Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
dark fusion

war on iraq, a waste of time?

205 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Stellar

the us does not kill only the bad guys it has also killed about 26000 CIVILIANS (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)

Yes, because those killed by coalition weapons were caught in the crossfire with the bad guys.

why should they be there?

bush made a mastake and troops are paying the price of death

Because more ppl will die if they leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

Stellars last post is totally right. (Sorry, Steller, I know that it bothers you when I agree with you).

Hey, did anyone ever think of this:

What if the U.S. invaded Iraq so it could set up a sypethetic government right smack in the middle of the arab world not just to spread democracy but, but to give the U.S. a base with nearly unlimited oil that is well within striking range of nearly every muslim government in the middle east? Think about it. We wouldn't even have to send ships! OPEC turns off the oil supply and we turn out thier lights, so to speak.

I really don't think that we're building an empire, I think that we're just setting up franchises!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina

No, it hasn't been a waste of time...we've established a democracy where there used to be a dictatorship, and freed a lot of people from bloody depression. You couldn't argue that nothing was achieved in the Iraqi war (and, incidentally, we've screwed up the country so much doing it that pulling out now is, most certainly, not an option).

A better question might be whether or not doing so was worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
undeadlizard

hahahah

yeah i did do something stupid.

the question was, was the war in vietnam waste of time? hahah not in iraq i should be ridiculed hahahahahah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina

Well...at least you could argue America was remotelly justified in Iraq...when it comes to Veitnam, I dunno...you're on your own there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

the question was, was the war in vietnam waste of time? hahah not in iraq i should be ridiculed hahahahahah

Well, there it could be argued yes, because the end result would probably have been the same, except maybe with less blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

I still contend that in Viet Nam, the U.S. fought so long and hard simply to show the Russians that we would fight a long hard fight for a third world nation that really didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Then the Russians would have to wonder how hard we'd fight to help defend the U.K., our closest ally, or some other nation who was of great importance to the Americans.

In short, I think that it was mostly to let Moscow know that we would fight for our allies, no matter how out of the way they were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina

Allies/own self interests and to stop the spread of communism :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

In short, I think that it was mostly to let Moscow know that we would fight for our allies, no matter how out of the way they were.

It also showed them that they were incapable of meeting their aspirations against such a small country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
undeadlizard

if a war continues for years and years it will start becoming a waste of time. the war did not start by being waste. it becomes after years, and may be its time to stop because from this point on its a waste i think, like we have saddam right. there will always be terrorists etc..

right now there is a WAR we are not helping anyone like we are killing innocent people (by mistake i assume i dont know) and bad guys.

the point of the war was to get saddam and find the WMD. saddam we got and there are no WMD so why are we still there? i dont really know iam asking

nice day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

I don't think that I would argue with either of the previous posts.

The defence of an ally does forward ones self interest. Maybe they'll come around when you need help. I'm sure that there are other interests that were involved that may not come to the surface for a long time.

I think that it showed the communists that if they held out long enough, they could potentially out last the U.S. Would they be willing to pay such a heavy cost for Japan? A nation that the U.S. would deffinately fight to the bone for? After all, the war did cost them more in lives than it cost the U.S. Could they trade five lives for one American? Yes, but, for how long? If you have to pay so dearly for every inch you take, you're going to be a little more cautious about which inches are of importance to you.

Sure, they may be able to outlast the U.S. in V/N. Would they be able to out last the U.S. over several nations? Maybe. Would it be worth it? Could they build missles as quickly as they could be blasted out of space? Could they keep up in the loss of manpoewr in the battle field? Could they keep up technologically? If you were in power, would you risk your certain position in a gamble on these kinds of questions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina

Just to step back to Iraq for a second...

so why are we still there?

Because if we left now the country would tumble into a civil war among the various parties who'd like to replace Saddam, and it would be a damn sight worse for the people living there than it was before we even went in. At the end of the day, we've made a mess, and it's our responsibility to set it right.

