War in Iraq (1 Viewer)

[onebytwo]

Iraq is an example of Arab and islamic countries greed and hatred against each other. If iraq is peaceful it could have surpassed all other countries in the middle east in economic growth, oil output and democracy. Iraq's neighbour simply dont want to see a prosperous iraq because it means their own people will demand more freedom and democracy from Iraq and will cause an end to the rule of tyrants in various arab countries and iran. To hold on to their power iraq's neighbour did everything they can to destabilize iraq, sending in suicide bombers and weapons , fomenting sectarian violence. It is well known that iranian and Syrian president celebrate every suicide bombing in iraq as if it were their birthdays

loser. you just cant accept that the US' presence in iraq is the reason it is so troubled atm, so you resort to blaming some other foreign influence. sorry.
is that why almaliki and ahmadinajad are just about the most perfect friends, giving each other hugs and kisses evey time they see each other?

 

[banco55]

Exactly, we are undermining that country's abilty to rule, and there's a special term or special law that says we can't do that.

For example in Iraq, we are simply saying you cannot rule yourselves so let's do it for you *cough* America *cough*

I would say the available evidence shows that they aren't capable of running their country in a civil manner. They need a psycho dictator to fill up the mass graves to keep them in line.

 

[HotShot]

Yeah the US troops will withdraw and the place will turn into a meatgrinder, we know this. the only answer to that is dividing the region into three areas, Kurdistan, Iraq, and extending the borders of Iran to take over the Shia provinces. At least, that would seem to be the best way to at least calm the sectarian violence for now.

The people of Iraq are already split up and instead of uniting them , lets split em up some more...

Democracy is far, far better than theocracy or dictatorial rule. However, it's not really our place to enforce it.

Anything can work and can work to its true potential if its really wanted and followed. Clearly the Iraqis prefer dictatorial rule - someone to take command and do things. Rather sit and hold votes and waste time and get nothing achieved.

Saddam may have killed thousands people, but he did keep his country going. At the moment Iraq is a 'democracy' (i dont know if its democratic to invade a country and overthrow its political system and put forth your own, especially if the people of the that country are opposed to it.

Quite simply, the americans could have gone, took Saddam and put someone else as dictator perhaps Barrack Obama as their new leader. Rather than lingering around picking on the muslims. All the americans have done is create conflict in the region.

It was always about Oil, making profit from invasion - why else you would you want to invade a country?

 

[jb_nc]

It was always about Oil, making profit from invasion - why else you would you want to invade a country?

why did germany invade poland or belgium? why did japan invade singapore and china?

 

[MaNiElla]

Clearly the Iraqis prefer dictatorial rule - someone to take command and do things. Rather sit and hold votes and waste time and get nothing achieved.

Saddam may have killed thousands people, but he did keep his country going. At the moment Iraq is a 'democracy' (i dont know if its democratic to invade a country and overthrow its political system and put forth your own, especially if the people of the that country are opposed to it.

Quite simply, the americans could have gone, took Saddam and put someone else as dictator perhaps Barrack Obama as their new leader. Rather than lingering around picking on the muslims. All the americans have done is create conflict in the region.?

I completly agree with HotShot.

It was always about Oil, making profit from invasion - why else you would you want to invade a country?

Yeah, its not like the US is heartbroken over the iraqis. I dot think that the U.S is even dumb enough to risk the lives of a huge number of troops just to "free iraq from dictators" and to "fix the country up from total destruction".

 

[YankeeChica]

Yeah, its not like the US is heartbroken over the iraqis. I dot think that the U.S is even dumb enough to risk the lives of a huge number of troops just to "free iraq from dictators" and to "fix the country up from total destruction".

US risked the lives of millions of american soldiers lives to save Europe to from Nazis, Us risked millions of American soldiers lives to save South Korea and South Vietnam from Communist North. US risked the lives of thousands of american soldiers to protect Bosnian and Albanian from Serbs.

