WARNING: this thread could end up being a hot political disccusion. this is mainly adressed to the mods: I feel that this topic addresses an event that will go down in history so I put it in the historical disscuion.

What have you guys have to say about the Iraq and Afganistan conflicts

I am a pro-war conservative, that stands by president Bush and the descion so free Iraq from Saddam and his sarin gas he used to brutally to commit geniside. He was also suspected of Chemical weapons, something requring quick and descisive military action to further "investigate" <<-- haha. As for afghanistan and Al-Quadia Bushes Actions were right on. The Al-quaida terriorist organazation are brain washed die-hard muslims fitted with AK-47s and C-4. They are bent on destroying the United States and other western nations because they feel we are taking their holy land. They needed to be destryed completly and in a hurry.

Please post your opinions

Yea iraq, usa felt threatend by them and decided to attack and hit the regime like lightning and destroy them in less the 4 weeks, and bragged to the whole world how powerful they are, and ending up stealing oil in the process,
and nukes where were they? i guess they werent any huh bush..?

Well i think the whole middle east is going up in flames now that iran is in america's crosshairs.. they have the real capability to make nukes, and threaten israel with it too.

So whats the next action of bush gonna be?

*grabbing popcorn and watching*

whats wrong with destroying saddams regime? He was up to no good,invading kuwait and such. Considering that oil is at an all time high I am serioulsy doubting either of the bush presidents stole oil from iraq or kuwait. The middle east has always been "in flames" it is holy land that christians, jew and muslims have fought over since biblical times and the way i see it. the middle east will always be "up in flames" but the fire can be temporarily dampened if military force is used to take out tyrants like saddam huesein.

What have you guys have to say about the Iraq and Afganistan conflicts?

Bush is stuck in Iraq, troops being blown to bits, Juba massacreing US troops.
Bush just can't find a reason to leave Iraq, and he doesn't want another Vietnam.
OH did I forget to mention OIL? Bush is definetly not interested in Oil so that can't be a reason he's not leaving.
Saddam's trial is a comedy, nobody dares to accuse him even though he is in cuffs.
The insurgents on the other hand keep fighting for freedom, and for power.

Afganistan is relativly better, because the Talibans are not Afgan freedom fighters but foreign fanatic muslims hangin around INside afganistan. The afgan ppl are both tired of the Talibans and the Occupiers.

Honestly, both wars were good for only extending the USA's power and getting their hands on the oil in BOTH! countries.
The "fight againts terrorism" was just a partial truth. Bush thinks he can put his nose in anything he wants (he can becuase of the mighty USA). Iran: what right does Bush have to just tell Iran to stop the Nuclear program.
None!

Overall I think the wars brought partiall achievments and under these achievments is a very nasty greedy US policy.

THAT WAS MY opinion!



(you don't like it, too bad)

"There is nothing more exhilirating, than to be shot at with no results"
Sir W.L.S. Churchill

Im freeking tired of you liberal canadians standing back, doing nothing, listening to the so called "facts" from CNN and thinking you know everything.Which is worse: Canada being a safehaven for draft dodgers or Iraq and afganistan being a safehaven for terrorists? Theres only one country in NATO that does less to help prevent Worldly destruction than canada, and that is france

If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the
Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112
deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000. The rate in
Washington D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more
likely to be shot and killed in our Nation's Capitol, which has some of the
strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington, D.C.

The troops moral is high and they are kicking seroiuse @SS but you would never hear that on the liberal media like CNN.. Heres a couple videos for your viewing pleasure

http://www.yashi.com/?video&vid=276382
and my personal faviorite..
http://www.yashi.com/?video&vid=98411'

OIL

oil is the oldest saying in the book that anti war activists use to combat a higher officials desciosion to liberate a country. ITS NOT TRUE. Bush is staying in Iraq to finish the job he started. Before Iraq used to be a safehaven for terrorists to plan attacks on the US if we pull out immideadility it will go back to being a planning ground for terrorism. PLUS we need to make Iraq a STABLE DEMOCRACY and train Iraqi Fighters to protect there democratic nation once US forces have left.not to mention Saddam gassing MILLIONS of his own people. I think that alone deserves a government reform. Dont you? well you should because hearing that makes me sick to the stomach that Clinton didnt take action to stop it sooner

WARNING: this thread could end up being a hot political discussion

Dori: These kinds of threads end up turning into a flame war..politics and religion.

yeah,this is the history forum...but just because it is a current war, doesn't mean it's going to work kindly.

