The war on "terror" is BS

[funk de fino]

I'm sorry...
What was your point? Is war on terror the same as war on dictators? Or maybe a war for democracy? Or against oppression?

I was giving a counterpoint to his claims about the outcome of the war in human terms. I was against the war, there was no need at the time. However, the outcome on the face of it it human terms is not really any worse than during Saddams reign.

If so, then I have a few more candidates for an invasion.

Knock yourself out

Did Iraq or Saddam really have anything to do with the "war on terror"?

According to the OP it did. Not to me though. Bushies ego was more likely for me.

Depending on your point of view any reprisals following an invasion would seem more justified then the primary invasion to stop terrorism.

SYL

As you wish. What was your point?

 

[MaterialismSlave]

You wanted to seperate Saddams into war and no war, so whats the difference this time??

Terrorist and other minority's only way to fight back in a war and make a difference is with suicide bombs and similar tactics, so you cant disregard those if they happened because of the war. The acts was a product of war and would not have happened if there was no invasion.

Perhaps if you had done some real research before shouting your mouth off about a million killed you could have found this out for yourelf?

Why dont you try and find out who and what they are?

Sure I will go research your source while you research the thousand google hits supporting higher body counts than your link provided.

And how many did Saddam kill again?

Funny that you take the Wiki:s word on how many Saddam killed but not about the deathtoll of Iraq war. Hypocrisy at its finest.

The West want Saddam to be as bad as possible, they will dig deep to find any death that can be linked to him.
Now the invading countries want as little bad publicity as possible so they will do what they can to tone it down.
This is a problem, its very hard to find true independent info.

Try not to just look at one link. Look around and if you find something look a bit harder at what is says and search around for info on it

. Sure, but most links I found when I did a google search suggested 500 000 deaths or more.

I have been to Iraq. A lot of the people are glad the war happened.

So thats your version of cluster sampling then. I very much doubt you visited more than 50% of the country. Most likely the people approaching you would be in favor as well.
How likely is it that those who dislike western invasion approach the enemy (you) to tell you how they feel.

According to the OP it did. Not to me though. Bushies ego was more likely for me.

I never said that I see Iraq as a war on terror, its just the biggest war in recent times so I took that as a comparison.

 

[MaterialismSlave]

So there is war involved in this "War on War"? It's just a matter if you personally agree with it or not?

I don't think we ever can get rid of War with the state of the world as it is. War on War was just a "headline" to draw your attention, you shouldn't get stuck on my formulation. I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase it but the language barrier stops me.

I never said I would decide, and you know that.

I said the population (of voting age) in the UN countries should be allowed to say what they think should happen. The governments should have the final say but in a negative vote from the population they should require a very high % of governmental support to be allowed to go thru with the war.

 

[Pardalis]

I don't think we ever can get rid of War with the state of the world as it is. War on War was just a "headline" to draw your attention, you shouldn't get stuck on my formulation. I'm trying to think of a better way to phrase it but the language barrier stops me.

Fine, you just seem to unnecessarily complicate things in order just to say you are against the war in Iraq. Just say you are against the war in Iraq, don't go to Bangkok if you want to go to New Jersey.

This doesn't make the efforts to fight terrorism "BS".

 

[tomwaits]

Fine, you just seem to unnecessarily complicate things in order just to say you are against the war in Iraq. Just say you are against the war in Iraq, don't go to Bangkok if you want to go to New Jersey.

This doesn't make the efforts to fight terrorism "BS".

There's only one problem with your analogy...






Nobody wants to go to New Jersey.

 

[Travis]

Terrorist and other minority's only way to fight back in a war and make a difference is with suicide bombs and similar tactics, so you cant disregard those if they happened because of the war. The acts was a product of war and would not have happened if there was no invasion.

Wrong. I can and will condemn those acts. They didn't have to be Terrorists in the first place. They didn't have to resist the invasions and become an insurgency. They could have done the right thing and accepted a new democratic government and worked on rebuilding their country into a better and more tolerant place. Instead they decided not to join the modern, civilized world and threw up as much resistance as possible targeting and hurting their fellow citizens along the way.

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

I was giving a counterpoint to his claims about the outcome of the war in human terms. I was against the war, there was no need at the time. However, the outcome on the face of it it human terms is not really any worse than during Saddams reign.

The argument is that the war on terror creates many casualties and that it would seem wiser to try and end the war. Proclaiming that it is not really any worse then during Saddams reign presents the argument as a choice between a vicious dictator and casualties of the current war as if to say that we are better off, neglecting the actual argument. It's a strawman.

