Pages

2/17/11

What. The. Fuck?!?

If I was the POTUS, I would lose my fucking mind if I heard aobut this! I would remove every single troop from the country and make an announcement that we are severing ties with Iraq and that unfortunately we can't afford to repair anything we make accidentally break, so we won't be helping them in the future. Then just let the shit show begin as Iran comes over the fucking berm taking land until Iraq is known as Kuwait's little brother.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/17/us-iraq-...

This is like a homeless person begging for change and you give him $5 bucks so he can get some food and then him saying, "Only $5? I think I deserve a bit more than $5."

How on earth does that country have the audacity to demand money from the US?!? And "destroyed our beutiful city". Are you fucking joking?!? I've been to Baghdad and the only things I considered remarkable were Saddam's extraordinary palaces and the momuments that were built for him, by him (Arc of Triumph/Hands of Victory, the portraits and statues of himself, etc.).

Regards

Comments (149)

In reply to manbearpig
2/18/11

manbearpig:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
People die in wars, that's a fact.

That's a convenient position. What if instead of calling it a war, I call the assault on Iraq a terrorist attack. Would you have the same stance? How would you feel if someone said "people die in terrorist attacks (referring to 9/11), that's a fact", in an attempt to trivialize the plight of the families who suffered through it. Keep in mind, Iraq went through the equivalent of over 300 9/11s at the hands of the US. Are you telling me that the hostility isn't justified?

What?!? You are silly.

What if I changed "terrorist attack" to "shark attack"?

I'm fairly certainly we never crashed planes into their buildings to kill INNOCENT Iraqis just because we didn't like them. I love hearing all these analogies and justifications. Just remember, Iraq was like 1M really, really late term abortions.

If Iraq is pissed because the US perpetrated a terrorist attack on their soil, they should load up their fucking tanks, put them on a ship and paddle the fuck over here. And since so many other developed nations believe the US is a fuck-up and some sort of imperialist regime, they should help them.

9/11 was a deliberate attack to harm US civilians...there is no rational comparison. Again, you're Canadian, your country and people weren't attacked, so I don't expect you to understand.

Regards

Listen genius, the terrorist attack comment was to show you that these semantics are just a matter of perspective. To you (and myself), the 9/11 attack was indeed a terrorist attack, but to the attackers, they were engaging in an act of war. You may believe that the attack on Iraq is a legitimate war, but I believe it is an illegal act of terrorism. Sure your country didn't fly planes into buildings, because they are much more resourceful and efficient. Instead, they dropped bombs and ravaged the country, and killed, once again, more than 300 times the number of people that died in 9/11.

I am a Canadian, but I am also part Iraqi, and many of my extended family members have been severely injured or killed by this "war" of yours.

I don't understand. I keep hearing Iraq was this great place until the US showed up. How did you, or your parents/grandparents end up in Canada? Seems silly to leave a country that is considered the cradle of civilization that was being run in such an acceptable manner and that had such a phenomenal infrastructure in place. Please explain.

Regards

My dad left because there was more opportunity in Canada for him at the time.

As for the cradle of civilization comment, Iraq is modern day Mesopotamia, which is widely considered the cradle of civilization. I have never claimed that Iraq had any sophisticated infrastructure, but there is no denying that there is so much history there that has been destroyed by the war.

"...there is no denying that there is so much history there that has been destroyed by war."

Fixed that for you. I seem to recall that this was not exactly the first time Iraq was bombed, and I suspect our weapons are much more accurate than Iranian bombs (or Iraqi, for that matter).

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
People die in wars, that's a fact.

That's a convenient position. What if instead of calling it a war, I call the assault on Iraq a terrorist attack. Would you have the same stance? How would you feel if someone said "people die in terrorist attacks (referring to 9/11), that's a fact", in an attempt to trivialize the plight of the families who suffered through it. Keep in mind, Iraq went through the equivalent of over 300 9/11s at the hands of the US. Are you telling me that the hostility isn't justified?

What?!? You are silly.

What if I changed "terrorist attack" to "shark attack"?

I'm fairly certainly we never crashed planes into their buildings to kill INNOCENT Iraqis just because we didn't like them. I love hearing all these analogies and justifications. Just remember, Iraq was like 1M really, really late term abortions.

If Iraq is pissed because the US perpetrated a terrorist attack on their soil, they should load up their fucking tanks, put them on a ship and paddle the fuck over here. And since so many other developed nations believe the US is a fuck-up and some sort of imperialist regime, they should help them.

9/11 was a deliberate attack to harm US civilians...there is no rational comparison. Again, you're Canadian, your country and people weren't attacked, so I don't expect you to understand.

Regards

Well I would understand. My father was in the north tower when it was hit but got out. My neighbor was not so lucky. So don't tell anyone how they should feel about 9/11.

9/11 has NOTHING to do with Iraq. To equate the two as if we went into Iraq to prevent another 9/11 is a farce and untrue. That is how the war was painted originally, and it was a lie. That is what pisses me off.

My response was to MBP, not you. I did not link 9/11 to the conflict in Iraq, MBP did, so go read his recent posts and go scold him.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to cphbravo96
2/18/11

cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
People die in wars, that's a fact.

That's a convenient position. What if instead of calling it a war, I call the assault on Iraq a terrorist attack. Would you have the same stance? How would you feel if someone said "people die in terrorist attacks (referring to 9/11), that's a fact", in an attempt to trivialize the plight of the families who suffered through it. Keep in mind, Iraq went through the equivalent of over 300 9/11s at the hands of the US. Are you telling me that the hostility isn't justified?

What?!? You are silly.

What if I changed "terrorist attack" to "shark attack"?

I'm fairly certainly we never crashed planes into their buildings to kill INNOCENT Iraqis just because we didn't like them. I love hearing all these analogies and justifications. Just remember, Iraq was like 1M really, really late term abortions.

If Iraq is pissed because the US perpetrated a terrorist attack on their soil, they should load up their fucking tanks, put them on a ship and paddle the fuck over here. And since so many other developed nations believe the US is a fuck-up and some sort of imperialist regime, they should help them.

9/11 was a deliberate attack to harm US civilians...there is no rational comparison. Again, you're Canadian, your country and people weren't attacked, so I don't expect you to understand.

Regards

excellent post. I couldn't address the 9/11 reference he made with out calling him several curse words.

Don't spare my feelings. Lay all the curse words on me. God forbid someone mention 9/11 because of the 3000 people that died. You see how sensitive you are about that? I'm much more pissed off about the million of my countrymen and family members have been killed at the hands of your country.

Well fucking round up the Mounties. You're Candaian right? Or are you Iraqi because of the debate topic?

This is just another prime example of the fundamental differences between America and nearly every other nation on the face of the earth (developed or not). We are Americans...PERIOD. We aren't Canadians, ehh, when I need to get a cast put on my arm because it's fractured, and then Iraqi when someone says they support OIF. We are Americans, all day every day. We support our country and our countrymen, our military, law enforcement, public servants because, on the whole, they are trying to make us a better nation. I realize that sounds trite and maybe I'm naive but I still think this is the greatest nation the world has ever known.

As luck would have it, I'm of German decent, but I don't (nor have I ever) harbor animosity towards the US for killing 5.3mm Germans in WWII or, to put it into terms you might better understand, 1,773 9/11s worth of German people.

Regards

Yes, I am Canadian, and proud of it. My father is an Iraqi, and he's proud of that. I identify with Iraq because it's where my father comes from, and it's where a lot of my family lives.

-MBP

In reply to drexelalum11
2/18/11

drexelalum11:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:
The bleeding hearts on here make me uneasy.

1. We fucked Iraq up
2. We have/are rebuilding Iraq
3. We are in an exit strategy

What else do you want us to give them? We've given them far more than $1B!! People die in wars, that's a fact.

This is the problem with your line of reasoning. Anything that is not fringe right or libertarian (though you can't support the war and call yourself this) in thinking you think is just the bleeding heart liberals spouting their hippy nonsense.

Is it that crazy for me to want government accountability and for our president not to lie to us and make up an excuse to invade a sovereign nation? This is not radical, its common fucking sense.

We fucked up their country, and are now rebuilding it is not an argument. Its a way to skirt responsibility and accountability.

I just don't understand how you can justify killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and act as if its no big deal. It turns my stomach.

I wasn't in favor of the war. I want absolute clarity from every f'n person in the government! I never said it wasn't a big deal. It sucks people died, but that's a fact of war. If you feel so bad for them, I bet they wouldn't mind you sending them some money to their families. But, you won't because you're like all the rest of the liberals. Talk big until it comes time for you to write a check.

I am very much a moderate. And why the fuck should I pay (in tax dollars and reperations) for an illegal war that was started on a blatant lie in the first place?

I'm very much conservative. Why the fuck should I pay (in tax dollars and opportunity cost) for an illegal alien that isn't supposed to be here in the first place?

Also, why are my tax dollars going to feed people who aren't motivated enough to find work but have the gumption to seek out alcohol and drugs and the energy to breed, like animals, with multiple partners??

Regards

Frankly if a single mother is on welfare and has more children I think all her welfare should be withdrawn. I also think people on welfare should be drug tested and should not be allowed to have firearms in their house if they live in state owned housing. Trust me, I am not a left wing lunatic as much as you think I am. I just try to use common sense as much as possible.

The only time you would be paying for an illegal alien would be if they went into the emergency room without health insurance. The healthcare bill is supposed to fix this problem but guys over on your side did not support it. That is not my fault.

Those ideas are actually pretty extreme. The idea that the state should be in the business of regulating reproduction and possession of firearms is something you'll see at the far extremes of both political spectrums; cf. fascism, communism (not that I'm calling you such - I'm just saying you should be aware those are the people who share your ideas). Much better to just eliminate welfare, which is a useless extension of the state to a place it should not be.

