Iraq - A US Soldiers view
- Thread starter Alf Roberts
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
Alf Roberts said:
It's interesting this solider hasn't considered the good that has been done by removing Sadam from power - the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been saved and families restored. It's also interesting how everyone seems to have assumed the war is over just because the allies have conquered Iraq. Sadam is still fighting back, he still has troops on his side and until he is captured the war will not be over.
In light of that, of course there will be further casualties until the real end has been reached. What are we supposed to do in the mean time?? Withdraw fully from Iraq and allow Sadam to recapture the country and continue his regeime of mass murder?
As I have said in various past threads I do not agree with some of the US motives for going to war (control of the oil fields, power etc etc) however removing Sadam from power was a good thing for the Iraqi people and always will be. He just needs to be captured so it cannot happen again. True enough there is still no evidence of the WMD which means the threat against other countries may not have been as great as it initially seemed, however the threat to the Iraqi people was always there are for that reason alone Sadam needed removing from power. The mass graves alone that have been found since the start of the war are evidence enough that Sadam is not a suitable leader, along with his proven record of attacking other countries and defying international law.
Single examples like that of those two children do not reflect the overall situation. Firstly they should never of been able to get near any dangerous explosives anyway, and secondly they should have been given immediate medical treatment. Whilst occupying Iraq the allies should do everything in their power to assist the Iraqi people, and if that isn't being done then it most definately should be, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be there at all. Admittedly the Iraqi's are still not living in luxury however for the vast majority of them the situation has either already improved or is (hopefully) on it's way to doing so - at least they do not have the threat of being killed for speaking their minds hanging over them now. imho we did the correct thing by removing Sadam from power, however we need to get him captured, put in place a democratic government that will ensure the country is run in a manor benficial to the whole population, then get the fuck out of Iraq leaving their oil well alone.
Arr the naivety of youth.Spirit said:
The US wont leave behind what they went there for.
Btw Spirit, where did u hear all this stuff about Saddam being bad? Journalists by chance?
Alf Roberts said:Arr the naivety of youth.
The US wont leave behind what they went there for.
Btw Spirit, where did u hear all this stuff about Saddam being bad? Journalists by chance?
I know they won't - as I said I know the US have gone there with alterior motives and I strongly disagree with some of those motives. My point was that Sadam needed removing regardless, therefore I support the invasion of Iraq for that sole purpose, however I do not agree with the fact the USA should gain anything from doing so.
Some of the information my opinion is based on is from journalism yes, but it is from cold facts that have been reported - not the views of the journalist or the newspaper reporting them. You cannot report a body count or pictures of mass graves in a biased manor - the facts are there for all to see.
Oh yes u can! The media is just as an important tool for the US military as tanks and planes...infact in these modern times some say its more important.Spirit said:
It is, I quite agree 
But that still doesn't hide the simple fact that Sadam is a mass murder. Regardless of any propeganda surrounding the situation the evidence to prove that is overwhelming!
But that still doesn't hide the simple fact that Sadam is a mass murder. Regardless of any propeganda surrounding the situation the evidence to prove that is overwhelming!
Yes Saddam is responsible for many ppls death...and now so are Bush & Blair...who are being proved with each passing day that they fabricated the reasons for taking their respective countries to war. Al Queada are more active now than they ever was. The US's global popularity is at an all time low (quite a feat when u consider the sympathy vote after 9/11). The credibility of the UN has been irrepairably damaged. The middle east appears to be tettering on the verge of disaster...
...but u think it was a good thing cos bad Saddam has been removed. The same bad Saddam that the US helped install, prop up and arm.
If it all stopped with the removal of Saddam then it would be most probably fine....but it wont...cos it wasnt about getting rid of him. Bush has started something now...the terrifying problem is noone knows where its going.
...but u think it was a good thing cos bad Saddam has been removed. The same bad Saddam that the US helped install, prop up and arm.
If it all stopped with the removal of Saddam then it would be most probably fine....but it wont...cos it wasnt about getting rid of him. Bush has started something now...the terrifying problem is noone knows where its going.
The number of deaths caused by Bush and Blair isn't really comparable to those by Sadam, but otherwise I guess we pretty much agree on this one then. The removal of Sadam was good, but the alterior motives of those involved aren't.
Now all we need is Bush to be removed too and all will be well
Now all we need is Bush to be removed too and all will be well
Well no i dont agree that the removal of Hussain was good because of the reasons ive already given. Yes hes responsible for the deaths of many many ppl over the years but i dont see the answer in killing loads more. I'd rather the US stopped fucking around with other countries and hadnt installed and armed him in the 1st place.Spirit said:
ye, but during iran/irak war, pretty funny, saddam, was helped by united states,
since iran was helped by russian...
and.... hoooo, this is so funny 2... how come usama ben laden, was trained by CIA....
but 1 thing is for sure regarding propeganda... usa ownzzzzzzzzzzz
(fs, always in those kind of discution that i regret to not have a perfect english..... )
Alf Roberts said:Arr the naivety of youth.
The US wont leave behind what they went there for.
Btw Spirit, where did u hear all this stuff about Saddam being bad? Journalists by chance?
How fucking hypocritical? Your last three threads in this forum where started with links to articles on the Guardian's website, and without any real attempt to start a debate on your half.
My point being, I take it you spoke to this Tim Predmore in person did you?? Yeah, didn't think so...
...so knock me down with a feather if your starter for ten in this thread wasn't journalism either.
Bush is a murderer. His family have a long history of it.
The Bush empire is built on Nazi gold from WWII. Again this is fact and researchable.
It's researchable. Take the blinkers from your eyes.
