Search For Wmd's Over - Nothing Found


Recommended Posts

I don't care if they call themselves secular or what, there was an overwhelming (and should still be) presence of islam, so I most definitely consider it an islamic state.

Oh, please don't tell me you are that ignorant. Here's an article you should read with some good backround info:

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=18072

But the ''secular traditions'' of Iraq -- a reflection of Baathist ideology -- and its pluralism is often cited to convince sceptics that its people and politics are different from that of Iran. One example of the Iraqi Shiites' secular mould is their allegiance to Saddam during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. The vast majority of the Iraqi army was Shiite and remained loyal to Saddam, rather than to the Islamic revolution across the border.

Differentiating between Iraqi and Iranian Shiites, Sagban says: ''Most Iraqi Shiite spiritual leaders in Najaf have long opposed (Ayatollah) Khomeini's notion that Shiite clerics should be in power.''

''They think this has corrupted the clergy in Iran and angered the people. The contest now will be between Iraqi Shiite leaders believing in the separation between mosque and state, and the pro-Iranian clerics wanting to run Iraq Khomeini-style, '' he says.

Referring to the term 'Shiite repression' in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the doctor says: ''Those who rush to declare Saddam's regime as Sunni are wrong. Baghdad wasn't associated with a religious camp. None of the religions were spared, whether Muslim, Christian, Kurdish, Arab or Turkmen. Even Sunnis were killed and Sunni-ruled Kuwait was attacked. The regime stood for the benefit of one person.''

Some Sunnis, however, treat those 'secular' credentials of Iraqi Shiites with doubt.

''Their secular feelings were a product of the environment they lived in. They were denied the freedom to practise their brand of Islam. With Saddam gone, the recent religious ceremonies in southern Iraq indicate that Shiites will resort to all those practices that have become their trademark around the world,'' the Sunni artist says, referring to some of their blood-letting rituals.

''Religious affiliation is such that one can never rule out the possibility of Shiites in Iran and Iraq aligning against a common Sunni enemy,'' he adds.

Read up a little more on the history of the internal conflict in Iraq over the past 35 years before you make a fool of yourself again.

-Dana

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10. So that Team America: World Police would be made.

Didn't see it

9. Regime Change and to Liberate the Iraqi People from Saddams Dictatorship

A noble cause to be sure, but consider the attrocities occuring in Sudan. Would it not have been more noble to correct the injustices being done there?

8. Because Iraq has links to Al Queda.

Perhaps a few people in Iraq had links to Al Queda, but the Iraqui government had fundamental conflicts with Al Queda, they were at philisophical war.

7. To be ABSOLUTELY sure that Iraq doesn't have weapons of mass distruction. Do you really want to take that risk? Would you want to have been the president who believed Saddam and allowed us or the middle east to fall under attack? One that could have been prevented if we had followed through and made ABSOLUTELY sure (because, you know, he's never lied before)?

North Korea has nuclear weapons. No doubt about it. Iran has weapons of mass destruction, no doubt about it. Should we invade them just in case? You can't justify violating the sovereignty of a nation over a guess, or a gut feeling.

6. To show that even though the U.N. doesn't usually enforce it's own resolutions WE WILL.

So should we follow all the U.N. resolutions? You know the UN maintains that civilians in the United States (and elsewhere in the world) should not be allowed ownership of personal firearms. Should we pick and choose the UN resolutions we want to obey? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the democratic UN?

5. To show that we are going to run an ACTIVE war on terror and to stay on the offensive in that war.

So we invade a sovereign nation, armed with rumors which turned out to be untrue, just to make an example out of them? Who's next?

4. To scare anyone else who might be interested in weapons of mass destruction, or at least make them think twice and take us more seriously than they have in the past where we used sanctions and really really mean letters as our method to prevent their spread.

Again, making an example out of someone. Someone who didn't really do anything. That's a great example. The United States punishes the innocent alongside the guilty, so you may as well fight us, because we're darn sure fighting you.

3. To create a major power that supports the United States in the middle east and hopefully begin to transform a hostile region into a less hostile one.

Man, if only we had done that 50 years ago.

2. To finish what we started in 1991.

Again, tough guy talk. Make an example out of them. Finish what we started. Show 'em who's boss. This isn't reasoning, it's machoism.

1. Because we can.

Because might makes right, eh? This point is about as valid as #10. Actually, Team America has more merit than "Because we can."

