Fox News Poll...Should we remove troops now?

[GrayGal]

Let me reiterate this for you:

"The WMD's were one fear but not the complete reasoning for the war, nor was liberation, but they both tied into it. Which part of my previous response was it that indicated I thought liberation was the only objective going into the war?"

I never said liberation was the only reason we went to war. I never even said it was a main reason. My views on why we went to war are under For Anyone That Thinks War In Iraq Isn't Necessary. I do think it is ignorance to say our troops are over there for no reason or that we have somehow done something wrong, when it is obvious that this was not a mistake.

Keep in mind we did not know about the human shredder that Saddam had or the mass grave of over 2,000 people going into the war.

 

 

Yeah and a reason for going over there was WMD....ok we found the biggest one there. He was found in a hole like the rat he is. Anyways, you can listen to all the speeches in the world but you got to listen to everyones....Secretary of the Army, Sec. of Defense, and the National Security Council. I mean they all have there own shit to say and its not ALL IN SPEECHES... Im not harping on you but I am for liberation of any country who has the ability to run themselves with a little help and willing.

[tizz]

OK OK so what are we going to do when we leave and the whole place goes to shit in six months and we are back to just another dictator. Go to war again? NO! Bush went there only after giving an ultimatum regarding WMD and allowing investigators. Had Saddam complied we would not have gone to war. Where is the liberation then. He would still be there and the place would still be under dictatorship. Liberation only came into play when Bush needed a way to get more public support. If you believe we went in there to liberate anyone, I have a bridge in brooklynn I would love to sell ya

[ToriAllen]

I'm one of the few people that does listen to all of the sides, both liberal and conservative, which is why I am split on most issues. We did not know half of the stuff he was doing because they do not have free speech and he killed anyone who spoke out against him. The reason for the war would not have mattered for liberals. They would have degraded and undermined it even if Iraq was on its way to take us over. Accept when Clinton attacked them, and then it was alright. You don

[eisanbt]

Pulling out of Iraq huh, well here is my take on the whole Iraq situation and the 'War on terror'

 

 

In 1950 the US was ran about %50 of the world's trade. Just coming off a successful war the economy was in kik ass shape and this appealed to the highers up (obviously). The use of a wartime economy to keep your country powerful is nothing new. Tied in with imperialism, a war economy keeps the industrial engine running and feeds itself with newly 'aquired' resources. With the british it was cotton, spices, furs, gold and the like. Today the biggy is Oil, but we'll get there in a second.

 

Now back to the 50s. Following WW2 we enter the cold war, while no real war was happening between the main contenders (The US and Russia) there is anger on both sides of the fence. This gave their respective governments an excuse to do pretty much whatever they wanted under the guise of 'fighting communism/capitalism'. The wars in Korea and Vietnam come to mind but they certainly wern't the only ones. The 'secret wars' in countries like Laos, Nigeria, and Cambodia as well as the CIA opertaions in the middle east and south america (Chilie, Nicaraugra, Brazil, Colombia) these were all justified by the "War on terrorism, err Communism " Also the assinations of dozens of democratically elected officials who were then replaced by cruel dictators by the CIA so the US could maintain control and not the people of these countries (these are documented facts, not liberial hippy BS). All the while the American people were just being lied to, for the most part completely unaware of the BS being commited by their government. The russians knew about, the people of Laos sure as hell knew there was bullets being fired at them, and pretty much every third world country being stomped on by the US knew and still know today. (Why were their some who got off you ask? The ability to retaliate; ISBMs and Nukes etc. I Wouldn't trust a world where the US were the only ones with ICBMs, the rest of us would be fucked up the ass)

 

Just a quick example that i'm sure you all remember. As part of a secret deal to purchase the release of American hostages held in the Middle East, the White House agreed to sell arms to the government of Iran. But that was really just the catalyst for their real objective. The NSC sold Iran weapons, and then funneled some of the proceeds to the Contra insurgency in Nicaragua. This was a blatant and intentional violation of federal law. This was 86 i believe? (Sorry i don't have my fact checker :o ) Sadly examples such as this aren't hard to find, though this one accually made the News. (Speaking of which, why the fuck don't your reporters broadcast all the BS being done TODAY, so that the otherwise good people of america can say "Wait a minute, We've been dupped!!" )

 

Anyhow, with the end of the cold war the US gov lost its excuse to do shit, it had no war time economy and those in power could nolonger turn the PROFIT, for themselves, that they once could using the resources provided by the Taxpayers. (Just a note for yous who condone this BS, NOT ONCE has ANY of the illegal opertaions conducted during those periodes benefited the Country only the interestes of those in power, they infact cause great finacial loss to the country as well as giving the US a horrible reputation, Justly of course, but again its not the people's fault) So for about 12 years the Gov had lost it's excuse to commit terrible crimes because it is afetr all a democracy and eventhough they keep the people quite uneducated they can still reason, what the Gov needed was some tag of fear that they could use to blind the reason of the masses.... KABOOM!! 9/11.

