View Full Version : The War on Iraq

04-21-2004, 02:09 PM
Ummm, im not sure but from what i have heard, more men have died this month then all the months put together, and President Bush is doing nothing about it????? Does anyone have any input? Im not sure what to think anyone???


04-21-2004, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by Clive3
Ummm, im not sure but from what i have heard, more men have died this month then all the months put together, and President Bush is doing nothing about it????? Does anyone have any input? Im not sure what to think anyone???


The Facts:

Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) Combat Operations 19 Mar 03 - 30 Apr 03: 138 Dead

OIF Post Combat Operations 1 May - Present: 569 Dead (As of 10:00 AM 21 Apr 04)

Source:DefenseLink (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2004/d20040421cas.pdf)

During the Vietnam Conflict (started by President Kennedy, continued by President Johnson, ENDED by President Nixon) we lost over 58,000 lives. By comparison, 382 lives were lost during the first Persian Gulf War (forgive me for taking it personally as *I* was deployed in theater during that period).

Lest we forget the nearly 3,000 lives which were snuffed out on one sunny Tuesday morning in September 2001. THAT is the reason why President Bush has committed the US to war.

If we are lucky, the total casualties taken by our side won't crack 10,000. But you have to remember that we are dealing with an enemy that does not believe in peaceful co-existence (ask the Jewish citizenry of Israel about that), does not believe in fighting fair (ask the families of civilian victims of homicide bombings), and has stated that the end result is the extinction of both the US, Israel, and pretty much most of Western Civilization.

Had the United Nations did their job and enforced the various resolutions that they passed over the years, we may not have had to invade Iraq in the first place. Sometimes it is very lonely to do the right thing, but the fact is, we are, and we all should do a gut check right about now. The bad guys don't want us to succeed, and they will do ANYTHING to ensure that we don't.

Guess what they are showing on Arab television these days? Documentaries about VIETNAM, SOMOLIA, and any other place where historically Americans RAN AWAY when dealt with setbacks. President Bush won't take the bait, and he doesn't care about polls or what the opposition party thinks. Thank God for that.

Here is my bottom line: By fighting the War on Terrorism NOW, and making the country of Iraq the front line, we have effectively kept the fight off of US soil (for now), and we are free to live semi-normal lives without the direct fear of car bombs going off at the local Wal-Mart.

04-21-2004, 05:26 PM
Do any of us know what to think?
Thing is, this is a war that must be won, to back down now would be catastrophic, not for America, but all countries in the free world. It was suggested here by one outspoken MP last week that the way forward should now be discussion, can't imagine Osama Bin Laden around a negiotiating table but who'd have thought that we in the UK would see Gerry Adams of the IRA in the same position, and now we have peace in Ireland, fragile yes, easily broken, yes, but still it's real progress.
Thing is, for a long time here, we became hardened to the terrorist threat of the IRA, we had regular bomb blasts and major casualties, Spain also have had and still do have the problem, but on a much smaller scale than 9/11, (try explaining smaller scale to families who have lost loved ones to terrorism - anywhere - anytime, their loss is equally devastating), anyway, what am I saying, I don't really know, is the way forward through war and violence, or through a war of words around a table, one thing is for certain, while religion abounds, wars will continue.

04-21-2004, 10:10 PM
good points, still not sure what to think :/


05-03-2004, 11:40 PM
Clive, there are many who will tell you what to believe partly for the satisfaction of enforcing Their point of view (including me). Sure, take what they have to say into consideration, but dont necessarily believe the hype, especially when the hype is fear driven. Id rather not tell you what I think you should believe, but, share with you my point of view so that you may "compare notes" and come to your own conclusion and what ever you choose to believe will be right for you. I suggest checking out alternative news as you wont get different view points on the subject from the American main stream media to make your own conclusion. I will provide you with some links that I recommend. See for your self and compare it to the news and information you hear everyday;

This is one of the biggest news papers in England and the most read. If you want to know what the majority of the Brittish people think.

These are all alternative news sources.