This thread will be heavily monitored.

My eyes are on you .

I'm only going to say this once:

There's a lot of debate over Iraq:
Whether the Iraq War's right or wrong.

There's only one true answer to the question.
It's a military answer, summed up in 3 words:

"Afghanistan Equalled Bait."

Understand that, and you'll know the answer.

thats true it was definatly a matter of time before the mods took control and frankly its a good thing. About the afghanistan bait thing, you are right on

i dont intefere or feel the need to express my opinions on worldly matters but it was correct to go into iraq and afghanistan

huh stand back and let hussain continue murdering 1000s of innocent kurds

stand back while the taliban control afganistan with a hand of fear

ohh by the way if you got caught commiting adultery or stealing your hand/arm was amputated in a football stadium in front of howling crowds

quote:

Originally posted by Dori1234:
WARNING: this thread could end up being a hot political disccusion. this is mainly adressed to the mods: I feel that this topic addresses an event that will go down in history so I put it in the historical disscuion.

What have you guys have to say about the Iraq and Afganistan conflicts


I am a pro-war conservative, that stands by president Bush and the descion so free Iraq from Saddam and his sarin gas he used to brutally to commit geniside. He was also suspected of Chemical weapons, something requring quick and descisive military action to further "investigate" <<-- haha. As for afghanistan and Al-Quadia Bushes Actions were right on. The Al-quaida terriorist organazation are brain washed die-hard muslims fitted with AK-47s and C-4. They are bent on destroying the United States and other western nations because they feel we are taking their holy land. They needed to be destryed completly and in a hurry.

Please post your opinions

I agree with because terriorists killed two of my dad's friends in Lebanon and deined it.

In my opinion Afghanistan was the right way to go. They had linked Binladen with 9/11 and knew that he was being hidden by the Taliban.

Now Iraq is a different matter. The US government accused Iraq of having WMD's, yet they never found them. Bush was clever to put attention away from the WMD's and to the liberation of Iraq to make us forget one of his goverment's great blunders. So for this reason I believe the invasion of Iraq was for the wrong reasons, and I believe we should send some UN peacekeepers to keep the peace instead of the US army, because with terrorists targetting Americans the country cannot be safe with America there.

These are my views on the issue.

What I don't understand is why we didn't stop the genocide in Rwanda or in Sudan which cost the lives of millions, but we invade a small regime that didn't threaten us in any way. I can see invading Iran, but invading Iraq makes no sense at all.

^^^sure it does...U.S. have other motives...

Wow. Didn't take very many posts for this to get polarized. Before I say anything partisan I'll make my allegeance clear. I'm a Canadian who accounts himself a socialist st heart but in practical (meaning voting) terms a social democrat. As for the earlier slam against us "Liberal Canadians" who do nothing but "sit on the sidelines" I'd like to disagree very passionately. Canada has never failed to act when it felt threatened. We were there right away in the First World War (mainly because we automatically went to war when Britain declared war back then) and declared war only a few days after Britain did in WW2. I might also remind you, Dori, that the US stalled in the face of an obvious threat to the world in both wars. The first is a little more understandable while with Hitler I think it was vain of the US to feel that he was no threat to the US. After 1945 Canada is a major part of the UN, has a place on the Security Council, and has a great number of peacekeepers stationed around the world. Now, if you're going to slam my country at least get your facts straight. Also, I dont think personal attacks are a very constructive way to argue a very specific point which you brought up.

Getting to Iraq and Afganistan, I agree with my country's choice to take part in the invasion of Afganistan simply because there was a clear and obvious connection between the 9/11 attacks and the Taliban and because Canadians died in the attacks. However Iraq is a joke. Only those blind or ignorant to the facts or who simply dont value their freedom would believe that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 or that Saddam has those so called "WMDs". That was an outright lie. The original reasoning behind the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam was directly connected to the 9/11 attacks and that he had or was producing Weapons of Mass Destruction which he intended to use against the US or other Western nations. Both of these things have proven to be clearly false. The so called intelligence which led the US to inavade was either wrong or faked and either way makes the invasion a mistake. The alleged connection to al-Quada is also simply unfounded. There has been no evidence of a connection between the two and in fact the war in Iraq has brought al-Quada and other terrorist groups into the country rather than remove them. After that any justification is superfluous. The American people and the rest of the world were misled either on purpose or by accident and in either case that is an unacceptable thing for the President to do. You cant be wrong if you're going to lead a country to war and to insist that yung men must die for a cause. Either Bush and his "folks" were unacceptably wrong or they intentionally misled people, the latter of which I am inclined to believe.

