Seems to me a lot of Americans are only against the war because its not going well

aoife

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

I think that, regardless of the reasons, the more people that begin to oppose this war it is a good thing......

Ya but if it isnt for the right resons then its only a matter of time before another cynically motivated war is instigated and more innocent civilians die by their hands. What really needs to change is peoples attitudes, the more people in a country who turn against a war for selfish reasons the more people willing to enter back into one for selfish reasons a few decades or so down the line. Just take Vietnam for example, a perfect example of how you shouldn't stick your nose into things that have nothing to do with you and did anyone learn from that , no. perhaps if they had they wouldnt be in this situation today

aoife

macgyver06 wrote:

very cool...still its hard getting people to grasp history...everyone makes these posts...but when facts are presented they are ignored??? when the answers to the future lay in the facts of the present...


and yet in 2 weeks we will have another ignorant post

Are you calling my posts ignorant?

RockinInCanada

aoife wrote:

Ya but if it isnt for the right resons then its only a matter of time before another cynically motivated war is instigated and more innocent civilians die by their hands. What really needs to change is peoples attitudes, the more people in a country who turn against a war for selfish reasons the more people willing to enter back into one for selfish reasons a few decades or so down the line. Just take Vietnam for example, a perfect example of how you shouldn't stick your nose into things that have nothing to do with you and did anyone learn from that , no. perhaps if they had they wouldnt be in this situation today

Hey I totally agree with your logic....but will the American public learn...I cannot answer that, however it is obvious they did not after Vietnam...what bugs me is that this was a "faux" war from the start built on shelfish interests....did you happen to watch W's speech last night?

It was outrageous, in my opinion, calling for the Iraqi people to stand up and take responsiblity give me a fucking break...it's time that those who supported this mess stand up and admit they were wrong....not just wrong in strategy but wrong from the word go.....intelligence was flawed/strategy was flawed/everything flawed even the damn concept of going into Iraq was flawed......unfortunately more death will need to be dealt for the rest of country to finally seeing the mistake they made......what gets me is Bush makes it out that Iraqi's want "Democracy...Made in America Style"...plus how is this 20,000 troop increase anything new? Its the same old plan from a dumb man I say....it will fail miserbly and those that believe it will work are dellusional.....

IMHO its time this Bush Adminstration takes responsibilty for this disasterous effort instead of pawning the blame on someone else....especially those that are taking the blunt of the damage....makes me sick.....

aoife

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Hey I totally agree with your logic....but will the American public learn...I cannot answer that, however it is obvious they did not after Vietnam...what bugs me is that this was a "faux" war from the start built on shelfish interests....did you happen to watch W's speech last night?

It was outrageous, in my opinion, calling for the Iraqi people to stand up and take responsiblity give me a fucking break...it's time that those who supported this mess stand up and admit they were wrong....not just wrong in strategy but wrong from the word go.....intelligence was flawed/strategy was flawed/everything flawed even the damn concept of going into Iraq was flawed......unfortunately more death will need to be dealt for the rest of country to finally seeing the mistake they made......what gets me is Bush makes it out that Iraqi's want "Democracy...Made in America Style"...plus how is this 20,000 troop increase anything new? Its the same old plan from a dumb man I say....it will fail miserbly and those that believe it will work are dellusional.....

IMHO its time this Bush Adminstration takes responsibilty for this disasterous effort instead of pawning the blame on someone else....especially those that are taking the blunt of the damage....makes me sick.....

No i didnt see it i dont bother listening to anything that man says it just riles me up:)

RockinInCanada

aoife wrote:

No i didnt see it i dont bother listening to anything that man says it just riles me up:)

Yeah I say that all the time....but I find the need to listen to him so the next day I can argue his backward logic.....it is impossible for me to keep a straight face listening to him....plus the way he speaks.....sentence...pause....sentence....pause.....sentence...pause...it is like slow motion speaking with the man......I am either laughing or penting up anger listening to the man speak....one of the worst spoken world leaders I have heard in my young life......let's see if this troop increase does the trick...I'll make a wager it does not.....

