Thread: Victory signs in iraq

Originally Posted by Jdog

civilian deaths are down an additional 50 percent from last month (last month they were down 70 percent) so things are looking up. mortar attacks roadside bombs and any other form of terrorist attacks have dropped rapidly (im not sure of the percentage or exact numbers). now that iraq is showing signs of victory the naysayers are backing down. all these people who said we would fail and could not win now look like idiots. i dont know what people here thought of the war but i always love to hear the good news. If iraq is truley secured and an american victory acheived we can hold it up as an example to all the other countries that might think of harboring terrorists or attempt to build WMD's. i just like to spread the good news.

Question is, was it worth it.




Oh yeah, it was, the oil money


Nice one G.W.B

Time to start taking over the rest of the countries. Heil Bush!

Originally Posted by Jdog

that might think of harboring terrorists or attempt to build WMD's.

No evidence of the Iraqi government co-operating with al-Qaeda was ever found.

No WMDs were ever found, nor any evidence that they ever existed (only abandoned, lost weapons from the Gulf War were found), nor any evidence that they ever were going to exist.

But then again I'm all for an AMERICAN victory in, uh, Iraq.

Originally Posted by Jdog

civilian deaths are down an additional 50 percent from last month (last month they were down 70 percent) so things are looking up. mortar attacks roadside bombs and any other form of terrorist attacks have dropped rapidly (im not sure of the percentage or exact numbers). now that iraq is showing signs of victory the naysayers are backing down. all these people who said we would fail and could not win now look like idiots. i dont know what people here thought of the war but i always love to hear the good news. If iraq is truley secured and an american victory acheived we can hold it up as an example to all the other countries that might think of harboring terrorists or attempt to build WMD's. i just like to spread the good news.

Going to war, (especially one as pointless as this one) is stupid. What does it mean if you win? It means that you were smarter and/or stronger, had more weapons, had stronger weapons...ultimately...bullied/killed more people until they conceded to your ideas.

Originally Posted by Identity X

No evidence of the Iraqi government co-operating with al-Qaeda was ever found.

No WMDs were ever found, nor any evidence that they ever existed (only abandoned, lost weapons from the Gulf War were found).

But then again I'm all for an AMERICAN victory in, uh, Iraq.

actualy the mass media wont report this BUT, there were multiple sights were chem and bio weapons could be produced. several iraqi generals reported that saddam destroyed and exported his weapons AFTER the coalition invaded.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut_Jeff777

Going to war, (especially one as pointless as this one) is stupid. What does it mean if you win? It means that you were smarter and/or stronger, had more weapons, had stronger weapons...ultimately...bullied/killed more people until they conceded to your ideas.

well the fact is we went to war on what was at the time reliable intell that the iraqis had WMD's. at this point we arent fighting iraqis we are fighting al quedia operatives who are now giving up. thats a victory which i think we can all support, lest we forget what they did on 9/11

in addition it sounds as though alot of you would have prefered that we lost in iraq. that my friends is barley short of treason

Remember kids, don't get your arguments from CNN.

I think in the long run the war will have had a positive effect.

I must point out that wars are not "won." They aren't like games. In war, everyone loses, even the nations that survive until the end.

In regards to Iraq, any lowering in violence is a welcome sign to be celebrated. I don't think such decreases in violence were worth creating that violence in the first place, but such talk isn't treason, it's measuring cost versus benefit. I don't want the US to 'win' because I know it is impossible to claim success after spending ten dollars to win a dime. I call that losing $9.90. If I supported that sort of victory, I would be endorsing the destruction of the nation. Even then, it would not be treason, but simply an exercise of free speech, unless I were intentionally inciting violence against the government.

The question in regards to Iraq is whether peace will produce a national government. I hope that happens, but peace has not brought with it political reconciliation so far. It's anyone's guess as to how long it will take. If Basra is any indication, however, withdrawing troops may help lower violence even further, which can't be a bad thing.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

I must point out that wars are not "won." They aren't like games. In war, everyone loses, even the nations that survive until the end.

In regards to Iraq, any lowering in violence is a welcome sign to be celebrated. I don't think such decreases in violence were worth creating that violence in the first place, but such talk isn't treason, it's measuring cost versus benefit. I don't want the US to 'win' because I know it is impossible to claim success after spending ten dollars to win a dime. I call that losing $9.90. If I supported that sort of victory, I would be endorsing the destruction of the nation. Even then, it would not be treason, but simply an exercise of free speech, unless I were intentionally inciting violence against the government.

The question in regards to Iraq is whether peace will produce a national government. I hope that happens, but peace has not brought with it political reconciliation so far. It's anyone's guess as to how long it will take. If Basra is any indication, however, withdrawing troops may help lower violence even further, which can't be a bad thing.

My sentiments exactly.

