|
Post by spik3 on Aug 22, 2006 5:04:24 GMT -5
hey decided to try to get more people into this discussion thing so heres my topic.The war in iraq.Some people believe we are doing the right thing some dont.I believe that we are there for the right REASON but doing it wrongly.I mean i would be willing to go to iraq to help if i was in fact 18.But im not .I used to think it was stupid what we were doing over there.I used to say "Man they need to just solve their own problems".But cmon have you never gotten help when you have had something you need done in your life?I mean im sure half of you that read this have asked some admin on some server to ban someone for hacking when you couldnt make him leave by votekick.Could you have banned him/her without the admins help?No.which is the way i see it in iraq.And its not just the normal stuff that you get in many countries less privelaged as us in the USA or Australia/ Britian/ poland or wherever else you come from.People starve and things like that.But do they have their own "government" their own "police" torture them in ways i dont even want to repeat.hell in ways i dont even want to think about.But yet after all this there are people who talk about how its not helping that we're out there.But what really makes me mad and if i ever saw one of these people i would probably land myself in jail for what i do to them is the people who have the nerve to show up to soldier's funerals and say what that man/woman did was a sin and they deserved to die.(If you dont know what im talking about maybe 4 months back a lot of people mostly rekigious fanatics went out to soldiers who died in the wars funerals saying they deserved what they got and theyre gonna go to hell)Damn now that i just typed all that very angrily i have no good way to close it without seeming like an ass. .Well basically if you believe its a mistake to be there thats fine im not here to judge like the thread is supposed to be about a discussiong without insults and cursing.i wont be an ass to you if you disagree with me so please post what you think and have fun with soldat.
|
|
|
Post by mrwolf on Aug 22, 2006 5:49:36 GMT -5
You're absolutely right spike. The government went into this for very good and righteous reasons that are very clear. But there are so many complications with the government, conspiracies and falsifications and all this suspicion everywhere mixing with these good intentions, or seemingly good intentions. I believe it's a good thing to help these people, but I don't believe it's worth sacrificing the lives of our own people, who have families back home who will forever miss them. They went into service to kill osama, and fight terrorism. But instead now they're in there for other reasons they didn't even agree to. Sure, it's good to help these other people, but at what price? We're being attacked by these people! These people we're trying to help. Sure, not all of them are bad...but what the hell?
The Intentions are indeed good, but the way we're going about it are bad. Families want their soldiers back. These soldiers are young! They're losing their entire futures, to give unsure opportunities to these people who don't even like us! Good intentions, bad price.
But these are my opinions. You can think whatever you want. I'm not gonna force my opinions on anyone, and I hope people can respect that and do the same.
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: Ic[e]bolt on Aug 22, 2006 9:01:58 GMT -5
Personally, I think that our reasons for being in the middle-east--not just Iraq--are for very political and personal reasons, that are disguised as 'righteous' and 'just' causes. For example, Iraq has one of the largest oil fields in the middle-east, to my understanding. They pay 3 cents a gallon for gas there. Though I believe it was right that we removed Saddam Hussein from power, you must also understand that George Bush most likely was just finishing the job his father failed to do in the first Gulf War.
It seemed to me at the time, that Bush was just waiting for the opportuntity to return to the Middle-East. 9/11 gave us reason to declare war on 'Terrorism', which let us move troops to the Middle-East. Once there, it was just a matter of 'Oh! Hey! Look. Saddam Hussien. Let's git 'em." Why? Because we had 'reason' to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction. Again, a noble cause, but fruitless in that search. You have to remember the time-frame here. The majority of Americans didn't give half a crap about Saddam Hussein in the 10 or so years between the Gulf war back in 1991. Then suddenly, Bush makes a big deal out of, bashes Saddam Hussien, and then says, 'Well, we can't just leave them here governmentless.' After which, if we do establish a government, Iraq owes America, no? Does anyone smell cheaper gas prices? Or the fact that George Bush is very big on the oil industry? I think there are numerous political and personal reasons that many Americans aren't aware of.
I may be overly cynical, but I've never trusted a politician to do anything -just- for the reasons they say.
MrWolf: I agree on your point. The way we went about it was hastey and reckless, and we were caught entirely unprepared for the kind of strategy our 'enemies' are using. Wars today aren't fought soldier-to-soldier anymore. They're fought by what'll piss off the other guys more. In the most cold-hearted analysis.. The US military outmans, outguns, and outskills every other military in the world. I can't think of another country that could possibly stand toe-to-toe with us for very long, considering our financial backing. If a guy with a bomb strapped to his back runs in and booms four of our soldiers, that's a 4:1 ratio. Not to mention injuries. We know from Soldat that if there's a 4:1 ratio, that guy's kicking ass. He may be dead, but that's 4:1 for his team. It's like the Vietnam War, in retrospect. We were entirely unprepared for a war that wasn't fought man-to-man. Instead, we were facing gureillas that were bleeding us down to the point of hemmorage. They know we're spread too thin. They know that we can't protect ourselves AND civilian targets. They know that eventually, they can make the Iraqi citizens believe that the bombing will stop if America leaves. America can't stay if America isn't wanted. Just like Vietnam.
