard (I asked my father actually-and he usually keeps up with this type of stuff), they aren't just 'letting them walk free'. They are going to see if they have any reason to keep them locked up, just like they have to do with any other person kept behind bars in the U.S.

If they are able to find any kind of proof that the person is a terrorist/a valid reason to keep them locked up then they will at another prison. BUT if they are unable to come up with any reason to hold some of these people then they'll let them go, just like they would any other prisoner that is being held without justification.

 

[Fatphil32]

I'm a little confused here. You cite a bunch of foreign invasions and occupations of the region and claim that 'these people' have been fighting an endless civil war?

Fun facts - The Ottoman Era = Renaissance Era and the Greek/Macedonian occupation of the region was before the Roman one

Forgive me.. I was dead tired.

And yes, it's an endless civil war.

 

[Columba]

Forgive me.. I was dead tired.

And yes, it's an endless civil war.

No problem. Common mistakes.

How are different wars started by invading Turks and Europeans 'an endless civil war'?

 

[Fatphil32]

No problem. Common mistakes.

How are different wars started by invading Turks and Europeans 'an endless civil war'?

The people are started from the same place. Wether it's a leader in Turkey, or one in Afghanistan, they can all linked back together and split due to differences in opinions of certain things. They've all been fighting for their own freedom of what they believe and are basically fighting the same people that they can be linked to. It's a very loose term..

 

[Columba]

The people are started from the same place. Wether it's a leader in Turkey, or one in Afghanistan, they can all linked back together and split due to differences in opinions of certain things. They've all been fighting for their own freedom of what they believe and are basically fighting the same people that they can be linked to. It's a very loose term..

I'd say...

Trust me, it isn't easy to trace the roots of the peopleS of the region if that's what you're talking about. The Turkic people aren't the same as the Arabic peoples, they're not even originally from the region. That's like saying the Huns are from the same blood line as the slavs just because they settled in their area. You go back far enough with the natives of the region and all you have is a bunch of different tribes.


It's easier to claim that the World Wars were just big civil wars because the Saxons and the Franks originally came from Germania. Go back far enough and every war in Europe has been just a civil war. Go back far enough and yes, you can claim that the wars started in the Middle East by Europeans were idneed Civil Wars because the peoples of Europe and the peoples of the Near East all come from the same stock. Is that what you meant when you said the Roman and Greek conquests of the region were civil wars?

 

[Axel]

I'd say...

Trust me, it isn't easy to trace the roots of the peopleS of the region if that's what you're talking about. The Turkic people aren't the same as the Arabic peoples, they're not even originally from the region. That's like saying the Huns are from the same blood line as the slavs just because they settled in their area. You go back far enough with the natives of the region and all you have is a bunch of different tribes.


It's easier to claim that the World Wars were just big civil wars because the Saxons and the Franks originally came from Germania. Go back far enough and every war in Europe has been just a civil war. Go back far enough and yes, you can claim that the wars started in the Middle East by Europeans were idneed Civil Wars because the peoples of Europe and the peoples of the Near East all come from the same stock. Is that what you meant when you said the Roman and Greek conquests of the region were civil wars?

I think it's kinda like saying that the American Revolution was a Civil War.

 

[Fatphil32]

. Is that what you meant when you said the Roman and Greek conquests of the region were civil wars?

I think it's kinda like saying that the American Revolution was a Civil War.

There ya go.