So Begins the Castration of the great US of A

[Farley4Fan]

Think why sometimes. Baghdad wasn't a warzone before you invaded this country and now it is . It had stable institution to some extent but when you invaded / changed the goverment / removed the 'elite' class from power/ dissolved the army / removed a lot of officials from their posts / didn't mentain public order during first month while there was no police forces/army , you actually destroyed those institutions and caused a lot of civil unrest . You were warned before the war that you will need to mentain public order for some time atleast but noone in your goverment listened because they thought it would be the usuall pull-in/change goverment/pull-out scenario. America made Baghdad in to a war zone in the first place and you are also trying to fix it now . You reap what you saw to some extent.

Uh well no kidding snakebit.  Can't really be a warzone without any opposition.  IT WAS A DICTATORSHIP.  Iraq's better off with Saddam GONE, agree?  If not, there is no hope for reasoning with you on this subject.  Yes, there was stability with Saddam, but it was a terrible stability, and we are there to remove a dictator and bring forth (hopefully) a peaceful stability - a democracy.  America did this this this and this and bla bla bla, WELL NO DUH.  A lot of things have to be done to reboot a country.  If there is no struggle there is no progress, and that's the cold hard truth.  The basic resources are returning to major cities, violence is next to gone, a dictator (who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people) is GONE, and there is an infant democracy in the mid-east.  It still needs our help to get going, and that's why we are there.  It's a given that people have gone through tough times and will continue to go through hard times in Iraq, but this is a sacrifice made to ensure that future generations live better lives.  And hey, we'll kill some terrorists while we're at it.  Can you believe that some people are actually BITCHING that we are just forcing terrorists out of the country? Like it's anything to bitch about?

Whole iraq wasn't a war zone when sadam was in power . Only a bit , the northern regions , because he wasn't liked by some 'tribal-political groups' for obvious reasons. But in general it was a safe place.

Uhhm, yeah.  Point?  Think of it like this.  There is a fat guy sitting on a box of kittens, slowly suffocating them.  We come along to try and push the fatass of the box in order to free the cats, but unfortunately some die in the process of freeing the rest.  It may have been safe for the kittens under the fatass, but they sure as hell didn't like not having any say.

Now what happened during the invasion / after ? The institutions of power got destroyed , the army got dissolved , the police force is almost non-existant , american soldiers don't mentaion order . How do you think iraqies felt when all the country turned in to a massive riot / pillaging / robbing fest ? Not to mention 'friendly to non' incersensy . It wasn't there during Sadam time .

A very sad and absolutely ridiculous attempt at a "point".  Hey!  Remember when France was taken over by Nazi's?  There was no gunfire or wars going on!  It was stable in France!  Then Britain and America and the other allies came along and had the nerve to start a conflict!  Can't believe them!  Life was so much better for the French before we came huh!?!?!

Quit bitching and moaning about the problems occurring during the INITIAL INVASION.  Jeez, I mean, what?  It's been 6 YEARS now?  Still stuck on the bad things from back then?  They're being/been taken care of! 

When i see iraqie people speak on television . NOTE : COMMON PEOPLE , not the damn prime minister/president (I don't rememmber who is their head of  state) , they say usually that Sadam was a 'small devil' but during the invasion he got replaced by the 'Big devil'.  Prolly some iranian influance there also.

HE SAID SHE SAID.  Come on.  I've seen people thrilled that Saddam was dead/out of power.  He was just a small devil?  Dude, get real.  We will keep amazingly close tabs on Iraq, afterall, we are the ones that got them to this point.  We'd be damned if we let it fall through the holes because some Iranian guy took over Iraq.

Ofcourse the head of the state gonna say ' Look we got some problems but in general we are fine' . When its not the case. Same goes for Khamil Karzy  (The afghanian head of state.) He also says ' we got some probs but i think we are doing fine' but you know that they are not . WHy the hell they would need more troops if they are doing fine ? While the hell they only controll only 1/3 if not 1/4th of the country ? Why the hell drug production has increased during kharzy goverment a lot ? May be my defenition of 'doing fine' is different from others , but i don't think so

Afghanistan is a different story from Iraq.  I shouldn't have to say that. It's quite obvious we're having problems in Afghanistan and sufficient GAINS in Iraq.

[Spekkio]

That's right.  The president would even kill all 3,000,000 of us if not upholding the constitution is at stake, or so I hear.