Saying that Saddam was a threat is a false statement because A) He has no real means of attacking the US both directly or indirectly and there is no evidence that he had any intention of supporting any terrorist organizations with that goal - and B) there are plenty of other more imminently dangerous threats to the Western world than Saddam and now, because of the indefinate responsibility of the US and its Armies to Iraq, no other concerted action can be taken against any other threat. As for the "Iraqi Freedom" idea I don't think many people would agree that that alone is a sufficient reason to parade off to war haphhazardly with a great Human and Capital expense.

I welcome any argument so long as its not simply an anti-canadian/anti-liberal flame but a well thought out, substantiated argument.

Thank you.

Im getting a little sick of how little we freak out when Iraqi citizens die, but when its an American soldier we all freak out. Im also sad because both liberals and conservatives never can come to terms and they all go to one or the other side on every political issue. ITS NOT BLACK AND WHITE PEOPLE. Godbless my country for making me feel bad when foreigners die without of cause from our direct or indirect actions.

I supported the decision to go to invade Iraq. And just to remind you liberals, in 2003 John kerry voted yes to invade Iraq. I don't understand what all the fuss is about. new orleans has a higher murder rate than Iraq. Troops aren't getting blown to bits, you make it sound like Iwo Jima. less than 2000 men dead, more than 3 years. average deaths per year 670. now don't get me wrong, any American soldiers dieing is a tradegy. But its not anything like vietnam. where average deaths per year was over 5000. We've killed or captured over 300,000 of the enemy. And an evil tyrant has been removed from trial. though i don't understand the whole trial. Firing squad is my solution. who kows what will become of Iraq. But it would do more harm than good to leave now. And Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. In Webster's; Weapons of Mass Destruction- nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. In the 1980s Saddam used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He got rid of them when inspectors arrived. And I'm glad he didn't have nukes, he might have used em against us. If we waited till he obtained them, which he was capable of, then Isreal would be a sheet of glass, the nukes would melt all of the sand. whether he had em or not the point was to get him out of power. this world does not benefit from a man like him in a seat of power. We do not need an anti Western leader with the 4th largest army in the world and with access to nukes at a moments notice. The world is safer without him. The more we remove the forces of evil, no matter where they lerk. Fighting evil insures the preservation of world peace. Saddam, Hitler, Osama, Mussolini, Slobadon, etc. They all fall into the same category, and when we just ignore their presence on the earth we allow them to build up their power. The removal of saddam is a long overdue operation. he also violated the sanctions. And we threatened to invade if he didn't abide by our sanctions, but we never did anything. Bush did something. We must back up our claims with actions. We must uphold our policies and stand by our promises. If we don't our enemies will not take us seriously and that allows evil leaders to run rampant. We lerned that lesson in WWII. It is our duty as the worlds super power to remove evil where ever it threatens. Whether its the Nazis or the taliban. The only difference between the 40s idealology and todys way of thinking is that in the 40s we understood this. Now we are uncomfortable with the sacrific that must be made to insure world peace. this has been started by the media. people today also are more selfish, we think "who cares, its way over there, it doesn't affect us." the fact is everything affects us. people wanted to get rid of saddam, they preach and shout and say we need to act, but they don't. Then when some "Dumb republican" like Bush comes along and acts they support him at first. they support the cause but as soon as the going gets tough, and people start dieing they turn against it. the fact is, were now wimps, we don't want to fight if it means some of our own will be killed. When we liberated Europe we destroyed hundreds of towns and cities in our own bombing raids over Europe. In those raids countless civilians were killed by the very same allies who were there to liberate them. but the people didn't complain. because even though their city had been leveled and many of their comrads died in the bombing raids from the very allies who were their to liberate them. They understood that the road to peace was going to be violent one lined with heart break and tradegy. But they were grateful because they understood that the struggle for peace and freedom wouldn't be easy, but they were willing to endure it for the reward that lay ahead. A reward that was still uncertain, a reward that was not a guarentee, but they still were willing to endure the hardships to achieve freedom and peace. The iraqis are to, but the American people are not, mainly because they have never experienced true hardship, we are ignorant to the life which to which a large portion of the world's populations lives in. So they are less dedicated, less motivated than the people who are actually living in such hardships. Which is a prime example of our increase in selfishness in today's society. Even though we live in better conditions than the rest of the world we now are unwilling to spread our blessed lifestyle to those who are less fortunate than us if the operation becomes more difficult than we had expected. Even if the operation will help move us further down the road to peace. Because many Americans are uncomfortable with sacrifice, hardship, and with struggle, no matter how beneficial the result may be. this is because the average American in today's generation has never experienced hardships and struggles and even fewer have had to make real sacrifices. liberals are always preaching about world peace. Well, we achieve world peace by riding the world of evil forces, not ignoring them because of our false belief that they don't effect us. people need to get it through their heads that peace is not achieved by sticking flowers into the barrels of our enemies guns. Just because America backs down doesn't mean the other side will. America is a country that is known for not backing down in times o hardship. This reputation has been founded by our previous generations. lets no let this one and future generations ruin that reputation, a reputaion which true patriots are proud of.