If you want to live off of the state then you should be subject to the rules the state puts forth. You want the state to be your landlord, then they can tell you what can and cannot be done in the residence. Its not extreme, its common sense and protects the tax payer (somewhat at least)

In reply to cphbravo96
2/18/11

cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
People die in wars, that's a fact.

That's a convenient position. What if instead of calling it a war, I call the assault on Iraq a terrorist attack. Would you have the same stance? How would you feel if someone said "people die in terrorist attacks (referring to 9/11), that's a fact", in an attempt to trivialize the plight of the families who suffered through it. Keep in mind, Iraq went through the equivalent of over 300 9/11s at the hands of the US. Are you telling me that the hostility isn't justified?

What?!? You are silly.

What if I changed "terrorist attack" to "shark attack"?

I'm fairly certainly we never crashed planes into their buildings to kill INNOCENT Iraqis just because we didn't like them. I love hearing all these analogies and justifications. Just remember, Iraq was like 1M really, really late term abortions.

If Iraq is pissed because the US perpetrated a terrorist attack on their soil, they should load up their fucking tanks, put them on a ship and paddle the fuck over here. And since so many other developed nations believe the US is a fuck-up and some sort of imperialist regime, they should help them.

9/11 was a deliberate attack to harm US civilians...there is no rational comparison. Again, you're Canadian, your country and people weren't attacked, so I don't expect you to understand.

Regards

excellent post. I couldn't address the 9/11 reference he made with out calling him several curse words.

Don't spare my feelings. Lay all the curse words on me. God forbid someone mention 9/11 because of the 3000 people that died. You see how sensitive you are about that? I'm much more pissed off about the million of my countrymen and family members have been killed at the hands of your country.

Well fucking round up the Mounties. You're Candaian right? Or are you Iraqi because of the debate topic?

This is just another prime example of the fundamental differences between America and nearly every other nation on the face of the earth (developed or not). We are Americans...PERIOD. We aren't Canadians, ehh, when I need to get a cast put on my arm because it's fractured, and then Iraqi when someone says they support OIF. We are Americans, all day every day. We support our country and our countrymen, our military, law enforcement, public servants because, on the whole, they are trying to make us a better nation. I realize that sounds trite and maybe I'm naive but I still think this is the greatest nation the world has ever known.

As luck would have it, I'm of German decent, but I don't (nor have I ever) harbor animosity towards the US for killing 5.3mm Germans in WWII or, to put it into terms you might better understand, 1,773 9/11s worth of German people.

Regards

WWII was a legal war and entirely justified. Iraq was not...PERIOD.

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
drexelalum11:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
awm55:
txjustin:
awm55:
txjustin:
The bleeding hearts on here make me uneasy.

1. We fucked Iraq up
2. We have/are rebuilding Iraq
3. We are in an exit strategy

What else do you want us to give them? We've given them far more than $1B!! People die in wars, that's a fact.

This is the problem with your line of reasoning. Anything that is not fringe right or libertarian (though you can't support the war and call yourself this) in thinking you think is just the bleeding heart liberals spouting their hippy nonsense.

Is it that crazy for me to want government accountability and for our president not to lie to us and make up an excuse to invade a sovereign nation? This is not radical, its common fucking sense.

We fucked up their country, and are now rebuilding it is not an argument. Its a way to skirt responsibility and accountability.

I just don't understand how you can justify killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and act as if its no big deal. It turns my stomach.

I wasn't in favor of the war. I want absolute clarity from every f'n person in the government! I never said it wasn't a big deal. It sucks people died, but that's a fact of war. If you feel so bad for them, I bet they wouldn't mind you sending them some money to their families. But, you won't because you're like all the rest of the liberals. Talk big until it comes time for you to write a check.

I am very much a moderate. And why the fuck should I pay (in tax dollars and reperations) for an illegal war that was started on a blatant lie in the first place?

I'm very much conservative. Why the fuck should I pay (in tax dollars and opportunity cost) for an illegal alien that isn't supposed to be here in the first place?

Also, why are my tax dollars going to feed people who aren't motivated enough to find work but have the gumption to seek out alcohol and drugs and the energy to breed, like animals, with multiple partners??

Regards

Frankly if a single mother is on welfare and has more children I think all her welfare should be withdrawn. I also think people on welfare should be drug tested and should not be allowed to have firearms in their house if they live in state owned housing. Trust me, I am not a left wing lunatic as much as you think I am. I just try to use common sense as much as possible.

The only time you would be paying for an illegal alien would be if they went into the emergency room without health insurance. The healthcare bill is supposed to fix this problem but guys over on your side did not support it. That is not my fault.

Those ideas are actually pretty extreme. The idea that the state should be in the business of regulating reproduction and possession of firearms is something you'll see at the far extremes of both political spectrums; cf. fascism, communism (not that I'm calling you such - I'm just saying you should be aware those are the people who share your ideas). Much better to just eliminate welfare, which is a useless extension of the state to a place it should not be.

If you want to live off of the state then you should be subject to the rules the state puts forth. You want the state to be your landlord, then they can tell you what can and cannot be done in the residence. Its not extreme, its common sense and protects the tax payer (somewhat at least)

Well, If I recall common law correctly (which is enforceable in US court, and actually superior to the constitution IIRC - cf. the justification for ex post punishment for speech being permitted despite the 1st amendment), the state is actually all of our landlord. My point is that you should never trust the state, and that we should not empower the state to start limiting how many children you can have. You know where they do that? China (speaking of countries the US should invade). Much simpler just to eliminate welfare. Why give more power to government when you can give it less?

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
People die in wars, that's a fact.

That's a convenient position. What if instead of calling it a war, I call the assault on Iraq a terrorist attack. Would you have the same stance? How would you feel if someone said "people die in terrorist attacks (referring to 9/11), that's a fact", in an attempt to trivialize the plight of the families who suffered through it. Keep in mind, Iraq went through the equivalent of over 300 9/11s at the hands of the US. Are you telling me that the hostility isn't justified?

What?!? You are silly.

What if I changed "terrorist attack" to "shark attack"?

I'm fairly certainly we never crashed planes into their buildings to kill INNOCENT Iraqis just because we didn't like them. I love hearing all these analogies and justifications. Just remember, Iraq was like 1M really, really late term abortions.

If Iraq is pissed because the US perpetrated a terrorist attack on their soil, they should load up their fucking tanks, put them on a ship and paddle the fuck over here. And since so many other developed nations believe the US is a fuck-up and some sort of imperialist regime, they should help them.

9/11 was a deliberate attack to harm US civilians...there is no rational comparison. Again, you're Canadian, your country and people weren't attacked, so I don't expect you to understand.

Regards

excellent post. I couldn't address the 9/11 reference he made with out calling him several curse words.

Don't spare my feelings. Lay all the curse words on me. God forbid someone mention 9/11 because of the 3000 people that died. You see how sensitive you are about that? I'm much more pissed off about the million of my countrymen and family members have been killed at the hands of your country.

Well fucking round up the Mounties. You're Candaian right? Or are you Iraqi because of the debate topic?

This is just another prime example of the fundamental differences between America and nearly every other nation on the face of the earth (developed or not). We are Americans...PERIOD. We aren't Canadians, ehh, when I need to get a cast put on my arm because it's fractured, and then Iraqi when someone says they support OIF. We are Americans, all day every day. We support our country and our countrymen, our military, law enforcement, public servants because, on the whole, they are trying to make us a better nation. I realize that sounds trite and maybe I'm naive but I still think this is the greatest nation the world has ever known.

As luck would have it, I'm of German decent, but I don't (nor have I ever) harbor animosity towards the US for killing 5.3mm Germans in WWII or, to put it into terms you might better understand, 1,773 9/11s worth of German people.

Regards

WWII was a legal war and entirely justified. Iraq was not...PERIOD.

How could WWII be a legal war? WWII pre-dated the UN; therefore, it couldn't possibly be lawful, as the UN was the first body to have the audacity to think it could decide when war is legal and when not.

In reply to manbearpig
2/18/11

manbearpig:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
People die in wars, that's a fact.

That's a convenient position. What if instead of calling it a war, I call the assault on Iraq a terrorist attack. Would you have the same stance? How would you feel if someone said "people die in terrorist attacks (referring to 9/11), that's a fact", in an attempt to trivialize the plight of the families who suffered through it. Keep in mind, Iraq went through the equivalent of over 300 9/11s at the hands of the US. Are you telling me that the hostility isn't justified?

What?!? You are silly.

What if I changed "terrorist attack" to "shark attack"?

I'm fairly certainly we never crashed planes into their buildings to kill INNOCENT Iraqis just because we didn't like them. I love hearing all these analogies and justifications. Just remember, Iraq was like 1M really, really late term abortions.

If Iraq is pissed because the US perpetrated a terrorist attack on their soil, they should load up their fucking tanks, put them on a ship and paddle the fuck over here. And since so many other developed nations believe the US is a fuck-up and some sort of imperialist regime, they should help them.

9/11 was a deliberate attack to harm US civilians...there is no rational comparison. Again, you're Canadian, your country and people weren't attacked, so I don't expect you to understand.

Regards

Listen genius, the terrorist attack comment was to show you that these semantics are just a matter of perspective. To you (and myself), the 9/11 attack was indeed a terrorist attack, but to the attackers, they were engaging in an act of war. You may believe that the attack on Iraq is a legitimate war, but I believe it is an illegal act of terrorism. Sure your country didn't fly planes into buildings, because they are much more resourceful and efficient. Instead, they dropped bombs and ravaged the country, and killed, once again, more than 300 times the number of people that died in 9/11.

I am a Canadian, but I am also part Iraqi, and many of my extended family members have been severely injured or killed by this "war" of yours.

