americans/Brits using depleted uranum in bombs and shells

Quote:

---

BRITISH and American coalition forces are using depleted uranium (DU) shells in the war against Iraq and deliberately flouting a United Nations resolution which classifies the munitions as illegal weapons of mass destruction.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon's depleted uranium project -- a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defense with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up -- said use of DU was a 'war crime'.
Rokke said: 'There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction -- yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.' He added: 'Such double-standards are repellent.' The latest use of DU in the current conflict came on Friday when an American A10 tankbuster plane fired a DU shell, killing one British soldier and injuring three others in a 'friendly fire' incident. According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing 'poison or poisoned weapons' and 'arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering'. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.

---

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm

well it seems this is a complete disregard for human life to me and a war crime. I read in onother forume taht the depleted uranium is used for its "armor piercing properties"
DISCUSS.....

Yea its old news. Even that report is dated 2003 and we still havn't stopped using that stuff. There has been report of contaminated dust blowing as far away as Britain. We use that crap in all our weapons. Most over in iraq but we even shoot that crap here in the us for practice.

What is really disgusting however are the fact that troops come back from iraq sick from using the stuff then the government refuses to admit there is a health hazard(they claim its contained), and will refuse to pay health care of the affected troops.

Its been reported time and again, everything on there is true. The government will even admit that the stuff is hazardous and they have special clean up crews to deal with it because of it. They claim that the stuff is safe if they follow the proper procedures and they claim they always do, hence why its totally safe in their mind. Of course no one with even the smallest amount of common sense believes that. Do you really think they bring up a clean up crew every time they fire off a tank? Of course not, thats why cancer rates is 10 times higher and our troops are coming back sick.

uh no! poorly paid hired hitmen are getting sick!

I know - ironic isn't it. They make such a froth about what if the terrorists get radioactive material to make a dirtybomb, when everyday THEY are exploding munitions tipped with uranium, poisoning people and lands for millenia to come.

Quote:

---

I know - ironic isn't it. They make such a froth about what if the terrorists get radioactive material to make a dirtybomb, when everyday THEY are exploding munitions tipped with uranium, poisoning people and lands for millenia to come.

---

it could allmost be called a "mini hiroshima" except happening on a daily basis so it is easier to overlook and forget about.

Conicidential! I just recently found out the same it. However, it is old news indeed. I can't believe only few people know this. The amount of deformed children really goes up everywhere they shoot around with depleted uranium bullets : /

Sick shit, sick shit. I can't believe that kind of weaponry is as illegal as anthrax.

i might be mistaken, but doesnt "depleted" mean the uranium has lost its radioactive properties? I dont think it makes a small nuclear explosion when used in a tank round either.

No it doesn't. They remove the Isotopes that is used to make bombs and stuff, which is much more radioactive than normal uranium. However normal uranium is raidoactive so even though its much less it can still cause damage. And since they are using so much of it, it gets all over, in the sand, in the air and in the water. So its every where.

If you walked into a room with some, then left. You would hardly suffer. We however are talking about people who are literally not only eating and drinking it but breathing it in every day. The worst thing however, is that the stuff remains radioactive for billions of years, their country will never recover.

What cities have been wiped out? Do you have pictures of the neighborhoods full of dead people from the depleted uranium attacks?

I really don't know enough to say what the extent of such damage would be, but with the mass cult that is so boned up to trash the U.S. any little chance they get, this would be humongous news if it were as serious as some people are making it out to be. Just look at what kind of hysteria resulted from the fraternity hazing at Abu Ghraib by a select few deviants who were not following orders (and not the mass killings performed by the lovely and wonderful Iraqi insurgent terrorists). There might be some bad effects, but they have apparently been determined to be very minor in comparison to the highly extreme effects of refraining from the military operations. War sucks, and it will no longer be necessary when the whole world is liberated. The more international support we get in working toward that goal, the sooner it will happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shark!

uh no! poorly paid hired hitmen are getting sick!

---

I guess I was a poorly paid hired hit man.

LOL, fuck off.

Depleted uranium is used in a lot of weapons because its great for armor peircing rounds. Its used heavily in tank rounds. They can be made into any kind of ammo and you will seen them shot out of rifiles and stuff too but the huge tank rounds are how we spread most of it, because they are just so big.

I have seen the pictures of the birth defects and stuff but really I have no need to post sick pictures of that. I am sure you can google it. When you use nuclear bombs the raidoactive stuff disappears fairly quickly as most of the energy is released in the explosion. This stuff it stays around forever at low levels. Calling in a small nuclear bomb probably isn't the best way to put it. Its more like a poison. We are covering the entire area with poison, which will last billions of years. The stuff gets into the soil and into the food supply. It gets into the water and they don't have the best filtration over there, so they end up drinking it.

Of course anyone who is hit by the round dies. That is our goal however. The problem is everyone else who dies a slow death. Increased cancer rates, huge amounts of birth defects and other medical problems they are having. This stuff will never go away, the wind blows the dust all over the place.

The reasons this kind of stuff doesn't come out very much is because it puts our country in a very bad light. Its not an anti bush thing and you can't blame him for it. Its an anti US army thing and everyone loves to yell, "support our troops" bullcrap, so they are slow to point the blame at the armed services. This stuff isn't made up though, the government has its own reports showing the dangers of it. We know what it does, its a fact not some theory someone came up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

The reasons this kind of stuff doesn't come out very much is because it puts our country in a very bad light. Its not an anti bush thing and you can't blame him for it. Its an anti US army thing and everyone loves to yell, "support our troops" bullcrap, so they are slow to point the blame at the armed services. This stuff isn't made up though, the government has its own reports showing the dangers of it. We know what it does, its a fact not some theory someone came up with.

---

I don't know much about that, and it sounds really terrible. It just seems like such a story would be hog Heaven for sensational journalism. I don't see why it wouldn't make Anna Nicole Smith look like a rat that lived for three days and died in the sewer. Even American journalists have no qualms about humiliating the military. If Abu Ghraib wasn't suppressed, it seems like American military caused uranium poisoning all over the place wouldn't be either. The New York Times would be having orgasms just thinking about printing a story about it every single day, like they did with Abu Ghraib. If the government is keeping people like that so low key, it is pretty shocking.

Just because the new york times doesn't report it doesn't mean its not true. There are articles about it all the time. Just because its not fox or cnn doesn't mean you should just disregard it.

Honestly there is very little real criticism of the government. The news is more focused on stuff making money than reporting news. Things they can really hype up to sound bad but are actually not to bad. And lets face it, there is more than a small amount of propaganda in a lot of new sources.

This is obviously one example of it. How come they don't report it? That is a serious question you should ask. Here is another, how come you rarely hear reports of the north american union? You hear people talking about illegal immgrents all the time but you rarely hear about the plans the government has to earse the border with mexico, to make an EU type government between mexico and canada. Suddenly all the crap they do makes sense, why secure the border if your going to allow free travel across it within a few years anyway? But its never talked about.

Heck back to Iraq, they talk about the bombings and how many people die every day in iraq. How come they don't say anything when they lockdown baghdad because they fear uprisings however? A couple of times they had to totally stop all travel in the city because they thought the new government might be overthrown, yet you hear nothing of it.

How come they never mention how much trouble our economy is in? They like to complian about minor numbers or cheer on our economy when a few things point up. Yet they rarely talk about how serious our countries debt really is. If you go look at smaller news groups, you will see aritcles on it all the time about how our country is bankrupt, how theres no way we can pay for social security in the coming years. A while back when the government stopped reporting how much money it was creating, there wasn't any news on it. Given the serious nature of it, you would think it should be. It wasn't however. And incase you don't know why its important, its because thats the cause of inflation and without them reporting it, inflation can balloon out of control without anyone seeing before its to late.