Here is Michael Moore's website which provides Loads of ligitamate information. Check out the "Must Read" section. Despite all the poison gossip and lies about him, see for yourself, maybe you can explain why some people say he "hates america";


Clive, everyone percieves things differently. When they tell you their point of view, its simply just that, their point of view. What they believe to be "truth" is only true for them. It is up to you to compare notes and decide how you want to write the story. No one is wrong because everyone has their own truth. What I give you is simply my point of view. Your truth is just as valid as anyone elses.

-Just speaking from the heart the best I could,

05-04-2004, 05:29 AM
fight freedom.. go ahead and LOSE !

05-04-2004, 08:51 AM


05-23-2004, 02:05 PM
Can anyone tell me the definitive reason WHY we are at war?? I mean, THE definitive reason?? Also, I thought we WON the war several months ago. WTF is going on?

05-23-2004, 05:16 PM
The War- I think it was a mistake to be in Iraq in the first place. I think this war was taken up under the realization that Saddam should have been ousted during the first Gulf War. We stopped that war under the idea of keeping the world community (i.e. UN) happy, and under the false impression that Saddam, like most normal people, would somehow understand reason and that a diplomatic solution could be reached. That was a false impression. I believe we entered the war to correct a 15 year old mistake. I do believe Saddam has supported Terrorists and would use anything he had to attack America, its allies, or multi-national corps. if possible.

So, if you believe this argument, it is reasonable to assume that his removal from power could make the world safer. I generally believe that to be true. But I find it difficult as to where we should draw the line in entering the politics of other sovereign nations. Do we have the right to influence the political system of another country just because we can? In Afghanistan's case, I think yes, because they were harboring the very terrorist group that masterminded 9-11 and were unwilling to bring them to justice. So for our own national security, I do believe the U.S. had some reasonable motive for overthrowing that government. I'm not quite as convinced about the argument for Iraq. It all depends on your notion of fair play in international politics. If we use the justification of weapons of mass destruction and a government that kills its' own people, we would have to attack China also, and probably 20 other governments or more. Do we really want to be that active around the world. Of course not, we would never attack China, because we can't be sure that we would win or be willing to sustain that many casualties. So we pick on somebody who is EVIL, but someone we know we can beat also.

The other problem with this whole scenario is that we are liberating a people who have no tradition of democratic government and most likely, whoever gains power will revert to the old way of wielding complete control and stealing money from his own people. We look at Europe and the u.s. and think that democracy is an easy thing. To the rest of the world it is foreign and not easily learned. They understand armies, and power, and money, and prestige, but they lack even our foundational ideas that all are created equal and have some inherent rights. It may be hundreds of years before democracy works in this part of the world.

So the sum of my answer about the war is: Afghanistan- yes we were justified, Iraq- probably not justified, but having saddam out is a good thing.

Will this cost G.W. the election? I think so- even though Kerry's ideas of getting U.N. permission for anything we do is even more ludicrous. Like Vietnam, our me-me culture just wants stuff like this to go away. Most of us are more worried about gas prices than if some dictator is gassing his own people. I guess it depends mostly on how isolationist you want to be.

05-23-2004, 05:34 PM
I don't think that Michael Moore "hates America". He is a smart man, but I think he uses information and statistics to support his conclusions in way that is not fair-minded. He is the ultimate leftist and will not admit that the Democratic party does the same things as the Republican Party. If he was more fair-minded he would have made films about the Clinton hypocrisy, the failure of that administration to deal with the growing threat of terrorism, and the ridiculously huge "business" that is the federal government. Moore was largely famous for his slam of the auto industry in his famous documentary "Roger and Me". But in making such films he should start with the incredibly ridiculous beauracracies that were created by Leftist ideas such as social security and medicare. If Roger were truly fair, he would expose the corruption and botched running of our government before worrying about cars, guns, and terrorism. While Michael is a talented film maker he is also one of the worst at using statistics for his own sake.

Using his great skills and savvy, Michael could probably convince everyone that Shaq is the worst basketball player in the NBA just by showing two hours of footage of Shaq missing free throws and leaving out the facts that he is usually is in the top 5 in scoring and has some championship rings. But Michael has a way of making it look as good or as bad as he wants you to believe it is. I don't think he hates America, I think he has an agenda, and he will use any means at his disposal to convince you that he is right.

05-23-2004, 06:39 PM

You make a LOT of great points. Thanks for keeping the discussion interesting and free of personal attacks.