You're being ridiculous. I didn't say that, nor do I think that. But that doesn't change the fact that your statement was wrong. This is the Presidential Oath of Office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Nowhere in there does it even mention the safety of the people.

This is my oath of office: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

Again, my oath is to saving the Constitution, not to saving your ass.

[Westfall]

minus the so help me God....we need to separate church and state....while i'm okay with the name being in the pledge of allegiance, it's more of a chant than a biblical oath.

[Kubanator]

Uh well no kidding snakebit.  Can't really be a warzone without any opposition.  IT WAS A DICTATORSHIP.  Iraq's better off with Saddam GONE, agree?  If not, there is no hope for reasoning with you on this subject.  Yes, there was stability with Saddam, but it was a terrible stability, and we are there to remove a dictator and bring forth (hopefully) a peaceful stability - a democracy.  America did this this this and this and bla bla bla, WELL NO DUH.  A lot of things have to be done to reboot a country.  If there is no struggle there is no progress, and that's the cold hard truth.  The basic resources are returning to major cities, violence is next to gone, a dictator (who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people) is GONE, and there is an infant democracy in the mid-east.  It still needs our help to get going, and that's why we are there.  It's a given that people have gone through tough times and will continue to go through hard times in Iraq, but this is a sacrifice made to ensure that future generations live better lives.  And hey, we'll kill some terrorists while we're at it.  Can you believe that some people are actually BITCHING that we are just forcing terrorists out of the country? Like it's anything to bitch about?

You assume they are terrorists. And yet, they only exist because of the US.

Uhhm, yeah.  Point?  Think of it like this.  There is a fat guy sitting on a box of kittens, slowly suffocating them.  We come along to try and push the fatass of the box in order to free the cats, but unfortunately some die in the process of freeing the rest.  It may have been safe for the kittens under the fatass, but they sure as hell didn't like not having any say.

No, it's more like this. America, being unaccepting of anything but their own culture, attempts to force they're government system by completely destroying the current one, and after serveral years of screwing around, sets up a half finished government.

Now what happened during the invasion / after ? The institutions of power got destroyed , the army got dissolved , the police force is almost non-existant , american soldiers don't mentaion order . How do you think iraqies felt when all the country turned in to a massive riot / pillaging / robbing fest ? Not to mention 'friendly to non' incersensy . It wasn't there during Sadam time .

A very sad and absolutely ridiculous attempt at a "point".  Hey!  Remember when France was taken over by Nazi's?  There was no gunfire or wars going on!  It was stable in France!  Then Britain and America and the other allies came along and had the nerve to start a conflict!  Can't believe them!  Life was so much better for the French before we came huh!?!?!

Quit bitching and moaning about the problems occurring during the INITIAL INVASION.  Jeez, I mean, what?  It's been 6 YEARS now?  Still stuck on the bad things from back then?  They're being/been taken care of! 

1. Really bad analogies. That was a full scale European civil war, while this is an uninvited invasion of a separate country. The major problem I'm seeing is that you thin they need your help, as if they can't help themselves.

2. Really? So there's law and order throughout the Middle-East?

When i see iraqie people speak on television . NOTE : COMMON PEOPLE , not the damn prime minister/president (I don't rememmber who is their head of  state) , they say usually that Sadam was a 'small devil' but during the invasion he got replaced by the 'Big devil'.  Prolly some iranian influance there also.

HE SAID SHE SAID.  Come on.  I've seen people thrilled that Saddam was dead/out of power.  He was just a small devil?  Dude, get real.  We will keep amazingly close tabs on Iraq, afterall, we are the ones that got them to this point.  We'd be damned if we let it fall through the holes because some Iranian guy took over Iraq.

People in American are thrilled. Saddam, regardless of his form of government, put his country first. Now the US have implemented a semi-colonial government that only serves to spread the influence of Capitalism.

Quick question, who was the better leader, Adolf Hitler, or any American president (You pick)?

Hitler, or Churchill?

[Spekkio]

Westfall, I'm agnostic, and I couldn't care less that "so help me God" is in either oath. If it is that important to someone, they can just choose not to say the last line. Just like you can choose not to say the "under God" part of the pledge (which I have done many times and no one's ever said a word to me about it).

[Snakebit.]

Think why sometimes. Baghdad wasn't a warzone before you invaded this country and now it is . It had stable institution to some extent but when you invaded / changed the goverment / removed the 'elite' class from power/ dissolved the army / removed a lot of officials from their posts / didn't mentain public order during first month while there was no police forces/army , you actually destroyed those institutions and caused a lot of civil unrest . You were warned before the war that you will need to mentain public order for some time atleast but noone in your goverment listened because they thought it would be the usuall pull-in/change goverment/pull-out scenario. America made Baghdad in to a war zone in the first place and you are also trying to fix it now . You reap what you saw to some extent.