I don't understand. I keep hearing Iraq was this great place until the US showed up. How did you, or your parents/grandparents end up in Canada? Seems silly to leave a country that is considered the cradle of civilization that was being run in such an acceptable manner and that had such a phenomenal infrastructure in place. Please explain.

Regards

My dad left because there was more opportunity in Canada for him at the time.

As for the cradle of civilization comment, Iraq is modern day Mesopotamia, which is widely considered the cradle of civilization. I have never claimed that Iraq had any sophisticated infrastructure, but there is no denying that there is so much history there that has been destroyed by the war.

The topic of this thread was that Iraq is demand $1B from the US because we destroyed their infrastructure and ruined their beautiful city. My first point was that it was neither of those things when we got there. I also don't know how you destroy someone's history, maybe you can elaborate?

And honestly, I'm happy that your dad had enough wherewithal to get out of Iraq. Nothing good, other than crude, was coming out of that place. Unfortunately not every Iraq has the means or motivation to leave the country for better opportunities.

In this case the opportunity has been brought to them, courtesy of the men and women of the Unites States military. Maybe you are less incline to see the benefit in that because you weren't the one suffering but I would hope you could query some of the friends and family that remain in the country and see if they were really happy before we showed up. Granted this is a process and there is no flipping a switch, so its going to take time but the conflict (and the lives lost, on both sides) is, in a matter of speaking, an investment in Iraq's future. I truly believe the Iraqi people will be better off going forward because of what the US did. Maybe time will change your view(s).

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to drexelalum11
2/18/11

drexelalum11:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
People die in wars, that's a fact.

That's a convenient position. What if instead of calling it a war, I call the assault on Iraq a terrorist attack. Would you have the same stance? How would you feel if someone said "people die in terrorist attacks (referring to 9/11), that's a fact", in an attempt to trivialize the plight of the families who suffered through it. Keep in mind, Iraq went through the equivalent of over 300 9/11s at the hands of the US. Are you telling me that the hostility isn't justified?

What?!? You are silly.

What if I changed "terrorist attack" to "shark attack"?

I'm fairly certainly we never crashed planes into their buildings to kill INNOCENT Iraqis just because we didn't like them. I love hearing all these analogies and justifications. Just remember, Iraq was like 1M really, really late term abortions.

If Iraq is pissed because the US perpetrated a terrorist attack on their soil, they should load up their fucking tanks, put them on a ship and paddle the fuck over here. And since so many other developed nations believe the US is a fuck-up and some sort of imperialist regime, they should help them.

9/11 was a deliberate attack to harm US civilians...there is no rational comparison. Again, you're Canadian, your country and people weren't attacked, so I don't expect you to understand.

Regards

excellent post. I couldn't address the 9/11 reference he made with out calling him several curse words.

Don't spare my feelings. Lay all the curse words on me. God forbid someone mention 9/11 because of the 3000 people that died. You see how sensitive you are about that? I'm much more pissed off about the million of my countrymen and family members have been killed at the hands of your country.

Well fucking round up the Mounties. You're Candaian right? Or are you Iraqi because of the debate topic?

This is just another prime example of the fundamental differences between America and nearly every other nation on the face of the earth (developed or not). We are Americans...PERIOD. We aren't Canadians, ehh, when I need to get a cast put on my arm because it's fractured, and then Iraqi when someone says they support OIF. We are Americans, all day every day. We support our country and our countrymen, our military, law enforcement, public servants because, on the whole, they are trying to make us a better nation. I realize that sounds trite and maybe I'm naive but I still think this is the greatest nation the world has ever known.

As luck would have it, I'm of German decent, but I don't (nor have I ever) harbor animosity towards the US for killing 5.3mm Germans in WWII or, to put it into terms you might better understand, 1,773 9/11s worth of German people.

Regards

WWII was a legal war and entirely justified. Iraq was not...PERIOD.

How could WWII be a legal war? WWII pre-dated the UN; therefore, it couldn't possibly be lawful, as the UN was the first body to have the audacity to think it could decide when war is legal and when not.

Ok, so it was not illegal. Better?

In reply to cphbravo96
2/18/11

cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
People die in wars, that's a fact.

That's a convenient position. What if instead of calling it a war, I call the assault on Iraq a terrorist attack. Would you have the same stance? How would you feel if someone said "people die in terrorist attacks (referring to 9/11), that's a fact", in an attempt to trivialize the plight of the families who suffered through it. Keep in mind, Iraq went through the equivalent of over 300 9/11s at the hands of the US. Are you telling me that the hostility isn't justified?

What?!? You are silly.

What if I changed "terrorist attack" to "shark attack"?

I'm fairly certainly we never crashed planes into their buildings to kill INNOCENT Iraqis just because we didn't like them. I love hearing all these analogies and justifications. Just remember, Iraq was like 1M really, really late term abortions.

If Iraq is pissed because the US perpetrated a terrorist attack on their soil, they should load up their fucking tanks, put them on a ship and paddle the fuck over here. And since so many other developed nations believe the US is a fuck-up and some sort of imperialist regime, they should help them.

9/11 was a deliberate attack to harm US civilians...there is no rational comparison. Again, you're Canadian, your country and people weren't attacked, so I don't expect you to understand.

Regards

Listen genius, the terrorist attack comment was to show you that these semantics are just a matter of perspective. To you (and myself), the 9/11 attack was indeed a terrorist attack, but to the attackers, they were engaging in an act of war. You may believe that the attack on Iraq is a legitimate war, but I believe it is an illegal act of terrorism. Sure your country didn't fly planes into buildings, because they are much more resourceful and efficient. Instead, they dropped bombs and ravaged the country, and killed, once again, more than 300 times the number of people that died in 9/11.

I am a Canadian, but I am also part Iraqi, and many of my extended family members have been severely injured or killed by this "war" of yours.

I don't understand. I keep hearing Iraq was this great place until the US showed up. How did you, or your parents/grandparents end up in Canada? Seems silly to leave a country that is considered the cradle of civilization that was being run in such an acceptable manner and that had such a phenomenal infrastructure in place. Please explain.

Regards

My dad left because there was more opportunity in Canada for him at the time.

As for the cradle of civilization comment, Iraq is modern day Mesopotamia, which is widely considered the cradle of civilization. I have never claimed that Iraq had any sophisticated infrastructure, but there is no denying that there is so much history there that has been destroyed by the war.

The topic of this thread was that Iraq is demand $1B from the US because we destroyed their infrastructure and ruined their beautiful city. My first point was that it was neither of those things when we got there. I also don't know how you destroy someone's history, maybe you can elaborate?

And honestly, I'm happy that your dad had enough wherewithal to get out of Iraq. Nothing good, other than crude, was coming out of that place. Unfortunately not every Iraq has the means or motivation to leave the country for better opportunities.

In this case the opportunity has been brought to them, courtesy of the men and women of the Unites States military. Maybe you are less incline to see the benefit in that because you weren't the one suffering but I would hope you could query some of the friends and family that remain in the country and see if they were really happy before we showed up. Granted this is a process and there is no flipping a switch, so its going to take time but the conflict (and the lives lost, on both sides) is, in a matter of speaking, an investment in Iraq's future. I truly believe the Iraqi people will be better off going forward because of what the US did. Maybe time will change your view(s).

Regards

I have spoken with my family members back there, and their anger toward the US is basically unanimous.

You can destroy history by destroying evidence of that history. If the parthenon or the colliseum got destroyed, would it not be a huge loss? Similary, many monuments and libraries of ancient texts have been destroyed in Iraq because of the US, and I consider this a huge loss.

-MBP

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
drexelalum11:
awm55:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
People die in wars, that's a fact.

That's a convenient position. What if instead of calling it a war, I call the assault on Iraq a terrorist attack. Would you have the same stance? How would you feel if someone said "people die in terrorist attacks (referring to 9/11), that's a fact", in an attempt to trivialize the plight of the families who suffered through it. Keep in mind, Iraq went through the equivalent of over 300 9/11s at the hands of the US. Are you telling me that the hostility isn't justified?

What?!? You are silly.

What if I changed "terrorist attack" to "shark attack"?

I'm fairly certainly we never crashed planes into their buildings to kill INNOCENT Iraqis just because we didn't like them. I love hearing all these analogies and justifications. Just remember, Iraq was like 1M really, really late term abortions.

If Iraq is pissed because the US perpetrated a terrorist attack on their soil, they should load up their fucking tanks, put them on a ship and paddle the fuck over here. And since so many other developed nations believe the US is a fuck-up and some sort of imperialist regime, they should help them.

9/11 was a deliberate attack to harm US civilians...there is no rational comparison. Again, you're Canadian, your country and people weren't attacked, so I don't expect you to understand.

Regards

excellent post. I couldn't address the 9/11 reference he made with out calling him several curse words.

Don't spare my feelings. Lay all the curse words on me. God forbid someone mention 9/11 because of the 3000 people that died. You see how sensitive you are about that? I'm much more pissed off about the million of my countrymen and family members have been killed at the hands of your country.

Well fucking round up the Mounties. You're Candaian right? Or are you Iraqi because of the debate topic?

This is just another prime example of the fundamental differences between America and nearly every other nation on the face of the earth (developed or not). We are Americans...PERIOD. We aren't Canadians, ehh, when I need to get a cast put on my arm because it's fractured, and then Iraqi when someone says they support OIF. We are Americans, all day every day. We support our country and our countrymen, our military, law enforcement, public servants because, on the whole, they are trying to make us a better nation. I realize that sounds trite and maybe I'm naive but I still think this is the greatest nation the world has ever known.

As luck would have it, I'm of German decent, but I don't (nor have I ever) harbor animosity towards the US for killing 5.3mm Germans in WWII or, to put it into terms you might better understand, 1,773 9/11s worth of German people.