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: Battôsai on Aug 22, 2006 11:29:14 GMT -5
I mostly agree with all that's been said here. The difficulty of helping people in other countries is, I guess, trying to make it self-suffucient. So that everyone could pull out their soldiers and let Iraq stand on its own feet. But if the western guns moved out, would the local guns just take over again and do away with the democracy and everything? To my admittedly not-very-informed eyes, that's what the situation looks like. Terrorist/guerilla tactics are hard to fight when they are internal. In the most cold-hearted analysis.. The US military outmans, outguns, and outskills every other military in the world. Outmans and outguns, I can see. But outskills? Where do you get that from?
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: Ic[e]bolt on Aug 22, 2006 11:38:49 GMT -5
I mostly agree with all that's been said here. The difficulty of helping people in other countries is, I guess, trying to make it self-suffucient. So that everyone could pull out their soldiers and let Iraq stand on its own feet. But if the western guns moved out, would the local guns just take over again and do away with the democracy and everything? To my admittedly not-very-informed eyes, that's what the situation looks like. Terrorist/guerilla tactics are hard to fight when they are internal. In the most cold-hearted analysis.. The US military outmans, outguns, and outskills every other military in the world. Outmans and outguns, I can see. But outskills? Where do you get that from? What I meant was, our training regime is one of the best in the world. Sure, the German GSG-9 is supposed to be 'the best' by reputation, but we probably have the best tactical training. But I'm just saying it'd be suicidal to even try to face our military head on.
|
|
|
Post by meep on Aug 22, 2006 13:35:16 GMT -5
I don't know about this government anymore, just all the awesome troops. I hope we may be able to get them out soon, if such is possible; and that they do not get screwed over in end which fortunately doesn't seem so this time. lol This is the best forum for discussing the war in Iraq, so many intelligent political leaders post here All the other posts are intelligent enough, but you are the one who added an "lol" .
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: A MyStiCaL Fly on Aug 22, 2006 14:05:17 GMT -5
The Lag, Does that really matter?. This is a place for us all to "compare" notes so to speak and compare our thoughts and opinions on real life matters. I think it will be good, everyone perhaps will get a broader view of the world . I think Ice pretty much sums up my opinion, however. Futher Evidence of it being more of a personal reason then the "right" one. Bush doenst care about the troops after the war, he only cares we have enough to do what he wants. Benifits for Veteran's are getting cut right and left! Our Veteran's are hardly getting any benifit's for going to war, they hardly have anything to come back to, to compensate them for their loss. I think we "rushed" so quickly becuase they knew if they waited too long it would not happen. IE, if one actually put more thought into what it was about, one might discover who the war really benifits and then it would be too late. Going after osoma thats fine(if he even did it), but why did we have him cornered then skip on over to iraq to leave him alone? we have less soldiers in afganistan right now then we have police in a city.... Why was the Osama Bin Laden Family ALLOWED to leave the country when NO ONE else could fly!!?! Why did they get a free ticket out?. Question, If you are a terrorist and you are responsible for blowing something up, you usally claim it ASAP right? Becuase they have a reason for blowing things up. You don't say that, it was not your doing and you have no idea why america is trying to blame it on you... Yes, that is what he said(not exsactly, but that sums it up) in his first video release. The Fallowing Videos some don't think it is really him, but an actor.(I am not sure where I stand on this, I dont have enough evidence to decide yet.) Some have said after this is all over, bush and his administration will be looked on as heros. I think after this is all over, they will be looked on as one of the most currupt administrations to date... I have many question's on other thing's, such as 9/11, and while it does have to do with the topic. I will refrain for now. Note: After I re-read this I might edit it so it is put together better. just a warning
|
|
|
Post by Sucker Punch on Aug 22, 2006 15:21:28 GMT -5
For the most part, I agree with Icebolt and Fly. And while the government is saying that are purposes in this war are to free Iraq (And I don't question that that is our current objective), I think the only reason while we're investing so much time in the Middle East (And Israel for that matter) is for the oil. I mean, now that we are in Iraq, I think the government legitimately cares about the Iraqi people and their situation, but the government wouldn't care at all if Iraq didn't have so much oil. It's a real shame actually, a lot of Middle Eastern governments, particularly the ones associated with what the Bush administration calls "The Axis of Evil", are run by extremely corrupt or extremist people that hate America. Though if they didn't have any oil, we wouldn't need to invest any of out time or money on them. I know it sounds very harsh, but without all the money that's invested in them because of their oil, almost all of those countries would rot and die in the modern world. And while it would seem as if our duty is to open our arms and aid all of the poorer less fortunate countries, the world hates us for doing it. I think that the only operations we should continue to take part in from this point forward, are UN sanctioned peacekeeping and humanitarian aid missions. That way, the rest of the world has no excuse to hate us because all of the stuff we're getting our noses into is being approved by a major international organization. AS for the United States being the major military power, that is true for the time being. Though the People's Republic of China is growing very quickly, and they're becoming increasingly annoyed with how much American influence is running through Eastern Asia. Supposedly they're going to invade Taiwan soon and completely annex it. Also, they're aligned with Russia and our getting new military equipment from them. They're even doing joint military exercises and they both want to include India in the exercises as well. (Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.) For more info, read this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organization
