19 replies to this topic

[hcmv007]

The recent attacks in London, and in Egypt have shown just how cowardly terroirists are. Change is coming in the Mid East. This is not just for Americans, but for everyone around the world. We can not give in to these people. The attacks in Iraq are not carried out by insurgents, but TERRORISTS. Most Iraqis like the new freedom they have, women are getting better jobs and the children are getting a better education, and the world's most dangerrous man, Saddam Hussein is in jail, where he belongs. Elections were held in Iraq and Afghanistan without any major incident and new governmemts are being formed. Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Lebanon will soon have elections as well, albeit not for rulers, but to choose some representatives in free elections. Our brave soldiers, men and women, have VOLUNTEERED to serve in the Armed Forces by CHOICE. These people over there are the best and brightest people this generation has ever known. So how are we treating them here? We run stories every night about Terrorist bombings in Baghdad, showing how many American soldiers (note I am not using the word troops) have been killed so far in this war. What many people may not remember, we lost more pepole in the first three hours of D-Day in 1944 (Americans) than we have in the two years our Forces have been in Iraq. I wonder what Ike or Patton would have to say about that, I think any General would be pleased. The prupose of war is to win. We lost that in Vietnam, I sure don't want to see it happen again. If we had to fight Nazi Germany today, would we win? Could we handle losing 20,000 soldiers like we did in Iwo Jima fighting the Japanese? If this happened today? I would hope that we would. We made this the greatest nation in the world, yes we drove Native Americans from their lands to stretch from sea to shining sea, yes we made ourselves wealthy off the backs of slaves, I am not saying what we did to them was right. However, we have grown worried over how we should be fighting this war. We are now so concerned about not offending anyone, that we are losing what made us strong in the beginning. In 1776, we broke away from the most powerful country at the time, our founders risked their lives for what we have today, for if they failed, they would have been hanged, or at least face a firing squad. We beat the British by fighting dirty, and convincing some of her enemioes to fight alongside us. Today, one nation that helped us, and that same nation, whom we liberated not once, but twice from German oppression, now can not even stand us. Great Britain has become our staunchest allies, led by brave men like Tony Blair and Jack Straw, who support the war on terror, even though many in their party and country oppose it. I love this country, I wish I was physically able to fight. I am saddened when I hear of a soldier's death, but it is not like what we faced in Nazi Germany, or against the Japanese. If you are against the war, that is your right, but I am sure that you want the soldier's to come home once all of this is over, yes it will end soon. But to the peole who say the US had what was coming to them on 9-11, you know who you are, please do not try to deter the fighting spirit's of our brave soldiers. We must not back down, we must not weaken our resolve. We must stop these people, who go out of their way to attack children, who believe women are second class citizens, who attack and then hide in a hole, sputing their hate and venom on Arab and American Networks. Yet amzingly, some of us feel sorry for them, and blame the US for their bad lives. We did not start this war, they did. We will finish it.

[License To Kill]

Spot on.

[ACE]

Einfachknittel

Edited by ACE, 31 July 2005 - 12:43 PM.

[1q2w3e4r]

You seem very keen on this topic however it's too hard to read if you don't use paragraphs...

[Dunph]

A little naive and biased on your part, hcmv007. One could argue that the US is sticking it's rather large, self important nose in again where it's not wanted and creating a war over fuel run by a self-aggrandizing piece of shat-out bollock.

[Johnboy007]

Didn't the British call American Revolutionaries "insurgents" in 1776?

[Tarl_Cabot]

I support the 'War on Terror' in a sense that I want to see Radical Islamic terrorists exterminated and I love the military;I'm as much of a hard *** about not taking any crap from the middle east as anybody(I think we should invaded Iran in 1980). But I don't think The Bush Administration has gone about it the right way and done so in such a clumsy and reckless manner(I'm not a democrat).

The #1 HIGH VALUE TARGET in this war is Osama bin Laden and he's still at large.Why? Maybe because we've diverted $200B and counting in money, time, energy, and sacrificed quality soldiers lives and have created a cultural civil war at home and racked up a budget defeciet that may be insurmountable without draconian spending cuts and tax increases , to counter a "potential" threat with Iraq.How many highjackers were from Iraq? Zero. I was never worried about Saddam Hussein unless I flew in his airspace.This Iraq war is a disaster; a fiscal and tactical nightmare.