Regards

WWII was a legal war and entirely justified. Iraq was not...PERIOD.

How could WWII be a legal war? WWII pre-dated the UN; therefore, it couldn't possibly be lawful, as the UN was the first body to have the audacity to think it could decide when war is legal and when not.

Ok, so it was not illegal. Better?

Not the point. The point is that the idea that a war can be legal or illegal is completely ridiculous.

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
People die in wars, that's a fact.

That's a convenient position. What if instead of calling it a war, I call the assault on Iraq a terrorist attack. Would you have the same stance? How would you feel if someone said "people die in terrorist attacks (referring to 9/11), that's a fact", in an attempt to trivialize the plight of the families who suffered through it. Keep in mind, Iraq went through the equivalent of over 300 9/11s at the hands of the US. Are you telling me that the hostility isn't justified?

What?!? You are silly.

What if I changed "terrorist attack" to "shark attack"?

I'm fairly certainly we never crashed planes into their buildings to kill INNOCENT Iraqis just because we didn't like them. I love hearing all these analogies and justifications. Just remember, Iraq was like 1M really, really late term abortions.

If Iraq is pissed because the US perpetrated a terrorist attack on their soil, they should load up their fucking tanks, put them on a ship and paddle the fuck over here. And since so many other developed nations believe the US is a fuck-up and some sort of imperialist regime, they should help them.

9/11 was a deliberate attack to harm US civilians...there is no rational comparison. Again, you're Canadian, your country and people weren't attacked, so I don't expect you to understand.

Regards

excellent post. I couldn't address the 9/11 reference he made with out calling him several curse words.

Don't spare my feelings. Lay all the curse words on me. God forbid someone mention 9/11 because of the 3000 people that died. You see how sensitive you are about that? I'm much more pissed off about the million of my countrymen and family members have been killed at the hands of your country.

Well fucking round up the Mounties. You're Candaian right? Or are you Iraqi because of the debate topic?

This is just another prime example of the fundamental differences between America and nearly every other nation on the face of the earth (developed or not). We are Americans...PERIOD. We aren't Canadians, ehh, when I need to get a cast put on my arm because it's fractured, and then Iraqi when someone says they support OIF. We are Americans, all day every day. We support our country and our countrymen, our military, law enforcement, public servants because, on the whole, they are trying to make us a better nation. I realize that sounds trite and maybe I'm naive but I still think this is the greatest nation the world has ever known.

As luck would have it, I'm of German decent, but I don't (nor have I ever) harbor animosity towards the US for killing 5.3mm Germans in WWII or, to put it into terms you might better understand, 1,773 9/11s worth of German people.

Regards

WWII was a legal war and entirely justified. Iraq was not...PERIOD.

You still haven't directed any of use to what makes a war "illegal" or "legal"...and in who's eyes. Also, I'm fairly certainly the conflict in Iraq was supported by Congress. What other approval do we need?

You should actually check out the Iraq Resolution, which lists some of the reasons/justifications for invading Iraq. There was actually just more than the WMD point your keep harping on.

Again, this was meant for MBP, but, to your point, the terrorist act that occurred on 9/11 was illegal, which is what my comment was referring to.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

2/18/11

Wow, just saw where this thread has gone.

First of all CPH, you don't have to apologize to anybody at all. Stop justifying your positions by saying that maybe you are biased because you have seen x, y, and z. Your positions are absolutely right because they are grounded in logic and reasoning. That's all we need to go on here. You don't owe these clowns justification of any position.

As somebody who was also in the Army, I will tell you that I am not a little bit biased, I don't give a shit. I just want to see what's right because it's right and I want to eliminate what's wrong because it's wrong. And it is right to support your own nation's interests, as your own nation is the only nation that can ever protect you if some other nation were to want you or your family's life.

This is why the argument concerning "95% of the world's population feels" is another one of the most fucked logical fallacies that you leftists try to purport upon people. Get it straight, this is a ZERO-SUM game. When Russia wins, Americans lose. When America wins, Russia loses. When the flag-bearer for capitalism wins, socialist sympathizers in France and Sweden lose. It's that simple, and let's face it, in the end that's what it all comes down to. All of the pacifism and all of the U.N. rhetoric really comes down to a very fundamental philosophical split between left wing and right wing politics. And people have aligned themselves based on those grounds. You make the awful argument that the world hates us in light of the Iraq War...let me give you a little anecdote:

When I lived abroad, and I lived abroad FOREVER in a nation whose interests were in direct conflict with ours , I remember every time that Bush came on television the room would go quiet. People were seething, they hated him, and every time there was mention of the Iraq war, people were deeply offended. And you know what, it made me feel GREAT, because I knew that the same people that were opposed to everything I stand for, that being American liberty and America's ability to defend that liberty through strength, were upset at the direction of the world and the direction of my nation. That all changed when Obama would come on TV. Then, those same people that wanted to destroy everything I stand for, had something to cheer about, something to make them feel good. And you know what, that makes me feel very uneasy.

Secondly, let's address this idea of an "illegal" war. This war was illegal by who's definition? By your definition? By North Korea's definition? Would Saddam slaughtering civilians like they are chickens be considered an illegal act? Would it not then be more illegal to stand on the sideline and watch men and women die knowing full well you have the power to do something about it? So let's end the idea of "illegal" now. And, no, we can't free every nation, we can do this kind of thing only when opportunity strikes.
Furthermore, as for that being justification for the war and that pissing you off. Guess what princess, we didn't ask Saddam Hussein to throw out U.N. weapons inspectors. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to run a barbaric murderous regime. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to mislead the world and threaten the idea of WMD's. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to make America enemy number one and even go so far as to suggest he would have liked to assassinate a previous president of ours. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to run a dangerous unstable nation in the Middle East.

What pisses me off is that that asshole could have saved his head so many times. When, by all means, we had every right to deal with him years ago considering how awful he was, and, yet only after all of that nonsense and a terrorist attack on our own soil did we finally do what needed to be done. Scares me to think in the future what will it take to get rid of the next little Hitler that comes along.

Thirdly, in the context of a War on Terror, it was a correct strategic decision to eliminate the biggest enemy and hater of our nation in a region where terrorist activities were and remain a direct threat to the lives of our citizens. It is not unreasonable to think that Saddam Hussein would have gladly helped facilitate any threats to us within the region. That's his fault not ours. Al-Qaeda aside, you will find a rich history of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and other less extreme terrorist groups. So spare me your tears.

What's offensive to me and pisses me off is that a person like awm is more upset at the idea of America declaring war on what everybody would admit was a "bad guy" nation than is happy at the idea that a murderous rogue tyrant no longer walks the Earth. And you know what the sad thing is, you people are so fundamentally damaged psychologically in your rabid anti-Americanism that, we both know, even an American like awm, would be happy on the inside if he were to hear that American interests abroad were threatened even further by the likes of natural enemies like a China or a Russia. He would be thrilled at the idea of Russia owning all the oil in the Middle East, because that would really put the Americans in a bad situation. Even though, he is a direct beneficiary of America furthering its strength and capacity to protect him as an American citizen. This is tantamount to the kind of suicidal mentality that lead to a great mind to once declare that "Liberalism is a mental disorder." And don't give me the "I'm a moderate" shit, we all know you're a little Liberal Nazi at heart.

In reply to rebelcross
2/18/11

rebelcross:
Wow, just saw where this thread has gone.

First of all CPH, you don't have to apologize to anybody at all. Stop justifying your positions by saying that maybe you are biased because you have seen x, y, and z. Your positions are absolutely right because they are grounded in logic and reasoning. That's all we need to go on here. You don't owe these clowns justification of any position.

As somebody who was also in the Army, I will tell you that I am not a little bit biased, I don't give a shit. I just want to see what's right because it's right and I want to eliminate what's wrong because it's wrong. And it is right to support your own nation's interests, as your own nation is the only nation that can ever protect you if some other nation were to want you or your family's life.

This is why the argument concerning "95% of the world's population feels" is another one of the most fucked logical fallacies that you leftists try to purport upon people. Get it straight, this is a ZERO-SUM game. When Russia wins, Americans lose. When America wins, Russia loses. When the flag-bearer for capitalism wins, socialist sympathizers in France and Sweden lose. It's that simple, and let's face it, in the end that's what it all comes down to. All of the pacifism and all of the U.N. rhetoric really comes down to a very fundamental philosophical split between left wing and right wing politics. And people have aligned themselves based on those grounds. You make the awful argument that the world hates us in light of the Iraq War...let me give you a little anecdote:

When I lived abroad, and I lived abroad FOREVER in a nation whose interests were in direct conflict with ours , I remember every time that Bush came on television the room would go quiet. People were seething, they hated him, and every time there was mention of the Iraq war, people were deeply offended. And you know what, it made me feel GREAT, because I knew that the same people that were opposed to everything I stand for, that being American liberty and America's ability to defend that liberty through strength, were upset at the direction of the world and the direction of my nation. That all changed when Obama would come on TV. Then, those same people that wanted to destroy everything I stand for, had something to cheer about, something to make them feel good. And you know what, that makes me feel very uneasy.

Secondly, let's address this idea of an "illegal" war. This war was illegal by who's definition? By your definition? By North Korea's definition? Would Saddam slaughtering civilians like they are chickens be considered an illegal act? Would it not then be more illegal to stand on the sideline and watch men and women die knowing full well you have the power to do something about it? So let's end the idea of "illegal" now. And, no, we can't free every nation, we can do this kind of thing only when opportunity strikes.
Furthermore, as for that being justification for the war and that pissing you off. Guess what princess, we didn't ask Saddam Hussein to throw out U.N. weapons inspectors. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to run a barbaric murderous regime. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to mislead the world and threaten the idea of WMD's. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to make America enemy number one and even go so far as to suggest he would have liked to assassinate a previous president of ours. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to run a dangerous unstable nation in the Middle East.