John Budge

aoife wrote:

Judging by your number of posts and your cold remarks you are the devil so i want no more to do with you:) terrorism is anything that evokes a feeling of terror , pre warning could only increase that feeling so you have no point

Regardless, your characterization of the Iraq invasion as a terrorist attack is rubbish of the highest order.

RockinInCanada

John Budge wrote:

Regardless, your characterization of the Iraq invasion as a terrorist attack is rubbish of the highest order.

There was intelligence that planes were to be used as weapons prior 9/11 therefore you could also say that was not a terrorist attack either.....what I tend to call Iraq is an unprovoked attack on a soverign nation...with the USA as the instigators.....

aoife

John Budge wrote:

Regardless, your characterization of the Iraq invasion as a terrorist attack is rubbish of the highest order.

How so? just because its state endorsed. its certainly not a war , a war needs to have two adversaries or more, the americans just decided to go into Iraq unprovoked andkill innocent people. the country had no realistic chance of defending itself. they were unprovoked attacks which terrorised a civilian population. Whats the differece between this and other terrorist attacks

jeffbr

aoife wrote:

How so? just because its state endorsed. its certainly not a war , a war needs to have two adversaries or more, the americans just decided to go into Iraq unprovoked andkill innocent people. the country had no realistic chance of defending itself. they were unprovoked attacks which terrorised a civilian population. Whats the differece between this and other terrorist attacks

I know it was hard to tell, but we actually did fight the Iraq army initially. What you're seeing now isn't what the war started out being. We fought Saddam and his army, and made mincemeat out of them. What we did had no relation to terrorism and your characterization is completely wrong.

I think your original post is correct, however. Support for this war has certainly wained as it continues to carry on with no real successes, and no exist strategy. Everyone loves a winner. If we were clearing winning this thing, you'd see a lot more support. Support was quite high when we were fighting the Iraqi army and kicking their ass.

aoife

jeffbr wrote:

I know it was hard to tell, but we actually did fight the Iraq army initially. What you're seeing now isn't what the war started out being. We fought Saddam and his army, and made mincemeat out of them. What we did had no relation to terrorism and your characterization is completely wrong.

I think your original post is correct, however. Support for this war has certainly wained as it continues to carry on with no real successes, and no exist strategy. Everyone loves a winner. If we were clearing winning this thing, you'd see a lot more support. Support was quite high when we were fighting the Iraqi army and kicking their ass.

But they were ill equiped to defend themselves and so had no real chance of winning, it is terrorism because their response was only a reaction to the unprovoked attacks of the americans. Just say Iraq had bombed america, the americans would obviously react by attacking them but the initial attack would still be called a terrorist attack. Its one rule for ye and another for everyone else isnt it. Oh god forbid anyone should attack the americans because that would be terrorism but they can bomb the shit out of small defencless countries all around the world and thats liberating them. fucking hypocrites

RockinInCanada

jeffbr wrote:

I know it was hard to tell, but we actually did fight the Iraq army initially. What you're seeing now isn't what the war started out being. We fought Saddam and his army, and made mincemeat out of them. What we did had no relation to terrorism and your characterization is completely wrong.

I think your original post is correct, however. Support for this war has certainly wained as it continues to carry on with no real successes, and no exist strategy. Everyone loves a winner. If we were clearing winning this thing, you'd see a lot more support. Support was quite high when we were fighting the Iraqi army and kicking their ass.

Your last statement provides validity to aoife's original post...that support is going in the shitter because America is "losing" which I must agree is pathetic at best.....considering as you said support would be high if America was still pounding somebody....it would be nice to see support decreasing because of the cause not the current situation....still an unprovoked attack against an innocent nation though IMHO......and that is deal breaker for me....I would almost dare to call it cowardly......

Coming back to life

aoife wrote:

other country's affairs are none of their business

I'm against the plastic war on terror but I must take issue with your above comment. If you saw someone mug someone in the street then start stabbing them would you regard it as none of your business? I'd say 9/11 makes Al-Qaeda pretty much America's business. And you could say that Germany was none of Britain's business and that for the cost of getting involved a load of schools could have been built then as well.