Even if Oil was the reason, you should thank george Bush for invading Iraq so that people like you can have uninterrupted supply of cheap petrol.

By the way how did America profit from Iraqi oil, since there are no American oil companies operating in Iraq. :rofl:

 

[HotShot]

why did germany invade poland or belgium? why did japan invade singapore and china?

Why else?

Yeah because the sunni-shiite conflict will end if we give people some fucking flags or streamers.

THE ONLY fucking reason it didn't happen during saddam's regime is because they were so HEAVILY oppressed.

Splitting them up, will fix the problem.

Or you could split em up - this continue on forever - border attacks, suicide bombings.
Would be satisified to have your land reduced? TO have one large country into minute piece of shit? Just think for a moment dickHEAD!.

If they really wanted to split up -they would have done so ages go. Saddam would have even done that - but it was better to have one country so everyone has the same amount of land as everyone else.

 

[banco55]

You can't split Iraq up because the oil is concentrated in a few areas and the Arabs have shown that when it comes to building an economy anything beyond exporting oil is beyond them.

 

[withoutaface]

Why else?



Or you could split em up - this continue on forever - border attacks, suicide bombings.
Would be satisified to have your land reduced? TO have one large country into minute piece of shit? Just think for a moment dickHEAD!.

If they really wanted to split up -they would have done so ages go. Saddam would have even done that - but it was better to have one country so everyone has the same amount of land as everyone else.

But if they're allocated the same amount of land in the new country as they were in the old one, they're not having their land reduced.

 

[S1M0]

Yeah the US troops will withdraw and the place will turn into a meatgrinder, we know this. the only answer to that is dividing the region into three areas, Kurdistan, Iraq, and extending the borders of Iran to take over the Shia provinces. At least, that would seem to be the best way to at least calm the sectarian violence for now.

Call me wrong if you want, but I feel that's the best answer. Hell, Iraq hasn't even been around as an established country for that long, anyway.

That seems to be the only option, a decision along the lines of this is the only way to calm down seceterian violence in Iraq.

At the very least they willl significantly reduce seceterian violence in iraq, as Kurdistan is relatively peaceful, sunni insurgents will most likely stop, or reduce, suicide bombings, and the situation will calm down. Which is good.

Iraq wasn't even created on the will of the inhabitants there. Churchill merged conflicting sunni and shia groups into a single country and called it Iraq. He later said it was a "grave mistake". It was a grave mistake, they haven't lasted in peace before, and they won't ever make peace. The only reason why there was relative peace during Saddam's reign was because he was a dictator, and this was neccessary to keep the conflicting groups in check.

 

[MaNiElla]

That seems to be the only option, a decision along the lines of this is the only way to calm down seceterian violence in Iraq.

At the very least they willl significantly reduce seceterian violence in iraq, as Kurdistan is relatively peaceful, sunni insurgents will most likely stop, or reduce, suicide bombings, and the situation will calm down. Which is good.

Iraq wasn't even created on the will of the inhabitants there. Churchill merged conflicting sunni and shia groups into a single country and called it Iraq. He later said it was a "grave mistake". It was a grave mistake, they haven't lasted in peace before, and they won't ever make peace. The only reason why there was relative peace during Saddam's reign was because he was a dictator, and this was neccessary to keep the conflicting groups in check.

Iraq existed way before churchill.

 

[S1M0]

Thanks for the history lesson on everything I was aware of and repeating what I said. it was really insightful.

It wasn't specifically for you. It was for the others on this forum...

