Conquer Club

hitandrun wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:well dont tell me you dont believe in Terrorists. because even if it is a lame excuse to attack Iraq, there are terrorists out there and they don't like Christians, or Americans to be exact.

as for the Axis of Evil thing, look at N. Korea now. they are quite evil and want to kill us, so does Iran.

Terrorism has always been hard to define. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom-fighter. It's funny, how when Britain was experiencing 50 years of IRA bombs the US government did nothing to stop the funding coming out of the USA.

Who is to say what is "evil" It is a strong term, only used by the US government to whip people like Jay up.

well, "evil" in my mind is one who acts maliciously to attack one group of people.

P Gizzle wrote:well, "evil" in my mind is one who acts maliciously to attack one group of people.

USA attacking people? Does that count?

hitandrun wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:well, "evil" in my mind is one who acts maliciously to attack one group of people.

USA attacking people? Does that count?

sure, if it's for no justified reason. like evil is Nazis killing Jews

How's this for a poll?

"Do you as an American give a damn that the rest of the world hates you?"

^_^

P Gizzle wrote:sure, if it's for no justified reason. like evil is Nazis killing Jews

Was there a justified reason for the USA (et al) attacking Iraq?

richporter wrote:

terrafirma wrote:how is isreal none of our business? we are the most powerful ally they have. the only war we have started since we have existed is the america revolution and the Iraq war. Even if we dont find WMD's isnt it better to not have saddam in power anymore?saying no to that question is like saying if hitler hadnt invaded so many countries he wouldnt have been such a bad guy. we are the rishest country because of American work. 200 years ago we were nothing now we are a superpower and widly rich compared to other nations. that is because of work americans put in not anyone else. what are youeven talking about with pakistan?

While I'm usually a proud American and will gravitate towards these sort of threads to attempt a civil defense against blind hatred... I have to point something out.

The American Revolution is out by default, Iraq included. But let's take a step back into history and take a look at wars the United States of America has started.

1.) Mexican-American War. President Polk used power politics and bullied the Mexican's into war. The American government of the time wanted the Mexican's northern territories because of the growing popularity of expansionism. Look up manifest destiny if you'd like to learn more about American expansion.

2.) Spanish-American War. You might read in high school history books that the American government of the time was well-prepared and just in their decision to declare war against Spain because of the sinking of the USS Maine. However, a little research into the spark of this war will tell you otherwise.

3.) Phillipine-American War. Just after the Spanish-American War, the United States purchases the Phillipines. A filipino movement of independence occurs just after news reaches them that the U.S. government planned on making their country a U.S. possession. American troops are sent in to stabilize the country, war ensues for three years.

4.) War of 1812. More American expansionism. Read up on that.

There are plenty of other wars that the United States has started in the name of one thing or another. If you're going to defend this country, at least do it with the information to back yourself up.

ok i will give ou thoughs but most modern wars werent started by us. other powers have started way more wars before america even existed so my poin still stands i think

"Do you as an American give a damn that the rest of the world hates you?"

no i do not give a flying f*ck what anyone in the world thinks. if you hate us do somehting about it. that way we can trump up a reason to invade the shit out of you

hitandrun wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:sure, if it's for no justified reason. like evil is Nazis killing Jews

Was there a justified reason for the USA (et al) attacking Iraq?

I'm assuming you are basically saying there was no justification. I'm not going to agree or disagree with that (for the moment), but in your opinion was there justification in the US going into Germany during WWII?

edit-

no i do not give a flying f*ck what anyone in the world thinks. if you hate us do somehting about it. that way we can trump up a reason to invade the shit out of you

for the record, I'm American. And minus the profanity, my answer would be pretty much the same as yours. I'm big into George Washington-esque ideals, which don't seem to popular these days.

Iraq is just like Nazi germany. the only differences were that iraq was to weak to take over as much land as hitler did and the iraqi people didn't like saddam all that much

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

hitandrun wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:sure, if it's for no justified reason. like evil is Nazis killing Jews

Was there a justified reason for the USA (et al) attacking Iraq?

I'm assuming you are basically saying there was no justification. I'm not going to agree or disagree with that (for the moment), but in your opinion was there justification in the US going into Germany during WWII?

edit-

no i do not give a flying f*ck what anyone in the world thinks. if you hate us do somehting about it. that way we can trump up a reason to invade the shit out of you

for the record, I'm American. And minus the profanity, my answer would be pretty much the same as yours. I'm big into George Washington-esque ideals, which don't seem to popular these days.

i agree and yes America was justified in attacking Germany because if you were an American Jew and you saw your cousins getting systematically slaughtered, what would you want to do?

