How has your opinion changed since the beginning of the war? - Iraq

How has your opinion changed since the beginning of the war?

Iraq Forum

Pages:  1Original Forum    Popular Forums    Search

Posted by: Sayzak

If nothing else, the Bush adminstration has certainly stirred things up. Americans are more aware of what is happening in the rest of the world, and why. Generally, we're still in the dark, because as a culture perhaps we are on autopilot, seeing nothing else than the road directly in front of us. Perhaps a revolution of sorts has begun.

Since the Iraq war started, how has your opinion on all of these things evolved?

And, if you're willing to share, how have you changed as a person? This goes for everyone living outside of America as well.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Desert Hawk

Sometimes life is excruciatingly simple: As long as there are American boots on Iraqi soil, I will support the effort 100%. And George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will command this effort until January of 2009. The vitriol of the leftist mainstream media and shrill liberal politicians will have absolutely no effect on this good work in progress.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Inner City Blues

Curley, coming from people I know whose boots have been on Iraqi soil, it is not going well over there. It is much worse there now than it was before the invasion. But I think that happens when you see a car vanish in an explosion right before you.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Desert Hawk

Hey, Blues, you know nothing about our troops and even less about their deeds. But I guess that comes from not wanting to know.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Inner City Blues

quote:
Desert Hawk said this in post #4 :
Hey, Blues, you know nothing about our troops and even less about their deeds.

How can you talk such BS without even knowing me?

One of my roommates was over in Iraq. I had three friends who were over there, one of them didn't come back. My cousin was over there, and she said the violence never ceases. Unlike you Curley, I do know about the troops. They are my friends and family, so take your stupid smileys and don't insult people, especially when you never had to go to the funeral of a friend who only died because he and 13 others weren't properly equipped.

Blind support is the worst support in the world because it shows that you care nothing for the troops or their welfare. I know one thing for sure, you would never say those words to my face.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Desert Hawk

quote:
Inner City Blues said this in post #5 :

How can you talk such BS without even knowing me?

One of my roommates was over in Iraq. I had three friends who were over there, one of them didn't come back. My cousin was over there, and she said the violence never ceases. Unlike you Curley, I do know about the troops. They are my friends and family, so take your stupid smileys and don't insult people, especially when you never had to go to the funeral of a friend who only died because he and 13 others weren't properly equipped.

Blind support is the worst support in the world because it shows that you care nothing for the troops or their welfare. I know one thing for sure, you would never say those words to my face.


Well, Mr. Blues, the next time you see your friends and your cousin who were "over there," you tell them—again—how proud you are of them and how proud America is to have such sons and daughters. And those who come back draped in honor for having given the ultimate sacrifice, God bless them—the gratitude of Americans and decent peoples everywhere is profound indeed.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: doyoulikepie75

If anything, the war has given me more reason to doubt the Bush administration. Such poor management of such an event and the questionable reasons for instigating it cause some serious doubts in my mind. Sorry, not cause. Magnifies.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
Sayzak said this in post #1 :
Americans are more aware of what is happening in the rest of the world, and why. Generally, we're still in the dark, because as a culture perhaps we are on autopilot, seeing nothing else than the road directly in front of us. Perhaps a revolution of sorts has begun.


It would be nice to think that was true but it's only three decades since Vietnam. What did today's politicians and the American people learn from that? Bush, Cheney etc seemingly nothing. And there still seems plenty of support for this administration to attack other people and countries in the Middle East.

One of the clearest things I've learnt from the Iraq conflict is that democracy is not the simple solution politicians have been claiming it to be. If we do actually believe in democracy (and figure this one out - China OK, Venezuela not OK) then we must accept the will of a nation's people to choose their own leaders without the interferance of powerful nations. I don't have any great hope that this is going to happen anytime soon.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Inner City Blues

quote:
Desert Hawk said this in post #6 :


Well, Mr. Blues, the next time you see your friends and your cousin who were "over there," you tell them—again—how proud you are of them and how proud America is to have such sons and daughters. And those who come back draped in honor for having given the ultimate sacrifice, God bless them—the gratitude of Americans and decent peoples everywhere is profound indeed.

Please don't ever talk to me again, it's disgusting that you would insult me through blatant ignorance.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Inner City Blues

I think the soldiers outlook on Iraq has certainly changed. 72% want out within the year, 52% want out within in 6 months, 29% want out now.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: HECK!