What pisses me off is that that asshole could have saved his head so many times. When, by all means, we had every right to deal with him years ago considering how awful he was, and, yet only after all of that nonsense and a terrorist attack on our own soil did we finally do what needed to be done. Scares me to think in the future what will it take to get rid of the next little Hitler that comes along.

Thirdly, in the context of a War on Terror, it was a correct strategic decision to eliminate the biggest enemy and hater of our nation in a region where terrorist activities were and remain a direct threat to the lives of our citizens. It is not unreasonable to think that Saddam Hussein would have gladly helped facilitate any threats to us within the region. That's his fault not ours. Al-Qaeda aside, you will find a rich history of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and other less extreme terrorist groups. So spare me your tears.

What's offensive to me and pisses me off is that a person like awm is more upset at the idea of America declaring war on what everybody would admit was a "bad guy" nation than is happy at the idea that a murderous rogue tyrant no longer walks the Earth. And you know what the sad thing is, you people are so fundamentally damaged psychologically in your rabid anti-Americanism that, we both know, even an American like awm, would be happy on the inside if he were to hear that American interests abroad were threatened even further by the likes of natural enemies like a China or a Russia. He would be thrilled at the idea of Russia owning all the oil in the Middle East, because that would really put the Americans in a bad situation. Even though, he is a direct beneficiary of America furthering its strength and capacity to protect him as an American citizen. This is tantamount to the kind of suicidal mentality that lead to a great mind to once declare that "Liberalism is a mental disorder." And don't give me the "I'm a moderate" shit, we all know you're a little Liberal Nazi at heart.

Yea, what he said.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to rebelcross
2/18/11

rebelcross:
Wow, just saw where this thread has gone.

First of all CPH, you don't have to apologize to anybody at all. Stop justifying your positions by saying that maybe you are biased because you have seen x, y, and z. Your positions are absolutely right because they are grounded in logic and reasoning. That's all we need to go on here. You don't owe these clowns justification of any position.

As somebody who was also in the Army, I will tell you that I am not a little bit biased, I don't give a shit. I just want to see what's right because it's right and I want to eliminate what's wrong because it's wrong. And it is right to support your own nation's interests, as your own nation is the only nation that can ever protect you if some other nation were to want you or your family's life.

This is why the argument concerning "95% of the world's population feels" is another one of the most fucked logical fallacies that you leftists try to purport upon people. Get it straight, this is a ZERO-SUM game. When Russia wins, Americans lose. When America wins, Russia loses. When the flag-bearer for capitalism wins, socialist sympathizers in France and Sweden lose. It's that simple, and let's face it, in the end that's what it all comes down to. All of the pacifism and all of the U.N. rhetoric really comes down to a very fundamental philosophical split between left wing and right wing politics. And people have aligned themselves based on those grounds. You make the awful argument that the world hates us in light of the Iraq War...let me give you a little anecdote:

When I lived abroad, and I lived abroad FOREVER in a nation whose interests were in direct conflict with ours , I remember every time that Bush came on television the room would go quiet. People were seething, they hated him, and every time there was mention of the Iraq war, people were deeply offended. And you know what, it made me feel GREAT, because I knew that the same people that were opposed to everything I stand for, that being American liberty and America's ability to defend that liberty through strength, were upset at the direction of the world and the direction of my nation. That all changed when Obama would come on TV. Then, those same people that wanted to destroy everything I stand for, had something to cheer about, something to make them feel good. And you know what, that makes me feel very uneasy.

Secondly, let's address this idea of an "illegal" war. This war was illegal by who's definition? By your definition? By North Korea's definition? Would Saddam slaughtering civilians like they are chickens be considered an illegal act? Would it not then be more illegal to stand on the sideline and watch men and women die knowing full well you have the power to do something about it? So let's end the idea of "illegal" now. And, no, we can't free every nation, we can do this kind of thing only when opportunity strikes.
Furthermore, as for that being justification for the war and that pissing you off. Guess what princess, we didn't ask Saddam Hussein to throw out U.N. weapons inspectors. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to run a barbaric murderous regime. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to mislead the world and threaten the idea of WMD's. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to make America enemy number one and even go so far as to suggest he would have liked to assassinate a previous president of ours. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to run a dangerous unstable nation in the Middle East.

What pisses me off is that that asshole could have saved his head so many times. When, by all means, we had every right to deal with him years ago considering how awful he was, and, yet only after all of that nonsense and a terrorist attack on our own soil did we finally do what needed to be done. Scares me to think in the future what will it take to get rid of the next little Hitler that comes along.

Thirdly, in the context of a War on Terror, it was a correct strategic decision to eliminate the biggest enemy and hater of our nation in a region where terrorist activities were and remain a direct threat to the lives of our citizens. It is not unreasonable to think that Saddam Hussein would have gladly helped facilitate any threats to us within the region. That's his fault not ours. Al-Qaeda aside, you will find a rich history of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and other less extreme terrorist groups. So spare me your tears.

What's offensive to me and pisses me off is that a person like awm is more upset at the idea of America declaring war on what everybody would admit was a "bad guy" nation than is happy at the idea that a murderous rogue tyrant no longer walks the Earth. And you know what the sad thing is, you people are so fundamentally damaged psychologically in your rabid anti-Americanism that, we both know, even an American like awm, would be happy on the inside if he were to hear that American interests abroad were threatened even further by the likes of natural enemies like a China or a Russia. He would be thrilled at the idea of Russia owning all the oil in the Middle East, because that would really put the Americans in a bad situation. Even though, he is a direct beneficiary of America furthering its strength and capacity to protect him as an American citizen. This is tantamount to the kind of suicidal mentality that lead to a great mind to once declare that "Liberalism is a mental disorder." And don't give me the "I'm a moderate" shit, we all know you're a little Liberal Nazi at heart.

After this inspiring post I wish I could give you all my future silver bananas. Well said by a TRUE AMERICAN!

In reply to manbearpig
2/18/11

manbearpig:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
cphbravo96:
manbearpig:
txjustin:
People die in wars, that's a fact.

That's a convenient position. What if instead of calling it a war, I call the assault on Iraq a terrorist attack. Would you have the same stance? How would you feel if someone said "people die in terrorist attacks (referring to 9/11), that's a fact", in an attempt to trivialize the plight of the families who suffered through it. Keep in mind, Iraq went through the equivalent of over 300 9/11s at the hands of the US. Are you telling me that the hostility isn't justified?

What?!? You are silly.

What if I changed "terrorist attack" to "shark attack"?

I'm fairly certainly we never crashed planes into their buildings to kill INNOCENT Iraqis just because we didn't like them. I love hearing all these analogies and justifications. Just remember, Iraq was like 1M really, really late term abortions.

If Iraq is pissed because the US perpetrated a terrorist attack on their soil, they should load up their fucking tanks, put them on a ship and paddle the fuck over here. And since so many other developed nations believe the US is a fuck-up and some sort of imperialist regime, they should help them.

9/11 was a deliberate attack to harm US civilians...there is no rational comparison. Again, you're Canadian, your country and people weren't attacked, so I don't expect you to understand.

Regards

Listen genius, the terrorist attack comment was to show you that these semantics are just a matter of perspective. To you (and myself), the 9/11 attack was indeed a terrorist attack, but to the attackers, they were engaging in an act of war. You may believe that the attack on Iraq is a legitimate war, but I believe it is an illegal act of terrorism. Sure your country didn't fly planes into buildings, because they are much more resourceful and efficient. Instead, they dropped bombs and ravaged the country, and killed, once again, more than 300 times the number of people that died in 9/11.

I am a Canadian, but I am also part Iraqi, and many of my extended family members have been severely injured or killed by this "war" of yours.

I don't understand. I keep hearing Iraq was this great place until the US showed up. How did you, or your parents/grandparents end up in Canada? Seems silly to leave a country that is considered the cradle of civilization that was being run in such an acceptable manner and that had such a phenomenal infrastructure in place. Please explain.

Regards

My dad left because there was more opportunity in Canada for him at the time.

As for the cradle of civilization comment, Iraq is modern day Mesopotamia, which is widely considered the cradle of civilization. I have never claimed that Iraq had any sophisticated infrastructure, but there is no denying that there is so much history there that has been destroyed by the war.

The topic of this thread was that Iraq is demand $1B from the US because we destroyed their infrastructure and ruined their beautiful city. My first point was that it was neither of those things when we got there. I also don't know how you destroy someone's history, maybe you can elaborate?

And honestly, I'm happy that your dad had enough wherewithal to get out of Iraq. Nothing good, other than crude, was coming out of that place. Unfortunately not every Iraq has the means or motivation to leave the country for better opportunities.

In this case the opportunity has been brought to them, courtesy of the men and women of the Unites States military. Maybe you are less incline to see the benefit in that because you weren't the one suffering but I would hope you could query some of the friends and family that remain in the country and see if they were really happy before we showed up. Granted this is a process and there is no flipping a switch, so its going to take time but the conflict (and the lives lost, on both sides) is, in a matter of speaking, an investment in Iraq's future. I truly believe the Iraqi people will be better off going forward because of what the US did. Maybe time will change your view(s).

Regards

I have spoken with my family members back there, and their anger toward the US is basically unanimous.

You can destroy history by destroying evidence of that history. If the parthenon or the colliseum got destroyed, would it not be a huge loss? Similary, many monuments and libraries of ancient texts have been destroyed in Iraq because of the US, and I consider this a huge loss.