Uh well no kidding snakebit.  Can't really be a warzone without any opposition.  IT WAS A DICTATORSHIP.  Iraq's better off with Saddam GONE, agree?  If not, there is no hope for reasoning with you on this subject.  Yes, there was stability with Saddam, but it was a terrible stability, and we are there to remove a dictator and bring forth (hopefully) a peaceful stability - a democracy.  America did this this this and this and bla bla bla, WELL NO DUH.  A lot of things have to be done to reboot a country.  If there is no struggle there is no progress, and that's the cold hard truth.  The basic resources are returning to major cities, violence is next to gone, a dictator (who murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people) is GONE, and there is an infant democracy in the mid-east.  It still needs our help to get going, and that's why we are there.  It's a given that people have gone through tough times and will continue to go through hard times in Iraq, but this is a sacrifice made to ensure that future generations live better lives.  And hey, we'll kill some terrorists while we're at it.  Can you believe that some people are actually BITCHING that we are just forcing terrorists out of the country? Like it's anything to bitch about?

Whole iraq wasn't a war zone when sadam was in power . Only a bit , the northern regions , because he wasn't liked by some 'tribal-political groups' for obvious reasons. But in general it was a safe place.

Uhhm, yeah.  Point?  Think of it like this.  There is a fat guy sitting on a box of kittens, slowly suffocating them.  We come along to try and push the fatass of the box in order to free the cats, but unfortunately some die in the process of freeing the rest.  It may have been safe for the kittens under the fatass, but they sure as hell didn't like not having any say.

Now what happened during the invasion / after ? The institutions of power got destroyed , the army got dissolved , the police force is almost non-existant , american soldiers don't mentaion order . How do you think iraqies felt when all the country turned in to a massive riot / pillaging / robbing fest ? Not to mention 'friendly to non' incersensy . It wasn't there during Sadam time .

A very sad and absolutely ridiculous attempt at a "point".  Hey!  Remember when France was taken over by Nazi's?  There was no gunfire or wars going on!  It was stable in France!  Then Britain and America and the other allies came along and had the nerve to start a conflict!  Can't believe them!  Life was so much better for the French before we came huh!?!?!

Quit bitching and moaning about the problems occurring during the INITIAL INVASION.  Jeez, I mean, what?  It's been 6 YEARS now?  Still stuck on the bad things from back then?  They're being/been taken care of! 

When i see iraqie people speak on television . NOTE : COMMON PEOPLE , not the damn prime minister/president (I don't rememmber who is their head of  state) , they say usually that Sadam was a 'small devil' but during the invasion he got replaced by the 'Big devil'.  Prolly some iranian influance there also.

HE SAID SHE SAID.  Come on.  I've seen people thrilled that Saddam was dead/out of power.  He was just a small devil?  Dude, get real.  We will keep amazingly close tabs on Iraq, afterall, we are the ones that got them to this point.  We'd be damned if we let it fall through the holes because some Iranian guy took over Iraq.

Ofcourse the head of the state gonna say ' Look we got some problems but in general we are fine' . When its not the case. Same goes for Khamil Karzy  (The afghanian head of state.) He also says ' we got some probs but i think we are doing fine' but you know that they are not . WHy the hell they would need more troops if they are doing fine ? While the hell they only controll only 1/3 if not 1/4th of the country ? Why the hell drug production has increased during kharzy goverment a lot ? May be my defenition of 'doing fine' is different from others , but i don't think so

Afghanistan is a different story from Iraq.  I shouldn't have to say that. It's quite obvious we're having problems in Afghanistan and sufficient GAINS in Iraq.

Dictatorship isn't always bad . Like one great politician said. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have so long as the people live fine and are fine with it. Many dictators and Absolute Monarchs did great things for their countries and you can't deny that and saying that 'democracy' is the only 'true' way is wrong.


The cats analogy made me laugh . How many people did Sadam's genocide kill ? Well not more than you did with your invasion and inability to keep peace . He didn't kill more than 1 500 000 which you did with your bad planned invasion. Before doing something you need to think about what might happen and that is one thing your ex president Bush was really bad at. He didn't even try to think about the consequenses.