I'll disscuss Afganistan some other time...

quote:

Originally posted by Dori1234:
WARNING: this thread could end up being a hot political disccusion. this is mainly adressed to the mods: I feel that this topic addresses an event that will go down in history so I put it in the historical disscuion.

What have you guys have to say about the Iraq and Afganistan conflicts

I am a pro-war conservative, that stands by president Bush and the descion so free Iraq from Saddam and his sarin gas he used to brutally to commit geniside. He was also suspected of Chemical weapons, something requring quick and descisive military action to further "investigate" <<-- haha. As for afghanistan and Al-Quadia Bushes Actions were right on. The Al-quaida terriorist organazation are brain washed die-hard muslims fitted with AK-47s and C-4. They are bent on destroying the United States and other western nations because they feel we are taking their holy land. They needed to be destryed completly and in a hurry.

Please post your opinions

Hey, Dori

I have some quick comments on the first post of your thread. Not because I don't want to read the whole thread, it's only because I don't have the time right now and still I want to leave my opinion.

I'm glad you started a thread on this because these past 5 years since september 11th are important to our history .

First: I want to say I'm no pro-war conservative. I'm totally against what happens right now in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Al-qaeda and other terrorist organisations situated in the middle east are portaited like as if they're diseases. In my opinion terrorism al-qaeda is a symptome of what the west has done in the middel east since the end of world war 2. The only diseas is are Europe and the USA for they are responsible. The only reason why we are not being attacked by the chinese or other Asian countries is because of their nature. In the middle east and in Europe/USA people rhather like to strike back. The west has sickened the world for many years and with september 11th we were payed back a little, but in a more cruel way and direct (with using the media, those plains were timed so that the media could film the second crash).

Second: Why is the USAF bombing schools, hospitals and small villages? Is it wrong to educate children? Is it wrong to give people medical treatment? Of cours not! But why does it happen that the USAF is bombing schools??

third: the first person to support Bush was the Russian president Poetin. From then on Bush fully trusted Poetin and supported him in Russia's own war against terrorism. But you have to know that the terrorists in the Kaukasus are also symptomes of a diseas: they are oppressed by the russian government since stalin started the deportation of more than 2 milion kaukasians.

IMO, the war on terrorism and the war in the middle east, like the conflict between Israel and Palistine, iran and other conflicts should all be solved by diplomacy and not war! It's hard to negociate with terrorists, but sometimes we have no other options (like in palistine).

If this has been mentioned before, or if this post can't contribute anymore, then you are free to ignore it .

oh, and sorry if I made some stupid spelling mistakes, I'm not good at spelling. Cheers

This debate is very hard because of how horrible America's foreign policy is. "Either you're with or against us" does not work in a world that is not black and white. I don't see how anyone trusts us after we unjustly destroyed the democratic Iranian gov't in the 50s and 60s then caused a civil war in the Philippines which killed thousands.

quote:

Originally posted by Dori1234:
whats wrong with destroying saddams regime? He was up to no good,invading kuwait and such. Considering that oil is at an all time high I am serioulsy doubting either of the bush presidents stole oil from iraq or kuwait. The middle east has always been "in flames" it is holy land that christians, jew and muslims have fought over since biblical times and the way i see it. the middle east will always be "up in flames" but the fire can be temporarily dampened if military force is used to take out tyrants like saddam huesein.

Finally, I find people that agree with me. Also, I'm not racist but we have to tell the muslims (the extremists at least) to get it together or get it gone. I don't like a religion where eternal salvation is achieved by blowing up as many people as you can in one sitting.