Do you any examples of any Iraqi buildings that would be equivalent to the Colosseum or Parthenon? I'm not being an ass, I'm just not really aware of any ancient buildings in Iraq, especially not of any being destroyed. Again, I'm not saying they haven't been, I'm just not away, so if they were and you can point me in the right direction I would like to read about it.

Additionally, I'm not aware of any sort of preservation efforts on the part of Saddam to preserve ancient artifacts or historical sites. Things that I've read said there are countless historically significant sites in Iraq that have never been touched. So, while I agree that there is a significant and important amount of history in Iraq that should be preserved, it's disingenuous to imply the US rolled into the equivalent of Rome and blow up a treasured landmark that's been expensively maintained for centuries.

Furthermore, I've actually been to the Iraqi National Museum (which was fucking awesome BTW) and saw the 'destruction' that occurred there. Ironically, there was a single, albeit large, hole in the side of the building (the only one I recall)...which was presumably from a tank or RPG. Most of the damage was on the interior and was actually committed by Iraqis who looted hundred of thousands of artifacts and destroyed thousands more.

Again, I'm all about personal responsibility, so I see this to be more the fault of Iraqis than Americans. It is worth pointing out the lengths the US has gone to to help recover the many of the missing pieces.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to rebelcross
2/18/11

rebelcross:
Wow, just saw where this thread has gone.

First of all CPH, you don't have to apologize to anybody at all. Stop justifying your positions by saying that maybe you are biased because you have seen x, y, and z. Your positions are absolutely right because they are grounded in logic and reasoning. That's all we need to go on here. You don't owe these clowns justification of any position.

As somebody who was also in the Army, I will tell you that I am not a little bit biased, I don't give a shit. I just want to see what's right because it's right and I want to eliminate what's wrong because it's wrong. And it is right to support your own nation's interests, as your own nation is the only nation that can ever protect you if some other nation were to want you or your family's life.

This is why the argument concerning "95% of the world's population feels" is another one of the most fucked logical fallacies that you leftists try to purport upon people. Get it straight, this is a ZERO-SUM game. When Russia wins, Americans lose. When America wins, Russia loses. When the flag-bearer for capitalism wins, socialist sympathizers in France and Sweden lose. It's that simple, and let's face it, in the end that's what it all comes down to. All of the pacifism and all of the U.N. rhetoric really comes down to a very fundamental philosophical split between left wing and right wing politics. And people have aligned themselves based on those grounds. You make the awful argument that the world hates us in light of the Iraq War...let me give you a little anecdote:

When I lived abroad, and I lived abroad FOREVER in a nation whose interests were in direct conflict with ours , I remember every time that Bush came on television the room would go quiet. People were seething, they hated him, and every time there was mention of the Iraq war, people were deeply offended. And you know what, it made me feel GREAT, because I knew that the same people that were opposed to everything I stand for, that being American liberty and America's ability to defend that liberty through strength, were upset at the direction of the world and the direction of my nation. That all changed when Obama would come on TV. Then, those same people that wanted to destroy everything I stand for, had something to cheer about, something to make them feel good. And you know what, that makes me feel very uneasy.

Secondly, let's address this idea of an "illegal" war. This war was illegal by who's definition? By your definition? By North Korea's definition? Would Saddam slaughtering civilians like they are chickens be considered an illegal act? Would it not then be more illegal to stand on the sideline and watch men and women die knowing full well you have the power to do something about it? So let's end the idea of "illegal" now. And, no, we can't free every nation, we can do this kind of thing only when opportunity strikes.
Furthermore, as for that being justification for the war and that pissing you off. Guess what princess, we didn't ask Saddam Hussein to throw out U.N. weapons inspectors. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to run a barbaric murderous regime. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to mislead the world and threaten the idea of WMD's. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to make America enemy number one and even go so far as to suggest he would have liked to assassinate a previous president of ours. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to run a dangerous unstable nation in the Middle East.

What pisses me off is that that asshole could have saved his head so many times. When, by all means, we had every right to deal with him years ago considering how awful he was, and, yet only after all of that nonsense and a terrorist attack on our own soil did we finally do what needed to be done. Scares me to think in the future what will it take to get rid of the next little Hitler that comes along.

Thirdly, in the context of a War on Terror, it was a correct strategic decision to eliminate the biggest enemy and hater of our nation in a region where terrorist activities were and remain a direct threat to the lives of our citizens. It is not unreasonable to think that Saddam Hussein would have gladly helped facilitate any threats to us within the region. That's his fault not ours. Al-Qaeda aside, you will find a rich history of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and other less extreme terrorist groups. So spare me your tears.

What's offensive to me and pisses me off is that a person like awm is more upset at the idea of America declaring war on what everybody would admit was a "bad guy" nation than is happy at the idea that a murderous rogue tyrant no longer walks the Earth. And you know what the sad thing is, you people are so fundamentally damaged psychologically in your rabid anti-Americanism that, we both know, even an American like awm, would be happy on the inside if he were to hear that American interests abroad were threatened even further by the likes of natural enemies like a China or a Russia. He would be thrilled at the idea of Russia owning all the oil in the Middle East, because that would really put the Americans in a bad situation. Even though, he is a direct beneficiary of America furthering its strength and capacity to protect him as an American citizen. This is tantamount to the kind of suicidal mentality that lead to a great mind to once declare that "Liberalism is a mental disorder." And don't give me the "I'm a moderate" shit, we all know you're a little Liberal Nazi at heart.

Great post

In reply to rebelcross
2/18/11

rebelcross:
Wow, just saw where this thread has gone.

First of all CPH, you don't have to apologize to anybody at all. Stop justifying your positions by saying that maybe you are biased because you have seen x, y, and z. Your positions are absolutely right because they are grounded in logic and reasoning. That's all we need to go on here. You don't owe these clowns justification of any position.

As somebody who was also in the Army, I will tell you that I am not a little bit biased, I don't give a shit. I just want to see what's right because it's right and I want to eliminate what's wrong because it's wrong. And it is right to support your own nation's interests, as your own nation is the only nation that can ever protect you if some other nation were to want you or your family's life.

This is why the argument concerning "95% of the world's population feels" is another one of the most fucked logical fallacies that you leftists try to purport upon people. Get it straight, this is a ZERO-SUM game. When Russia wins, Americans lose. When America wins, Russia loses. When the flag-bearer for capitalism wins, socialist sympathizers in France and Sweden lose. It's that simple, and let's face it, in the end that's what it all comes down to. All of the pacifism and all of the U.N. rhetoric really comes down to a very fundamental philosophical split between left wing and right wing politics. And people have aligned themselves based on those grounds. You make the awful argument that the world hates us in light of the Iraq War...let me give you a little anecdote:

When I lived abroad, and I lived abroad FOREVER in a nation whose interests were in direct conflict with ours , I remember every time that Bush came on television the room would go quiet. People were seething, they hated him, and every time there was mention of the Iraq war, people were deeply offended. And you know what, it made me feel GREAT, because I knew that the same people that were opposed to everything I stand for, that being American liberty and America's ability to defend that liberty through strength, were upset at the direction of the world and the direction of my nation. That all changed when Obama would come on TV. Then, those same people that wanted to destroy everything I stand for, had something to cheer about, something to make them feel good. And you know what, that makes me feel very uneasy.

Secondly, let's address this idea of an "illegal" war. This war was illegal by who's definition? By your definition? By North Korea's definition? Would Saddam slaughtering civilians like they are chickens be considered an illegal act? Would it not then be more illegal to stand on the sideline and watch men and women die knowing full well you have the power to do something about it? So let's end the idea of "illegal" now. And, no, we can't free every nation, we can do this kind of thing only when opportunity strikes.
Furthermore, as for that being justification for the war and that pissing you off. Guess what princess, we didn't ask Saddam Hussein to throw out U.N. weapons inspectors. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to run a barbaric murderous regime. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to mislead the world and threaten the idea of WMD's. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to make America enemy number one and even go so far as to suggest he would have liked to assassinate a previous president of ours. We didn't ask Saddam Hussein to run a dangerous unstable nation in the Middle East.

What pisses me off is that that asshole could have saved his head so many times. When, by all means, we had every right to deal with him years ago considering how awful he was, and, yet only after all of that nonsense and a terrorist attack on our own soil did we finally do what needed to be done. Scares me to think in the future what will it take to get rid of the next little Hitler that comes along.

Thirdly, in the context of a War on Terror, it was a correct strategic decision to eliminate the biggest enemy and hater of our nation in a region where terrorist activities were and remain a direct threat to the lives of our citizens. It is not unreasonable to think that Saddam Hussein would have gladly helped facilitate any threats to us within the region. That's his fault not ours. Al-Qaeda aside, you will find a rich history of cooperation between Saddam Hussein and other less extreme terrorist groups. So spare me your tears.

What's offensive to me and pisses me off is that a person like awm is more upset at the idea of America declaring war on what everybody would admit was a "bad guy" nation than is happy at the idea that a murderous rogue tyrant no longer walks the Earth. And you know what the sad thing is, you people are so fundamentally damaged psychologically in your rabid anti-Americanism that, we both know, even an American like awm, would be happy on the inside if he were to hear that American interests abroad were threatened even further by the likes of natural enemies like a China or a Russia. He would be thrilled at the idea of Russia owning all the oil in the Middle East, because that would really put the Americans in a bad situation. Even though, he is a direct beneficiary of America furthering its strength and capacity to protect him as an American citizen. This is tantamount to the kind of suicidal mentality that lead to a great mind to once declare that "Liberalism is a mental disorder." And don't give me the "I'm a moderate" shit, we all know you're a little Liberal Nazi at heart.

The most dangerous position a country can be in is when the people blindly follow their nations interests to the point where they never question whether what they are doing is right or wrong. You literally just said this. You want to know what this is called? Its called fascism, seriously, look it up.