Edited by Nebor
Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave up on trying to use common sense with these common Americans long ago only to be labeled a liberal and the like. THE reason for the Iraq war was because Bush had no other way to retaliate against the terrorism of 9/11. He was lost and he knew if he didnt do anything he wouldnt get re-elected. Obviously 52% of americans are ignorant to how politics work. Casualties have kinda fallen off the front page haven't they?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, please don't tell me you are that ignorant.

Alright, you're right, but there's nothing wrong with islam and there is islam in iraq. I don't think it should matter whether we are attacking an islamic state or not anyway, we are attacking iraq, who the hell cares what religion they are.

Insert a lot of hippy liberal stuff here.

You're an idiot AND arnold schwartzeneger should punch you in the face.

It's not tough guy talk or machoism, its being tough - period. America is a tough country. We don't put up with stuff because we don't have to. If you have a problem with that maybe you should move to a girlfy country, like France. (Disclaimer: France is t3h suck, but no offense to the great people over there.)

Let me fill you in.

You suck at life.

I gave up on trying to use common sense with these common Americans long ago only to be labeled a liberal and the like.  THE reason for the Iraq war was because Bush had no other way to retaliate against the terrorism of 9/11. He was lost and he knew if he didnt do anything he wouldnt get re-elected. Obviously 52% of americans are ignorant to how politics work. Casualties have kinda fallen off the front page haven't they?

Bush retalliated against the terrorism of 9/11 by messing up Afghanistan in a huge way. Why do you think 52% of Americans are ignorant of how politics work? We elect Bush so we're ignorant. Sounds like someone thinks they are superior to everyone who voted for George W. Bush.

Newsflash - you lost. Get over it. You're not better. You're worse. You're the losers.

Let me sum this up for all of you.

The people running this country, the most powerful country in the world, agree with me, and they know more than you do about the situation with Iraq, so I must be right.

Game over. I'm done with this weak thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People are silly.

Anyone who doesn't think going in like we did was a big boo-boo is silly too.

See CIA report that says we CREATED more terrorists than we defeated by poking Iraq up: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan13.html

Yeah, Sadam had to go for humanitarian reasons. But there are MUCH bigger humanitarian problems in our world then Sadam. There were also MUCH bigger threats to our Nat'l security.

It was an oops. WMDs and ties to Al Quaeda were the reasons for going in. They were stuff reasons. Is that a problem? IMO, yeah. When it comes to what my peers are dying for, I apreciate being told the truth. Any person with half a brain could dismiss the Al Quaeda connections imediately. WMDs? I always doubted it, and I always thought that it wasn't worth it to go to war, because I figured that something like what's happening now would take place. Just like the CIA did when they put the intelligence reports suggesting that we'd face massive oposition and possible civil war if we created a power void without half a million people on the ground. You know, the reports W had on his desk before the war.

Obviously it was an oops. Anyone who denies that is silly, like I said.

But that isn't what should we be discussing. The real question is, what do we do now that we're there?

Link to post
Share on other sites

legend, really sorry, but that list of 10 things was devoid of even the slightest hint of lucidity; so very at a loss for any significant thought that it was just pathetic.

Nebor was dead on in every reply. Clearly our opinions differ from yours, and I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying you are completely unfit to express the position of the right, or any position for that matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9.  Regime Change and to Liberate the Iraqi People from Saddams Dictatorship

A noble cause to be sure, but consider the attrocities occuring in Sudan. Would it not have been more noble to correct the injustices being done there?

[

do you think there is any possibility of the public supporting that? think back to vietnam (this situation is far different, but bear with me), at the conclusion of that war, communist forces known as the kmehr rouge began to take over cambodia. one of the most horrific humanitarian genocidal atrocities this century was occuring, and there was nothing we could do about it because the public did not have the stomach for another conflict. that situation was different than this current one, because under the system of containment, we should have intervened. the situation in sudan is awful, at best, but is currently not in the interests of foreign policy. whether or not it should be is a valid point, but none the less inappropriate to discuss concerning the topic of this particular discussion.

8.  Because Iraq has links to Al Queda.

Perhaps a few people in Iraq had links to Al Queda, but the Iraqui government had fundamental conflicts with Al Queda, they were at philisophical war.