So who knows why they report what they. All I know is that if you only listen to one or two news sources your not getting the entire story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What cities have been wiped out? Do you have pictures of the neighborhoods full of dead people from the depleted uranium attacks?

---

Who ever said that? Do you even understand the issue here? Uranium, even 'depleted' (depleted enough not to have use in reactors) gives people CANCER. Cancer isn't nice to give to people.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../07/se.08.html

Bottom line there:

Quote:

---

DR. HELEN CALDICOTT, NUCLEAR POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: Yes. They used up to 300 to 800 tons of uranium shells that are 1.7 times more dense than lead. So, they cut through a tank like a hot knife through butter, but they're (UNINTELLIGIBLE). So, when they hit the tank, they spontaneously burn, producing tiny particles of respiratory (ph) size. Hence, they can be inhaled into the terminal air passages.

They're radioactive and carcinogenic, and uranium 238 has a half- life of 4.5 billion years.

So, what's happened is, because children are 10 to 20 times more radiosensitive than adults and get cancer much more readily, the incidents of childhood cancer in Basra, where these weapons were used, has gone up 6 to 12 times. Little girls are even getting breast cancer at the age of 10.

---

-

Also, of course the pentagon knows better what the effect of uranium is. Like agent orange. It totally wasn't toxic to people, not at all. Really it wasn't. No way it wasn't. Look, we have like great reports here, they are real shiny, and they buy us time till people forget about the birth defects in vietnam (that still are (relatively) Extremely frequent in Vietnam).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Just look at what kind of hysteria resulted from the fraternity hazing at Abu Ghraib by a select few deviants who were not following orders (and not the mass killings performed by the lovely and wonderful Iraqi insurgent terrorists).

---

lol.

Where have I heard that before? 'OH, but those people weren't doing what the government wanted'. Mmmmm... Sounds like: "Oh, but those people aren't really Muslims.' or "oh, all the Christians that are racist, aren't really Christians."

Quote:

---

War sucks, and it will no longer be necessary when the whole world is liberated. The more international support we get in working toward that goal, the sooner it will happen.

---

Haha. Please tell me you are high right now. Man, if you honestly think that, you are quite literally insane. Hows the great liberation-streak gone for you, the last 30-40 years? However, few people will call you insane. As will people not call a man insane that claims to have seen a flying man, as long as that man is Jesus.

It all dwindles down to large groups with mass delusions. I see more and more similarities between religious groups, political groups like communism, and extremely nationalistic groups like most of Americans, and how the Nazis were.

-

Because 'this is bad, but we have to do it', says so much. (You admit war sucks, but you just haaave to keep on liberatin') Do you really think the Nazis enjoyed gassing Jews? I can assure you, 90% did not. It 'just had to be done', for the greater good, for the 3rd reich, for their 'global liberation'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

Who ever said that? Do you even understand the issue here? Uranium, even 'depleted' (depleted enough not to have use in reactors) gives people CANCER. Cancer isn't nice to give to people.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../07/se.08.html

---

Yes, apparently it can happen. Somebody a few posts back compared the situation to far greater instances of destruction. I'm proud of you for finding such a report from a news organization that has dedicated its entire existence to making Bush look bad. Excellent detective work.

[quote=Neruo;438722]
Also, of course the pentagon knows better what the effect of uranium is. Like agent orange. It totally wasn't toxic to people, not at all. Really it wasn't. No way it wasn't. Look, we have like great reports here, they are real shiny, and they buy us time till people forget about the birth defects in vietnam (that still are (relatively) Extremely frequent in Vietnam).
quote]

Oh, okay. Since you are so assertive, I guess I will just believe you. And any report that trashes the United States is automatically true to the same extent the report asserts. But even though I have my magnifying glass out, I can't find your counterargument to my major point, which is that the people who have dedicated their lives, or perhaps I should say lack of having lives, to trashing the United States would be so all over this thing if it were as serious as you assert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

Where have I heard that before? 'OH, but those people weren't doing what the government wanted'. Mmmmm... Sounds like: "Oh, but those people aren't really Muslims.' or "oh, all the Christians that are racist, aren't really Christians."

---

More assertion, so I guess I automatically believe you. And it totally wins me over when people compare my arguments to arguments I disagree with. But your point is a dodge. The theme of my post was not Abu Ghraib. The theme of my post was social hysteria among the hate cult of the far left. Let me know when you can counter that point instead of just running off on your tangential assertions. If the depleted uranium were as Earth shattering as you would LOVE to believe it is, it would be the biggest news story in the world. Remember Abu Ghraib?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

Because 'this is bad, but we have to do it', says so much. (You admit war sucks, but you just haaave to keep on liberatin') Do you really think the Nazis enjoyed gassing Jews? I can assure you, 90% did not. It 'just had to be done', for the greater good, for the 3rd reich, for their 'global liberation'.

---

You think what the Nazis did worked for the greater good? I don't. But I think what my fellow Americans did to kick their asses and save yours did work for the greater good. Just look at the freedom you now have to screw around all day on the internet and trash everybody who has sacrificed so much for you. It's not exactly the Nazi state you would be living in if it weren't for the brave and skillful military boys from the incredible, phenomenal, better than Holland, greatest in history, most technologically advanced, humanitarianism leading, liberation leading, entertainment dominating, richest and most successful in history... U.... S..... A!!!!! :-P :clap::clap::clap::goodjob2: A bunch of them recently told me to tell you, "You're welcome." ;)

Wow, I had no idea that we used those weapons. I thought we learned at least one lesson from Vietnam, I see that we didn't.

Like others have said, the media almost never reports on things that make the US look bad.

Universal Mind, almost every one who started a war thought they were doing the right thing. Hitler did, Xerxes did, the pope did, and so on.

There has been countless reports on this. There is no arguement here, its a scientic fact that the stuff is radioactive, and its a well known fact that we use it in our weapons. The government will admit to this. You put two and two togather and you know this story is true.

Your question on why does the media not cover it more, while interesting has no bearing on the story being true or false. I can only speculate on why they might not report, likely there are a number of reasons. I gave some in my last post. What I can say is that this story is true, and its been proven.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Universal Mind, almost every one who started a war thought they were doing the right thing. Hitler did, Xerxes did, the pope did, and so on.

---

That doesn't mean they actually were. Hitler was evil, but taking him down was justifiable and good. Don't you agree? Imagine what things would be like right now if his world domination quest, which he got VERY far with, had worked out.

If you don't think the media ever tries to make the U.S. look bad, start watching CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS, and listen to NPR. They are obsessed with reporting nothing but negativity and spinning it against the United States at every turn. It is disgusting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

There has been countless reports on this. There is no arguement here, its a scientic fact that the stuff is radioactive, and its a well known fact that we use it in our weapons. The government will admit to this. You put two and two togather and you know this story is true.

Your question on why does the media not cover it more, while interesting has no bearing on the story being true or false. I can only speculate on why they might not report, likely there are a number of reasons. I gave some in my last post. What I can say is that this story is true, and its been proven.

---

I have said that there is obviously truth to the story, but the extent of the destruction caused I would bet a million dollars is greatly hyped up. I don't think the major news corporations lie. It would be too easy for their competition to take them down if they did. What I think they do is use a great deal of spin in the form of selective angling and hyperbole in the form of facts put together to form illusion. It is a lot like the behavior of trial lawyers. It is a flat out ethics violation for a lawyer to ever tell a single lie in a legal proceeding or document. However, using facts to create illusions is perfectly acceptable. That is what the major news corporations do.