 

Now instead of hoping into Chilie they hop into Iraq under false pretenses and boot out a man that they themselves put in, 'liberating' the people form a horrible life that they create with Sanctions form the UN that left them living in a shit hole after Desert Storm, creating a relationship where they become the soul source for their survival (Kinda like a international "Protection" ring, which was another tactic used by the British empire, and the French and the Mafia...). The thing is that Neo-Imperialism is very real, it comes form 'Protection' and creating a trade dependency on the empire so it can maintain 'control' without 'controlling' the conquored country. (In this case, Iraq) and until they can nolonger use the war on terror as an excuse this trend will continue.

 

As i mentioned before the US used to control %50 of global trade, that has dwindled down to %20 with the EU above them and China looking like the next big one, not immedatly, but 100 years down the road. This war on terror is mainly just a bases by which the US wishes to regain its gusto. (Again i'm not blaming the People of America, its the fucked up gov)

 

Thanks for those who accually read this WHOLE thing.

[tizz]

I'm one of the few people that does listen to all of the sides, both liberal and conservative, which is why I am split on most issues. We did not know half of the stuff he was doing because they do not have free speech and he killed anyone who spoke out against him. The reason for the war would not have mattered for liberals. They would have degraded and undermined it even if Iraq was on its way to take us over. Accept when Clinton attacked them, and then it was alright. You don

[ToriAllen]

OK kid, let me explain the difference between a liberal and a pacifist. A liberal will take a political (not moral ) stance for everything. My opposition to war has nothing to do with politics it is strictly a personal beliefe. I don't give a shit who started it or why, I oppose war. Simple. And if you bothered to research me at all before labeling me you would know I am not a liberal or conservative strictly. My views range from one extreme to another. I make my descisions by the issue not party. You first response to me was strictly limited to how the war was so wonderful because it liberated a people, WTF is anyone suppose to think? Liberation is supposed to a good and positive thing, not something that blows a country up, kills it's poeple, destroys it's economy, spreads disease, or splits a country to such an extent. Again, liberation had NOTHING to do with our reasons for GOING to war. If that were the case, treatment of the poeple would have been a part of the ultimatum given that started this whole thing. Logic ALWAYS reigns supreme. I don't care who says what, ther eis always simple, never dissapointing, logic.

 

I am not arguing wether liberation was even PART of the resoning. It had nothing to do with anything but publicity and support for the war.

Okay kid? How old are you, 60 or 16?

So as a pacifist you would allow someone to take over our country just to avoid a war? Hypothetically. Yeah, we need more of you running around. So, you would allow society to break down and still would not fight? The world would be great if everyone was a pacifist. Pacifism sounds great in theory, but in reality it allows those who have no compassion, tolerance, or value for life to rule the world. The reality is compassionate people have to stand up and fight against the injustices of the world, and our country. Hence policing entities such as the military and police force itself. Drug lords can not be allowed to run the streets because some pacifist doesn

[builder]

Okay kid? How old are you, 60 or 16? .

 

Irrelevent to this argument. Tizz has an opinion. You don't like it? Who cares?

 

So as a pacifist you would allow someone to take over our country just to avoid a war? Hypothetically. .

 

Hypothetically, a pacificist nation would not have brought this shit down on their heads in the first place, you ostrich. Wake up.

 

Yeah, we need more of you running around. So, you would allow society to break down and still would not fight?.

 

Pacifists would fight to protect their country. They would not invade another country, nor would they incite another country to attack them in the first place. You don't get it do you, warmonger?

 

The world would be great if everyone was a pacifist. Pacifism sounds great in theory, but in reality it allows those who have no compassion, tolerance, or value for life to rule the world..

 

Agreed. But greed and intolerance and meddling in other country's political power is a recipe for retaliation. Get it now?

 

The reality is compassionate people have to stand up and fight against the injustices of the world, and our country. Hence policing entities such as the military and police force itself..

 

The reality is, meddling fools get their fingers burnt. You want to play with fire, and assume that because you have all the bombs, you will get away with bullying your way into another country's economy and power base, you will win? Lame-arse bully tactics will not be tolerated. Not even by pacifists.

 

Drug lords can not be allowed to run the streets because some pacifist doesn

[tizz]

Tori, what you can't see smart ass belittling when you see it?