And you are calling me a Nazi? Fucking moron. You just described EXACTLY what the 3rd reich did to Germany.

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
The most dangerous position a country can be in is when the people blindly follow their nations interests to the point where they never question whether what they are doing is right or wrong. You literally just said this. You want to know what this is called? Its called fascism, seriously, look it up.

And you are calling me a Nazi? Fucking moron. You just described EXACTLY what the 3rd reich did to Germany.

I don't owe this sophmoric post attention, but just for the record, I'm actually very opposed to a lot of what America does. I hate our Asia strategy, espeically our wishy-washy stance on Taiwan and our continued appeasement of North Korea, etc. I mean, there are several things I'm opposed to, I'm not going to list them all, but spare me your "people blindly follow" talking point. Regardless of that, way to address the points made CPH, Drexel and myself in your arguments.

And I don't even know what your last line means.

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
The most dangerous position a country can be in is when the people blindly follow their nations interests to the point where they never question whether what they are doing is right or wrong. You literally just said this. You want to know what this is called? Its called fascism, seriously, look it up.

And you are calling me a Nazi? Fucking moron. You just described EXACTLY what the 3rd reich did to Germany.

I have to disagree. I think the most dangerous position a country can be in is when its people blindly follow the rhetoric of their nation's enemies.

It's sad that you would attempt to draw comparison between what the US, and other nations, has done in Iraq, with that of what Hitler's Germany did; it reflects poorly on yourself and analytical capabilities.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to cphbravo96
2/18/11

cphbravo96:
I have to disagree. I think the most dangerous position a country can be in is when its people blindly follow the rhetoric of their nation's enemies.

You know what's terrifying about this post? It puts the reality of what is going on in this country into perspective. This hits so close to home. The place that the kind of mentality described here by cph ultimately leads to, is something that scares me everyday of my life.

In reply to cphbravo96
2/18/11

cphbravo96:
awm55:
The most dangerous position a country can be in is when the people blindly follow their nations interests to the point where they never question whether what they are doing is right or wrong. You literally just said this. You want to know what this is called? Its called fascism, seriously, look it up.

And you are calling me a Nazi? Fucking moron. You just described EXACTLY what the 3rd reich did to Germany.

I have to disagree. I think the most dangerous position a country can be in is when its people blindly follow the rhetoric of their nation's enemies.

It's sad that you would attempt to draw comparison between what the US, and other nations, has done in Iraq, with that of what Hitler's Germany did; it reflects poorly on yourself and analytical capabilities.

Regards

So every other developed country in the world is our enemy because they did not support the war? When did I ever say we should support North Korea or Iran? Personally I think that little shit in NK deserves to be nuked but that is another issue.

And I am not comparing what we did in Iraq to nazi Germany. I am comparing the rhetoric people were using in this forum to the hyper-nationalistic rhetoric used by Nazi Germany.

I just think blindly following your countries actions without stepping back and looking at them objectively is extremely dangerous. Bush stated many times that you are either with us or against us with regards to foreign policy, and that language is dangerous and riles up a belief system that is very similiar to the teachings of fascism.

In reply to heister
2/18/11

heister:
Canada only has one good export, BC bud

hockey, anyone??

Get busy living

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

2/18/11

Alright guys, I enjoyed the discussion (could have done without the loads of monkey shit), but I'm gonna withdraw from it now. It was fun debating with everyone, and I apologize if I offended anyone.

-MBP

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
cphbravo96:
awm55:
The most dangerous position a country can be in is when the people blindly follow their nations interests to the point where they never question whether what they are doing is right or wrong. You literally just said this. You want to know what this is called? Its called fascism, seriously, look it up.

And you are calling me a Nazi? Fucking moron. You just described EXACTLY what the 3rd reich did to Germany.

I have to disagree. I think the most dangerous position a country can be in is when its people blindly follow the rhetoric of their nation's enemies.

It's sad that you would attempt to draw comparison between what the US, and other nations, has done in Iraq, with that of what Hitler's Germany did; it reflects poorly on yourself and analytical capabilities.

Regards

So every other developed country in the world is our enemy because they did not support the war? When did I ever say we should support North Korea or Iran? Personally I think that little shit in NK deserves to be nuked but that is another issue.

And I am not comparing what we did in Iraq to nazi Germany. I am comparing the rhetoric people were using in this forum to the hyper-nationalistic rhetoric used by Nazi Germany.

I just think blindly following your countries actions without stepping back and looking at them objectively is extremely dangerous. Bush stated many times that you are either with us or against us with regards to foreign policy, and that language is dangerous and riles up a belief system that is very similiar to the teachings of fascism.


Who won the Iraq war? CHINA.......

Get busy living

In reply to rebelcross
2/18/11

rebelcross:
cphbravo96:
I have to disagree. I think the most dangerous position a country can be in is when its people blindly follow the rhetoric of their nation's enemies.

You know what's terrifying about this post? It puts the reality of what is going on in this country into perspective. This hits so close to home. The place that the kind of mentality described here by cph ultimately leads to, is something that scares me everyday of my life.

Yeah, when terrorist and dictators supported the election of our current president, I take a step back and wonder, "Why are these bad people (read: enemies) so happy this guy just got elected?" Now that is scary.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

2/18/11

If you spent the last hour reading this thread while waiting for the Fed to settle...YOU MIGHT BE IN OPERATIONS

Disclaimer: I'm in BO

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
cphbravo96:
awm55:
The most dangerous position a country can be in is when the people blindly follow their nations interests to the point where they never question whether what they are doing is right or wrong. You literally just said this. You want to know what this is called? Its called fascism, seriously, look it up.

And you are calling me a Nazi? Fucking moron. You just described EXACTLY what the 3rd reich did to Germany.

I have to disagree. I think the most dangerous position a country can be in is when its people blindly follow the rhetoric of their nation's enemies.

It's sad that you would attempt to draw comparison between what the US, and other nations, has done in Iraq, with that of what Hitler's Germany did; it reflects poorly on yourself and analytical capabilities.

Regards

So every other developed country in the world is our enemy because they did not support the war? When did I ever say we should support North Korea or Iran? Personally I think that little shit in NK deserves to be nuked but that is another issue.

And I am not comparing what we did in Iraq to nazi Germany. I am comparing the rhetoric people were using in this forum to the hyper-nationalistic rhetoric used by Nazi Germany.

I just think blindly following your countries actions without stepping back and looking at them objectively is extremely dangerous. Bush stated many times that you are either with us or against us with regards to foreign policy, and that language is dangerous and riles up a belief system that is very similiar to the teachings of fascism.

The point is, as a country, we have to serve our best interest, not see how our ideas fit with the ideas of others, etc. So what if other countries don't approve. What's the big deal? The fact of the matter is, most countries won't approve of actions that result in strengthening the US's interests abroad, UNLESS, they just so happen to strengthen the particular country's interests as well.

What the heck has Kim Jong-il done to deserve to be nuked?

Supporting our countries interests abroad, even when it comes to war/conflict, is not hyper-nationalistic. Our intent is not the destruction of a race of human beings and should in no way be compared to Nazi Germany. Americans supporting a war to overthrow a cruel dictator is light years away from any sort of hyper-nationalism and it isn't even in the same ballpark as Hilter's intent/purpose. We support our country because we are (mostly) rational human beings and have human's interests in mind, Bush was not some power hungry dictator that invaded Iraq in an effort to imprison their men, rape their women and kill their children. Again, just an absolutely horrible attempt at an analogy.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to manbearpig
2/18/11

manbearpig:
Alright guys, I enjoyed the discussion (could have done without the loads of monkey shit), but I'm gonna withdraw from it now. It was fun debating with everyone, and I apologize if I offended anyone.

Yeah, I think I manged to double my shit count today. Oh well, it was worth it. Thanks for participating.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
So every other developed country in the world is our enemy because they did not support the war?

What?

awm55:
When did I ever say we should support North Korea or Iran?

Huh?

awm55:
Personally I think that little shit in NK deserves to be nuked but that is another issue.

I thought that would be an "illegal" war?

awm55:
I just think blindly following your countries actions without stepping back and looking at them objectively is extremely dangerous.

We stepped back and looked at things objectively, the above three pages of dialogue represents our conclusions based upon fact and reason. But I suppose any Conservative or pro-America viewpoint amounts to "blindly following" your nation?

awm55:
Bush stated many times that you are either with us or against us with regards to foreign policy, and that language is dangerous and riles up a belief system that is very similiar to the teachings of fascism.

So you prefer your president, during a time of war to say something more along the lines of "well, you can support us if you think what we're doing is ok, you don't have to support us, though, you know, whatever you like we like..." I don't know, I kind of prefer leadership during a time of war. I also prefer for America to clarify that it is doing what is in America's interests. That's kind of why nations exist, people years ago got together and formed groups (nations) in order to do everything in their power to defend their interests.

I do know something a bit more dangerous, though. The rhetoric of our enemies and opiate of your college professors that Americans like you so blindly follow.

In conclusion...it's a waste of time debating you. Every point of fact or reason has completely gone over your head. You have no ground to stand on at this point and your posts are filled with hollow talking points that hold no value whatsoever. I don't know why I wasted my time writing this counter to your asinine post, and may there be mercy on our souls.

2/18/11

Drexel can be a dick sometimes, but the guy is smart. I completely enjoy how he dismembered AWM.

You figure out what a semi auto is yet kid.

Hahahahahahah

In reply to rebelcross
2/18/11

rebelcross:
awm55:
So every other developed country in the world is our enemy because they did not support the war?

What?

awm55:
When did I ever say we should support North Korea or Iran?

Huh?

awm55:
Personally I think that little shit in NK deserves to be nuked but that is another issue.

I thought that would be an "illegal" war?

awm55:
I just think blindly following your countries actions without stepping back and looking at them objectively is extremely dangerous.