As far as I can tell, the guys running the White House are doing whatever they can to declare victory and get the heck out of Iraq, if only for political calculations. As a Republican, that bothers me.

I'd be really happy if we could de-politicize the war once and for all, but I know that is a pipe dream. Both the Democrats and the GOP want power and control, and nothing is out of bounds to make it happen.

Let's just win the war, and then work on a lasting peace. That will involve the tearing down of some Middle Eastern idols, and the de-programming of a lot of Arab children and teens.

And let's replace the UN with something that actually works.

05-23-2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by jim

So the sum of my answer about the war is: Afghanistan- yes we were justified, Iraq- probably not justified, but having saddam out is a good thing.

Most of us are more worried about gas prices than if some dictator is gassing his own people. I guess it depends mostly on how isolationist you want to be.

that made me cry.. again

05-23-2004, 08:18 PM
technically, I'm a Repub also. For smaller government and greater control for state and local governments. I think getting saddam out of power was the right thing, but doing the right thing isn't always popular.

The tough thing is that you can't have it all ways- either you are involved in the world or you're not. You can't say that we shouldn't have invaded Iraq in one breath and say we should have stood up to Hitler sooner. Many of these dictators are all the same, they will play every game in the book to keep other countries at bay (ala Saddam and the You can inspect/now you can't inspect game).

Any we often tie our own hands with a nice guy mentality. We want to fight bad people, but we don't want to fight too nasty- just as in how we fought Vietnam. War is gross, war is hell, but you have to fight it to win it if you are in one. I'm afraid we are getting bogged down in a war trying not to get caught doing anything too "mean" on the 6 o'clock news. But this is just the type of fight that guerillas and terrorists want. That will do anything to win, and they know we will police ourselves in most instances, so as not to cross some "moral" lines.

And, yes, the u.n. is a farce. They want our country to fund most of it, yet they want the other 100+ nations to have ultimate control of policy. What a waste of time and money. And then all of that business of the sec. council veto. Just looking at the Israeli situation and all the votes and vetos it is easy to see that this "governing body" is doomed to fail. And that is a good thing, because I don't want some diplomat from France deciding matters of U.S. security.

05-23-2004, 08:22 PM
pip, 1 more post and you will be at 500. Your new title is Queen of the fixx board. You are very prolific. Have a good night.

05-23-2004, 09:34 PM
Every night is inherently good.
I would rather see on T.V. programs that inform the fellow tax payers and get the future "tax payers" up too date so to speak ..
on what we fund and why, with whom, and under what type of agreement ... then show just where, when and how others have side stepped and double crossed that arrangement. Yup.. get people involved politically via the T.V and Media.
Like next on Jerry Springer .. your money and fate went into a merger with > [ said organization ] and it was for .. [said development ] in which case was then invested in _ _ _ _ _ to generate finances for _ _ _ _ _ _ so how do the fellow veiwers at home now feel ?

I think It would cause more of a responce than the typical he said she said crud that airs now !

Unfortunately not everyone can afford a higher education and specific terms elude and or baffle them .. so brake it down, use pictures and analogies to help depict what is actually happening.

I firmly promote Ed. . What is done for alot of folks is done though... they have missed that train and need a bit of this and that to bring them up to pace with the current state of world order. Yes that may mean reverting to apples and oranges.. yet for #*!&#~ ! 's sake what else is there that can be done to get folks involved ? We all count, and should not be penalized for a lack of comprehension skills !
I mean others take the time to produce smut or fiction.. why not
TRY to inform fellow man-kind however possible ?
I am again so sad... .... . . ... . . ....

05-23-2004, 10:05 PM
And get that stupid flippen tag out from under my GOD DAMN name... you RAT ****ING BASTERDS ! It makes me sound like I'm under the Fwreck'n influence .. MY *** IS FIXXated...

I will either get banded.. get my Squeakunstine back ... ( < a toy I LENT.. do you hear me LENT to a member of this board ) .. or " BUMP" each and every thread with a > :) .. till I .. oh.. why should I even give a H00T it's just a word someone with nothing better to do made up, that has no personal significance to me created as a way of segregating people from one-another.

Like it is that important... !