My opinion has changed in the sense that I've seen the administration be exposed time and time again as an ineffective, flaccid, ideologically bankrupt, self-serving, power hungry, inept cash cow and I have grown more weary and disappointed of our leaders. More and more people are realizing that in droves, as evident in the polls, thankfully.

I have spoken to many Marines; most agree that the whole thing is a debacle. Some just don’t care about the politics and want to shoot people. None think that they are doing this for a greater good. Again, that’s amongst the 10 or so Marines I know or have met briefly in the past few years. Recent polls within the military seem to support what I have already come to know.

I don't expect those with their heels dug into the manure that the administration expels on a daily basis to even open their eyes a crack to see things in a different light, which speaks volumes to the ability of the administration to coerce fear, hate, and willingness to give away unalienable freedoms with a "thank you sir, may I have another."

-HECK!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

The only view I have that has changed about this war is that many people, who supported this, have now done an about face and made this strictly a political issue, when in fact it has been a global issue for 30 years. The left just spin everything into a political attack and convenientley forget the history behind it. My opinion has not changed about the fact that actors and musicians should remain actors and musicians and stay out of politics.
That the Democratic party that I once supported is basically dead in the water and have resorted to witch hunting becasue of no clear solutions that are recongnisable.

My opinion of the network news stations has changed dramatically and I rarely watch them as most are just witch hunting for Bush and Cheney. (Waist of time an effort on their part).

The only exposure many get is through a left slanted media. Therefore, you can't always believe everything you read as an equal "good and bad" story. They never show the good that is happening. If you ask the troops, this is what disturbs them the most. The fact that we get a completely different view of the news and never the good things they are doing with and for the Iraqi people.
Shamefully bias news coverage that undermines their efforts.

As for the troops, 99% do not want to "quit". Which is different than being in a land where people are shooting at you. Nobody wants to be in that position. Unless of coarse you are one gung ho dude. Whe I was in Vietnam, I wnated to come home too.

What you need to do is get information from those cities in Iraq that are now doing 1,000% better than before the war. If you think that those Iraqis want pre-war Saddam back, you are sadly mistaken. Unfortunatley that news never gets to your desktop and that is truly a shame.

All things considered, the whole region will be better off when the dust settles, with the exception of Iran, who wants the whole region to itself under islamic rule and has thumbed it's nose at the world.

My opinion of islam has changed as I learn more about it and its followers. Before the war, I knew that they were violent. Now I know why.
For obvious reasons.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Desert Hawk

quote:
HECK said this in post #11 :

I have spoken to many Marines; most agree that the whole thing is a debacle. None think that they are doing this for a greater good.

-HECK!


This of course is a false statement, but the left would like nothing better than if it were true.


quote:
USA1 said this in post #12 :
The only view I have that has changed about this war is that many people, who supported this, have now done an about face and made this strictly a political issue, when in fact it has been a global issue for 30 years. The left just spin everything into a political attack and convenientley forget the history behind it. My opinion has not changed about the fact that actors and musicians should remain actors and musicians and stay out of politics.
That the Democratic party that I once supported is basically dead in the water and have resorted to witch hunting becasue of no clear solutions that are recongnisable.

My opinion of the network news stations has changed dramatically and I rarely watch them as most are just witch hunting for Bush and Cheney. (Waist of time an effort on their part).

The only exposure many get is through a left slanted media. Therefore, you can't always believe everything you read as an equal "good and bad" story. They never show the good that is happening. If you ask the troops, this is what disturbs them the most. The fact that we get a completely different view of the news and never the good things they are doing with and for the Iraqi people.
Shamefully bias news coverage that undermines their efforts.

As for the troops, 99% do not want to "quit". Which is different than being in a land where people are shooting at you. Nobody wants to be in that position. Unless of coarse you are one gung ho dude. Whe I was in Vietnam, I wnated to come home too.

What you need to do is get information from those cities in Iraq that are now doing 1,000% better than before the war. If you think that those Iraqis want pre-war Saddam back, you are sadly mistaken. Unfortunatley that news never gets to your desktop and that is truly a shame.

All things considered, the whole region will be better off when the dust settles, with the exception of Iran, who wants the whole region to itself under islamic rule and has thumbed it's nose at the world.

My opinion of islam has changed as I learn more about it and its followers. Before the war, I knew that they were violent. Now I know why.
For obvious reasons.