The reasons this kind of stuff doesn't come out very much is because it puts our country in a very bad light. Its not an anti bush thing and you can't blame him for it. Its an anti US army thing and everyone loves to yell, "support our troops" bullcrap, so they are slow to point the blame at the armed services. This stuff isn't made up though, the government has its own reports showing the dangers of it. We know what it does, its a fact not some theory someone came up with.

Sorry but you're wrong. Do you think the joes on the ground developed those weapons? If you want to blame anyone, blame the big boys up in weapons development. You're also wrong on another note, "an anti-US Army thing". USMC uses these weapons, too, so do your homework before you start pointing the finger.

I apologize for having to have sounded like an asshole, but you really pissed me off. You're going to blame the troops for the weapons they use? That's pretty naive, seeing as how they have no say in it whatsoever.

And that quote was from Alric, BTW, I don't know why the quote thing messed up.

First off I was talking about the higher ups in the army. The ones who decide this kind of stuff. When did I ever say the ground troops are to blame for anything?

If anything I am on their side. Do you know how many troops come back from Iraq sick because they were using this stuff? The government doesn't give a damn about them and often times they cant even get medical care to treat the illnesses that was caused by the US military. The government totally writes them off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That doesn't mean they actually were. Hitler was evil, but taking him down was justifiable and good. Don't you agree? Imagine what things would be like right now if his world domination quest, which he got VERY far with, had worked out.

If you don't think the media ever tries to make the U.S. look bad, start watching CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and PBS, and listen to NPR. They are obsessed with reporting nothing but negativity and spinning it against the United States at every turn. It is disgusting.



I have said that there is obviously truth to the story, but the extent of the destruction caused I would bet a million dollars is greatly hyped up. I don't think the major news corporations lie. It would be too easy for their competition to take them down if they did. What I think they do is use a great deal of spin in the form of selective angling and hyperbole in the form of facts put together to form illusion. It is a lot like the behavior of trial lawyers. It is a flat out ethics violation for a lawyer to ever tell a single lie in a legal proceeding or document. However, using facts to create illusions is perfectly acceptable. That is what the major news corporations do.

---

First off, if Hitler had conquered the world, he would have a huge amount of opposition, and perhaps the entire world would join together in a revolt against him. Dictatorships will fall by revolts and protests by the people. His government probably wouldn't exist today if he had one WW II.

Also, the news may be anti-Bush, but they wouldn't even think about being anti-American. There are some good corruption stories to tell, and others that the people wouldn't ever want to hear about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

First off I was talking about the higher ups in the army. The ones who decide this kind of stuff. When did I ever say the ground troops are to blame for anything?

If anything I am on their side. Do you know how many troops come back from Iraq sick because they were using this stuff? The government doesn't give a damn about them and often times they cant even get medical care to treat the illnesses that was caused by the US military. The government totally writes them off.

---

Oh, all apologies then. I thought you were talking about the joes. I stand corrected.

are you guys really arguing if the US is using depleted uranium and if it is harmful for people?

They have been using it for ages. Maybe YOUR media dont report on it because they dont want you to be scared or lose faith in war, but its a well known fact here (Greece) and in other places in Europe I've been. These weapons were extensively used during the Kosovo bombings...

One of the worst things is that children like to play with destroyed tanks (I also would like to do that if I was a kid) and tanks "killed" by depleted uranium ammunition can stay radioactive for ages. So you get the picture.

So what about making cluster bomb bomblets a nice bright colour so that kids are drown to them if they stay unexploded... sounds like a good idea?

http://www.un.org.pk/latest-dev/UXO-...102-10_jpg.jpg
(thats from the UN site. this bomblet can destroy a tank.)

PS: I am not saying that its Bush's fault or whatever. The problem with people is that they dont understand that war ALWAYS creates problems and doesnt solve them. Its a strange idea saying "we are giving people cancer, thats not good" YOU ARE BOMBING THEM AND SHOOTING THEM, cancer is the last thing they are going to think about...:bang:
PPS: Oh and about Hitler... the US or the Allies didnt start a war to stop Hitler. Hitler started a war to OCCUPY places he thought were important for him. And he found resistance. And he found other big countries opposed to him. Think about that, please. We really don't need another WW.

Exactly, it is a fact. There really is no way to argue it as untrue. You make a good point though. It just adds to the already huge list of casualties. I mean they already have something around 50,000+ civilian deaths in iraq, about 25,000 US military casualities.

Whats a few thousand extra iraqi deaths from cancer, a few thousand US troops who will suffer the rest of their lives in sickness, and a couple thousand children born with horrendous birth defects? On the large scale its probably not such a big deal.

As for me, I personally think its sick and disgusting and we should stop it. Though I guess getting your arms blown off in combat is just as bad as having all the bones in your spine fuse togather because you were shooting depleted uranum rounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sogart

PPS: Oh and about Hitler... the US or the Allies didnt start a war to stop Hitler. Hitler started a war to OCCUPY places he thought were important for him. And he found resistance. And he found other big countries opposed to him. Think about that, please. We really don't need another WW.

---

Hitler also thought that Germans were the decendants of Atlantians (I'm not kidding), and he thought it was their duty to once again rule the world. So his insanity probably contributed to wanting more power. My statement about Hitler was trying to make a point that people who we see as "evil" do not usually see them selves as evil. I don't think what Hitler did was right. You are right, I just want to make sure you get the point of what I am saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

First off, if Hitler had conquered the world, he would have a huge amount of opposition, and perhaps the entire world would join together in a revolt against him. Dictatorships will fall by revolts and protests by the people. His government probably wouldn't exist today if he had one WW II.

---

That is speculation, but it is a fact that the U.S. played a major role in actually stopping the Nazis. We both seem to agree that somebody had to do it. Europe was not handling it on their own. Hitler was taking over one country after another there. Stopping Hitler when he had only taken over a lot of Europe was a real bitch. It was the most destructive war in history, by far. 52 million people were killed. Imagine what things would have been like if the Nazis had taken over a few more continents and raised a few generations of conquered people turned Nazi at birth. It is the freakiest threat the world has ever had to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Hitler also thought that Germans were the decendants of Atlantians (I'm not kidding), and he thought it was their duty to once again rule the world. So his insanity probably contributed to wanting more power. My statement about Hitler was trying to make a point that people who we see as "evil" do not usually see them selves as evil. I don't think what Hitler did was right. You are right, I just want to make sure you get the point of what I am saying.

---

Mr.Bush thinks that God talks to him. He thinks his country is the incarnation of Democracy and Liberty. He thinks that its the US's duty to rule (or "police" as people put it more politely) the world. Then he starts invading countries. I don't think he sees himself as evil. And then people wonder why foreigners may think of mr.Bush as evil. I don't know why...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is speculation, but it is a fact that the U.S. played a major role in actually stopping the Nazis. We both seem to agree that somebody had to do it. Europe was not handling it on their own. Hitler was taking over one country after another there. Stopping Hitler when he had only taken over a lot of Europe was a real bitch. It was the most destructive war in history, by far. 52 million people were killed. Imagine what things would have been like if the Nazis had taken over a few more continents and raised a few generations of conquered people turned Nazi at birth. It is the freakiest threat the world has ever had to deal with.

---

Europe would be Soviet? maybe not who knows...

So do you think that the Great Powers of any time (US,France,Britain,USSR) should try and stop other Great Powers (Germany, Italy) that are invading and taking over smaller countries (Czech/kia, Poland, Austria etc etc?)