Originally Posted by Jdog

actualy the mass media wont report this BUT.

why, cuz you made it up? lmao

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

why, cuz you made it up? lmao

Keep in mind that the media reports only what they think will get ratings. If they make the war look like something really bad and we aren't getting out of it anytime soon, chances are you're going to watch the news even more. They aren't obligated in any way to report everything.

1. They have been fighting forever. Both Muslim vs. Israelite and amongst themselves


2. Saddam Hussein Hated Al-Qaeda. He killed terrorists by the truckloads, and now that he is dead, Iraqistan Has become a breeding ground for them


3. Iran and Iraq could never touch the U.S. Ever. They don't have ICBMs, and even if they did, the Boeing Airlaser system could bring it down halfway here

4. It is not the United States' job to police the world

5. There is too much politics in war now, and since 'Nam. We aren't allowed to kill the enemy, so why bother sending troops there?

Did i convince ya?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

1. They have been fighting forever. Both Muslim vs. Israelite and amongst themselves


2. Saddam Hussein Hated Al-Qaeda. He killed terrorists by the truckloads, and now that he is dead, Iraqistan Has become a breeding ground for them


3. Iran and Iraq could never touch the U.S. Ever. They don't have ICBMs, and even if they did, the Boeing Airlaser system could bring it down halfway here

4. It is not the United States' job to police the world

5. There is too much politics in war now, and since 'Nam. We aren't allowed to kill the enemy, so why bother sending troops there?

Did i convince ya?

all good points but i belive i have decent responses

1: true but it would never hurt to try and at least stop the violence. maybe if iraq becomes a success they will see what democracy has to offer and hopefully at least put aside their differences for a little while

2: saddam hated terrorists who didnt support him. he justified gas bombing the kurds by claiming they were terrorists.

3: true again but they could touch our allies like israel and that is a problem.

4: that is a valid view there is no real counter argument to that, i belive we should try to police the world, it makes the world a safer place for all people and isnt that a good goal. again this point is a matter of opinion.

5: there has always been too much politics in war, war is the fisticufs of politics. our rules of engagement are very restrictive this is to protect innocent civilians, i personaly belive our troops shouldnt be so restricted, but its not my call.

Originally Posted by grasshoppa

why, cuz you made it up? lmao

beacause the mass media outside of fox seems to care about ratings and not america (which they have the right to do. freedom of the press and all) the truth is out there and i got that particular peice of news from my schools news report (channel one) and my homepage (MSN)

Originally Posted by Jdog

all good points but i belive i have decent responses

1: true but it would never hurt to try and at least stop the violence. maybe if iraq becomes a success they will see what democracy has to offer and hopefully at least put aside their differences for a little while

2: saddam hated terrorists who didnt support him. he justified gas bombing the kurds by claiming they were terrorists.

3: true again but they could touch our allies like israel and that is a problem.

4: that is a valid view there is no real counter argument to that, i belive we should try to police the world, it makes the world a safer place for all people and isnt that a good goal. again this point is a matter of opinion.

5: there has always been too much politics in war, war is the fisticufs of politics. our rules of engagement are very restrictive this is to protect innocent civilians, i personaly belive our troops shouldnt be so restricted, but its not my call.

1. My whole point is that we can't. Don't you think it has been attempted before?

2. I'll have too look that up

3. But they don't have any nukes!

4. This , IMNSHO, is the reason the US of A(narchy) is going down the tubes: We can't help ourselves, much less control other countries!

5. Not really. Politics only really got involved during the Vietnam war.

Does that mean the troops will be coming home? No, they will be there for a very long time, most likely. They are never going to say, OK, we won, time to go home now.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

1. My whole point is that we can't. Don't you think it has been attempted before?

2. I'll have too look that up

3. But they don't have any nukes!

4. This , IMNSHO, is the reason the US of A(narchy) is going down the tubes: We can't help ourselves, much less control other countries!

5. Not really. Politics only really got involved during the Vietnam war.

all throughought history politics have greatly influenced wars (just take a look at roman history) the fact is most other countries have the problems of the U.S (crime drugs etc) but not being from them you dont hear about their problems

they may not have nukes but they do have biological weapons.

and the criminals who think they have controll realy should do a reality check. should the U.S government decide to do so they could destroy them in more ways then they can possibly imagine. the criminals are going to start feeling the governments will sooner then they think.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Does that mean the troops will be coming home? No, they will be there for a very long time, most likely. They are never going to say, OK, we won, time to go home now.

not true. one of the reasons our victory is becoming more apparant is beacause we have fewer american troops and more iraqi army troops and police men on the streets.

Originally Posted by Jdog

all throughought history politics have greatly influenced wars (just take a look at roman history) the fact is most other countries have the problems of the U.S (crime drugs etc) but not being from them you dont hear about their problems

they may not have nukes but they do have biological weapons.

and the criminals who think they have controll realy should do a reality check. should the U.S government decide to do so they could destroy them in more ways then they can possibly imagine. the criminals are going to start feeling the governments will sooner then they think.