 

[rosietaranto]

More innocent people and soldiers killed by "friendly" fire have died in iraq then the "bad guys" it should never have happened.
The army has actually done good in Afganistan, they got rid of the taliban and helped rebuild the country. But Iraq is a mess.
And to those people who think Africa doesn't need help? Listen up.
If we wanted theire to be no poverty in our world we could do it with a click of our fingers, YES it would takes years before it would be transformed but NO it would not destroy our economy. It would cost 0.01% of our GNP to cancel all world debt. Now, hey, think about that.
That is nothing.
We keep them poor because we like it that way. We take what we want when we want for minimum price. We're able to buy what they produce so cheaply, because their lives were bought so cheaply.
By us.
To educate everybody in this world would cost 4 billion dollars a year. Think that's a lot, of hold on, the military spend than in ONE day on weapons.
Think that's a fair trade?
How about we go on and rape Africa a little more, or wait, South East Asia, South America? I think priorities need to be put in order, and a gun to be taken to our leaders.
And in saying that, i mean John Howard and George Bush.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I think what we can gather from all of this, is that a revolution to the wonders of complete socialism would be beneficial for all involved. Hooray?

Do any of you war-prolonging BOS'ers support the original decision to invade Iraq? It's got nothing to do with this current debate, I'm interested is all.

My post was lolworthy and you threw hate

Oh, you know I kid.

 

[rosietaranto]

It's not it's own sovereign nation.

EDIT: Africa's exports are negligible. Mineral wealth is about it. You know nothing about economics.

EDIT2: HEY GUYS AND IF WE ALL HOLD HANDS AND JUMP TOGETHER WE CAN MOVE THE EARTH AND DEFEYT GLOBAL WORMING K

At least I actually care about it, and I'm going to do something about it and I don't make money my priority.

 

[withoutaface]

I think what we can gather from all of this, is that a revolution to the wonders of complete socialism would be beneficial for all involved. Hooray?

Do any of you war-prolonging BOS'ers support the original decision to invade Iraq? It's got nothing to do with this current debate, I'm interested is all.



Oh, you know I kid.

Against initial invasion, pro staying the course.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

You have a unique talent for pissing people off Edgeworth. It's highly entertaining. None the less, at the very least, her intentions are kinda good. I'd just suggest that she, you know, reads up a bit more

In terms of the war on Iraq, which is what I think this thread was originally about (I don't care enough to go back a page and find out too much), my opinions are as follows. I'm against "staying the course", based on the idea that doing so most likely won't make a difference. It currently is a bloodbath that doesn't appear to be on the road to resolution with the troop surge in effect, and the number of forces in Baghdad aren't enough to make a marked difference or to stop the impending (or in progress) civil war. Keeping them there doesn't seem to be helping the situation. Seems like it's about to to simply go all Vietnam on this thing and get out of there while they still can.

 

[banco55]

LOL even in Turkey (which is often put forward as an example of how islam and democracy can co-exist) the army has to threaten to step in to keep the Islamic nutters from coming to power. No wonder the Arab world is so backward and democracy in Iraq is such a sick joke.

Turkey came under mounting pressure from the European Union last night to rein in the influence of its generals, after the country's powerful pro-secular military threatened to intervene in the Islamic-oriented government amid growing turmoil over the election of a new President.Olli Rehn, the European Union enlargement commissioner, who has been a keen supporter of Ankara's eventual accession to the bloc, warned the military to stay out of politics, saying the election was a 'test case' for the Turkish military's respect for democracy.



http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2067955,00.html

 

[onebytwo]

What's your position on Ahmedinejad?

he's a middle-eastern politician, isnt he?
therefore, a tool, though i must admit, quite shrewd.

 

[onebytwo]

LOL even in Turkey (which is often put forward as an example of how islam and democracy can co-exist) the army has to threaten to step in to keep the Islamic nutters from coming to power. No wonder the Arab world is so backward and democracy in Iraq is such a sick joke.

firstly, turkey isnt part of the arab world.
i agree democracy in iraq is a sick joke, whats even more of a joke is how you, the US, britain, australia and the rest of the coalition of dumbshits thought it could work. and since you agree democracy in iraq wont work, you also concede that the war is lost. you also concede that australian troops should leave, since there very purpose is to aid in installing a democracy, and since that aint happening, we're wasting precious resources in being there.