Be careful about what you answer...

So do you think that the Great Powers of any time (Russia, China, France, Germany) should try and stop other Great Powers (US, Britain) that are invading and taking over smaller countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc etc?)

I hope your answer is the same on both occasions...

PS: oh and I also agree that the Nazis were the freakiest world threat because they were not based in logic as the Great Powers before them (WW1 and before) that were also devastating in war but not so freaky.

Oh my god, Universal Mind, are you still trying to play the 'WE BAETEN HITLAR!!1"-card in every discussions about what the American Army does? Last time I checked, helping to beat Hitler does Not give you a "commit-war-crimes-for-free"-card.

it is not just bush that believes he should police the world. This is an implied job of every US president, just as Clinton sent troops to Somalia, Bush senior sent troops to Kuwait, and so on and so on. And bush doesnt think god talks to him, he just feels he is doing Gods will by "spreading freedom"

Although this may not be the right thing, our superpower feels it has to. I mean, who else will? I think we have the right to say "screw the UN" because the other countries have not done their fair share. The Somalian aid project is a perfect example.

Still, i say we fix Iraq as soon as possible and LEAVE and NEVER come back to the middle east. The reason they want to kill us is because we intervene to much. Agreed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Although this may not be the right thing, our superpower feels it has to. I mean, who else will? I think we have the right to say "screw the UN" because the other countries have not done their fair share. The Somalian aid project is a perfect example.

---

Why do most americans think that the UN is corrupted or doesnt take enough action? because there are debates and a lot of talking and politics going in there. It's not all emotional and "let's get them". The idea is that even if you are a "policeman" of the world you cannot decide on your own. Even in real life if I kill my neighbour, the policeman can't come and shoot me. There is law and procedure to be followed. We don't live in an international jungle where the strongest country has to keep everybody in line or they get bombed.

And about Iraq, I think the best thing you can do now is secure the oilfields and get out from the rest of the country. Seriously. It will take at least 20 years to be back to something like normal (Lebanon anybody?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

it is not just bush that believes he should police the world. This is an implied job of every US president, just as Clinton sent troops to Somalia, Bush senior sent troops to Kuwait, and so on and so on.

---

Umm NNNOOOOOOO! NO NO NO! It is not the job of the president! There is no implied job, where the heck do you get that! Its his job to police the US not any other country in the world. He is allowed to appoint ambassadors to go over and make deals with othe countries. If he wants to settle a dispute between two countries and send someone over to act an intermediator, he can do that. Thats an acceptable use of his powers. He is not supposed to be sending troops over though.

If congress orders him to send troops to another nation, then its his job to listen then do it to the best of his ability. There is no where that says his job is to police the world. And if there was some job(which doesn't exist), that would be something for congress to do not the president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

it is not just bush that believes he should police the world. This is an implied job of every US president, just as Clinton sent troops to Somalia, Bush senior sent troops to Kuwait, and so on and so on. And bush doesnt think god talks to him, he just feels he is doing Gods will by "spreading freedom"

---

The United States has no right to intervene with any other country, ever. The UN needs to agree on what to do aswell, as Bush has shown, are president can be amazingly stupid. Also, sending troops to Kuwait was about money. There was a country that was being attacked, and 2/7 of the population was wiped out, and the US did nothing. We also aided a country in massacreing 30,000 people. The US shouldn't act like its the world police.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neruo

Oh my god, Universal Mind, are you still trying to play the 'WE BAETEN HITLAR!!1"-card in every discussions about what the American Army does? Last time I checked, helping to beat Hitler does Not give you a "commit-war-crimes-for-free"-card.

---

You apparently got really lost in this conversation. Your last sentence has nothing to do with anything. Somebody said we are a corrupt nation of evil, so I once again pointed out how we saved the world since we wanted to hurry up and do it before Holland took all of the credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sogart

So do you think that the Great Powers of any time (US,France,Britain,USSR) should try and stop other Great Powers (Germany, Italy) that are invading and taking over smaller countries (Czech/kia, Poland, Austria etc etc?)

So do you think that the Great Powers of any time (Russia, China, France, Germany) should try and stop other Great Powers (US, Britain) that are invading and taking over smaller countries (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc etc?)

---

My answer to both questions is that it depends. I don't blanketly believe that the invasions of smaller countries should be stopped, but I believe that sometimes they should. I believe in doing so only when doing so would be justifiable. Overthrowing the horribly oppressive and terroristic Taliban and Hussein regime were justifiable acts, so it would have been immoral for anybody to militarily try to stop us. But when the Nazis were overthrowing governments in Europe for the sake of creating a worldwide fascist state and killing off all non-whites, crippled, homosexual, sick, and opposition, it was so unjustifiable and terrible that it would have been immoral not to stop them. You can't reasonably compare stopping the Nazi conquest to stopping the United States/Coalition from stopping the Taliban and Hussein regime. The first is justifiable. The second is unjustifiable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

The United States has no right to intervene with any other country, ever.

---

Who should have stopped Hitler? Who should have stopped Soviet world conquest? Who should have freed Kuwait? At what point would the people, particularly women, of Afghanistan have obtained rights without the United States? How will the way of life in Iraq 100 years from now differ from what it would be if the future of the Hussein regime were in power? How will that difference affect the terroristic threat posed by the government? Who should overthrow the genocidal government of Sudan right now? How do you feel about U.S. charity, in the form of money, food, medicine, and technology for third world countries?

So basicly its ok to decide how small countries should be ran. Instead of allowing them to work out their own problems we should kill off the leadership and place our own puppets in power to control and make sure they have freedom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

So basicly its ok to decide how small countries should be ran. Instead of allowing them to work out their own problems we should kill off the leadership and place our own puppets in power to control and make sure they have freedom?

---

Yes. The people are not going to overthrow a government on their own when that government tortures and rapes people in front of their family members for merely being suspected of being oppositional. The need for overthrow in such situations is even stronger when the government is a threat to world security.

Alric, that is exactly how I feel about the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Yes. The people are not going to overthrow a government on their own when that government tortures and rapes people in front of their family members for merely being suspected of being oppositional. The need for overthrow in such situations is even stronger when the government is a threat to world security.

---

Oh really? There have been cases like this where the PEOPLE of a country of that type of government have overthrown there government. Why was it so amazingly hard? There was this country called the USA that supplied that government with its weapons, there soldiers training, and even tried to secretly destroy that government. When Reagen couldn't leagely supply them any more, this thing called the Iran-contra affair happened. So the PEOPLE DID SUCCEDE! We tried our hardest to make sure they didn't, because we would lose MONEY!!! We didn't give a shit about Kuwait, we were losing MONEY because of Sadam. Its all about MONEY!!!

Edit- oh, and about Hitler, Japan ATTACKED US! Of course we got into the war!

I knew you would agree to it. I also knew you would totally ignore the part about making it a puppet government, because your so brainwashed you actually believe we do this stuff for freedom. No we do it so we can control their government.

Its just like Iraq. We said we freed them yet we control their government. Why didn't we allow them to choice their own government? Because if we allowed them to split iraq into 3 countries it would cause chaos. The only problem is that is what they want, and they have chaos right now anyway.

We overthrew their government, we put in our own puppets to control them, and we call it freedom. What a sick joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

I knew you would agree to it. I also knew you would totally ignore the part about making it a puppet government, because your so brainwashed you actually believe we do this stuff for freedom. No we do it so we can control their government.

Its just like Iraq. We said we freed them yet we control their government. Why didn't we allow them to choice their own government? Because if we allowed them to split iraq into 3 countries it would cause chaos. The only problem is that is what they want, and they have chaos right now anyway.