Not what i meant. I meant, we aren't allowed to fight because of the media. There's the word i'm looking for . It is the Media that i meant to say. Not politics.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Not what i meant. I meant, we aren't allowed to fight because of the media. There's the word i'm looking for . It is the Media that i meant to say. Not politics.

AHH well that makes perfect sense and you sir are indeed correct. if it wasnt for the media american troops would have much more leway indeed. like for example. a few years ago a soldieer was critisized for shooting a downed iraqi who he saw move (the iraqi had a weapon in his hand)

Originally Posted by Jdog

civilian deaths are down an additional 50 percent from last month (last month they were down 70 percent) so things are looking up. mortar attacks roadside bombs and any other form of terrorist attacks have dropped rapidly (im not sure of the percentage or exact numbers). now that iraq is showing signs of victory the naysayers are backing down. all these people who said we would fail and could not win now look like idiots. i dont know what people here thought of the war but i always love to hear the good news. If iraq is truley secured and an american victory acheived we can hold it up as an example to all the other countries that might think of harboring terrorists or attempt to build WMD's. i just like to spread the good news.

I am totally with you on this. I think it is excellent news. I said this whole time that the war is extremely important and that things will eventually start turning around. Decades from now, it will be beyond obvious that the war was worth it and necessary.

I have argued about the Iraq war enough to fill up a set of encyclopedias in Extended Discussion. I am pretty much retired from it, but I do want to point out a few things again to those who don't know, such as the fact that the WMD intelligence came from five other governments and the United Nations in addition to our CIA, Senate, and previous (Clinton) administration. Therefore, it is not true that there was no evidence for WMD's. The Hussein regime did have meetings with Al Qaeda, but there was never evidence that they ever conspired with Al Qaeda. Who claimed they did? However, Hussein did provide incentives for suicide bombers and did fund terrorist organizations and did use WMD's in a terrorist attack. We had a very dangerous terrorist enemy on our hands. The war has been about a long list of things. Anybody who claims that it is all about oil is jumping to conclusions and overlooking some very serious problems.

Originally Posted by Jdog

AHH well that makes perfect sense and you sir are indeed correct. if it wasnt for the media american troops would have much more leway indeed. like for example. a few years ago a soldieer was critisized for shooting a downed iraqi who he saw move (the iraqi had a weapon in his hand)

I know, it is both sad, and stupid.

The Comprehensive Rules Of War:

1. Kill everyone

2. Convert all to your ideals that surrender

Today's Version:

The Comprehensive Rules Laws Of War Modern Affairs:

1. Kill everyone Only those who kill you

2. Convert all to Suggest your ideals to those that surrender

3. Get All of The Oil Free the people

Originally Posted by Jdog

not true. one of the reasons our victory is becoming more apparant is beacause we have fewer american troops and more iraqi army troops and police men on the streets.

We're still in Korea.

Originally Posted by Jdog

AHH well that makes perfect sense and you sir are indeed correct. if it wasnt for the media american troops would have much more leway indeed. like for example. a few years ago a soldieer was critisized for shooting a downed iraqi who he saw move (the iraqi had a weapon in his hand)

Oh yea they're totally screwing the soldiers. They prosecute the ones they put in danger for the things that always happen in a war. Makes a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by Jdog

actualy the mass media wont report this BUT, there were multiple sights were chem and bio weapons could be produced.

Maybe the media didn't report this because they were left over from before 1991 and posed no significant or immediate threat?

Originally Posted by Jdog

well the fact is we went to war on what was at the time reliable intell that the iraqis had WMD's.
...
in addition it sounds as though alot of you would have prefered that we lost in iraq. that my friends is barley short of treason

Instead of "reliable intel that Saddam Hussain had WMD's", it would be more accurate to say "intel used to fit a pre-established plot". Cheney has been open about his wanting to attack Iran, and is now trying to silence contradicting intelligence. Two former CIA officers say that the National Intelligence Estimate has been ready for over a year now, but the WH will not publish it because there is intelligence that contradicts Iran's nuclear threat. They have also revised it three times due to pressure from the WH. This is the same exact thing Cheney did to go to war in Iraq. He pushed the CIA (with their hesitation - they wanted to focus on Al-Qaeda, logically) into coming up with enough intelligence to convince the public to go to war in Iraq. Taking the USA to war using only the intelligence you want to fit a pre-conceived plan...now, that's what I call treason.

Originally Posted by Jdog

beacause the mass media outside of fox seems to care about ratings and not america

You are aware that this implies that Fox News doesn't care about ratings and has the interests of the USA at heart, right? I'm starting to see why you think the things you do...