RockinInCanada

Coming back to life wrote:

I'm against the plastic war on terror but I must take issue with your above comment. If you saw someone mug someone in the street then start stabbing them would you regard it as none of your business? I'd say 9/11 makes Al-Qaeda pretty much America's business. And you could say that Germany was none of Britain's business and that for the cost of getting involved a load of schools could have been built then as well.

Fair enough how does Al Qaeda relate to Iraq though?

Answer: There is no relation.....

jeffbr

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Your last statement provides validity to aoife's original post...that support is going in the shitter because America is "losing" which I must agree is pathetic at best.....considering as you said support would be high if America was still pounding somebody....it would be nice to see support decreasing because of the cause not the current situation....still an unprovoked attack against an innocent nation though IMHO......and that is deal breaker for me....I would almost dare to call it cowardly......

Of course. Did you not read the whole of my 2nd paragraph? Your post seems to infer that I contradicted myself.

Coming back to life

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Fair enough how does Al Qaeda relate to Iraq though?

Answer: There is no relation.....

That Saddam's regime is barbaric could be used as a justification if the West didn't replace Sharia regime with Sharia regime. Sadly, that is not the case.

aoife

Coming back to life wrote:

I'm against the plastic war on terror but I must take issue with your above comment. If you saw someone mug someone in the street then start stabbing them would you regard it as none of your business? I'd say 9/11 makes Al-Qaeda pretty much America's business. And you could say that Germany was none of Britain's business and that for the cost of getting involved a load of schools could have been built then as well.

The al-qaeda is linked with afghanistan not Iraq, Im just sick of this persona that america takes on like its this beacon of democracy and frredom and that every country looks to them for help and guidance. Its complete bullshit nobody wants ye'r help or looks up to ye, we areall fine managing our own country's and if there is a problem nobody wants ye sticking yer nose in like ye own the whole planet. Its completely arrogant

jeffbr

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

Fair enough how does Al Qaeda relate to Iraq though?

Answer: There is no relation.....

Then or now? If you are talking past tense, you are correct (although your post should have said "was no relation"). If you are talking about the present, you are incorrect.

Al Qaeda wasn't a valid reason to attack originally, no question about that.

RockinInCanada

Coming back to life wrote:

That Saddam's regime is barbaric could be used as a justification if the West didn't replace Sharia regime with Sharia regime. Sadly, that is not the case.

Which means it was an unprovoked attack therefore cowardly......and to oust Saddam was a media ploy everyone and their dog should now know the invasion was political pure and simple....

Coming back to life

aoife wrote:

The al-qaeda is linked with afghanistan not Iraq, Im just sick of this persona that america takes on like its this beacon of democracy and frredom and that every country looks to them for help and guidance. Its complete bullshit nobody wants ye'r help or looks up to ye, we areall fine managing our own country's and if there is a problem nobody wants ye sticking yer nose in like ye own the whole planet. Its completely arrogant

And it's arrogant to invade Kuwait, it's arrogant to blow up trains, it's arrogant to fly planes into buildings. Oh sorry I forgot, that wasn't America so that's alright then. Just out of interest was it arrogant to stick our noses into Germany's business when they invaded Poland? Is it arrogant to stick your nose into someone elses business when a man mugs a woman in the street across the road from you and starts stabbing her? Well?

jeffbr

aoife wrote:

But they were ill equiped to defend themselves and so had no real chance of winning, it is terrorism because their response was only a reaction to the unprovoked attacks of the americans. Just say Iraq had bombed america, the americans would obviously react by attacking them but the initial attack would still be called a terrorist attack. Its one rule for ye and another for everyone else isnt it. Oh god forbid anyone should attack the americans because that would be terrorism but they can bomb the shit out of small defencless countries all around the world and thats liberating them. fucking hypocrites

I guess as long as you use terrorism to mean whatever you want it to mean you get to be right. Using it in the conventional way, you'd be wrong to label it that.