We overthrew their government, we put in our own puppets to control them, and we call it freedom. What a sick joke.

---

Try to show enough decency to not initiate personal attacks just because you are losing the argument. If you act civil, I will too. If you don't, I will just report you because I agreed to not go off with hostility even in the face of people like you. If I were brainwashed, I would not have arguments like I am making. I would be chanting slogans and acting unresponsive. Also, go to the Religion forum and read all about how brainwashed I am. Your personal attack was weak, unfounded, and false.

Now let's get into your actual arguments. Requiring a new government that we set up after much turmoil and expenditure is justifiable and necessary, and it is not proof that we only had one objective. However, that objective does result in our other objectives, such as the loss of threat and the spreading of democracy and prosperity over time.

Iraq is in a transition phase. Not having control of their government during the transition phase would be foolish and catastrophic. Our ultimate goal is to bring them to a point where they no longer need us. I don't believe they are there yet. Do you? What do you think would happen if we suddenly and completely abandoned them right this second? You are vastly generalizing when you say that chaos is what they want. Their future generations will be very glad that we got rid of the chaos. Will you?

Again... transition phase. It is fallacious to leap to the conclusion that it is representative of the entire future of Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Alric, that is exactly how I feel about the US.

Oh really? There have been cases like this where the PEOPLE of a country of that type of government have overthrown there government. Why was it so amazingly hard? There was this country called the USA that supplied that government with its weapons, there soldiers training, and even tried to secretly destroy that government. When Reagen couldn't leagely supply them any more, this thing called the Iran-contra affair happened. So the PEOPLE DID SUCCEDE! We tried our hardest to make sure they didn't, because we would lose MONEY!!! We didn't give a shit about Kuwait, we were losing MONEY because of Sadam. Its all about MONEY!!!

Edit- oh, and about Hitler, Japan ATTACKED US! Of course we got into the war!

---

The fact that healthy economy is a consideration is not proof that healthy economy is the only consideration. Please explain why you assume it is such proof.

You used a lot of pronouns in your post, so I am not sure what people under the conditions I described freed themselves. Who are they? Also, what would have been your prediction on the year the people of Iraq would have overthrown the Hussein regime on their own, in the face of the conditions I described?

How does the fact that Japan attacked us prove that we were not a necessary part of the stopping of Nazi world conquest?

So then you admit that we set up the government and are controling it? I mean you just said that. Is there even an arguement here? They are free as long as they go along with what we say? What kind of freedom is that?

How can a country be free if they are not allowed to act as themself? Your basicly talking about a military occupation of a country and how it is acceptable as long as they eventually become free.

Transition phase, what a joke. Either they are free or they are not. Clearly they are not and so I have to ask the question, what the heck are we doing there?

As for the brainwashed thing, that wasn't a personal attack on you but on your idea. The idea that you can some how give freedom to people by occupying their country and building up their government. Its a brainwashed idea, not because I disagree with it but because its totally flawed down to the core.

How can someone be free in any sense of the word if your are controling them?

Transition phase.

Yet, they did just elect a prime minister. I don't think that was happening when Hussein was torturing the genitals of innocent old ladies.

As opposed to the US troops who were torturing the genitals of innocent people in Abu Ghraib? Which you so finely pointed out yourself earlier in this thread.

I am sure you will say that was a one time thing, though its more likely it justs the one time they got caught. That reminds me of the time people in the Bush administration said they were well within their rights to torture people up to and including sexually abusing children infront of their parents. Its getting kind of late but I really need to look up that quote. I will probably do that tomorrow morning because I am fairly sure you will say its untrue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

As opposed to the US troops who were torturing the genitals of innocent people in Abu Ghraib? Which you so finely pointed out yourself earlier in this thread.

I am sure you will say that was a one time thing, though its more likely it justs the one time they got caught. That reminds me of the time people in the Bush administration said they were well within their rights to torture people up to and including sexually abusing children infront of their parents. Its getting kind of late but I really need to look up that quote. I will probably do that tomorrow morning because I am fairly sure you will say its untrue.

---

I don't know where you got any of that. I also don't see how it means the future of Iraq is not going to be better without the Hussein regime in power. Most importantly, I don't see how it means we shouldn't have removed an international terrorist government from power when they had a history of WMD terrorism and had violated our ceasefire for 12 years.

Does your concern for Iraqis extend to the innocent ones that were tortured and murdered by the Hussein regime, or just the criminal ones that had underwear put on their heads at Abu-Ghraib?

Basicly my point is that we are screwing them over, and we are screwing them over hard. Their country is in chaos, we are dumping radioactive waste all over the country in the form of depleted uranum. People are getting shot and blown up all over, people dying from cancer. Our own troops are suffering, coming back sick and injured. We are bankrupting our country.

And for what? The country is worse off now than under saddam. They are no more free now than then. And its been proven he didn't have any WMD and there was no link to terrorists.

I mean its all well and good to say saddam is scum. No one is going to argue over that. But what is your point? We can't kill every scumbag in the world nor should we try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The fact that healthy economy is a consideration is not proof that healthy economy is the only consideration. Please explain why you assume it is such proof.

You used a lot of pronouns in your post, so I am not sure what people under the conditions I described freed themselves. Who are they? Also, what would have been your prediction on the year the people of Iraq would have overthrown the Hussein regime on their own, in the face of the conditions I described?

How does the fact that Japan attacked us prove that we were not a necessary part of the stopping of Nazi world conquest?

---

Nicaragua was the country that I was talking about. Look up the contras, and you will find they were a group of revolutionaries who were trying to destroy the new government of Naragua, after they fought a civil war with a harsh dictator supported by the US.

Also, Japan attacking us changes everything. When they attacked us, it meant they were going to try to take over the US. So of course we declared war! Germany also declared war on us I believe, not the US declaring war on them.

My point about the economy is that it doesn't matter if people are being killed, as long as we get money off of it then we don't care. Our government is not about freeing people, its about making money.

why was everyone getting so mad at me? I never said it was OK for a President to police the world, but it is an implied job.

Its all about MONEY? I think the wars cost more than the money we gain. Plus, i dont think bush is having trouble putting grub on the table.

I am an semi-isolationist. I just wish every country could become like the US, it would be SO awesome.

However, forcing freedom on people is, in fact, the opposite of freedom. Let these dictators kill their own people.

Btw, why do so many people here hate America? I have seen a lot of misconceptions and lies.

Personally I love america, which is why I feel compelled to speak up when the government does something stupid or wrong. And still no, policing the world is not an implied job. If a president thinks that it is, its because he a moron.

There is nothing to backup your statement other than the fact the last few presidents were idiots. I mean I could also say its an implied job for the president to expand his power but no thats not a job, its just what they do because their jerks. And I could say its an implied job of congress to find new ways to waste money but no they are just asses. Thats not a real job they have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

why was everyone getting so mad at me? I never said it was OK for a President to police the world, but it is an implied job.

Its all about MONEY? I think the wars cost more than the money we gain. Plus, i dont think bush is having trouble putting grub on the table.

I am an semi-isolationist. I just wish every country could become like the US, it would be SO awesome.

However, forcing freedom on people is, in fact, the opposite of freedom. Let these dictators kill their own people.

Btw, why do so many people here hate America? I have seen a lot of misconceptions and lies.

---

The government loses money, not Bush. But who gains money? Well, after we bombed Afganistan, the oil company Dick Cheney is a part of built a pipeline through the country they were no alowed to make before. This made a lot of money. I bet were doing the same thing in Iraq.