France example is bad. It was a World war which any side had the chance to loose. On the other hand you had no chance of loosing against iraq and your victory was predetermined long before the war started so you could have given a bit of thought 'what to do after the victory , which you didn't and that's why you payed the price'

Don't misinterpret my words. Its not he said she said. I told you not to listen to the head of state. Listen to what common people say on the news. The head of state won't admit his mistakes unless the situation is total crap.

And last but not least. You had NO CASUS BELI to invade iraq . A lot of people were against it and a lot of nations. Some countries vetoed the invasion of iraq in the UN but you invaded anyways. And invading someone without a Casus Beli is what 'Bad Countries' do but this time some Americans didn't seem to care about it or to see it . If any other country did that it would be politically lynched but you thought that 'we are America , since the end of the cold war , since our friends from the USSR are no longer here , we can do everything we want' but history has proven that this attitude was wrong.

P.s. Casus Beli - Roman words for 'Reason of the war' .Having no casus beli means that you had no Reason to start a war but started it anyways.

[frvge]

it's belli. Two l's. Neuter. Dativus.

[Westfall]

Westfall, I'm agnostic, and I couldn't care less that "so help me God" is in either oath. If it is that important to someone, they can just choose not to say the last line. Just like you can choose not to say the "under God" part of the pledge (which I have done many times and no one's ever said a word to me about it).

I agree and am too agnostic. However, leaving God to lead your duties in a higher office is basically leaving everything to chance. This country and many countries idolize the church, which is why it still to this day is so powerful. By connecting yourself to a god and letting it guide your journey because that's what the people want, well you see where I'm going with that. You know that I don't give a fuck about the words, but if its going to be something as official as a presidential oath and you have to serve your duties to the country...god isn't going to help you, so why should it be mentioned?

[Farley4Fan]

Dictatorship isn't always bad . Like one great politician said. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have so long as the people live fine and are fine with it. Many dictators and Absolute Monarchs did great things for their countries and you can't deny that and saying that 'democracy' is the only 'true' way is wrong.

You do know that people hated Saddam, right?  HATED, not disapprove or not support him, hated him.  Imagine your child was taken because he spoke about your country's leader in a bad way, then he was killed because of it.  Point being that they were not free, Iraq was a sideshow that took us away from our true mission, Afghanistan.  Now that we're in the mess, we can't just up and leave, the people have to be put in a stable condition.   Period.

The cats analogy made me laugh . How many people did Sadam's genocide kill ? Well not more than you did with your invasion and inability to keep peace . He didn't kill more than 1 500 000 which you did with your bad planned invasion. Before doing something you need to think about what might happen and that is one thing your ex president Bush was really bad at. He didn't even try to think about the consequenses.

It was kind of made to make you laugh.  The piss-poor planning wasn't any fault of mine but the people in charge.  Will it/should it make you hate America because our advisors' were not great?  "Inabillity to keep peace" - well that's a laugh right there.  Gimme a friggin break man.  Oh yeah, we were supposed to just "KEEP THE PEACE" when we send an army into a dictator-led country.  NO man.  We weren't there to keep the peace.  We WERE there to kick some ass, set up a democracy, and leave.  That's it.  Not my fault the president underestimated how hard it would be.  I hope that you don't think that I am under the impression that we haven't made any mistakes during the war. 

1 thing that really pisses me off about the people that are for just "pulling out" is that they are so hellbent on digging up the past.  WHY DID WE GO IN THERE?!?!  ZOMG!?!  Not important right now, is it?  What's important is leaving the country much more liberated than before, and much better than before.  I do not think you disagree with me on this, but makes me wonder why you'd rather leave it NOW and risk losing everything and turning it into another Afghanistan.

France example is bad. It was a World war which any side had the chance to loose. On the other hand you had no chance of loosing against iraq and your victory was predetermined long before the war started so you could have given a bit of thought 'what to do after the victory , which you didn't and that's why you payed the price'

Oh was it?  Well, it was also a joke.  A joke to get you to maybe laugh a bit at your own arguments.  Once America joined WW2, it was only a matter of time, btw.  Do you recall what Churchill said when Pearl Harbor got attacked?  That's getting off point though.  The point is that whenever you send troops anywhere, things are going to get effed up, yet you act all surprised and pissy that America didn't "keep the peace" in a terribledictatorship.  For supposedly "progressive" people like yourself you sure as hell LOVE to not care about the future of the war - you'd rather love to talk about the past. 