OnlyAmbrose wrote:I'm assuming you are basically saying there was no justification. I'm not going to agree or disagree with that (for the moment), but in your opinion was there justification in the US going into Germany during WWII?

Well yes, Nazi Germany had invaded countries all over Europe and was practicing Genocide. The same justification aplies to the first Gulf war. Tell me, please, the justification for the recent US invasion of Iraq.

well, there WERE terrorists in Iraq. Saddam Hussein isnt exactly the most popular guy in Iraq and was dividing the Sunnis and Shiites. im not sure which one he was but he definitely affected them. any more?

terrafirma wrote:Iraq is just like Nazi germany. the only differences were that iraq was to weak to take over as much land as hitler did and the iraqi people didn't like saddam all that much

I agree in certain ways. Saddam's treatment of the Kurds is likely quite similar to Hitler's treatment of the Jews during the Holocaust, just on a far smaller scale because Saddam didn't have the resources to expand his nation and thus wipe out Kurds all across the region.

Morally, I think one can argue a case for the war in Iraq. Whether or not the war was in the best interests of America... remains the be seen. like I said in an above post, I don't particularly care how the world sees us... but I DO care how what WE do in the outside world affects US. It may sound cynical, but that's the basis on which the nation was founded. George Washington advocated it, and Monroe and John Q. Adams continued the "I don't care what the heck you think across the Atlantic, just leave us well enough alone" with the Monroe Doctrine.

Personally, I think we just should have gone all the way to Baghdad in the early '90s and gotten the job over with while we had the momentum.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

terrafirma wrote:Iraq is just like Nazi germany. the only differences were that iraq was to weak to take over as much land as hitler did and the iraqi people didn't like saddam all that much

I agree in certain ways. Saddam's treatment of the Kurds is likely quite similar to Hitler's treatment of the Jews during the Holocaust, just on a far smaller scale because Saddam didn't have the resources to expand his nation and thus wipe out Kurds all across the region.

Morally, I think one can argue a case for the war in Iraq. Whether or not the war was in the best interests of America... remains the be seen. like I said in an above post, I don't particularly care how the world sees us... but I DO care how what WE do in the outside world affects US. It may sound cynical, but that's the basis on which the nation was founded. George Washington advocated it, and Monroe and John Q. Adams continued the "I don't care what the heck you think across the Atlantic, just leave us well enough alone" with the Monroe Doctrine.

Personally, I think we just should have gone all the way to Baghdad in the early '90s and gotten the job over with while we had the momentum.

the Iraq war is can go either way. some can justify it, others can't, it's up to the Head and that's it. once Bush is out, we will withdraw troops, if we havent already

P Gizzle wrote:well, there WERE terrorists in Iraq. Saddam Hussein isnt exactly the most popular guy in Iraq and was dividing the Sunnis and Shiites. im not sure which one he was but he definitely affected them. any more?

There are terrorists in every country in the world. It does not give justification for invasion.
I agree Sadam was a sick bastard, but, if we don't agree with a countries policy it does not give us the right to bomb civillians and invade their country.

hitandrun wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:well, there WERE terrorists in Iraq. Saddam Hussein isnt exactly the most popular guy in Iraq and was dividing the Sunnis and Shiites. im not sure which one he was but he definitely affected them. any more?

There are terrorists in every country in the world. It does not give justification for invasion.
I agree Sadam was a sick bastard, but, if we don't agree with a countries policy it does not give us the right to bomb civillians and invade their country.

True in some ways, but that's where ideologies divide. Saddam is on trial for genocide charges, and I don't know anyone who doubts that they are true. What's more, he is clearly a dangerous man to have in command of an Islamic nation (which therefore means it, like Iran, may have been quite friendly with Islamic fundamentalists, and thus supplying them arms, funds, etc). In the end, though, since we squashed him before he managed to do anything against US (though again, he did PLENTY against the Kurds in his own nation- Genocide in itself may be considered justification for invasion by some), it is quite possible he was doing so covertly or planning to do so (directly or indirectly) in the near future.

So it pretty much breaks down into speculation and assumptions which make up the meat of the clods of bullcrap politicians in this country like to fling at each other.

It all boils down to what you define as sufficient justification.

I agree with your earlier post, Sadam should have been dealt with in the first Gulf war. I do not but this "war on terror" thing though, Sadam had nothing to do with 11/9. And let us not forget the US funding of the IRA.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

hitandrun wrote:

P Gizzle wrote:well, there WERE terrorists in Iraq. Saddam Hussein isnt exactly the most popular guy in Iraq and was dividing the Sunnis and Shiites. im not sure which one he was but he definitely affected them. any more?

There are terrorists in every country in the world. It does not give justification for invasion.
I agree Sadam was a sick bastard, but, if we don't agree with a countries policy it does not give us the right to bomb civillians and invade their country.

