Defining Picture of the Iraq War

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
imo, sadaam was asking for it when he wouldent allow un inspectors in.

Oh God.

I'm not going to touch this. Yet. I'd just like to say that this is probably not a can of worms you want to open.

[Board of Command]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
EDIT 2: there will always be casualties in war, but in my opinion the people of iraq will be able to enjoy a better life after the war is over than under the rule of sadaam.

I have quite a few muslim friends who actually know 2 cents worth of what's really going on, and they totally oppose this "War on Terrorism". They say Saddam really wasn't as bad as the Americans portrayed him, and that most people in Iraq really don't give a shit about Saddam being in power. In fact, it's not like Saddam is running around with a gun shooting people on a street. The country was in better shape under Saddam's rule than it is now under American supervision and this new government. After over 2 years of American occupation, how much has Iraq improved? Is the average Iraqi Joe happier than before now?

Why would the Americans invade Iraq by bombing their capital to ground-zero in the first place in the name of national defense? Defense against what? Is Saddam and the Iraqi army gonna take over the world? There's a big difference between taking extreme precautions and national defense. Seriously, what is the likelihood that Saddam would have eventually attacked America? It's not called defense if there's no offensive side. Do bullies beat up kids in the name of self defense because the weak little kid might grow up and kill them later?

Like someone above said, war is subjective. There is no absolute black and white to it. I'm not saying the Americans are the bad side. Both political sides try to justify themselves and make themselves look like the good. The stuff we see in the western world is handpicked by the western institutions. The video footage we see in the news is handpicked by the media to promote its side of "justice". It's called propaganda, and it's certainly working on some of you (not pointing a finger at SK here).

[Assertn]

oh great.

i knew it was only a matter of time until r3n's ramblings found its way into this topic

[SK]

boc i dont even know what to say to that. i guess when you sitting down comfortable in your computer chair without a care in the world it is easy to be against the war and not give a damn about what people thousands of miles away are going through. im not from a 3rd world country, but ive been through tough situations, i guess its made me more empathetic.
you do know he gased his own people right?

[Board of Command]

But is it just to invade Iraq and take over their country because Saddam killed 0.0001% of the population 20 years ago?

[ChaosK]

well there IS no right or wrong answer and all ur reasonings ARE subjective and i must say though i am not in favor of random wars, i believe this war DOES have a meaning to it though BoC you are right, i must say i am disappointed in the lack of improvement the US gov't was supposed to make on iraq.

[Y]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-

you do know he gased his own people right?

Stop.

Posting.

EDIT:

Please?

[Board of Command]

And to be even more analytical, what makes a force a threat? If it's the weapons Saddam has, then America should never have to be afraid since they got all the best weapons in the world. Saddam may be a murderer, but he's not an idiot who would attack America.

And to bring in the point of empathy, I will empathize with you for a minute. I am an American. Do I wanna be governed by a group of patriotic Americans, or the Chinese army who just bombed, invaded, and took over America?

[Assertn]

its true....he gassed his own people and blamed the americans......
at least something along those lines i believe

meh, w/e....war casualties are the last thing we should be worrying about anyway

[Board of Command]

Originally posted by: AssertnFailure
meh, w/e....war casualties are the last thing we should be worrying about anyway

That's exactly what one of my friends says. If you're a soldier, you should be prepared to get hurt or die. It's a natural part of battle. The point of being a soldier is the pride, and there's no pride in cowardice.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: BOARD_of_command
Seriously, what is the likelihood that Saddam would have eventually attacked America? It's not called defense if there's no offensive side. Do bullies beat up kids in the name of self defense because the weak little kid might grow up and kill them later?

Funny, that is the same outlook Great Britain and France had on Germany before it merged with Austria-Hungry and almost took over the world (WWII). They did nothing when Germany broke the provisions of the treaty of Versailles, much like it seems the world would have liked to do for Saddam. I hear that if we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it. I'm not saying the same would have happened (world domination is impossible this day in age, through warfare) but after such a large blunder you would think these "enlightened" countries would have been quicker to act.

[r3n]

jessper, iraq had no where near enough power to invade iran, let alone america. wheras at the time, germany had probably one of the most advanced and powerful armies in the world. comparing the two is pointless

always makes me chuckle:

[SK]

exactly jesspar.

[Jessper]

Originally posted by: r3n
jessper, iraq had no where near enough power to invade iran, let alone america. wheras at the time, germany had probably one of the most advanced and powerful armies in the world. comparing the two is pointless

No, you don't seem to understand. At the time that Germany broke the provision's terms for the frist time neither did they. After merging they did, yes. But not before.

[r3n]

k i never took history for a reason, its dull. but as i said, comparing the german army before WW2 to the iraq army is pointless. even after WW1 and the treaty of versailles which stated that germany wasnt allowed to build an offensive army, and only for defence, they did anyways. since it had the greatest population in europe at the time i dont think any one european country could stop it alone, compared to iraq which is small compared to turkey, iran, and saudi arabia, 3 of its bordered countries. so stop comparing the two and get your facts straight.

[Y]

Originally posted by: Jessper

Funny, that is the same outlook Great Britain and France had on Germany before it merged with Austria-Hungry and almost took over the world (WWII). They did nothing when Germany broke the provisions of the treaty of Versailles, much like it seems the world would have liked to do for Saddam. I hear that if we ignore history we are doomed to repeat it. I'm not saying the same would have happened (world domination is impossible this day in age, through warfare) but after such a large blunder you would think these "enlightened" countries would have been quicker to act.

Their leaders understood the situation better than you do. Saddam Hussein had no army. His "elite" guards surrendered by the thousands to unarmed civilian camera crews, in both Gulf Wars. There is absolutely no parallel with Nazi Germany as far as military strength goes.

[SK]

the point is not allowing iraq gain a strong military.

[Y]

They weren't. It had been ten years since the last time we attacked them for this issue, and they hadn't gained any sort of military power at all. America is stronger than the entire European continent put together in many ways militarily, a weakened Middle Eastern dictator with delusions of grandeur posed absolutely zero threat to the U.S., or to any of his neighbors.

[Xollence]

Originally posted by: turkish-shikamaru
@ sharingan: so the allied were good in wo2?? since when is dropping 2 NUKE's on 1 country belong to the good??
DAMN another post of me, this is really the last one.

Well that's up for debate as well. It was said that if we invaded the Japanese home islands it would have cost 500,000 American lives, and millions and millions of Japanese lives. And without those nukes Japan would've never surrendered, and it would've given the Red Army a chance to invade Japan. Both sides bomb the shit out of each other, Hitler even bombed his own people. Nuking Japan save more lives in the long run and ended the war.

Originally posted by: r3n
k i never took history for a reason, its dull. but as i said, comparing the german army before WW2 to the iraq army is pointless. even after WW1 and the treaty of versailles which stated that germany wasnt allowed to build an offensive army, and only for defence, they did anyways. since it had the greatest population in europe at the time i dont think any one european country could stop it alone, compared to iraq which is small compared to turkey, iran, and saudi arabia, 3 of its bordered countries. so stop comparing the two and get your facts straight.

Actually Germany after WWI was really weak. Even in the beginning of the Battle of France after Germany invaded Poland, France outnumbered the German by far. The only reason they were able to win is because of Blitzkreig and no one really came to their help.

[Deblas]

Originally posted by: -Sharingan-Kakashi-
the point is not allowing iraq gain a strong military.

Ohh. Now your changing your views? First you said you were heartbroken because of Iraq suffering(approving of the war nonetheless). And now your saying its for Sadaam because he probably is going to get a bigger army, and better weapons than America. Which is it?