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: A MyStiCaL Fly on Aug 22, 2006 16:55:03 GMT -5
Smash: Oh yeah, Kill lots of innocent people, So we can have cheaper gas. woo!. Sure the guy was bad, but bajebus. Why not ask the people if they want helped before helping ay?. For that matter, Why didint we just put more force on him more pressure from the WORLD use the UN like it should be, not go what? ok its been 18 times this issue needs to be solved how do you purpose we do this together now?. But no it was, whatever f*** you all we are going in. Now I agree him breaking 18 deadlines on issues already is like uhh hello yeah this guy is getting away with things, BUT! why didint everyone else feel that this was a big issue? Its the UN I am sure why they where letting it slide, or not dealing with it harshly was becuase in the overall world view sadam was not top priority. *shakes head* and now we want to work with the UN about N.Korea! LOL!. *thinks of the detailed drawing of these HUGE underground complex's they "thought" iraq had* *laughs ass off* *turns out they had caves with some munitions in them, Not huge undergrund complex's with airconditioning and tanks and such stored* *shakes head* *scare the people to agree? that they did* There are WORSE things in the world besides Sadam.... Think about all those lifes that starve to death everyday, africa? etc, etc etc. yes he was bad, but there are worse things, and better things we could have done. *shakes head* War should be a last resort not a first one.... Smiles. Grrr
|
|
|
Post by Esko Epäkesko on Aug 23, 2006 1:02:14 GMT -5
You want an Euro-opinion about US+Middle-East? Nah, Euro-opinion would just ruin your day.
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: Gunl0ck on Aug 23, 2006 1:14:54 GMT -5
Because we had 'reason' to believe that there were weapons of mass destruction. Again, a noble cause, but fruitless in that search. Does everyone just assume this? Can i point out the slaughter of Halabja? they used 2 classified WMD's (proven) and possibly more. The people who organised the attack were caught, and admitted they were testing the strength of the gases, for a later use. WHY would you test a weapon if you could never get it again? Hitler. Did anyone complain that removing him from power was wrong? I seriously doubt it. He slaughtered an entire population, and was charged with genocide. Hussein, slaughtered an entire generation, and was charged with genocide. Is it just everyone's hate for america that makes the second so much worse? im sure the allied troops enjoyed some creature comforts that didnt belong to them while they were in germany, and no-one seemed to mind a whole lot. Edit::Minor spelling mistakes, and if you want proof of any claims i made, just ask for them.
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: A MyStiCaL Fly on Aug 23, 2006 2:01:08 GMT -5
Esko Epakesko, By all means share. I know I for one would Love to hear that view of it. Why not? If one limits themselves in the views they see a situation in, they will never see all of the apple so to speak, only one side or so. smiles
Gunlock, that is a good point. I think people tend to think of NUKES when they hear WMD. Hussein, did have WMD's of that sort nods.
I am not arguing removing hussein from power was wrong, I just think it could have been done MUCH MUCH better, and for better reasons. For that matter, like I said before I think other things in the world need to be solved first before we start removing all the "bad' people like sadam from power... As for the relation to hitler. Hitler was on a much grander scale, more of a priority in the world at that time, he was taking over a good part of the world *laughs* of course there is a differance!.
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: Gunl0ck on Aug 23, 2006 3:42:10 GMT -5
I am not arguing removing hussein...for better reasons. Such as? (no insult intended here) Do some research on Uday Hussien, and his input to society. Or Chemical Ali. Those two scum of the earth are all the resons you need. No-one deserve to live the way of life these people were forced to live.
|
|
|
Post by spik3 on Aug 23, 2006 3:47:38 GMT -5
Well as to the whole gasoline thing i mean have we gotten cheaper oil so far?It sky rocketed once it hit one of the biggest US oil supplying state and my home Louisiana.I mean yeah its gone down a little but thats because we are getting the oil stations up and running again not because we are taking it from the middle east.So saying its about oil is complete BS.ATleast until it ends and we see if we really do take their oil.But since we havent yet we cant exactly claim the war is for oil.And about the GSG-9 they are one of the best but the one with the best reputation would probably be the british SAS.They were the first and the best.Almost every other special forces team in the world has a core based off theyre training regime.But i do agree that the USA has the best military as a whole.We have the SEALs the Green Barrets, the Rangers.and possibly our best being Delta force.Also the fact that we do many mission with the SAS doe to the fact we and Britain are allies is a big plus also.So really the GSG-9 may be good.But theyre just an afterthought compared to the SAS.
|
|
|
Post by :[DS]: Gunl0ck on Aug 23, 2006 3:53:55 GMT -5
But i do agree that the USA has the best military as a whole.We have the SEALs the Green Barrets, the Rangers.and possibly our best being Delta force You have the best military in the world due to force of numbers alone. The fact is, no-one has the numbers to defeat you. Sure, if Australian SASR and British SAS fought against you (hypothetically), sure, you would have a fair few casualties, but you would still win. Why? Because you could send in 50 men for every 1 of ours.
|
|