Don't misinterpret my words. Its not he said she said. I told you not to listen to the head of state. Listen to what common people say on the news. The head of state won't admit his mistakes unless the situation is total crap.

YEAH!  And what the common people say (in Iraq) is pretty split down the middle.  Look at the suprisingly low amount of polls?  Pretty half and half as of late.  MUCH MUCH MUCH more optimistic than in 2003-04.  I wouldn't say we were winning the war 6 years back, because we weren't.  I'd agree.  But now, right when that light at the end of the tunnel has turned into a beacon the size of the sun: "ABORT MISSION!" you say.  Ridiculous.   

And last but not least. You had NO CASUS BELI to invade iraq . A lot of people were against it and a lot of nations. Some countries vetoed the invasion of iraq in the UN but you invaded anyways. And invading someone without a Casus Beli is what 'Bad Countries' do but this time some Americans didn't seem to care about it or to see it . If any other country did that it would be politically lynched but you thought that 'we are America , since the end of the cold war , since our friends from the USSR are no longer here , we can do everything we want' but history has proven that this attitude was wrong.

We are a responsible country.  Yes, there have been mistakes.  Yes, we could have done things better.  But at least we DID something.  By responsible I mean that we won't just take over the country should we invade it with hopes to make a democracy, like say - Iran, the USSR, or NK.

P.s. Casus Beli - Roman words for 'Reason of the war' .Having no casus beli means that you had no Reason to start a war but started it anyways.

I know what it means.  Apparently removing dictators, installing democracies, giving freedoms, etc. don't count as "casus beli's" anymore.  And why?  The ends don't justify the means?  Surely people still recognize the importance of human rights.  Don't you?  We can't ask Saddam nicely.

[Spekkio]

I agree and am too agnostic. However, leaving God to lead your duties in a higher office is basically leaving everything to chance. This country and many countries idolize the church, which is why it still to this day is so powerful. By connecting yourself to a god and letting it guide your journey because that's what the people want, well you see where I'm going with that. You know that I don't give a fuck about the words, but if its going to be something as official as a presidential oath and you have to serve your duties to the country...god isn't going to help you, so why should it be mentioned?

Because we live in a democracy in which the majority of the population believes that God is going to help them.

[Snakebit.]

Dictatorship isn't always bad . Like one great politician said. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have so long as the people live fine and are fine with it. Many dictators and Absolute Monarchs did great things for their countries and you can't deny that and saying that 'democracy' is the only 'true' way is wrong.

You do know that people hated Saddam, right?  HATED, not disapprove or not support him, hated him.  Imagine your child was taken because he spoke about your country's leader in a bad way, then he was killed because of it.  Point being that they were not free, Iraq was a sideshow that took us away from our true mission, Afghanistan.  Now that we're in the mess, we can't just up and leave, the people have to be put in a stable condition.   Period.

The cats analogy made me laugh . How many people did Sadam's genocide kill ? Well not more than you did with your invasion and inability to keep peace . He didn't kill more than 1 500 000 which you did with your bad planned invasion. Before doing something you need to think about what might happen and that is one thing your ex president Bush was really bad at. He didn't even try to think about the consequenses.

It was kind of made to make you laugh.  The piss-poor planning wasn't any fault of mine but the people in charge.  Will it/should it make you hate America because our advisors' were not great?  "Inabillity to keep peace" - well that's a laugh right there.  Gimme a friggin break man.  Oh yeah, we were supposed to just "KEEP THE PEACE" when we send an army into a dictator-led country.  NO man.  We weren't there to keep the peace.  We WERE there to kick some ass, set up a democracy, and leave.  That's it.  Not my fault the president underestimated how hard it would be.  I hope that you don't think that I am under the impression that we haven't made any mistakes during the war. 

1 thing that really pisses me off about the people that are for just "pulling out" is that they are so hellbent on digging up the past.  WHY DID WE GO IN THERE?!?!  ZOMG!?!  Not important right now, is it?  What's important is leaving the country much more liberated than before, and much better than before.  I do not think you disagree with me on this, but makes me wonder why you'd rather leave it NOW and risk losing everything and turning it into another Afghanistan.