Not to mention the fact that, under Saddam, Iraq wasn't a fundamentalist state...you can pretty much guarentee whatever faction won the civil war would make it one. That's the last thing we need in the middle east right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

I feel that only a fundamentalist group could bring the nation of Iraq out of a civil war if the U.S. were to pull out today. That would certainly make matters worse for all involved. Even for those not yet involved.

Rather it's to anyones liking or not, the U.S. has to stay the course at this point. I can't think of anyone else who could or would step in and finish what was started.

For the record, I was in favor of going in. I was also in favor of not piddleing around once there. I feel that the U.S. has not really gone at this the way it should've. This should be settled by now. We've been there too long now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

Post a link to this evidence please, seems interesting. I have never heard of this.

As you may have noticed Iraq isn't really in a position to do this at the moment. However bad the short term effects of the war are, the long term benefits will be great.

Concerning the faked Sadam statue celebration, see: http://media.consumercide.com/saddamstatue.html

The long term benefits will be great for who? For widows and orphans? For innocent civilians who lost an arm or leg in errant bombings and were paid $175.00 USD for their "inconvenience?" What's more, what has happened cannot be called exactly "short term." Over one year and 1,000 U.S. lives ago, Bush said the big fighting was over. By all indications and in the opinion of experienced military personnel, it is far from being over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

I still think that in the long run, the world will be a better place without Saddam Hussein. Did we ever get a fianl death count for that guy? Maybe it will in the future be said that it was a waste of time because the people would have overthrown him anyway. That is the same as saying that slavery would eventually come to an end with out the American Civil War. It certainly would have but, would it have been soon enough?

This is, in my opinion, just one of the many steps that will be taken in what could be termed the Terror War. It will be fought in every town, all over the planet, in at least some small way. In the end we will either have civilization, with its many cultures, freedoms and its science or we will have Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stellar

the point of the war was to get saddam and find the WMD. saddam we got and there are no WMD so why are we still there? i dont really know iam asking

Because of what comes along with removing SH. We couldnt just get in there, remove their government, and then leave them to fix everything for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

I still think that in the long run, the world will be a better place without Saddam Hussein. Did we ever get a fianl death count for that guy? Maybe it will in the future be said that it was a waste of time because the people would have overthrown him anyway. That is the same as saying that slavery would eventually come to an end with out the American Civil War. It certainly would have but, would it have been soon enough?

This is, in my opinion, just one of the many steps that will be taken in what could be termed the Terror War. It will be fought in every town, all over the planet, in at least some small way. In the end we will either have civilization, with its many cultures, freedoms and its science or we will have Islam.

Okay, so since the U.S. is in the business of removing dictators and apparently believes it has the right to do so in spite of U.N. mandates against it, then when will you invade China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and a host of African nations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

I don't believe it! We are now at THREE TIMES IN ONE NIGHT!!!!

Someone would have to do the rebuilding if everything there is in ruins. Besides, the Americans were not out to make the Iraqi people suffer. We were out to make sure that S/H could not unleash some kind of H*ll on Earth

Something else that I'd like to add to what Stellar said...

It is also possible that the WMD are still there. Iraq is a big country with a lot of dessert. They could be any where out there.

Many of the Iraqis have never known and Iraq without Saddam. I could be possible that they think that he might end up coming back, or one of his henchmen. Why risk the death of your family for telling the Americans that you saw Saddams guys burying stuff two dunes over? Do you remember what happened to the Kurds when Clinton became the U.S. president? Maybe S/H used up what he had on the Kurds. I hate to say it but, America doesn't have the reputation of keeping it's word over there.

Another possibility..

The Iraqis fought an eight year long war with Iran. Three years later when the Coalition went in many of the Iraqi piolts went to Iran. It is within reason that many of the WMD's have been taken across the border into in the days/weeks preceeding the second war. Maybe even into Syria, another nation with a Bathist government.

There is also the possibility that we had false information. Even if that turns out to be the case, I'd rather find out that they didn't exist there than find out that they did exist here, or in London, or in Tokyo, or in Montreal.