Also, people are greedy. Bush and co. don't need more money, but they want it. Almost every president is guilty of trying to make money off of the law, even George Washington, and Lincoln let his cabinet members except bribes.

Also, America is a great country, with great people, and we have great potential to help the world. Currently, we are only contributing to the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Basicly my point is that we are screwing them over, and we are screwing them over hard. Their country is in chaos, we are dumping radioactive waste all over the country in the form of depleted uranum. People are getting shot and blown up all over, people dying from cancer. Our own troops are suffering, coming back sick and injured. We are bankrupting our country.

And for what? The country is worse off now than under saddam. They are no more free now than then. And its been proven he didn't have any WMD and there was no link to terrorists.

I mean its all well and good to say saddam is scum. No one is going to argue over that. But what is your point? We can't kill every scumbag in the world nor should we try.

---

Again... Iraq is in a transition phase. That is why the insurgent terrorists are doing what you are describing and forcing us to fight back. Yet, the people of Iraq just elected a prime minister. They have a democracy. The fact that the insurgent terrorists are acting out against democracy does not mean that the freedom is not there, and most of the insurgency is in Baghdad. I said more than that Saddam is scum. I talked about how his government was run and how there was no end in sight. Now Iraq has a very good chance at a good future. Under the Hussein regime, they did not have any chance. It has not been proven that there were no WMD's, just that no active ones have been found. They did have the programs, and five other governments, the U.N., our CIA, our Senate, and the Clinton Administration all insisted that he did have WMD's, and our acting on that was very understandable. The Hussein regime did have meetings with representatives of Al Qaeda and provide sanctuary to Al Qaeda members, and they also funded Hamas and offered incentives to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. What we were dealing with was serious business. The Hussein regime was not just some regular Joe scumbag regime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harrycombs

Nicaragua was the country that I was talking about. Look up the contras, and you will find they were a group of revolutionaries who were trying to destroy the new government of Naragua, after they fought a civil war with a harsh dictator supported by the US.

Also, Japan attacking us changes everything. When they attacked us, it meant they were going to try to take over the US. So of course we declared war! Germany also declared war on us I believe, not the US declaring war on them.

My point about the economy is that it doesn't matter if people are being killed, as long as we get money off of it then we don't care. Our government is not about freeing people, its about making money.

---

You assume way too much, and you didn't answer my questions. I don't see the relevance of what you are saying about Japan and Germany. We played a major role in saving the world's ass. What you are saying does not contradict that. War is a huge move, and there is a lot to consider before engaging in it. Being attacked is often the straw that breaks the camel's back. What about it?

"Formed alliance with" and "made deal with" are not synonymous with "fully supported". Think about how we allied with our supreme enemy (U.S.S.R.) in World War II. Would you throw the simple label of "supported" on that? We considered going to war with them as soon as World War II ended. Also, please tell me about the wonderful utopia of freedom the Contras were trying to form in the midst of our cold war considerations. Then tell me about how the Contras were in a more difficult sitation than the one I described regarding Iraq. Then please answer the questions I asked you in the other post, particularly the one about what your prediction would have been on when the people of Iraq would have somehow overthrown the Hussein regime without our help despite the circumstances I described.

Quote:

---

Again... Iraq is in a transition phase. That is why the insurgent terrorists are doing what you are describing and forcing us to fight back. Yet, the people of Iraq just elected a prime minister. They have a democracy. The fact that the insurgent terrorists are acting out against democracy does not mean that the freedom is not there

---

you know its easy to call a person who shoots at an american soldier, a terroist . As for IED's. what would you do if you had limited capablities and teh enemy had more advanced weaponry and seemingly unending resources? You would plant bombs ofcourse. It just makes sense and calling people who use methods so as not to be killed terrorists dont work. Although those who kill other iraqi's in sectarian violence and otherwise, i would call "terrorist"

And to call Iraq a democracy wouldnt work so good i dont think. I dont think an occupied country should be called a "democracy" in any sense. There are just to many issues involving the occupying country(ies) to outright say it is a democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You assume way too much, and you didn't answer my questions. I don't see the relevance of what you are saying about Japan and Germany. We played a major role in saving the world's ass. What you are saying does not contradict that. War is a huge move, and there is a lot to consider before engaging in it. Being attacked is often the straw that breaks the camel's back. What about it?

"Formed alliance with" and "made deal with" are not synonymous with "fully supported". Think about how we allied with our supreme enemy (U.S.S.R.) in World War II. Would you throw the simple label of "supported" on that? We considered going to war with them as soon as World War II ended. Also, please tell me about the wonderful utopia of freedom the Contras were trying to form in the midst of our cold war considerations. Then tell me about how the Contras were in a more difficult sitation than the one I described regarding Iraq. Then please answer the questions I asked you in the other post, particularly the one about what your prediction would have been on when the people of Iraq would have somehow overthrown the Hussein regime without our help despite the circumstances I described.

---

What I meant about Japan is that they attacked us, in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, and other countries did not attack us first, we attacked them first, and only in Iraq there was a good reason to attack them, but that doesn't change the fact that there were better ways to handle it. Iraq had a very weak military, so bombing them was pointless and just killed lots of civilians.

Nicaragua had an oppresive regime that was supported by the USA, because we were making a profit. The people of that country were fed up with it, and huge movements to place to change that and war broke out. US business interest was threatened, so we came to the aid of that government. The US supplied them with weapons, gave their soldiers training, and did all that we could to stop the revolution. In the end, the government failed, and the people started to make their own government. The people were happy with it and were trying to make it better.

The US didn't give up yet though. The CIA helped form the Contras, who were mainly made up of the former Nicaraguan National Gaurd (they carried out the killings and such). There was virtually no support in Nicaragua, so their base was in a neighboring country. The US gave them aid to take out the new country. But, congress passed a law stopping the president from aiding the Contras. So, the president needed a new way to get them the money. Our government then sold weapons to Iran, who would sell them, and then give Nicaragua part of the profit, and they would release the hostages.

This is all true, and personally, it makes me sick that we did this. It would be like some other super power helping Britain stop the American Revolution.

About how long it would take the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam, I have no idea. But, they would eventually do it and when it is the people uniting together to overthrow him, then perhaps they would have a plan of how to run their new government before it was over. When the Iraqies defeated their own government by themselves like Nicaragua, then they may have been able to establish their own government.

Perhaps if a revolution took place, a new form of government could be invented. Maybe even one that was truly fair, and impossible to corrupt. America, despite what we would like to think, doesn't have that type of government. But, if we force others to have a government like our own, we are stopping humanity to progress. We need to be open to new ideas.

I don't know how long it would take Iraq to have overthrown Saddam, but they would have done it. No tyrant has ever held power for a long period of time. King Taurquin of Rome was defeated when the people revolted and overthrew him, despite the fact Eturia was helping Taurquin. They overthrew him and invented a new form of government, one that brought them into a golden age, and for a century the people were free. But then it became corrupt, and in the end it didn't work and the people were oppresed. So a new one was formed. This cycle will probably repeat for a long time, and it will not end with America's form of democracy.

Yea they have a prime minister but hes under the control of the US. You admited yourself we put a puppet government in charge to help the transition. That is not free. Saddam was elected president but as you so clearly said before they weren't free under him.

As for the insurgent, why are they fighting? They are Iraqis too. Clearly they don't feel free or they wouldn't be attacking.

As for WMD, there are none. Its been proven, they are no where to be found. Nothing is there. Some how I wouldn't be surprised if 20 years from now people are still saying he had WMD. Its obvious he didn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

Saddam was elected president but as you so clearly said before they weren't free under him.