I agree USA1.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

My biggest fear about my son going to this war was that he would be treated as we were coming back from Vietnam and I swore I would do everything in my power to not let that happen. Unfortunatley I am only one person and he and many others are now feeling the same affects from the democrats and lefties.
What a shame to treat our young soldiers the way we have. They are all heros and get treated like no mind common criminals.
At times our people here in the US embarass me to no end.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
USA1: My biggest fear about my son going to this war was that he would be treated as we were coming back from Vietnam and I swore I would do everything in my power to not let that happen. Unfortunatley I am only one person and he and many others are now feeling the same affects from the democrats and lefties.
What a shame to treat our young soldiers the way we have. They are all heros and get treated like no mind common criminals.
At times our people here in the US embarass me to no end.


If things were going well in Iraq the troops would be feeling okay. But when wars go badly it obviously rubs off on troop morale. Bush chose to send the troops to Iraq and was careless to the point of negligence in just about everyway.

Who gets the blame in a football game when things go wrong - the coach, or the crowd? Strangely for you it always seems to be the crowd. You're no supporter of the troops. You're just a cheerleader for Bush.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Desert Hawk

quote:
USA1 said this in post #14 :
My biggest fear about my son going to this war was that he would be treated as we were coming back from Vietnam and I swore I would do everything in my power to not let that happen. Unfortunatley I am only one person and he and many others are now feeling the same affects from the democrats and lefties.
What a shame to treat our young soldiers the way we have. They are all heros and get treated like no mind common criminals.
At times our people here in the US embarass me to no end.


I hear you, USA1. As you know, the media spins and spins. I don't think the American people hold negative feelings toward our troops. There will always be those who do, but they will always be on the fringe left.

And as for the Europeans… well we all know of their perpetual agenda.

Have you seen this commercial:
http://www.blogtelevision.net/p/Vid...1,2,,64325.html
Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

Can't view it from here, they blocked it. I will check it out tonight when I get home.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

quote:
h@ts said this in post #15 :


If things were going well in Iraq the troops would be feeling okay. But when wars go badly it obviously rubs off on troop morale. Bush chose to send the troops to Iraq and was careless to the point of negligence in just about everyway.

Who gets the blame in a football game when things go wrong - the coach, or the crowd? Strangely for you it always seems to be the crowd. You're no supporter of the troops. You're just a cheerleader for Bush.


What an infantile thing to say. How old are you anyway? 12?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: HECK!

USA1- please refrain from calling other members an 'idiot'. Take it to the Flamer's Ward or PM.

Edit- thank you for changing your post.

-HECK!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: HECK!

Why is it that the pro-Bush camp in this thread managed to squak about 'left' this and 'left' that throughout their posts. Blaming the 'leftist' media and the like. Meanwhile has anyone not in the Bush camp in this thread pointed a finger at the right wingers? Interesting. I think the word for today might be scapegoat.

-HECK!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sayzak

I was semi-patriotic when this war began. But I had an open mind. I refuse to accept any idea as truth until promises have been kept. I know that as president of the United States, there's only 'so much' George Bush can do to make the rest of the world safer. I really wanted to believe that his actions for at least 60% making the world a better place. Now I'm not so sure.

I will compare this to OJ Simpson. Most people were skeptical about his "innocense". But he had some faithful, maybe naieve supporters. I was one of them. All these years later it has become painfully obvious that he did in fact murder his ex-wife, as he's made no attempt to find the real killer.

Bush's legacy isn't written in stone, but he doesn't seem too concerned about it.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

quote:
HECK said this in post #19 :
USA1- please refrain from calling other members an 'idiot'. Take it to the Flamer's Ward or PM.

Edit- thank you for changing your post.

-HECK!


OK, but it doesn't change the fact. LOL.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

Saying left or leftie is to me the same as you saying Pro-Bush or pro-war which has nothing to do about anybody's feeling of supporting our country, military or otherwise.
What you really mean is Patriot, not pro-bush or pro-war.
I will accept that but not the rhetorical pro-Bush, Pro-war load.

I will refrain from using left or leftie label and will substitue Liberal instead. That is a much truer description.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Desert Hawk

quote:
Sayzak said this in post #21 :
I was semi-patriotic when this war began. But I had an open mind. I refuse to accept any idea as truth until promises have been kept. I know that as president of the United States, there's only 'so much' George Bush can do to make the rest of the world safer. I really wanted to believe that his actions for at least 60% making the world a better place. Now I'm not so sure.