According to the OP it did.

No

As you wish. What was your point?

You're of topic

SYL

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

Wrong. I can and will condemn those acts. They didn't have to be Terrorists in the first place. They didn't have to resist the invasions and become an insurgency. They could have done the right thing and accepted a new democratic government and worked on rebuilding their country into a better and more tolerant place. Instead they decided not to join the modern, civilized world and threw up as much resistance as possible targeting and hurting their fellow citizens along the way.

I agree that the Iraqi people would be better of accepting a democratic government and creating a more tolerant place, especially now they have a choice after their dictator was removed from power.
However, I think in your post there might be a simplification of the problem.

So, how do you make the destinction between "terrorists"and "freedom fighters"? I don't think the Iraqis were terrorists in the first place and that was not the reason for the invasion. The alleged possesion of weapons of mass destruction and their failure to comply with the UN resolutions was the argument to invade Iraq. As it now turns out, they could not surrender their weapons of mass destruction because they didn't have them.

In the first months of the war the insurgency was virtually non-existent, but grew after the entire Iraqi army was dismissed and refused any jobs or opportunity to provide for their families. So accepting and rebuilding was not really an option for a large part of the (armed) Iraqi people unless they were willing to let their families die of starvation. This might have played a role in the choices they made.

Our last war in which another country invaded ours was WW II, collaboration with the invading country was frowned upon, to put it eùphemistically. Eventhough I wouldn't want to compare the wars in any way, I can't imagine many nations accepting foreign rule willingly. The US has not been occupied by a foreign country since it was founded, but you may be able to imagine it. Imagine if you will the hypothetical situation that the Russians had invaded the US in the 80's and actually managed to occupy a large part, or all of the US. I don't think many US citizens would become communists willingly or collaborate if they had the choice.

I wish the choices and solutions were as straight forward as presented in your post, but I'm doubtful that it is. Maybe some solution can be found to make it possible some day soon.

SYL

 

[funk de fino]

The argument is that the war on terror creates many casualties and that it would seem wiser to try and end the war. Proclaiming that it is not really any worse then during Saddams reign presents the argument as a choice between a vicious dictator and casualties of the current war as if to say that we are better off, neglecting the actual argument. It's a strawman.

No, someone made false and inaccurate claims about the deaths caused in Iraq due to the invasion. I gave a counter about the cost in deaths prior to the invasion. I was not justifying the war on terror, I was only making a point to the poster. No strawman. Sorry.

No

he brought it up in relation to the war on terror

You're of topic

SYL

Off maybe

 

[MaterialismSlave]

Wrong. I can and will condemn those acts. They didn't have to be Terrorists in the first place. They didn't have to resist the invasions and become an insurgency. They could have done the right thing and accepted a new democratic government and worked on rebuilding their country into a better and more tolerant place. Instead they decided not to join the modern, civilized world and threw up as much resistance as possible targeting and hurting their fellow citizens along the way.

Saying "they didn't have to be terrorists in the first place" is not a valid argument. I doubt they see their acts like terrorism, its a act of religious and in this case territorial warfare by a people left behind in the evolution.

Lets change the scenario. Iraq is the most powerful nation on the earth, 80% of them are Muslims. They invade a much less powerful nation of Christians, namely USA, which is a nation run by a Christian dictator that has killed alot of Kurds and other ethnic groups. Also lets not forget that this small nation had Iraqs support while they where doing most of the genocide, because their leader supported Iraqs needs.

Do you think they would welcome Iraq with open arms? Would Iraq be stupid to think there would be little civilian lives lost in the invasion?

Its way to easy imagining a few radical christians being fooled by a charismatic leader into taking mind numbing drugs and let them go blow them self up in the name of God, if they lived in a nation where the media was controlled and the religion and culture very old.

I really think religion is the worst thing that has happened to humanity, and it scares me that the most powerful nation on earth use God in their propaganda for war.

 

[funk de fino]

Terrorist and other minority's only way to fight back in a war and make a difference is with suicide bombs and similar tactics, so you cant disregard those if they happened because of the war. The acts was a product of war and would not have happened if there was no invasion.

A lot of those terrorists are not Iraqis and the Iraqis want them to go away and stop killing innocent Iraqis. they are not there to win anything they are there to kill americans and innocent people to further their fanatical agenda.

Where were they in the first gulf war?