As for the insurgent, why are they fighting? They are Iraqis too. Clearly they don't feel free or they wouldn't be attacking.

As for WMD, there are none. Its been proven, they are no where to be found. Nothing is there. Some how I wouldn't be surprised if 20 years from now people are still saying he had WMD. Its obvious he didn't.

---

Saddam kinda killed every other person running, so they had no one else to vote for, so they definately were not free(I'm not disagreeing with, just wanted to add that). Americans are not free aswell. In the words of Hellen Keller "We get to pick between 'Tweedledum' and 'Tweedledee' ". We only have 2 real choices for who to vote for. The thing neither party wants to do could be what the people want, but we can't get it because we can't vote for anyone who will.

Also, are the insurgents attacking the soldiers, or religious targets mainly? I think they are fighting for freedom, but it may just be religion.

Also I agree about the WMDs. Bush made it up. He connected the dots that were not there to blame Saddam for 9/11. He planed the invasion before 9/11! Bush was definately lying to go to Iraq.

On a side note, the election will be interesting if Ron Paul can get the nomination for the republicans. He would easily win the election if the republicans backed him except he was against the war so they won't.

Quote:

---

Also, are the insurgents attacking the soldiers, or religious targets mainly? I think they are fighting for freedom, but it may just be religion.

---

well its imporant to keep in mind that the insurgents aren't all fighting as one group. There are many factions and each does as it pleases or as the head guy orders.

Though they are attacking americans as best they can. It also looks like they are attacking "relegious targets"
but personaly I have a theory that it is the us behind the majority of the attacks on mosques/ relegious leaders. To distabilize the area and put fear in the people. So that when they have there AK47 or otherwise they will aime it at a Sunni/Shia as apposed to an american. It works for good disemption and i cant see why the americans wouldnt use that tactic.

I wonder if there is anyone here who understands the relationship between shia and sunni in iraq? could probably give us good insight

Quote:

---

What I meant about Japan is that they attacked us, in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, and other countries did not attack us first, we attacked them first, and only in Iraq there was a good reason to attack them, but that doesn't change the fact that there were better ways to handle it. Iraq had a very weak military, so bombing them was pointless and just killed lots of civilians.

Nicaragua had an oppresive regime that was supported by the USA, because we were making a profit. The people of that country were fed up with it, and huge movements to place to change that and war broke out. US business interest was threatened, so we came to the aid of that government. The US supplied them with weapons, gave their soldiers training, and did all that we could to stop the revolution. In the end, the government failed, and the people started to make their own government. The people were happy with it and were trying to make it better.

The US didn't give up yet though. The CIA helped form the Contras, who were mainly made up of the former Nicaraguan National Gaurd (they carried out the killings and such). There was virtually no support in Nicaragua, so their base was in a neighboring country. The US gave them aid to take out the new country. But, congress passed a law stopping the president from aiding the Contras. So, the president needed a new way to get them the money. Our government then sold weapons to Iran, who would sell them, and then give Nicaragua part of the profit, and they would release the hostages.

This is all true, and personally, it makes me sick that we did this. It would be like some other super power helping Britain stop the American Revolution.

About how long it would take the people of Iraq to overthrow Saddam, I have no idea. But, they would eventually do it and when it is the people uniting together to overthrow him, then perhaps they would have a plan of how to run their new government before it was over. When the Iraqies defeated their own government by themselves like Nicaragua, then they may have been able to establish their own government.

Perhaps if a revolution took place, a new form of government could be invented. Maybe even one that was truly fair, and impossible to corrupt. America, despite what we would like to think, doesn't have that type of government. But, if we force others to have a government like our own, we are stopping humanity to progress. We need to be open to new ideas.

I don't know how long it would take Iraq to have overthrown Saddam, but they would have done it. No tyrant has ever held power for a long period of time. King Taurquin of Rome was defeated when the people revolted and overthrew him, despite the fact Eturia was helping Taurquin. They overthrew him and invented a new form of government, one that brought them into a golden age, and for a century the people were free. But then it became corrupt, and in the end it didn't work and the people were oppresed. So a new one was formed. This cycle will probably repeat for a long time, and it will not end with America's form of democracy.
__________________

---

well said.

Also Guatemla and UFCO are a shining example to.

woohoo my 200th post!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

well its imporant to keep in mind that the insurgents aren't all fighting as one group. There are many factions and each does as it pleases or as the head guy orders.

Though they are attacking americans as best they can. It also looks like they are attacking "relegious targets"
but personaly I have a theory that it is the us behind the majority of the attacks on mosques/ relegious leaders. To distabilize the area and put fear in the people. So that when they have there AK47 or otherwise they will aime it at a Sunni/Shia as apposed to an american. It works for good disemption and i cant see why the americans wouldnt use that tactic.

I wonder if there is anyone here who understands the relationship between shia and sunni in iraq? could probably give us good insight

---

That actually makes alot of sense. Good theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

well said.

Also Guatemla and UFCO are a shining example to.

---

:) Thanks, and also El Salvador is a good example.

There is a ton to respond to, and once again, I'm arguing this stuff alone. I'll make a few points that hopefully cover everybody.

1. The Central American and other countries we had issues with in the 1980's and before (like Vietnam) were caught up in our Cold War mess. It was a very messy situation, and I'm sure mistakes were made, but we won the Cold War, and the Soviet conquest threat is dead and buried. That was the goal, so our overall strategy worked. It is the most important victory in human history, next to or tied with the defeat of the Nazis world conquest.

2. Freedom is a virtue. Sometimes freedom of the few gets trampled when freedom for the vast masses is under threat, but as much overall freedom as possible should be the goal. No alternatives involving too much government control are viable alternatives because no government has the right to impose that on people. Freedom is never an imposition. If you were locked up in a cage, I would not be imposing on you if I let you out. But if you were an Islamofascist, you might think it is, but you would have no right to demand that freedom not be given to your neighbors. Islamofascists oppose freedom for everybody. Their ultimate goal is for every country in the world to have the Koran as its only law book. Those people hate every bone in your body. The goal of the U.S. is to protect you from them. If they ever injure or kill you or somebody you love, you will regret having taken up for them.

3. The fact that money is a tool or any other kind of consideration in a situation is not proof that it is the most important consideration, much less the only consideration.

4. A transition phase in a country that was recently liberated is not a reflection of what that country will be like for the rest of the time the country exists. A country can be both a democracy and in a transition phase, after which it can be a fully independent democracy.

5. Not being able to find something is not proof that it never existed. Should we call off all searches for children that have been missing for four years? There is always the possibility that they are in Syria. Is there not? When you can't find your car keys, are you convinced that they never existed?

6. People who mindlessly kill the innocent without reasonable expectation of direct results substantially in the direction of the greater good are terrorists.

7. The Iraqi insurgents are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting against freedom, and they admit it. Zarqawi, their former leader, called democracy "evil" and said he was determined to prevent it. That is what the insurgency is about. The insurgents have no right to impose lack of freedom on the innocent. The insurgents are not fighting for freedom.

8. Bush did not make up the WMD information. The Clinton Administration talked about it before Bush was elected, and so did the CIA and Senate, Democrats included (such as Hilary Clinton and John Kerry). The intelligence was given to them from the U.N. and five other governments. Therefore, Bush did not make it up. Furthermore, it would have been irresponsible not to act on it.

9. The people of Iraq didn't have a prayer of ever overthrowing Saddam Hussein or his legacy. The government was way too oppressive and ruthless for the possibility of that to even make a peep.

please bare with me im trying to make a reply but every time i press submit it says im loged out and i have to restart.

please bare with me im trying to make a reply but every time i press submit it says im loged out and i have to restart.