France example is bad. It was a World war which any side had the chance to loose. On the other hand you had no chance of loosing against iraq and your victory was predetermined long before the war started so you could have given a bit of thought 'what to do after the victory , which you didn't and that's why you payed the price'

Oh was it?  Well, it was also a joke.  A joke to get you to maybe laugh a bit at your own arguments.  Once America joined WW2, it was only a matter of time, btw.  Do you recall what Churchill said when Pearl Harbor got attacked?  That's getting off point though.  The point is that whenever you send troops anywhere, things are going to get effed up, yet you act all surprised and pissy that America didn't "keep the peace" in a terribledictatorship.  For supposedly "progressive" people like yourself you sure as hell LOVE to not care about the future of the war - you'd rather love to talk about the past. 

Don't misinterpret my words. Its not he said she said. I told you not to listen to the head of state. Listen to what common people say on the news. The head of state won't admit his mistakes unless the situation is total crap.

YEAH!  And what the common people say (in Iraq) is pretty split down the middle.  Look at the suprisingly low amount of polls?  Pretty half and half as of late.  MUCH MUCH MUCH more optimistic than in 2003-04.  I wouldn't say we were winning the war 6 years back, because we weren't.  I'd agree.  But now, right when that light at the end of the tunnel has turned into a beacon the size of the sun: "ABORT MISSION!" you say.  Ridiculous.   

And last but not least. You had NO CASUS BELI to invade iraq . A lot of people were against it and a lot of nations. Some countries vetoed the invasion of iraq in the UN but you invaded anyways. And invading someone without a Casus Beli is what 'Bad Countries' do but this time some Americans didn't seem to care about it or to see it . If any other country did that it would be politically lynched but you thought that 'we are America , since the end of the cold war , since our friends from the USSR are no longer here , we can do everything we want' but history has proven that this attitude was wrong.

We are a responsible country.  Yes, there have been mistakes.  Yes, we could have done things better.  But at least we DID something.  By responsible I mean that we won't just take over the country should we invade it with hopes to make a democracy, like say - Iran, the USSR, or NK.

P.s. Casus Beli - Roman words for 'Reason of the war' .Having no casus beli means that you had no Reason to start a war but started it anyways.

I know what it means.  Apparently removing dictators, installing democracies, giving freedoms, etc. don't count as "casus beli's" anymore.  And why?  The ends don't justify the means?  Surely people still recognize the importance of human rights.  Don't you?  We can't ask Saddam nicely.

The problem is that not all people hated Saddam. In any democratic country you have people for the rulling party and against it. There were a lot of people against Bush in america ? Weren't there.

Kicking ass , installing democracy and leaving is not a good thing. It doesn't matter that you brought the democracy if you fucked the country up. Isn't this the same as your torture argument ? You said 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION IF WE CAN SAVE SOME LIFES BY TORTURE' and i am saying right now 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT DEMOCRACY IF THE PEOPLE GONNA LIVE A FUCKED UP LIFE AND WORSE ONE AT THAT WITH 1500000 INNOCENT PEOPLE DIEING' . Your not using your head a bit , your contradicting yourself in 2 topics.

It was far from over when america joined the war. You played a significant part in the Second World War but don't mistake it with 'You won the war for us'. Do you think Britain , USSR , France , Poland didn't fight in the war at all or did nothing ? They were fighting in the war long before you joined in and have caused the Axis more casualties that you can possible imagine. More than you did a lot more. War is not decided by only Industrial production capacities.


Changing someones goverment , dictatorship etc etc HAS NEVER BEEN A CASUS BELLI. You don't understand what those words mean. You can't invade someone just because you don't like his country/regime. Oh wait you did try to give a casus belli . 'Weapons of mass destruction' but there were none in iraq.


I dwell on the past because you need to learn from your mistakes atleast a little. This is what i honestly think.

[Farley4Fan]

The problem is that not all people hated Saddam. In any democratic country you have people for the rulling party and against it. There were a lot of people against Bush in america ? Weren't there.

First of all, there's only like a group of 1% that HATES Bush, and they are radical left wing idiots.  The people that hated Saddam included the everyday Iraqi civilian.  A very very good amount of them.  We didn't just remove him because he was unpopular.  We removed him because he was a dictator, and we all know they don't mix well with civil liberties and freedom + we all knew he was dangerous and killed his own people.  Just keep on defending a man who murdered hundreds of thousands of people though.  Then go on to tell me how wrong torture is, though he tortured his own people daily, and laughed at it.  He was a douche, accept it. 

Kicking ass , installing democracy and leaving is not a good thing. It doesn't matter that you brought the democracy if you fucked the country up. Isn't this the same as your torture argument ? You said 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION IF WE CAN SAVE SOME LIFES BY TORTURE' and i am saying right now 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT DEMOCRACY IF THE PEOPLE GONNA LIVE A FUCKED UP LIFE AND WORSE ONE AT THAT WITH 1500000 INNOCENT PEOPLE DIEING' . Your not using your head a bit , your contradicting yourself in 2 topics.