Sure I will go research your source while you research the thousand google hits supporting higher body counts than your link provided.

Perhaps they do but the million you posted was junk. surely you seen the rest of the claims and tried to corroborate befoire posting? Oh no, thats right, you didnt.

Funny that you take the Wiki:s word on how many Saddam killed but not about the deathtoll of Iraq war. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Funny how I never took wikis word for anything. I never used wiki. You did. Please keep on track. i never agreed with any figures you have posted. Try again.

The West want Saddam to be as bad as possible, they will dig deep to find any death that can be linked to him.
Now the invading countries want as little bad publicity as possible so they will do what they can to tone it down.
This is a problem, its very hard to find true independent info.

So, he was not a badman then? the west madeup all the stories about the gasing of the kurds? the videos were faked? He really did not invade Kuwait?

. Sure, but most links I found when I did a google search suggested 500 000 deaths or more.

You seem to only see what you like.

So thats your version of cluster sampling then. I very much doubt you visited more than 50% of the country. Most likely the people approaching you would be in favor as well.
How likely is it that those who dislike western invasion approach the enemy (you) to tell you how they feel.

No, it was just a comment. I have been there, you have just posted some webpages. I am a counter to those who may try to say all the Iraqi people hate the invaders. I had some people come and tell me to get out also.

I never said that I see Iraq as a war on terror, its just the biggest war in recent times so I took that as a comparison.

So you wnet OT in your own OP? The US certainly tied Iraq to the war on terror. Wrongly in my opinion.

From 911, if you were in charge, what would your solution have been?

I will give you my opinion if you answer the above.

 

[MaterialismSlave]

A lot of those terrorists are not Iraqis and the Iraqis want them to go away and stop killing innocent Iraqis. they are not there to win anything they are there to kill americans and innocent people to further their fanatical agenda.

And that wasnt expected?

Perhaps they do but the million you posted was junk. surely you seen the rest of the claims and tried to corroborate befoire posting? Oh no, thats right, you didnt.

I have a bad habit of using Wiki as a source of information, I agree that I should have done more research before the post but I dont see it as a disaster, I got my point across.

Funny how I never took wikis word for anything. I never used wiki. You did. Please keep on track. i never agreed with any figures you have posted. Try again.

No you provide even less than me. Cant really argue with you since you don't want to back up your claim of credible source on the one link you showed.

So, he was not a badman then? the west madeup all the stories about the gasing of the kurds? the videos were faked? He really did not invade Kuwait?

Is there no middle ground to you? Is it one extreme or another? This question is just dumb.

No, it was just a comment. I have been there, you have just posted some webpages. I am a counter to those who may try to say all the Iraqi people hate the invaders. I had some people come and tell me to get out also.

I didn't know there was people saying all Iraqis hate the invaders. Can you give me some source for this claim? Unless you are using the extreme black and white scenario again.

So you wnet OT in your own OP? The US certainly tied Iraq to the war on terror. Wrongly in my opinion.

From 911, if you were in charge, what would your solution have been?

I will give you my opinion if you answer the above.

I didn't go OT. The topic was that I thought war was worse so I used a war to compare with terrorism. How is that off topic?

On 911 I wouldn't ignore what the world said, I wouldn't go blindly in rage. I wouldnt go into war for some made up god. I can see why the government in USA wants religion, they only have to say God in a sentence and the people automatically accept it as a just cause.

The most powerful nation on earth need to have the most responsibility and show the rest of the world how to act. And yet it continue to show the opposite, ignoring UN and other countries.

 

[funk de fino]

And that wasnt expected?

Those people are generally not Iraqis wanting to get rid of the invaders who gave them a democratic govt. They are terrorist. We have terrorists in all countries. Not just ones who were invaded. Those terrorists are not a consequence of the war they were terrorists anyway, they just moved into Iraq because it was easier to attack americans in Iraq than it was in the US.

The religious killings are nothing to do with the US either.

I have a bad habit of using Wiki as a source of information, I agree that I should have done more research before the post but I dont see it as a disaster, I got my point across.

yes, the point was you used rubbish figures. I pointed this out

No you provide even less than me. Cant really argue with you since you don't want to back up your claim of credible source on the one link you showed.