Quote:

---

. The Central American and other countries we had issues with in the 1980's and before (like Vietnam) were caught up in our Cold War mess. It was a very messy situation, and I'm sure mistakes were made, but we won the Cold War, and the Soviet conquest threat is dead and buried. That was the goal, so our overall strategy worked. It is the most important victory in human history, next to or tied with the defeat of the Nazis world conquest.

---

The US has had a long history of Interventions and influence in Latin america before the cold war. Besides the missle crises. The US used relations with moscow as a scapegoat for implementing its own influence. Whether fabricated or not.

Quote:

---

Freedom is a virtue. Sometimes freedom of the few gets trampled when freedom for the vast masses is under threat, but as much overall freedom as possible should be the goal. No alternatives involving too much government control are viable alternatives because no government has the right to impose that on people. Freedom is never an imposition. If you were locked up in a cage, I would not be imposing on you if I let you out. But if you were an Islamofascist, you might think it is, but you would have no right to demand that freedom not be given to your neighbors. Islamofascists oppose freedom for everybody. Their ultimate goal is for every country in the world to have the Koran as its only law book. Those people hate every bone in your body. The goal of the U.S. is to protect you from them. If they ever injure or kill you or somebody you love, you will regret having taken up for them.

---

Generalizing a group of people (militants) as islamo fascists doesn't work that well. The fact is they are a fare flung sort of people sperated into many factions with different beleifs as a whole. I suggest you stop watching so much CNN. You make it sound like all "militants" want to fly a 747 up the statue of liberties ass.

Quote:

---

3. The fact that money is a tool or any other kind of consideration in a situation is not proof that it is the most important consideration, much less the only consideration.

---

I disagree, it is a very compelling considereation and so is resources (oil)

Quote:

---

4. A transition phase in a country that was recently liberated is not a reflection of what that country will be like for the rest of the time the country exists. A country can be both a democracy and in a transition phase, after which it can be a fully independent democracy.

---

In iraqs case it will never be a "full independed democracy" the usa will have for long time being permament military bases and a monoply on oil. eg halberton (dick cheneys company) has a monoply on oil. There is also Iran which is a bit complicated for me to get in.

Quote:

---

5. Not being able to find something is not proof that it never existed. Should we call off all searches for children that have been missing for four years? There is always the possibility that they are in Syria. Is there not? When you can't find your car keys, are you convinced that they never existed?

---

aha, your refering to yellow cake (uranium). I dont think its debated that Iraq had WMD's. but i think it is dipsputed that it had those of the nuclear variety.
Do you suggest that Geroge Bush goes into Syria next and looks for "WMDS"? :)

Quote:

---

7. The Iraqi insurgents are not fighting for freedom. They are fighting against freedom, and they admit it. Zarqawi, their former leader, called democracy "evil" and said he was determined to prevent it. That is what the insurgency is about. The insurgents have no right to impose lack of freedom on the innocent. The insurgents are not fighting for freedom.

---

Links please???
Plain and simple the insurgency is a complicated thing but in a nutshell is fighting to end the occupation

Quote:

---

Bush did not make up the WMD information. The Clinton Administration talked about it before Bush was elected, and so did the CIA and Senate, Democrats included (such as Hilary Clinton and John Kerry). The intelligence was given to them from the U.N. and five other governments. Therefore, Bush did not make it up. Furthermore, it would have been irresponsible not to act on it.

---

Agreed upon

Quote:

---

The people of Iraq didn't have a prayer of ever overthrowing Saddam Hussein or his legacy. The government was way too oppressive and ruthless for the possibility of that to even make a peep.

---

true

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

6. People who mindlessly kill the innocent without reasonable expectation of direct results substantially in the direction of the greater good are terrorists.

---

Then one of the greatest group of terrorists is the USA. We helped El Salvador kill 30,000 innocenct people, and I don't think I even need to point out what we did to North and South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

9. The people of Iraq didn't have a prayer of ever overthrowing Saddam Hussein or his legacy. The government was way too oppressive and ruthless for the possibility of that to even make a peep.

---

Can you prove that? Like I said before, no dictatorship has lasted for ever, and I don't think Saddam is any different. He was terrible and evil, but eventually he would fall. It would take a long time, but in the end his soldiers may stop following orders and fight back. Then Saddam would have no chance with no one to command. I said before that this might have taken a long time, but eventually. The US could use other ways to stop him then bombing his country a whole bunch of times. Our last 3 presidents all bombed Iraq, and killed many innocent people.

Saddam was evil and should have been stopped, but the US has through out history, helped people for the wrong reasons.

Since the other two covered the answers so well I won't bother repeating them, I will add a few comments though.

Saddam did have WMD but we are talking about 10-15 years ago. Its highly unlikely he had anything when we invaded. As for all the sources we had saying he did, did you ever actually look at it? I mean you just said the CIA got the information from the UN. You also quoted Bush, Clinton and congress as 3 sources, even though they all get their reports from the same people, the CIA. As for the other 5 countries, where did they get the report? Likely it was from either the UN or for us(With the help from the CIA). So really your dozens of sources that said he had WMD is more like 1-3 sources.

Saddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction. This is a fact. We already know he used Sarin gas-bombs to kill 6000 Kurds in Northern Iraq. I do believe this was in 1 day of bombing, too.

As to Universal's claim that the people of Iraq could not stand up to Saddam, this is true. After the first gulf war, those who wanted to fight him did. It didnt go so well.

Btw, whats up with all this circumstancial stuff? I dont think anybody can say that Bush ONLY cares about oil and money with any certainty, yet it is being passed off as a fact. I am not saying he DIDNT want oil, but i am willing to bet he wouldnt send people to die for that sole reason. If you want to make fun of bush, make fun of him for being a former coke-head. Atleast that is a fact :)

No one said he never had them. We are talking about if he had him just before we went to war with them. It seems highly unlikely he had any at that point. Like I said before, he gassed them but that was 15 years before we went to war in iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

As for WMD, there are none..

---

:)

JK, i know what you meant. I dont think it has been proven that there are no WMDs in Iraq. I doubt US troops have walked over every square inch of desert on hands and knees looking for doors to bunkers. Saddam could have hidden them anywhere. I am also pretty sure he didnt use his entire supply.

Well if you don't take care of them, they become useless as well. As for hiding them, you can't actually dig a ditch and place them in the ground and cover it with sand. Weapons like that will corrode and stuff.

Even if you were right, the only way they would be able to hide every single one of them was if they were very few of them to start with. Which means even if you were right they weren't a threat anyway. Really though, we been there for so long, and there hasn't been any signs of WMD at all. The only thing we have found are the stuff left over from 20 years ago that is basicly just junk and totally harmless from when he did have them, which we already knew about before we went to war.

well, i was implying that he had them available, then hid them when we invaded.

There is nothing to back that up however. I mean we been there for years, we captured all the top people, how come we havn't found a single one? Even if they were fairly well hidden someone had to have hidden them there. They can't just disappear. So it looks really doubtful that he had anything at all leading up to the invasion.

he did keep UN officials out of certain areas. Did you forget that? This is why everybody was so tense just before the invasion!! Maybe it wasnt WMD's, but he was hiding something. You know, something less terrible. Like torture chambers or something.

I think WMDs can "just dissapear". Even a nuke can be taken apart and destroyed. Btw, we did find Uranium there.

Yea its all over the place in the form of bullets and exploded tank shells. As for letting the UN to check everything, no country allows them free access to walk around as they please, and everyone is hiding something.