His presidential campaign raised the most money ever. How was he going to make sure his investors got that back? Raise taxes?
The "War" was all about money and greed, pure and simple.
The Iraqi's were such a threat were they not?
Yeah I remember that datsun pickup with the mounted machine gun - damn thats some advanced scary weaponry.
As for America not contrlling the largest percent of the worlds media....well the media has got a large portion of you fooled. It's not hysteria or conspiracy. Just fact. Open your eyes and go look.
The Bush empire is built on Nazi gold from WWII. Again this is fact and researchable.
It's researchable. Take the blinkers from your eyes.
His presidential campaign raised the most money ever. How was he going to make sure his investors got that back? Raise taxes?
The "War" was all about money and greed, pure and simple.
The Iraqi's were such a threat were they not?
Yeah I remember that datsun pickup with the mounted machine gun - damn thats some advanced scary weaponry.
As for America not contrlling the largest percent of the worlds media....well the media has got a large portion of you fooled. It's not hysteria or conspiracy. Just fact. Open your eyes and go look.
ProPain said:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/intl/article/0,9171,1107991025-33716,00.html
http://media.guardian.co.uk/iraqandthemedia/story/0,12823,893364,00.html
He [Murdoch]reiterated that the "greatest thing to come out of this [war]" would be cheap oil, which he believes would benefit the world economy more than any tax cut ever could.
So Murdoch doesn't control swathes of the worlds media? Hmm and of course he doesn't support Bush........
Hmmmm and surely Ruperts media wouldn't bend the facts in order to aid anyones political standing........ Did I say bend the facts? I meant downright lie to protect US financial interests. Don't let me have to go dig up stuff on American industrialists that pay money in to Bush and Murdoch and have done for decades. Go search for yourself, liberate your mind.
Liars and Murderers.
nice links m8.
But the simple fact is that all over the world people disagree with what the usa did because the press told em what really happened.
If the usa controlled the WORLD media that i would see a lot more positive news insteads of the frequent jabs they get now.
Also i personally highly doubt alternate motivations to remove saddam. The usa has poured 80 billion dollars in iraq, to my knowledge that would not be cheap oil, in fact it would be the most expensive oil that they ever bought.
Maybe they are just really trying to make things better in iraq(prolly cos they really messed up before and it caused a lot of anti american sentiment all over the world). It might sound far fetched but i refuse to believe that the usa just invaded iraq over oil, that can never be the sole reason.
But the simple fact is that all over the world people disagree with what the usa did because the press told em what really happened.
If the usa controlled the WORLD media that i would see a lot more positive news insteads of the frequent jabs they get now.
Also i personally highly doubt alternate motivations to remove saddam. The usa has poured 80 billion dollars in iraq, to my knowledge that would not be cheap oil, in fact it would be the most expensive oil that they ever bought.
Maybe they are just really trying to make things better in iraq(prolly cos they really messed up before and it caused a lot of anti american sentiment all over the world). It might sound far fetched but i refuse to believe that the usa just invaded iraq over oil, that can never be the sole reason.
well the usa didnt just spend 100 billions and the money fadeth away...
they get at least partially some of the money back due taxes, economic boost, etc
and to bbs point^^
it kinda does make sense if u consider that that media mogul focused on english-speaking countries (uk, usa australia and now the asian market)
just a thought for pp
^^
another thing i dont see where the media is controlled by the US gov't
it just happened that that guy is very conservative and taints the news in the favor of the US gov't (fox news)
ppl overseas have a different attitude towards politics
they trust their leaders a lot more than we europeans for example because they have never been really seriously fucked by their leaders unlike some european countries...
they get at least partially some of the money back due taxes, economic boost, etc
and to bbs point^^
it kinda does make sense if u consider that that media mogul focused on english-speaking countries (uk, usa australia and now the asian market)
just a thought for pp
^^another thing i dont see where the media is controlled by the US gov't
it just happened that that guy is very conservative and taints the news in the favor of the US gov't (fox news
)ppl overseas have a different attitude towards politics
they trust their leaders a lot more than we europeans for example because they have never been really seriously fucked by their leaders unlike some european countries...
Fact is the "war" was engineered B4 Bush came to power. Another checkable FACT.
There is irrefutable evidence that this was the case.
There is nothing to stir patriotic hearts like an armed conflict.
He is a president that came to power on the back of blood money,manipulation and massive amounts of media spin.
He was not voted in. It was rigged. A blatant lie. A thinly veiled con-trick. Yet are we to belive his motives for invading Iraq are sound?
Come on it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
There is irrefutable evidence that this was the case.
There is nothing to stir patriotic hearts like an armed conflict.
He is a president that came to power on the back of blood money,manipulation and massive amounts of media spin.
He was not voted in. It was rigged. A blatant lie. A thinly veiled con-trick. Yet are we to belive his motives for invading Iraq are sound?
Come on it doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
hm... i think u go a bit too far...
if this war was set up before bush then i d wonder y the clinton administration declared the iraq was no longer a threat to anyone somewhen in the late 90's
call me stupid but i doubt that a group of ppl that r not in the gov't can come together and decide whats gonna happen in the world like in a conspiracy thriller
if this war was set up before bush then i d wonder y the clinton administration declared the iraq was no longer a threat to anyone somewhen in the late 90's
call me stupid but i doubt that a group of ppl that r not in the gov't can come together and decide whats gonna happen in the world like in a conspiracy thriller
Last edited:
i think what BB meant was that bush planned an assault on iraq before he came to power. they found battleplans and other documents which support this.
However i refuse to believe bush is smart enough to con his way in to being president.
However i refuse to believe bush is smart enough to con his way in to being president.