I'm very pro capitalism and I don't suscribe to that cynical view that we went to Iraq for "oil". I know Saddam was an evil guy and his sons were even worse so I'm glad he's no longer in power and they won't inherit Iraq I guess but after doing a cost benefit analysis or MMQBing this war, I'd say we would have better off getting bin Laden,extinguishing Al-Queda and applying surgical strikes to Iraq to force greater cooperation.We've lost the "moral advantage" we enjoyed in Afghanistan where most the world was behind us...I just hope we can succeed in finishing this debacle.I don't want to cut and run now and leave a legacy of anarchy there but I wish we had leaders who had shown better judgement.

[zencat]

I support the 'War on Terror' in a sense... But I don't think The Bush Administration has gone about it the right way and done so in such a clumsy and reckless manner...

The #1 HIGH VALUE TARGET in this war is Osama bin Laden and he's still at large. Why? Maybe because we've diverted $200B and counting in money, time, energy, and sacrificed quality soldiers lives and have created a cultural civil war at home and racked up a budget defeciet that may be insurmountable without draconian spending cuts and tax increases , to counter a "potential" threat with Iraq. How many highjackers were from Iraq? Zero. I was never worried about Saddam Hussein unless I flew in his airspace.This Iraq war is a disaster; a fiscal and tactical nightmare.

I'm afraid I agree with TC on this one.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Standing tall and Strong isn't particulary effective against a Car Bomb.That's the crummy thing about this war. The soldiers don't have a clear enemy.Their deployment is probably the worst wartime job ever. In Vietman, they could at least get R & R in beautiful scenery, be able to drink alcohol,even fool around with prostitutes if they chose to do so to take the edge off. I know some Vets that actually say they loved Vietman. Iraq is HOT as hell year round, there is no booze,no real pleasurable diversions...just consider that and compound it with extreme battle stress and we're gonna have a whole generation of guys worse off than any war has ever produced...

[Loomis]

....the world's most dangerrous man, Saddam Hussein....

How was he was the world's most dangerous man? Now, I'm not saying he's a decent guy, or that he was no threat to anyone (although it seems to me that Bush, Blair and co. hugely exaggerated - or, to put it less kindly, lied - in terms of presenting him as a major menace to the world), but how was he more dangerous than, say, Kim Jong-il?

Pretty much agreed with Tarl's post (although I'm not from the States, I'm British).

[Tarl_Cabot]

Saddam was sponsering Palistinian Suicide Bombers and he did spirit at least $40B of Iraq oil money into foriegn bank accounts, rather than invest in Iraq'a infastructure and feed his people, ease the suffering,ie all the angelic deeds of leader with a social conscience, so on that front I'm amazed more liberals aren't outraged with him but I agree with you loomis he wasn't really a huge 'menace'.I think he knew from experience what we could do to him and his blofeld-esque existence if he attempted to use WMDs against us.I think he was more pragmatic than poeple wanted to give him credit.

[ACE]

Saddam was sponsering Palistinian Suicide Bombers and he did spirit at least $40B of Iraq oil money into foriegn bank accounts, rather than invest in Iraq'a infastructure and feed his people, ease the suffering,ie all the angelic deeds of leader with a  social conscience, so on that front I'm amazed more liberals aren't outraged with him but I agree with you loomis he wasn't really a huge 'menace'.I think he knew from experience what we could do to him and his blofeld-esque existence if he attempted to use WMDs against us.I think he was more pragmatic than poeple wanted to give him credit.

...and sponsored, trained, equipped and sanctioned by the CIA and Western administrations. Including the use of chemical weapons against a minority of the population (the Marsh Kurds).

The cruel truth of realpolitik; my enemy's enemy is my friend.

I fully support the US and British troops in Iraq (although disagree with the reasons for the deployment).

I do not like Saddam Hussein or his regime.

I think the invasion of Afganistan was justified and militarily expedient.

I think 9/11 and 7/7 (and all other Al -Queda related acts) were completely unjustified acts of terror.

However, NO war on terror has EVER been won militarily. There must always be a political solution allied to an intelligence and military strategy. The war in Iraq was a political and military gamble that had nothing to do with a strategic cure to terror.

This thread, while well-meaning, is wracked with naivete and lack of knowledge of geo-politics and history.

Please go away and read some history on the region. Particularly 1950's MI6 and CIA involvement in destabilizing the region. This is a complex subject that requires a little more thought.

ACE

[hcmv007]

You seem very keen on this topic however it's too hard to read if you don't use paragraphs...

Sorry, busted hand and I could only type one handed. I'll do better next time, promise.

[hcmv007]

Didn't the British call American Revolutionaries "insurgents" in 1776?