Oooo I've listened to 'THE FIXX' since I was born.. WhOw.. does that like mean I should PM Steve right away ?
( chick ) ( ****'d ) ( big ) ( DEAL )

05-23-2004, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by itzWicks
The Facts:

Lest we forget the nearly 3,000 lives which were snuffed out on one sunny Tuesday morning in September 2001. THAT is the reason why President Bush has committed the US to war.

Umm, if that's a "fact," then there are severe differences in what can be considered "fact." I think that's a "fact" on the order of "we know where the WMDs are."

Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 or the "War on Terror." Despite W's attempts to make a link, there is no evidence that the Hussein regime had any links to Al Queda. In fact, there is good evidence that Al Queda was hostile towards the Iraqi regime as one of the only secular nations in the region.

The (nearly) unilateral invasion of Iraq, in fact, has probably done a great deal more to promote terrorism than it has done to curb it. First, it occupies a large contingent of the military doing something other than looking for OBL. Second, it completely plays into the anti-American sentiment in the region, sure to spawn more terrorists, and more funding for same. (Which is now even more inflamed with the prison scandal and W's complete botch job handling that.) Third, it's costing a completely ridiculous amount of money, some of which could potentially be deployed in anti-terrorist activities. Fourth, it has diverted the American public's attention (and therefore its leadership) away from Afghanistan and the pursuit of bin Laden.

The war in Iraq is a poorly-justified diversion that is a complete disservice to the memory of 9/11. If the administration is really serious about threats to "the security of the homeland," we'd be in Saudi Arabia (source of most of Al Queda's funding) and North Korea (a hostile nation which actually has WMDs). But Saudi Arabia are our buddies, and the source of a huge fraction of U.S. oil imports. Dealing with North Korea would entangle us with China. Both of those are just too inconvenient--instead, W has elected to take on a nation that he knew would go down and would be politically easy. After all, who'd support Saddam? The fact that Iraq was nearly irrelevant to U.S. security relative to other threats, well, we'll just ignore that part (or lie about it--look! WMDs!).

Was Saddam a bad guy who gassed his own people? Yes, no doubt about it, an evil man. But if that was the real reason we invaded, where was the outrage in the early 80's when he brutally suppressed dissent to consolidate power? Where were all the politicians calling for invasion of Iraq in 1988 when the gassing actually happened? Nowhere, because Saddam was our buddy then--you know where he got the gas he used on the Kurds? From the U.S. It's not like his being a bad guy suddenly happened in 2001. Is the world better off without Saddam? Jury still out--depends on how things in Iraq shake down, and it's not at all clear that what will emerge actually will be better.

The "he's a bad guy" justification is hogwash. I mean, yes, he was a bad guy, but its hogwash as a justification for invasion. It takes more than that to justify a U.S. invasion of a sovereign nation. Genocide and civil war in sub-Saharan Africa, which has cost more lives in the last 15 years then Saddam several times over, has not sent us on to invasion of any nation there. If being led by a brutal dictator was, by itself, cause for invasion, we'd have to be in a dozen nations by now.

North Korea's dictator is just as bad, if not worse, than Saddam. And you know what we're doing about that situation, almost completely under the media radar? Appeasement, just like all the chickenhawk pols are claiming would be the opposition "solution" to Iraq. Spare me the hypocrisy. We do, and will, continue to appease leaders and nations that we cannot just bully. This is called "diplomacy" and every nation deals with it.

So, terrorism isn't the justification. WMD's aren't a legit justification--what a farce--and Saddam being a bad guy isn't, by itself, adequate justification, either. So what exactly is the justification again?

Whatever it is that's left, I don't believe it justifies the cost in dollars, or more importantly, human life. But I guess those things are cheap from the Washington politicians' very cushy vantage point--it's not like it's their money, or their or their families' lives, on the line here.

The American public has been totally sold out. And for what? Security? BS, the war in Iraq has done zero to make the U.S. more secure. Billions of dollars and thousands of lives just pissed away for nothing. It's totally sickening.

I hope it does cost W his job, but I doubt it will--bummer that Kerry is such a loser, but I'm sure he's still better than Bush. It would be very difficult to be much worse. (And no, that's not totally partisan--I'd take McCain over Bush in a heartbeat.)