I will compare this to OJ Simpson. Most people were skeptical about his "innocense". But he had some faithful, maybe naieve supporters. I was one of them. All these years later it has become painfully obvious that he did in fact murder his ex-wife, as he's made no attempt to find the real killer.

Bush's legacy isn't written in stone, but he doesn't seem too concerned about it.


Reply To this Message

Posted by: HECK!

quote:
USA1 said this in post #22 :


OK, but it doesn't change the fact. LOL.


Change what fact?

If anyone wants to resort to outright childish insults I'll pack the thread up and send it to the Flamer's Ward, no sweat. That's a fact

-HECK!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: HECK!

quote:
USA1 said this in post #23 :
Saying left or leftie is to me the same as you saying Pro-Bush or pro-war which has nothing to do about anybody's feeling of supporting our country, military or otherwise.
What you really mean is Patriot, not pro-bush or pro-war.
I will accept that but not the rhetorical pro-Bush, Pro-war load.

I will refrain from using left or leftie label and will substitue Liberal instead. That is a much truer description.


Not sure what you mean by this, other than you seem to equate 'leftie' the same as 'pro-Bush.'

In the literal sense, 'left' would mean 'left wing' which implies support or beliefe of one or more several strains of socialism, social democracy, or liberalism with opposition to right-wing politics.

Pro-Bush would mean just that, one who is Pro-Bush. And by that, no, I do not mean Patriot. You might indeed be a patriot, but that is far from what I am inferring when I say it. Pro-Bush could be liberal or conservative, democrat or republican. Patriotism, depsite what Dubya tries to shovel, is not the same.

If you need to use labels, liberal won't stick to me in particular, but it seems you need to clump everyone together in some group that does not support the administration 100%.

-HECK!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
USA1 said this in post #18 :


What an infantile thing to say. How old are you anyway? 12?


Infantile? Why do you think the analogy was infantile?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Inner City Blues

quote:
Desert Hawk said this in post #13 :


This of course is a false statement, but the left would like nothing better than if it were true.

Again, do not talk for others Curley Joe. I too have spoken to members of the Army, and they say it's a debacle. My cousin and her friends out there went out there and all of them say, "It's for oil."

My recently deceased friend joined the Marines in 2001, he said the Iraqis were great, but as the months wore on, he said, "There is no point to this anymore." A big reason why people are frustrated is because they are doing repetitive tasks. Take control of a city, root out insurgents, leave. Insurgents go back in, then they have to take control of the city, root out insurgents, leave. Lather, rinse, and repeat.

When my cousin was out there, they used to be able to talk online, but then she wasn't allowed to freely talk about her feelings during the war because they're monitored and her statements out there and back home differ. Do not insult people by calling them liars, especially since we know that you don't speak to soldiers (you've never given any indication). People like HECK and I talk to soliders; they are our friends and family, so I'll be damned if I have to put up with this crap from people like you who never have been to a military funeral let alone been in the military.

Don't tell people they're lying unless you have direct evidence, and stop this childish crap because you know fully well you wouldn't say this to someone's face. I know you'll probably ignore this post, but seriously, cut the crap.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Desert Hawk

quote:
Inner City Blues said this in post #28 :

Don't tell people they're lying unless you have direct evidence, blah, blah, blah…


I will opine as I see fit (aka, I will call 'em as I see 'em!). Every single individual on this board does just that.

Following is all the 'direct evidence' that matters, and will be etched into History. It is called reality. One may acknowledge it or one may ignore it—all the while kicking and screaming.

November 8, 2002, Resolution 1441 passes unanimously by the United Nations Security Council offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programms to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Inner City Blues

quote:
Desert Hawk said this in post #29 :
Blah, blah, blah...

Learn to read before you respond. You called HECK a liar because he said he has met Marines that have called this war a debacle. Don't talk about UN resolutions because that's not the topic at hand. The topic is you being insulting to people saying they're lying about conversations they've had. When I say provide direct evidence, I was saying provide evidence that HECK is lying, else don't respond ignorantly. For future reference, actually read the post first before you respond.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
Desert Hawk said this in post #29 :


I will opine as I see fit (aka, I will call 'em as I see 'em!). Every single individual on this board does just that.

Following is all the 'direct evidence' that matters, and will be etched into History. It is called reality. One may acknowledge it or one may ignore it—all the while kicking and screaming.