True in some ways, but that's where ideologies divide. Saddam is on trial for genocide charges, and I don't know anyone who doubts that they are true. What's more, he is clearly a dangerous man to have in command of an Islamic nation (which therefore means it, like Iran, may have been quite friendly with Islamic fundamentalists, and thus supplying them arms, funds, etc). In the end, though, since we squashed him before he managed to do anything against US (though again, he did PLENTY against the Kurds in his own nation- Genocide in itself may be considered justification for invasion by some), it is quite possible he was doing so covertly or planning to do so (directly or indirectly) in the near future.

So it pretty much breaks down into speculation and assumptions which make up the meat of the clods of bullcrap politicians in this country like to fling at each other.

It all boils down to what you define as sufficient justification.

geonicide is justification for war. just because he hadnt done anything to america doesnt mean he was innnocent. if the rest of the world calls us world police they had better ist down ad shut up when we make some arrests

As an American, I don't hate the country just the political warfare between the two major parties. Can't we all just learn to get along?

Lets hold hands and sing a song!

hitandrun wrote:I agree with your earlier post, Sadam should have been dealt with in the first Gulf war. I do not but this "war on terror" thing though, Sadam had nothing to do with 11/9. And let us not forget the US funding of the IRA.

I for one disagree with the US funding of the IRA, and just because we did does NOT obligate ME to believe that we shouldn't take out a dictator who is funding a terrorist organization. I honestly can't see your point there.

The fact is that Saddam WASN'T taken care of during the Gulf War. We have to deal with that. I am NOT in my argument linking 9/11 to the War in Iraq. Sure, that's when we actually invaded, because it's what gave the President enough political juice to do it, but the motives are not linked, despite what the president may say (at least not in my mind). My argument is as follows, and as such you don't need to adress anything else:

--> Saddam committed genocide. You can't debate the moral issue about that; all you can debate is whether or not it's our business whether or not thousands of people in Iraq are killed just because they are Kurdish.

--> Saddam was a threat to our country. I'm not going to go into the WMD debate, because it makes me want to tear my hair out and bash in my television screen so I never have to see the media again, so forget about that. Even without WMD, any dictator of a primarily Islamic country who harbors blatantly anti-American sentiments (and in this case has a history of open defiance toward the US, hence the Kuwait incident) is a threat to us because they can a- provide terrorist organizations with arms, intel, funding, and many other things such organizations need, and b- because he may just get powerful enough to BECOME an overt threat to us, through treaties, acquiring WMD, etc.

Those are the grounds on which I see it possible to justify the war.

Do I agree with the war? Well, I think Saddam needed to be taken out, and I think it should have been done a long time ago, but since it didn't I think now was as good a time as any. Sooner was clearly better than later simply because he didn't have time to become as strong and his genocidal tendencies were cut short.

Do I agree with the manner in which the war is being waged? In terms of ethics, I can't say. I take everything the media says with a pinch of salt, and since I'm not in Iraq, that means I don't have a damn clue what goes on over there. In terms of politics, I think this is becoming a drain on America, and the sooner we get out the better. What's more, I don't think the Iraqis themselves are taking enough initiative in getting their own nation running. I want our troops home- they did their job. But once again, I do believe the war was justified- just not necessarily for the reasons stated by the politicians.

nice post i happen to agree with everything he said

hitandrun wrote:I agree with your earlier post, Sadam should have been dealt with in the first Gulf war. I do not but this "war on terror" thing though, Sadam had nothing to do with 11/9. And let us not forget the US funding of the IRA.

9/11., but i agree about the first Gulf Part. but, Saddam did support genocide and terrorism throughout his country. isn't he a Talibani or whatever someone in the Taliban would be called. and i believe Al-Queda is part of the Taliban, so if everything i said is true (im not sure it is) then Saddam, in some way, did have something to do with 9/11. and he IS a terrorist

Get your facts straight Alquaeda isn't part of the Taliban and technically the Taliban isn't part of Alquaeda. However the Taliban was harboring members of Alquaeda such as Osama Bin Ladin. Sadam is not taliban, just a terrorist.

Edit: this wasn't meant to be as harsh as it sounded when I reread it.

strike wolf wrote:Get your facts straight Alquaeda isn't part of the Taliban and technically the Taliban isn't part of Alquaeda. However the Taliban was harboring members of Alquaeda such as Osama Bin Ladin. Sadam is not taliban, just a terrorist.

Edit: this wasn't meant to be as harsh as it sounded when I reread it.

that's ok. i wasnt sure. that's why i have a disclaimer in there, just in case, since i had no idea.

Well I'm not sure of all the facts myself but I try to stay within my limits.