They were called traitors. They may have been called that too, though.

Edited by hcmv007, 31 July 2005 - 09:00 PM.

[hcmv007]

[quote name='ACE' date='31 July 2005 - 11:40'][quote name='Tarl_Cabot' date='31 July 2005 - 16:15']Saddam was sponsering Palistinian Suicide Bombers and he did spirit at least $40B of Iraq oil money into foriegn bank accounts, rather than invest in Iraq'a infastructure and feed his people, ease the suffering,ie all the angelic deeds of leader with a

[Byron]

Afghanistan yes , Iraq NO!

[hcmv007]

I am not claiming to be an expert on the mid-east or warfare in general, I just wanted to state my support of the slodiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know we will have Bin Laden one day, I thought we'd never get Saddam, but we did. I had heard some commentary earlier that got me to say enough of the anti war and anti soldier sentiment that has creeped into the media and felt I had to respond in some fashion. I feel that as a person who isn't fighting, that I as an individual must stand tall, don't let the bad stuff bring me down and stand strong, not letting people who wish harm on my fellow countrymen or our allies, dictate what I can do or not do. I don't mind if peolple are against the war, but I get upset when our soldiers get bad mouthed.

[1q2w3e4r]

No one in the West bad mouths soldiers digging in and fighting, they oppose the politics and political agenda that sends them there, sometimes without good reasoning or the full truth being presented.

[Byron]

Looking at events over the last two days the insurgency shows no sign of abating. Tactics are evolving and bombs just get more powerful.

It will take a strong and courageous leader to take a stand and pull the troops from Iraq.

This is where Kerry went wrong - he should have been clearcut and decisive by stating he would bring the troops home. Instead he had no clear policy on Iraq.

[Donovan]

I wholeheartedly support our troops...and by means more meaningful than sticking a yellow ribbon magnet on the side of my car. I regularly sponsor USO care packages sent to them (which costs $25 per). You're given the opportunity to add a personal note to each one. Mine is always the same: "A grateful nation anxiously awaits your safe return."

www.uso.org

Now the reason I post this is to illustrate the reality that while we safely go about the routines in our lives, including enjoying such recreational activities as participating in bulletin boards from the comfort of an air conditioned home, the soldiers in Iraq are basically going through hell. I suspect that if any one of us spent a day in their shoes, we'd admit we never had a bad day in our lives compared with humping around in layers of gear under the sun providing 120-degree-plus heat...getting paranoid that any car could basically blow up next to you. I hate to admit it, but college-educated people (like me) actually, perversely depend on those less fortunate in this country who cannot afford an education on their own to join the military out of need. And then there are a lot of first generation Americans, many of which are not even US citizens but want to repay America for the freedoms we provide by fighting for the United States. Minorities make up a disproportionate percentage of people in uniform (meaning the percentage of minorities in the armed services is greater than the percentage of minority civilians).

Recruitment is understandably hurting, though, mainly because of the questions involved with Iraq, such as "why?". The Middle East is a mindset we cannot really understand. To think that we can transplant our democratic ideals to a culture that is thousands of years old seems a bit naive (the US, after all, is only 229 years old...a mere blink in terms of longevity, even though in that time we've unlocked the means to destroy this planet and land on the moon, in that order). And one has to understand how things like totalitarianism dictatorships ever come to power in places like Cuba, Iran, Haiti, Indo China, etc. It's because of corrupt leaders taking advantage of weak constitutions that undermine checks-and-balances. The people get fed up and line up behind the future-dictators and enable the overthrow of the government.

I think once the U.S. leaves the region, it will become extraordinarily destabalized. At that time Iraq *might* barely be able to defend itself against insurgents/terrorists...but what about Iran? Syria? Iraq has a lot of oil, which makes them a most appetizing prize. And what will become of Saudi Arabia (the nation that provides the highest percentage of radical Islamic terrorists, including the 9/11 hi-jackers) when we no longer need oil from them and they begin to starve? To think that all this really has its roots in 1953...the year "Casino Royale" was published...when a cowboy CIA agent named Kermit Roosevelt (grandson of T.R.) staged the successful overthrow of the democratically-elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah. That was the seed planted that grew into this blossoming foliage of hatred. You can look at the timeline of events since and easily connect-the-dots.

Not to worry, I'm sure...something tells me North Korea will be craving attention in the future as well.

P.S. Anyway, I hope it all works out. After all, we survived the Soviet Union...

Edited by Donovan, 04 August 2005 - 01:24 AM.