Reality? I'm not sure it's reality or truth that concerns you. Many countries signed 1441 understanding that it was NOT an agreement to attack Iraq and that a second resolution would be sought before going to war. Any chance that that truth might sink in? Without a 2nd resolution Blair knew that attacking Iraq might be illigal, which was Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general's original finding. When Blair failed to get a 2nd resolution Lord Goldsmith changed his original legal ruling to fit. The legality is still under dispute.

quote:
Of the permanent, veto-holding members of the Security Council, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China wished the inspection period to be extended, and for no military action to go ahead without a further UN resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Sec...Resolution_1441


quote:
Hans Blix, the head of Unmovic, moved to the opinion that Iraq was beginning to comply with 1441's call for it demonstrate it had disarmed. On February 14 2003 he delivered a report to the security council listing examples of Iraqi compliance and questioning some of the US intelligence behind Colin Powell UN presentation on Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues...1471665,00.html
Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00105/front090306_105250a.jpg

These guys were signatures to the Project for the New American Century, or advocates and architechs of the war in Iraq, Richard Pearle, Francis Fu.kuyama, today front page of the Independant newspaper in the UK, saying what Bush cannot say - Iraq was a mistake.

quote:
Francis Fu.kuyama: 'By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.'
Reply To this Message

Posted by: HECK!

Let me paraphrase for some people here... "those liberals will try anything!"

But wait, they are conservatives saying that. Whhaaaaaaaaaaaaa?



-HECK!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Desert Hawk

quote:
h@ts said this in post #31 :


Many countries signed 1441 understanding that it was NOT an agreement to attack …






November 8, 2002, Resolution 1441 passes unanimously by the United Nations Security Council offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284), notably to provide "an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles". Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance.

I reckon that a decade of "playing games" with Saddam is not quite long enough for Europeans with their perpetual hate, fear and envy for America. Yes, yes, just ONE more resolution was necessary. One more would have done it! THAT ONE would have been the one to surely bring Saddam to his senses and avoid war.

What a hoot!
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Inner City Blues

quote:
Desert Hawk said this in post #34 :

<snip>

Thank you for running away, usually when you ignore my posts that prove you wrong you stop responding to me. Thanks again.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

quote:
Desert Hawk said this in post #34 :




November 8, 2002, Resolution 1441 passes unanimously by the United Nations Security Council offering Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" that had been set out in several previous resolutions (Resolution 660, Resolution 661, Resolution 678, Resolution 686, Resolution 687, Resolution 688, Resolution 707, Resolution 715, Resolution 986, and Resolution 1284), notably to provide &amp;quot;an accurate full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by Resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles&amp;quot;. Resolution 1441 threatens "serious consequences" if these are not met. It reasserted demands that UN weapons inspectors should have "immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access" to sites of their choosing, in order to ascertain compliance.

I reckon that a decade of "playing games" with Saddam is not quite long enough for Europeans with their perpetual hate, fear and envy for America. Yes, yes, just ONE more resolution was necessary. One more would have done it! THAT ONE would have been the one to surely bring Saddam to his senses and avoid war.

What a hoot!



Again we are following the same path with Iran. I wonder how many resolutions it will take before they send a missle to Europe or Israel?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Desert Hawk

quote:
Inner City Blues said this in post #9 :

Please don't ever talk to me again, it's disgusting that you would insult me through blatant ignorance.


Well, Mr. Blues, due to your request I've been debating whether to reply.

But since you continue to address me, I will say that at the moment I'm not in the mood to play further irrelevant, tiresome little games like 'my post said this, why did you say that, or didn't answer this…'

One more thing: You do not own a monopoly to an opinion of your friends or relatives—they aren't just your friends or relatives, they are members of OUR armed forces, volunteers who chose to serve their country—us—under their Commander in Chief. And I mentioned them in honor. Whether you choose to acknowledge the validity of the cause for which they fight is neither here nor there.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Inner City Blues

quote:
Desert Hawk said this in post #37 :


Well, Mr. Blues, due to your request I've been debating whether to reply.

But since you continue to address me, I will say that at the moment I'm not in the mood to play further irrelevant, tiresome little games like 'my post said this, why did you say that, or didn't answer this…'

One more thing: You do not own a monopoly to an opinion of your friends or relatives—they aren't just your friends or relatives, they are members of OUR armed forces, volunteers who chose to serve their country—us—under their Commander in Chief. And I mentioned them in honor. Whether you choose to acknowledge the validity of the cause for which they fight is neither here nor there.