You're looking at the situation incorrectly.  Iraq was already effed up.  Here's another analogy for you.  You pop your shoulder out its socket.  In order to get it back to normal and functional again, you have to endure the intense pain of popping it back in. 

And the constitution comment.  Nothing is guaranteed to most of them by the Constitution of the US.  However, for the sake of it, a quick and speedy trial should be had.  You got me all wrong apparently.  And quit saying 1.5 mil like it was all America that killed them.  Most of it was suicide bombing and terrorist actions.  And with that, I'll point you back to the shoulder analogy.  Living in a democracy is way better than living under Saddam's thumb.  Just wait so you can see the difference in happiness for the citizens.

It was far from over when america joined the war. You played a significant part in the Second World War but don't mistake it with 'You won the war for us'. Do you think Britain , USSR , France , Poland didn't fight in the war at all or did nothing ? They were fighting in the war long before you joined in and have caused the Axis more casualties that you can possible imagine. More than you did a lot more. War is not decided by only Industrial production capacities.

I know I know, I was only kidding.  Remember when I said that "America/Britain/all other allies (Poland and Canada etc of course) had the nerve to invade France"?  Of course I know we were only a big part of the puzzle.  And funny you say 'not decided by industrial production capacities'.  We supplied the allies with a lot, long before we joined the war.  It was how we pleased both the anti-German people and the isolationists in our country.

Changing someones goverment , dictatorship etc etc HAS NEVER BEEN A CASUS BELLI. You don't understand what those words mean. You can't invade someone just because you don't like his country/regime. Oh wait you did try to give a casus belli . 'Weapons of mass destruction' but there were none in iraq.

It's still very possible that Saddam sent them to Syria.  He said he had them, we thought he had them, that was just icing on the inevitable cake we needed to smush while in the area.  But again, you are dwelling on a past that we can't learn from quite yet.  We need to think about the future and how we will leave this mess better than the mess it was before we came in, and we're just about there.

I dwell on the past because you need to learn from your mistakes atleast a little. This is what i honestly think.

Snakebit, I completely agree.  However, we can't apply the lessons we've learned from the mistakes of the invasion to the process of finishing or getting out.  We will use what we've learned the NEXT time we invade a country.  Start w/ more troops, don't underestimate the goal at hand, and get better intelligence.  See what I'm saying?  The lessons we learned do not apply right now, perhaps in the future.

[Snakebit.]

The problem is that not all people hated Saddam. In any democratic country you have people for the rulling party and against it. There were a lot of people against Bush in america ? Weren't there.

First of all, there's only like a group of 1% that HATES Bush, and they are radical left wing idiots.  The people that hated Saddam included the everyday Iraqi civilian.  A very very good amount of them.  We didn't just remove him because he was unpopular.  We removed him because he was a dictator, and we all know they don't mix well with civil liberties and freedom + we all knew he was dangerous and killed his own people.  Just keep on defending a man who murdered hundreds of thousands of people though.  Then go on to tell me how wrong torture is, though he tortured his own people daily, and laughed at it.  He was a douche, accept it. 

Kicking ass , installing democracy and leaving is not a good thing. It doesn't matter that you brought the democracy if you fucked the country up. Isn't this the same as your torture argument ? You said 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION IF WE CAN SAVE SOME LIFES BY TORTURE' and i am saying right now 'WHO GIVES A DAMN ABOUT DEMOCRACY IF THE PEOPLE GONNA LIVE A FUCKED UP LIFE AND WORSE ONE AT THAT WITH 1500000 INNOCENT PEOPLE DIEING' . Your not using your head a bit , your contradicting yourself in 2 topics.

You're looking at the situation incorrectly.  Iraq was already effed up.  Here's another analogy for you.  You pop your shoulder out its socket.  In order to get it back to normal and functional again, you have to endure the intense pain of popping it back in. 

And the constitution comment.  Nothing is guaranteed to most of them by the Constitution of the US.  However, for the sake of it, a quick and speedy trial should be had.  You got me all wrong apparently.  And quit saying 1.5 mil like it was all America that killed them.  Most of it was suicide bombing and terrorist actions.  And with that, I'll point you back to the shoulder analogy.  Living in a democracy is way better than living under Saddam's thumb.  Just wait so you can see the difference in happiness for the citizens.