Either way, when you have someone that evil, it does not pay to take chances. That is a lesson lost on many after the end of World War Two. How many chances did the peace loving world give Hitler? How many lives did it cost us? Must we take that test again? Law of averages says that sooner or later, if given enough chances, evil could kill us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
undeadlizard

everything makes sense now. the sun is bright and the sky green. the water dark and my mind confused.

well my point is that from this point there are only opinions so i will jump from a building

ok iam joking i dont have any points hahahah

good luck to all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iaapac

I don't believe it! We are now at THREE TIMES IN ONE NIGHT!!!!

Someone would have to do the rebuilding if everything there is in ruins. Besides, the Americans were not out to make the Iraqi people suffer. We were out to make sure that S/H could not unleash some kind of H*ll on Earth

Something else that I'd like to add to what Stellar said...

It is also possible that the WMD are still there. Iraq is a big country with a lot of dessert. They could be any where out there.

Many of the Iraqis have never known and Iraq without Saddam. I could be possible that they think that he might end up coming back, or one of his henchmen. Why risk the death of your family for telling the Americans that you saw Saddams guys burying stuff two dunes over? Do you remember what happened to the Kurds when Clinton became the U.S. president? Maybe S/H used up what he had on the Kurds. I hate to say it but, America doesn't have the reputation of keeping it's word over there.

Another possibility..

The Iraqis fought an eight year long war with Iran. Three years later when the Coalition went in many of the Iraqi piolts went to Iran. It is within reason that many of the WMD's have been taken across the border into in the days/weeks preceeding the second war. Maybe even into Syria, another nation with a Bathist government.

There is also the possibility that we had false information. Even if that turns out to be the case, I'd rather find out that they didn't exist there than find out that they did exist here, or in London, or in Tokyo, or in Montreal.

Either way, when you have someone that evil, it does not pay to take chances. That is a lesson lost on many after the end of World War Two. How many chances did the peace loving world give Hitler? How many lives did it cost us? Must we take that test again? Law of averages says that sooner or later, if given enough chances, evil could kill us all.

Isn't there something terribly wrong with waging a war on "possibilities?" Even those posibilities are not likely considering that the U.N. inspection teams were there for eight years monitoring every movement, not to mention spy satellites registering all movements within Iraq. Why can't we face the truth? The WMD are not there. They were not there. When Dick Cheney announced to the world, "We know where they are," he was lying just as assuredly as the rest of the administration was lying as a pretext to enter this war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

On the surface yes.

As I have stated in other places, the U.S. had the legal right to start a shooting war the first time that Saddam denied the U.N. inspection teams access to anyplace that they wanted to search. We didn't. We allowed the U.N. to be disrespected by S/H for eight years. The U.N issue 17 ultimatums. At some point you have to act or the whole point of the mandates is nill. If I keep saying that I'm going to punch you but, I never do, how long is it before you don't care that I threatened to punch you? At a certain point, patience runs out. Something has to be done, and it was.

S/H kept playing games. There are satellite photos of truckes leaving the back gates of facilities as the inspection teams arrived at the front gates.

The only reason that it did not happen is up to each person to decide. I think that it was because Clinton, (the Pres. at the time), was concerned about how it might affect the economy. Not a bad thought in general but, I think that it led many Arabs to believe that the U.S. would not act. They were wrong and it has cost them two countries already. They may win them back but, I don't think so. How do you call people to die for your cause when it is loosing all over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

Better analogy:

Who's worth more to you, your mother or the low life that murdered his kids and may be able to kill your mother? Would you take that chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dark fusion

Just to step back to Iraq for a second...

Because if we left now the country would tumble into a civil war among the various parties who'd like to replace Saddam, and it would be a damn sight worse for the people living there than it was before we even went in. At the end of the day, we've made a mess, and it's our responsibility to set it right.

Not to mention the fact that, under Saddam, Iraq wasn't a fundamentalist state...you can pretty much guarentee whatever faction won the civil war would make it one. That's the last thing we need in the middle east right now.

why was they sent there in the first place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seraphina
why was they sent there in the first place

Money, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Umbarger

Money and the prospect of world safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.