I don't care how you feel, just don't tell someone else they're lying unless you have proof. This is not a game of who said what, this is you ignoring what a posts says so you can insult somebody. That's just being childish, you need to learn to grow up.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
USA1 said this in post #36 :



Again we are following the same path with Iran. I wonder how many resolutions it will take before they send a missle to Europe or Israel?


Lets hope we're not following the same path.

Hasn't Iraq taught you anything? The Middle East is in a precarious state and a lot of people are dead BECAUSE we abandoned resolutions and caution and diplomacy, choosing instead to start wars that have brought chaos. Doesn't that show you anything?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Desert Hawk

quote:
USA1 said this in post #36 :



Again we are following the same path with Iran. I wonder how many resolutions it will take before they send a missle to Europe or Israel?


We don't have the time for that with Iran. Their nuke capability will be upon us sooner than later. First thing, all the nations need to stop buying Iranian oil immediately. (I'll pay more at the pumps!) Of course this will not be enough. Freeze the dictator's assets. That will not be enough. The democratization of the Iranian populus is insufficient. I'm certain that there are terrorist groups who are negotiating for nukes and nuke materials from that Mahmoud maniac as we speak, and the only way to stop it is to bomb this freak into the Persian age.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
Desert Hawk said this in post #40 :


We don't have the time for that with Iran. Their nuke capability will be upon us sooner than later.


Oooooh, scary stuff. Because of course as soon as Iran has tightened the last bolt on their first nuke they're going to immediately shoot it at you in the US
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Desert Hawk

quote:
Desert Hawk said this in post #40 :


I'm certain that there are terrorist groups who are negotiating for nukes and nuke materials from that Mahmoud maniac as we speak, and the only way to stop it is to bomb this freak into the Persian age.


Reply To this Message

Posted by: Inner City Blues

All the war in Iraq teaches other countries is it's better to have a nuclear weapon because then no one can push you around. You'll never see the US push around India.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
Desert Hawk said this in post #40 :


I'm certain that there are terrorist groups who are negotiating for nukes and nuke materials from that Mahmoud maniac as we speak, and the only way to stop it is to bomb this freak into the Persian age.



How does that work? We bomb Iran back to the "Persian age" and then what? They greet the American "liberators" with flowers and pettles? It didn't work in Iraq, why would it work in Iran?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sayzak

quote:
h@ts said this in post #41 :


Oooooh, scary stuff. Because of course as soon as Iran has tightened the last bolt on their first nuke they're going to immediately shoot it at you in the US


Well it is egotistical, and borderline irrational, but with how hated America is... never know.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
Sayzak said this in post #45 :


Well it is egotistical, and borderline irrational, but with how hated America is... never know.


Hated by many countries is one thing, but which country in their right mind would attack America? The thing about power is, people don't like to lose it and attacking the US would mean just that.

And when it comes to force, who should be the more scared, Iran or America? No competition. Even with nukes.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: HECK!

In a nuclear war, it's they launch, we launce, they're dead, we're crippled. Open season.

-HECK!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sayzak

Once upon a time Britain owned the seas, and Germany wasn't even a blip on the radar, but they decided to challenge Britain and in a game of one-up'smanship caused a warr, and at the end of the war another nation became the most powerful.

That's one reason why a crazy nation might condone attacking the US...

Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
Sayzak said this in post #48 :
Once upon a time Britain owned the seas, and Germany wasn't even a blip on the radar, but they decided to challenge Britain and in a game of one-up'smanship caused a warr, and at the end of the war another nation became the most powerful.

That's one reason why a crazy nation might condone attacking the US...


Iran couldn't do what Germany did just because they had nuclear weapons. Nukes don't give you the ability to conquer other countries, and for a country to be militarily successful, it must conquer areas of strategic importance and resources. Nukes are just a deterrent to stop someone attacking you, as North Korea most recently showed clearly.