 

Anyway, as a pacifist, I believe number one in options that avoid violence, or at least as little as possible. I have said several times, that in spite of my morals, I would support a small specially trained unit used to rid the world of terrorists. As far as asaddam goes, do you actually think his views are unique to the area? My god!!!! The entire middle east has always been an area of hostility and dictatorship, and it most likeley always will be regardless of what anyone does. It is not up to us to fix that, it is up to the poeple of the region to get their heads out of their asses and rewrite their priorities. And ya WMD were used to drum support for the war, and were ultimately the reason we blew the shit out of Bagdad. It is not really that complicated. Either you believe there were WMD and that Saddam was a direct threat to the US and support the war, or you don't. I don't! I believe as my Uncle did after he retired from the Marines. It is one thing to protect your own borders and defend your own nation from attack, it is another to go across the world and either fight soomeone else's battles or do it for the financial gain of a select few. I am not a "peace" activist. I am not dumb enough to think war can be waged without the loss of life and inocents, i just don't believe there is a justification for war. I will protest before the fact, but what good does that do now? the Damage is done and pulling out it a hurry would just land us back there in a hurry. You are very cunfuzzled me thinks

[snafu]

I would comment but Tori is doing an excellent job.

Amen! She makes perfect sense.

Listen to what she

[ToriAllen]

Irrelevent to this argument. Tizz has an opinion. You don't like it? Who cares?

That statement was directed at what she said. If you can

[tizz]

OK Tori, if our country is so humanitarian in nature and so out to liberate, explain to me the Sudan (begging for our help and we do NOTHING) or cambodia, we create a monster then pick up and leave as we watch the people of a nation slaughtered, and do NOTHING. Please explain....

 

Oh and then why make liberation a thing now, I thought we allready went to Iraq under the guise of liberation. And why wasn't liberation part of the ultimatum that led to the attack on Bahgdad?

[tizz]

 

 

 

What, you can

[ToriAllen]

OK Tori, if our country is so humanitarian in nature and so out to liberate, explain to me the Sudan (begging for our help and we do NOTHING) or cambodia, we create a monster then pick up and leave as we watch the people of a nation slaughtered, and do NOTHING. Please explain....

 

Oh and then why make liberation a thing now, I thought we allready went to Iraq under the guise of liberation. And why wasn't liberation part of the ultimatum that led to the attack on Bahgdad?

So now, you, a pacifist, thinks we should invade Sudan or Cambodia? I never said it was our goal to liberate the world. There you go trying to twist my words again. You want examples of American humanitarian effort? The US donated more to victims of the tsunami last year than any other country. Mercy Corps International, Agency for International Development, and World Food Program. All of these are involved in distributing food, clothing, and medical supplies to countries in need. You sure don

[tizz]

OK where in my post did I say I wanted the US to invade anyone? I was simply pointing out that the US only takes arms in the name of liberation if it has something to gain by it. How was that misunderstood. BTW you are the one that was saying that liberation was part of the reasons for war, that is what I disagree with. If you actually look at my posts here ad in other threads, I have never said anything other than I WISH we COULD pull out now but that pulling out before Iraq was ready to stand on it's own would be extremely irresponsible. I originally disagreed with your statement that we went to war, even in part, to liberate the peoe of Iraq. And THAT is what I have been debating with you.

[ToriAllen]

Actually, I had not made that statement when you started debating. You should probably know what you are debating before you start. I said it was going to take a while to build a democracy there. I said nothing about how or why the war started until you brought it up, which is what I have been saying.

[tizz]

We were showing compassion by going over there in the first place. Do you know the statistics of how many innocent civilians died under Saddam

[ToriAllen]

I am sorry if I misunderstood your attitutde here, but all I got was that you figure since we got rid of saddam and did our "liberating" then all is ok since that is what we went there for. BTW it is the WOMEN in power in iraw that are backing islamic law and want the constitution to allow for teh beating of wives.

I see how that could be misconstrued, especially if those are the only posts that you have read by me on the topic. I usually have my previous posts in mind when I write new ones. I

[tizz]

I am not quite convinced that the women are acting out of fear. I think I need to understand the culture more to understand. I will say now that there is not a bone in my body that understands how a woman could fight to keep the laws that allow the men to beat their wives. That one is a mystery to me! (then again I am reminded of teh color purple when Celie tell Harpo to beat his wife. Culture is a powerful thing)

[smutt butt]

Being a marine myself and a student of such logic, I can't help but think why is our beloved armed forces dying day in and out for people that don't care?

 

did you go to PI? i graduated may 24 1988.