We stepped back and looked at things objectively, the above three pages of dialogue represents our conclusions based upon fact and reason. But I suppose any Conservative or pro-America viewpoint amounts to "blindly following" your nation?

awm55:
Bush stated many times that you are either with us or against us with regards to foreign policy, and that language is dangerous and riles up a belief system that is very similiar to the teachings of fascism.

So you prefer your president, during a time of war to say something more along the lines of "well, you can support us if you think what we're doing is ok, you don't have to support us, though, you know, whatever you like we like..." I don't know, I kind of prefer leadership during a time of war. I also prefer for America to clarify that it is doing what is in America's interests. That's kind of why nations exist, people years ago got together and formed groups (nations) in order to do everything in their power to defend their interests.

I do know something a bit more dangerous, though. The rhetoric of our enemies and opiate of your college professors that Americans like you so blindly follow.

In conclusion...it's a waste of time debating you. Every point of fact or reason has completely gone over your head. You have no ground to stand on at this point and your posts are filled with hollow talking points that hold no value whatsoever. I don't know why I wasted my time writing this counter to your asinine post, and may there be mercy on our souls.

You are missing the point. You are in the minority jackass, not me. Its not like what I am saying here is that crazy (aside from the nuking NK part, I admit i was joking then).

Most of the country thinks Iraq was a mistake, as does most of the rest of the world. So all of those people are anti-american snobby liberal elitists? Most people think Bush was a disaster as well. I think you need to look outside the forums on a wall street website and wake up to what the general consensus is.

2/18/11

Most people supported Afghanistan and Iraq when it happened. Yeah, you are correct. Right now most people probably have negative opinions on the war. People were strongly against WW2 before Pearl Harbor. History will truly tell if it was a good thing or not.

Calling people names doesn't benefit your case too much. Also, how is his opinion any different than yours. You try and come off as some specialist or expert in things. You have an opinion, just like everyone else.

In reply to TNA
2/18/11

ANT:
Most people supported Afghanistan and Iraq when it happened. Yeah, you are correct. Right now most people probably have negative opinions on the war. People were strongly against WW2 before Pearl Harbor. History will truly tell if it was a good thing or not.

Calling people names doesn't benefit your case too much. Also, how is his opinion any different than yours. You try and come off as some specialist or expert in things. You have an opinion, just like everyone else.

I am in no way an expert. I never said that. But I am getting attacked for stating the general consensus among people in this country and abroad.

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
ANT:
Most people supported Afghanistan and Iraq when it happened. Yeah, you are correct. Right now most people probably have negative opinions on the war. People were strongly against WW2 before Pearl Harbor. History will truly tell if it was a good thing or not.

Calling people names doesn't benefit your case too much. Also, how is his opinion any different than yours. You try and come off as some specialist or expert in things. You have an opinion, just like everyone else.

I am in no way an expert. I never said that. But I am getting attacked for stating the general consensus among people in this country and abroad.

No one here is an expert, awm. There is a lot of discontent flying around here. For argument's sake, could you at least cite this domestic and international consensus?

I'll post one article that I think you should read. Public opinion is completely in the eyes of the beholder.

US Withdrawal from Iraq: Baghdad Residents Mourn Departure of Former Enemy (German News)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,7...

In reply to redrock
2/18/11

redrock:
awm55:
ANT:
Most people supported Afghanistan and Iraq when it happened. Yeah, you are correct. Right now most people probably have negative opinions on the war. People were strongly against WW2 before Pearl Harbor. History will truly tell if it was a good thing or not.

Calling people names doesn't benefit your case too much. Also, how is his opinion any different than yours. You try and come off as some specialist or expert in things. You have an opinion, just like everyone else.

I am in no way an expert. I never said that. But I am getting attacked for stating the general consensus among people in this country and abroad.

No one here is an expert, awm. There is a lot of discontent flying around here. For argument's sake, could you at least cite this domestic and international consensus?

I'll post one article that I think you should read. Public opinion is completely in the eyes of the beholder.

US Withdrawal from Iraq: Baghdad Residents Mourn Departure of Former Enemy (German News)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,7...

The only real way we can determine pubic oppinion is public polls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_th...

2/18/11

December 2008

On December, 11-14, An ABC News/Washington Post Poll of 1,003 adults nationwide, found 64% felt the Iraq War was not worth fighting, with 34% saying it was worth fighting, with 2% undecided. The margin of error was 3%.[18]

64% said it was not worth fighting. Not that it was wrong. Also, you see a decline in the polls for every war. It is plain fatigue. People lose interest and do not care. Since the military is all volunteer fewer people are effected.

Not totally disagreeing with you, just saying.

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
The only real way we can determine pubic oppinion is public polls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_th...

Thanks for the source. That is a very fair criticism. To address public opnion, I must defer to military scholars on the topic of counterinsurgencies as it relates to the U.S. public.

"The "real" strategic center of gravity is U.S. public opinion.

The classic guerrilla strategy is not to win, but to hold out and prevent the other side from winning. In the Philippines, insurrectos hoped "to protract the war until either the U.S. Army broke down . . . or the American public demanded a withdrawal."19 In the words of Brigadier General Samuel Sumner, theirs was a policy of "negative opposition."[20]

In Iraq, too, it is surely the feverish hope of insurgents that a steady stream of American casualties will fray American resolve, whether in the West Wing over the coming months or at the ballot box next year.

As President Bush ponders the political ramifications of his Iraq policy for next year's election, he would do well to procure an advance copy of Christopher Gelpi and Peter Feaver's compelling new book, Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force. In it, Gelpi and Feaver argue persuasively that the American public is more "defeat-phobic" than "casualty-phobic." In other words, they are more worried about losing a war than losing soldiers in order to win a war.[21]"
http://www.aei.org/outlook/19408

Public opinion is driven by politics. Now, I am not saying that you are incorrect. However, you look at the data you posted and see public opinion for Iraq around 40% at the end, I look at the public opinion for Iraq in the beginning at over 70%. Who is right? Counterinsurgency success depends upon public opinion. We were fighting the insurgents in Iraq while they were appealing to the American public. And, the American public ate it up. I think that the consensus and public opinion you cite is a response to a very deliberate propaganda campaign on both sides.

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

awm55:
redrock:
awm55:
ANT:
Most people supported Afghanistan and Iraq when it happened. Yeah, you are correct. Right now most people probably have negative opinions on the war. People were strongly against WW2 before Pearl Harbor. History will truly tell if it was a good thing or not.

Calling people names doesn't benefit your case too much. Also, how is his opinion any different than yours. You try and come off as some specialist or expert in things. You have an opinion, just like everyone else.

I am in no way an expert. I never said that. But I am getting attacked for stating the general consensus among people in this country and abroad.

No one here is an expert, awm. There is a lot of discontent flying around here. For argument's sake, could you at least cite this domestic and international consensus?

I'll post one article that I think you should read. Public opinion is completely in the eyes of the beholder.

US Withdrawal from Iraq: Baghdad Residents Mourn Departure of Former Enemy (German News)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,7...

The only real way we can determine pubic oppinion is public polls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_th...

The problem is, being in the minority (a) doesn't make you wrong and (b) is actually counter to some of your arguments. You talk about how stupid some of us are because we blindly support a president (also, that is true, but for argument's sake) then you tell us we are stupid because we don't agree with everyone else. So, should we just blindly alter our opinion so we can be in the majority?

I also discount a lot of your consensus because I don't care what people outside of this country have to say. As I mentioned before, no nation is going to take care of me like my own. I don't expect everyone to support our decisions because their motives and interests are different from our own. So of course their opinions will counter to ours...which is why I don't care about them.

As far as American consensus is concerned, I put little stock in that as well. First and foremost the majority of the country voted for Obama...and look how that is turning out...so I can't say I would rely on the majority of America to determine my stance on anything of importance. Second, the vast majority of this country don't truly understand any of the foreign policy initiatives the US deals in and therefor, are totally unqualified to have valued opinions on said topic...and this is no different for the Iraq War. You are a prime example of someone who just regurgitates the talking points found on many liberal news stations, here and abroad (Bush lied, No WMDs, Just wanted oil, etc., etc., etc.) and it's old, it's boring, it's inaccurate. In addition to the aforementioned, I know the hatred for Bush runs extremely deep on the left.

Some people are so blinded by their hate for Bush they can't even acknowledge the benefit of Saddam's removal or that the US has sank a shit ton of money into that country in an effort to get it back on it's feet or that "torturing" a know/captured terrorist is an acceptable measure in which to gather intelligence especially when that intelligence could save the lives of American citizens.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

2/18/11

Holy shit storm. 47 monkey shits from this thread alone. Unbelievable.

-MBP

In reply to manbearpig
2/18/11

manbearpig:
Holy shit storm. 47 monkey shits from this thread alone. Unbelievable.

think i got more, really says something doesn't it

In reply to awm55
2/18/11

To unlock this content for free, please login / register below.

  • Facebook
  • Google Plus
  • LinkeIn
  • Twitter
Connecting helps us build a vibrant community. We'll never share your info without your permission. Sign up with email or if you are already a member, login here Bonus: Also get 6 free financial modeling lessons for free ($200+ value) when you register!
In reply to manbearpig
2/18/11

-MBP

In reply to manbearpig
2/19/11

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to manbearpig
2/19/11

Greed is Good.

In reply to cphbravo96
2/21/11

Greed is Good.

2/21/11

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

2/21/11
In reply to DontMakeMeShortYou
2/21/11

Pages

What's Your Opinion? Comment below:

Login or register to get credit (collect bananas).
All anonymous comments are unpublished until reviewed. No links or promotional material will be allowed. Most comments are published within 24 hours.
WallStreet Prep Master Financial Modeling