And it's not Iran that threatens US dominance. It's China and yet we in the West are falling over ourselves to do business with them.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: JY_French

All these conflicts in the ME are just the expression of more global oppositions, rivalries and fights aimed at securing natural resources. The US and China are the leading players and what we are witnessing is just a beginning. For the US is at an all-time high dependence about foreign oil - exactly as China .... And this dependence is not about to decrease ... and here again ... as China.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

quote:
h@ts said this in post #41 :


Oooooh, scary stuff. Because of course as soon as Iran has tightened the last bolt on their first nuke they're going to immediately shoot it at you in the US


I seriously doubt they could reach the US with their weapons for at least 5 more years.
They probably won't wait for that technology to use the first ones on Israel and Europe.
By that time, Bush will be gone and a new president will have to make a decision to help Israel or Europe with this conflict.
In the mean time the US will tighten the security for anything coming into the US to prevent a nuclear weapon from entering the country.
Resolutions should be brought by EU and Israel and they are the ones who should act on this withoutcounting on US involvement.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sayzak

quote:
h@ts said this in post #49 :


Iran couldn't do what Germany did just because they had nuclear weapons. Nukes don't give you the ability to conquer other countries, and for a country to be militarily successful, it must conquer areas of strategic importance and resources. Nukes are just a deterrent to stop someone attacking you, as North Korea most recently showed clearly.

And it's not Iran that threatens US dominance. It's China and yet we in the West are falling over ourselves to do business with them.


I was talking about WW1, not WW2. In a world war, anything is possible. And with nukes now available to other countries... like Heck said, it's open season. China? Iran? Hell, Iraq? Wouldn't that be ironic.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
Sayzak said this in post #52 :


I was talking about WW1, not WW2. In a world war, anything is possible. And with nukes now available to other countries... like Heck said, it's open season. China? Iran? Hell, Iraq? Wouldn't that be ironic.


How do you have a nuclear war? It's not really a war at all, it's more just mass death and destruction. America dropped the bombs on Japan because they knew Japan had nothing to retaliate with. The US never fired any nukes at USSR because the Soviets were armed to the teeth. Mutually Assurred Destruction (MAD) was a term coined 50 years ago and means there are no winners in a nuclear conflict, just millions of dead people, and a nuclear winter that would kill all life on the planet. A country would never use them to attack another country. Not even Iran because then Iran would be destroyed themselves. They are a weapon that prevents world wars because everyone loses.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

quote:
h@ts said this in post #53 :


How do you have a nuclear war? It's not really a war at all, it's more just mass death and destruction. America dropped the bombs on Japan because they knew Japan had nothing to retaliate with. The US never fired any nukes at USSR because the Soviets were armed to the teeth. Mutually Assurred Destruction (MAD) was a term coined 50 years ago and means there are no winners in a nuclear conflict, just millions of dead people, and a nuclear winter that would kill all life on the planet. A country would never use them to attack another country. Not even Iran because then Iran would be destroyed themselves. They are a weapon that prevents world wars because everyone loses.


Iran doesn’t care if they all die. Isn't that considered Martyrdom?
They all go to Allah and everything is hunky dory.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
USA1 said this in post #54 :


Iran doesn’t care if they all die. Isn't that considered Martyrdom?
They all go to Allah and everything is hunky dory.


What an astonishingly ridiculous claim. You've put 2 + 2 together and come up with 35. Absolutely brilliant. What an astonishing feat of logic. What are you going to do for your next trick?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sayzak

The bomb doesn't prevent war. It may not be used in a war but it just fuels the fire for war. If war starts, and a country is already losing--badly, what would stop them from firing a nuke?

Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

quote:
h@ts said this in post #55 :


What an astonishingly ridiculous claim. You've put 2 + 2 together and come up with 35. Absolutely brilliant. What an astonishing feat of logic. What are you going to do for your next trick?


For my next trick, I will wait and see if Iran does make a nuclear bomb or if a 1000 resolutions will stop them.

Believe me, if I could get the US to stay out of this Iran thing I would but.... it's a European/Middle-East thing and I don't care anymore. All the wining and resolutions will surely convince Iran to the error of their ways.
I think that all the Europeans on this forum will agree that America should stay out of this issue with Iran and let them handle it.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
USA:1For my next trick, I will wait and see if Iran does make a nuclear bomb or if a 1000 resolutions will stop them.


Iran may get their way, resolution or no resolution. Do you want to go to war over it?

quote:
All the wining and resolutions will surely convince Iran to the error of their ways.
I think that all the Europeans on this forum will agree that America should stay out of this issue with Iran and let them handle it. [/B]


I wish Bush and his neocons would stay out of this issue with Iran.

I heard an Iranian politician on TV today talking about the Atomic bombs America dropped on Japan. The hypocrisy of a Western country that dropped two nukes on two populated cities, demanding nuke free countries, is not lost on a lot of Arabs, I'm sure.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: h@ts

quote:
Sayzak said this in post #56 :
If war starts, and a country is already losing--badly, what would stop them from firing a nuke?


