NEED Quick help! Why did we go into Iraq?
- Thread starter Wallew
- Start date
PsychoSword
Moderator
Why, because he was a Democrat? Watch the History Channel and use Google.
QUOTE]Right, because every citizen who picks up arms against an invading force is a "terrorist."[/QUOTE]
No, but citizens or foreign fighters who target civilians and use car bombs are terrorists. Also it does not look like just American troops are the ones "sauntering in". You're contradicting yourself on the very same quote you are criticizing or apparently did not read everything in the quote. There are foreign fighters coming into Iraq. Are they minding their own business? A significant of the amount of the "insurgents" we are killing are not even Iraqis so how do you explain your "anthill of their lives" argument. It is not even their own country.
No, but citizens or foreign fighters who target civilians and use car bombs are terrorists. Also it does not look like just American troops are the ones "sauntering in". You're contradicting yourself on the very same quote you are criticizing or apparently did not read everything in the quote. There are foreign fighters coming into Iraq. Are they minding their own business? A significant of the amount of the "insurgents" we are killing are not even Iraqis so how do you explain your "anthill of their lives" argument. It is not even their own country.
An insurgent is a person who is fighting against an established order of rule. Normally, when a military is occupying another country, the people who engage in guerilla warefare against them are considerd insugents.
A terrorist is one who uses terror to acheive a political goal. A group that blows up a car in front of an embassy to protest a peaceful military base on holy land.
Fighters coming in from other countries are still considered insurgents because they are fighting an occupying force. We are occupying a portion of the Middle East, where the insurgents are from. To the Iraqis they can be considerd terrorists, because they are trying to prevent an Iraqi election.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
There's a contradiction in terms...
The Histoty Channel. Now thats a good one! The Versailles treaty was garbage.Hitler did what a true Nationalist would do. He brought Germany out of the ashes WW1. The international bankers etc. hated him because he didn't use dept free money.And he didn't have a massive army. He also didn't want war.Churchill wanted war and the desrtuctin of Germany even befor the war started. Peace was no option.How many lives could have been saved? Look what happened. Till the wall came down.(not over either)
Smawgunner
Inactive
Jesus, I never knew a more liberal bunch of gun toters. I also can't believe no one has brought about the REAL issue....RESOLUTION 1441!!! Remember? When the UN drafted the resolution that Saddam come clean of his weapons program or face drastic "consequences". Remember that one? Saddam flooded the UN with all that paper work and the UN (including the united states) also thought it was a smoke and mirrors game. Remember that? And when the UN inspectors were kicked out of the country after months and months of getting the run around from Saddam...remember that? And after years of our young boys being fired upon in the no fly zone...remember THAT! Well the UN didn't have enough freakin' balls do do anything about it so WE DID! You can say all you want about a revenge for trying to shoot GW's "daddy" and that the US has supposedly "stolen" all of this oil, blah blah blah. Oh..and by the way...the Dems hate Bush so bad....don't you think one minute that there would be outrage by congress democrats to IMPEACH the guy...oh...that's right, you have more evidence than those sitting on high level intelligence committees. I mean really...if ANY of that were true...lies about WMD, revenge, "stealing" oil, yada yada yada...someone would do a damn investigation at least? Or are the dems above all of that?
Sheesh.
Allen
Former US Marine
Sheesh.
Allen
Former US Marine
PsychoSword
Moderator
Yea, I remember all that. I'm very familiar with all that.
Smawgunner, do we really care what the U.N. thinks? Haven't you realized that they are completely irrelevant unless you give them creedence? You're a typical neo-conservative guy who believes in the United Nations so long as it does what the neo-conservative democrats and republicans want it to do. Which is scary in and of itself.
I suppose that would tend to happen to Iraqi fighters flying over Maine as well.
The U.N. is nothing but a bunch of global socialist parasites. They're a joke and a fraud. They were created by the international banking elite at the end of WWII because their first attempt at global government, "The League of Nations" had failed miserably. These people have got Americans caught up in their phony left vs. right game so badly that people don't even realize they're doing the U.N. and international elite's bidding.
No, the U.S. stole the oil for the U.N. They received the trust fund. The country is torn out and then World Bank comes in and loans the Iraqi people's own money back to them so that they are indebted slaves. Are you familiar with the IMF's plan?
Just democrats?
So where are the WMD? Oh they'll parade them in front of the cameras as soon as they need a public opinion boost.
Smawgunner, do we really care what the U.N. thinks? Haven't you realized that they are completely irrelevant unless you give them creedence? You're a typical neo-conservative guy who believes in the United Nations so long as it does what the neo-conservative democrats and republicans want it to do. Which is scary in and of itself.
I suppose that would tend to happen to Iraqi fighters flying over Maine as well.
The U.N. is nothing but a bunch of global socialist parasites. They're a joke and a fraud. They were created by the international banking elite at the end of WWII because their first attempt at global government, "The League of Nations" had failed miserably. These people have got Americans caught up in their phony left vs. right game so badly that people don't even realize they're doing the U.N. and international elite's bidding.
No, the U.S. stole the oil for the U.N. They received the trust fund. The country is torn out and then World Bank comes in and loans the Iraqi people's own money back to them so that they are indebted slaves. Are you familiar with the IMF's plan?
Just democrats?
So where are the WMD? Oh they'll parade them in front of the cameras as soon as they need a public opinion boost.