It was far from over when america joined the war. You played a significant part in the Second World War but don't mistake it with 'You won the war for us'. Do you think Britain , USSR , France , Poland didn't fight in the war at all or did nothing ? They were fighting in the war long before you joined in and have caused the Axis more casualties that you can possible imagine. More than you did a lot more. War is not decided by only Industrial production capacities.

I know I know, I was only kidding.  Remember when I said that "America/Britain/all other allies (Poland and Canada etc of course) had the nerve to invade France"?  Of course I know we were only a big part of the puzzle.  And funny you say 'not decided by industrial production capacities'.  We supplied the allies with a lot, long before we joined the war.  It was how we pleased both the anti-German people and the isolationists in our country.

Changing someones goverment , dictatorship etc etc HAS NEVER BEEN A CASUS BELLI. You don't understand what those words mean. You can't invade someone just because you don't like his country/regime. Oh wait you did try to give a casus belli . 'Weapons of mass destruction' but there were none in iraq.

It's still very possible that Saddam sent them to Syria.  He said he had them, we thought he had them, that was just icing on the inevitable cake we needed to smush while in the area.  But again, you are dwelling on a past that we can't learn from quite yet.  We need to think about the future and how we will leave this mess better than the mess it was before we came in, and we're just about there.

I dwell on the past because you need to learn from your mistakes atleast a little. This is what i honestly think.

Snakebit, I completely agree.  However, we can't apply the lessons we've learned from the mistakes of the invasion to the process of finishing or getting out.  We will use what we've learned the NEXT time we invade a country.  Start w/ more troops, don't underestimate the goal at hand, and get better intelligence.  See what I'm saying?  The lessons we learned do not apply right now, perhaps in the future.

The problem is sadam killed thousand on the other hand your invasion killed one and a half million and ruined the country. I don't find it better than sadamS rule. Your 'coming to iraq' made a lot more problems that Saddams whole reign did.

About torture. I never said its bad . I said that the court must allow it . Make a procedure which you need to pass before you can torture someone. But torturing someone out of the blue is bull.

If you take your analogy about popping shoulders for iraq . Who was that popped their shoulder incorrectly in the first time ? Saddam was your friend and was put in power by Usa during the cold war.... Now you are causing even more pain to the country by just popping it out and in again by removing Saddam ? Do you really think that people are that helpless ? Saddam would die eventually and i doubt another Saddam would come.

I am saying that 1.5 million people wouldn't have died if you haven't invaded in the first place. Yes sadam killed a hundred thousand people once but its not like he does it every week or so . He did it once.....
You killed a lot more than him and i fail to see how is that making the country better ?
During saddam there  were stable institutions of power and government . Out of fear perhaps. But it worked .
Now , can you say there are stable intitutions ? No , you can't.


I say that war isn't decided by industrial capacity alone. If it is decided by only industrial capacity . Do you think that if China invaded America right now , China would win ? It has more people and more 'production' Capacity . The industrial sector of china is larger and stronger than the american one right now.

1st time i hear the Syria thing. Come on , do you think your 'great cia , nsa or whatever' wouldn't notice Saddam moving 1000 tons of weapons of mass destruction to Syria . It takes a lot of time to do so and all eyes were on Iraq so i doubt he could have pulled it off.

[Westfall]

I agree and am too agnostic. However, leaving God to lead your duties in a higher office is basically leaving everything to chance. This country and many countries idolize the church, which is why it still to this day is so powerful. By connecting yourself to a god and letting it guide your journey because that's what the people want, well you see where I'm going with that. You know that I don't give a fuck about the words, but if its going to be something as official as a presidential oath and you have to serve your duties to the country...god isn't going to help you, so why should it be mentioned?

Because we live in a democracy in which the majority of the population believes that God is going to help them.

Agreed.

[Gui Brazil]

If anything I've read 3 or 4 paragraphs of this whole thread and my post is most probably going to be ignored.

Curiosity time!


Did you know that from the 60's to the 80's Brazil was under a military dictature (a lot like the german and italian totalitarisms) supported by the US? People would disappear in the middle of the day and never would be heard of again because the government "thought" they were comunists. If I wanted I could ask the government to arrest and torture my neighbor saying he was a communist when, infact, he had only parked his car on my yard.

The country was wrecked and our inflation was above 2000%.

What does this have to do with this thread, Nasa and mickey mouse? Probably nothing..

Oh and Six Flags > Disney.