That is the very fear that prevents one country from starting a war with another - it's nuclear weapons threat. That's not to say that human error might not cause catastrophy, as came close during the Cuban missile crisis.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Sayzak

What if the American army had gone into Iraq and badly lost? Worse than Vietnam. And another nation, who wanted to capitalize on America's failure, attacked us on out soil. Losing badly, we give multiple warnings for those nations to step off before we do something drastic. Is the a-bomb obsolete because of the mutual threat, or is it always in the closet ready to be dusted off? I feel pretty safe with the bomb being in our posession, as we've held onto it the longest so far, but once everyone's got it, that doesn't take away the money, power, and ego festivities going on. Technology doesn't replace human nature, it just speeds it up and makes it hit harder.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: HECK!

It's a nuclear stalemate. Whoever hits us gets hit back. Cancels each other out. Despite American being hated by all these countries, they know they need us. Deep down, they know because if their needs match our own self-interests then we will defend their land for them (see Iran vs. Iraq, Afghanistan vs. USSR).

-HECK!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: JY_French

Hmm that's realpolitik you are playing here Heck
But hey - it is sadly true. Our western countries have always been good at playing tricky games and resorting to double langage. The bad thing with geopolitics is that studying it would rather drive you cynical. I think that the remedy to that is to hold onto moral values as individuals.

This situation you are describing is insame because it means that tensions, hatred will keep growing. Defending interests worldwide has never been so important for global players like the US and emerging ones such as China. And this is the ferment of wars.

Reply To this Message

Posted by: USA1

quote:
h@ts said this in post #58 :


Iran may get their way, resolution or no resolution. Do you want to go to war over it?



I wish Bush and his neocons would stay out of this issue with Iran.

I heard an Iranian politician on TV today talking about the Atomic bombs America dropped on Japan. The hypocrisy of a Western country that dropped two nukes on two populated cities, demanding nuke free countries, is not lost on a lot of Arabs, I'm sure.


I will take the que from you Eurpeans. No I don't want to start a war over it because they can't hit us with what they have and are no immediate threat. Maybe 5 years down the road when thay have this developed and build a missle that can reach the US. I will reconsider.
I also agree, the US should stay out of it. Isreal cantake careof themselves with this and so can the European countries at risk. They don't need America to help fight their wars anymore.

Having used these weapons in the past does not mean that today it is a consideration to be taken lightly nor does it mean we have a green light to use them in the future. Many of those people are long since dead and their reasoning and reactions cannot be used in today's conflicts.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Optics

quote:
Inner City Blues said this in post #10 :
I think the soldiers outlook on Iraq has certainly changed. 72% want out within the year, 52% want out within in 6 months, 29% want out now.


I love made up figures.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Optics

quote:
h@ts said this in post #58 :


Iran may get their way, resolution or no resolution. Do you want to go to war over it?



I wish Bush and his neocons would stay out of this issue with Iran.

I heard an Iranian politician on TV today talking about the Atomic bombs America dropped on Japan. The hypocrisy of a Western country that dropped two nukes on two populated cities, demanding nuke free countries, is not lost on a lot of Arabs, I'm sure.


I guess the Iranian politician forgot to add in that Japan attacked the US first. The US was staying neutral in the war up to that point. The US dropped the bombs to End the war and it did just that.

Its not how you start a fight its how you end it.
Reply To this Message

Posted by: Vepsu/FIN

Winston Churchill: "Usually USA do the right way... after they have tried all the other ways."

Reply To this Message

Posted by: HECK!

Welcome back, Vepsu/FIN.

-HECK!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Optics

quote:
Vepsu/FIN said this in post #66 :
Winston Churchill: "Usually USA do the right way... after they have tried all the other ways."


True but what is the right way when this is the first time this has been done ?
Reply To this Message

Posted by: HECK!

First time what has been done, exactly?

-HECK!

Reply To this Message

Posted by: Vepsu/FIN

quote:
h@ts said this in post #15 :



Who gets the blame in a football game when things go wrong - the coach, or the crowd? Strangely for you it always seems to be the crowd. You're no supporter of the troops. You're just a cheerleader for Bush.


Reply To this Message

Posted by: oneofpeace

Man this thread is dead. Given the timespan between then and now I wonder if there's any positions that has changed?

Reply To this Message

Pages:  1 Free Forums    Chat Forum

Iraq Forum: How has your opinion changed since the beginning of the war?

Forum Forum Forum