PhyscoSword,
While I personally BELIEVE your last statement, can you back it up with physical evidence?
Uh, no response. So you don't have any REAL proof? I have yet to see any that can be verified by two different sources, which leads me to believe that your statement (which as I said, I BELIEVE it also) can NOT be true unless proven. That's why I don't say it. I CAN'T PROVE IT. Can you?
While I personally BELIEVE your last statement, can you back it up with physical evidence?
Uh, no response. So you don't have any REAL proof? I have yet to see any that can be verified by two different sources, which leads me to believe that your statement (which as I said, I BELIEVE it also) can NOT be true unless proven. That's why I don't say it. I CAN'T PROVE IT. Can you?
PsychoSword
Moderator
Wallew, all historians know that Roosevelt knew about the Japanese attack in advance. Like I said, watch the History channel much? It's part of the public record. Jeebus.. 
I hope I don't have to prove that water is wet next.
*edit* Here, I ran a Google search for you, here's the first thing I came up with:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
I hope I don't have to prove that water is wet next.
*edit* Here, I ran a Google search for you, here's the first thing I came up with:
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=408
Don't wish to offend, but why this question? I mean my initial response should be, "You mean to say you do not know?" - with surprize. As it is, I am not really surprized that neither the girl in question nor the poster know the answer, or are able to articulate it. Such is the apparent effectiveness of the con job of the Bush administration and the supporting media.
PsychoSword
Moderator
But LAK, you forgot the media is all liberal.
IZinterrogator
New member
Maybe, but Iraqi fighters don't need to be over Maine because the governor doesn't use the Maine Air National Guard to attack people that aren't his religion or race within his own state.
PsychoSword
Moderator
If he did, why would that be any of Iraq's business?
IZinterrogator
New member
If you say that you believe in freedom and do nothing to support those that are being oppressed because they want freedom, you are betraying your own principles. Doesn't standing up for something mean anything these days? Or does standing up for something mean that you will support it only if it affects you directly? For example, "Well, I believe in freedom and personal liberty, but only if someone tries to take mine. If someone else's freedom gets taken, that doesn't affect me, so I don't care." Hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
LAK,
No offense taken. And yes, I DO KNOW why we went into IRAQ, but I always like to have physical proof. In today's PUBLIC school system, you EXPECT them to teach them the WHY of the War in Iraq? Talking with my buddy, it seems her history teacher is socialist of some kind. You know, "the US is bad", etc, etc, etc.
PS,
Then you should be able to provide me with SOLID EVIDENCE, right? There is ALL SORTS of speculation, ESPECIALLY on the War er, History Channel. I have asked this question to so many people so many times and have YET to get anything but, "EVERBODY KNOWS IT'S TRUE". Great. Prove it to me.
Kind of like in "Stranger in a Stange Land" Jubal Hershaw asks Ann as a Fair Witness "What color is that house on the hill painted?" Her response? "The two walls I CAN SEE are painted white." Because she couldn't PHYSICALLY SEE the other two sides of the house, she DID NOT ASSUME that it WAS painted the same color UNLESS she went up and then looked at the other two sides. Even then she would only stipulate that it WAS whatever color it was at the moment she looked at it.
Like I asked earlier:
SO, got any tangible evidence other than EVERYONE KNOWS IT or IT'S ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL? Yeah, facts presented on TV. That's SOLID tangible proof. No offense.
No offense taken. And yes, I DO KNOW why we went into IRAQ, but I always like to have physical proof. In today's PUBLIC school system, you EXPECT them to teach them the WHY of the War in Iraq? Talking with my buddy, it seems her history teacher is socialist of some kind. You know, "the US is bad", etc, etc, etc.
PS,
Then you should be able to provide me with SOLID EVIDENCE, right? There is ALL SORTS of speculation, ESPECIALLY on the War er, History Channel. I have asked this question to so many people so many times and have YET to get anything but, "EVERBODY KNOWS IT'S TRUE". Great. Prove it to me.
Kind of like in "Stranger in a Stange Land" Jubal Hershaw asks Ann as a Fair Witness "What color is that house on the hill painted?" Her response? "The two walls I CAN SEE are painted white." Because she couldn't PHYSICALLY SEE the other two sides of the house, she DID NOT ASSUME that it WAS painted the same color UNLESS she went up and then looked at the other two sides. Even then she would only stipulate that it WAS whatever color it was at the moment she looked at it.
Like I asked earlier:
SO, got any tangible evidence other than EVERYONE KNOWS IT or IT'S ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL? Yeah, facts presented on TV. That's SOLID tangible proof. No offense.
IZ, As long as my liberties go,If I am going to try to give some to others and mine are being short changed, I will take care of mine first.That is not being hypocritical. That does not mean I don't think they should have theirs. Take of your own back yard first! Those who can't seem to grasp that idea,well,..........And also,roosevelt knew Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked,along with his buddy churchill. He instigated it. As far as the National Guard,where are they? What is their purpose? Why? are they not here?
IZinterrogator
New member
The military is not necessary to advance your freedoms. If the military is deployed in a conflict, you (and others like you) can still work on your liberties. I don't see why our status makes a damn bit of difference in the matter. But denying someone else freedom because you don't think you have enough yet (even though you have more freedom than 95% of the rest of the countries on the planet) is selfish and hypocritical in my book.