I asked you a question. You then accused me of using wiki. Were you lying or just mistaken? I gave you one link with the proviso that you should do more research and if need be you could verify the link. I guess you are too lazy and want me to do it. i was not making definite claims just givng you a counterpoint. I could find thousands of links which dispute the million claim. They may not all be correct but your million claim is all from the ame flawed source. I made no claim on how many Saddam killed i let you go and do it yourself. I never agreed with any of your figures. Seperate the chaff from the wheat next time

Is there no middle ground to you? Is it one extreme or another? This question is just dumb.

Says the man who has posted that all religion needs to go? Now you would not want me to call you a hypocrite here would you?

Saddam was a very bad man. The west did not have to make up stuff about that. You insinuated tey did.

I didn't know there was people saying all Iraqis hate the invaders. Can you give me some source for this claim? Unless you are using the extreme black and white scenario again.

You are the ones calling them invaders. What about liberators? See above for you extreme claim.

I didn't go OT. The topic was that I thought war was worse so I used a war to compare with terrorism. How is that off topic?

War was worse than war?

On 911 I wouldn't ignore what the world said, I wouldn't go blindly in rage. I wouldnt go into war for some made up god. I can see why the government in USA wants religion, they only have to say God in a sentence and the people automatically accept it as a just cause.

OK how about you sperate that into what the US did ater the 911.

What did the world say about Afghanistan?

What did they say about Iraq?

Was the reponse of the UN wrong in those cases or just one?

The most powerful nation on earth need to have the most responsibility and show the rest of the world how to act. And yet it continue to show the opposite, ignoring UN and other countries.

OK, so the most powerful nation in the world should have said to the taliban. "We not care that you harbour the terrorists who caused the deaths of 3000 people. Just tell them not to do it again"

What should the US have done about Afghanistan?

 

[MaterialismSlave]

What should the US have done about Afghanistan?

Afghanistan should have been the target in the first place, but not a illegal war like Iraq. They should have taken time to discuss in UN what the best approach would have been.

 

[funk de fino]

Afghanistan should have been the target in the first place, but not a illegal war like Iraq.

So. Iraq was wrong but Afghanistan was right?

They should have taken time to discuss in UN what the best approach would have been.

If you are talking about Iraq, they talked constantly from 1990 until 2003 and resolutions were passed and he broke them. Then when further action was looked at certain european countries vetoed it. What was the next step and should we have given Saddam as long as he wanted to show us he would behave?

PS - I believe the Iraq war was wrong also, more a timing thing though than a Saddam did not deserve it.

 

[MaterialismSlave]

So. Iraq was wrong but Afghanistan was right?

War is never "right" in my opinion, but Afghanistan would have been the logical target, but not until the UN gives their approval and they have planned for how to operate to minimize civilian deaths.

 

[funk de fino]

War is never "right" in my opinion, but Afghanistan would have been the logical target, but not until the UN gives their approval and they have planned for how to operate to minimize civilian deaths.

How many countries were and still are involved in the Afghanistan war? The taliban were asked to surrender AQ/UBL and they would not suffer any actions. They refused. Do you think the UN would have denied military action?

How long did it take for the UN to do anything about iraq or darfur?

I am a great believer in the priciple of the Un but unfortunately they react too slow and are hindered by the vetos. In an ideal world I agree with your thoughts above but it does not work like that in the real world.

You never answered this one.

If you are talking about Iraq, they talked constantly from 1990 until 2003 and resolutions were passed and he broke them. Then when further action was looked at certain european countries vetoed it. What was the next step and should we have given Saddam as long as he wanted to show us he would behave?

 

[Tailgater]

War is never "right" in my opinion, but Afghanistan would have been the logical target, but not until the UN gives their approval and they have planned for how to operate to minimize civilian deaths.

The UN stands for Undecided Nitpickers, or possible nickname of CB being Circlejerk Beauracracy.

 

[MaterialismSlave]

You never answered this one.

If you are talking about Iraq, they talked constantly from 1990 until 2003 and resolutions were passed and he broke them. Then when further action was looked at certain european countries vetoed it. What was the next step and should we have given Saddam as long as he wanted to show us he would behave?

I agree on the inefficiency of UN but they are all we got at the moment. I don't have a good solution on how to make UN more efficient, but ignoring them will not help in any way.

The next step should have been handled by the United Nations, and hopefully not taken to long.

 

[funk de fino]

I agree on the inefficiency of UN but they are all we got at the moment. I don't have a good solution on how to make UN more efficient, but ignoring them will not help in any way.

The next step should have been handled by the United Nations, and hopefully not taken to long.

Do you think the veto should be taken from the permanent members of the security council? might speed things up.

Gotta go, will return to this another time.