[

think back to WWII. what country held political and philosophical views completley antithetical to that of britain and the united states? RUSSIA. what country was the biggest ally to the united states and britain during WWII in defeating germany? RUSSIA. there are, my friend, allies of convenience, and nothing draws two self-interested organizations together like a common enemy. just because bin laden didn't like hussein does not mean that there was no possibility for any contact.

this is the main reason i don't buy into that argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think there is any possibility of the public supporting that? think back to vietnam (this situation is far different, but bear with me), at the conclusion of that war, communist forces known as the kmehr rouge began to take over cambodia. one of the most horrific humanitarian genocidal atrocities this century was occuring, and there was nothing we could do about it because the public did not have the stomach for another conflict. that situation was different than this current one, because under the system of containment, we should have intervened. the situation in sudan is awful, at best, but is currently not in the interests of foreign policy. whether or not it should be is a valid point, but none the less inappropriate to discuss concerning the topic of this particular discussion.

think back to WWII. what country held political and philosophical views completley antithetical to that of britain and the united states? RUSSIA. what country was the biggest ally to the united states and britain during WWII in defeating germany? RUSSIA. there are, my friend, allies of convenience, and nothing draws two self-interested organizations together like a common enemy. just because bin laden didn't like hussein does not mean that there was no possibility for any contact.

this is the main reason i don't buy into that argument.

I'd buy the allies of convenience excuse.... if there were any evidence to support it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

legend, really sorry, but that list of 10 things was devoid of even the slightest hint of lucidity; so very at a loss for any significant thought that it was just pathetic.

Nebor was dead on in every reply.  Clearly our opinions differ from yours, and I'm not saying you are wrong.  I'm just saying you are completely unfit to express the position of the right, or any position for that matter.

ken=funny!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, go read this interview in the Washington Post with the Prez.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan15.html

A few highlights:

The Post: Secretary Powell said this week that American troops will begin leaving Iraq this year. Is that true?

THE PRESIDENT: The way I would put it is, American troops will be leaving as quickly as possible, but they won't be leaving until we have completed our mission. And part of the mission is to train Iraqis so they can fight the terrorists. And the sooner the Iraqis are prepared -- better prepared, better equipped to fight -- the sooner our troops will start coming home.

The Post: Can you be sure that by the end of your second term, that there will be a significant reduction?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm still on the, as quick as possible.

Those tricky reporters aren't going to trick this president into saying something that could be used against him!

The Post: Do you disagree with Colin Powell's assessment, then, that he thinks it can be done?

THE PRESIDENT: My assessment is, is that we will -- one of the reasons why the military sent an assessment team to Iraq recently was to assess our training mission, because success in Iraq will depend upon the Iraqis defeating the enemy. And so we're constantly assessing to see whether -- where we can improve training, how we can do things better, and what the Iraqis think they need, in order to do their job.

And so the troops have been helping to provide as much security as possible for the elections. The political process is going on. And at the same time, doing their job and training these Iraqis. So we're constantly assessing, and that's what this is. The panel will report back to determine how best to train the Iraqis. My answer to your question is, as soon as possible, based upon fulfilling the mission.

The elections -- I am pleased that the elections are going forward. I recognize that there are a group of terrorists trying to stop the election process. I have been amazed by the spirit of the Iraqi people. There's a big front-page story; I'm sure you read that. Please don't tell me you haven't.

The Post: I read them all.

THE PRESIDENT: Please don't tell me you haven't.

The Post: Read them all.

What can I say? We're going to assess and train.

The Post: Why do you think [Osama] bin Laden has not been caught?

THE PRESIDENT: Because he's hiding.

The Post: Our allies have done all they can do to help catch him?

THE PRESIDENT: We're on the hunt.

The Post: Do you think others are on the hunt, too? Are you happy, content with what other countries are doing in that hunt?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

The Post: Anyone you're not happy with? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Look, bin Laden is elusive, and he is in a remote part of the world. And we are -- I am -- I can't think of anybody in the world who is our ally who isn't willing to do what is necessary to try to find him. And so I am pleased about the hunt, and I am pleased that he's isolated. I will be more pleased when he's brought to justice, and I think he will be.

Oh. My. God.

The Post: How concerned are you about the enormously high levels of anti-Americanism, particularly in the Muslim world? And is that an indication that somehow the terrorists are winning the hearts and minds of those people?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, you know, it's interesting. The people of Afghanistan, which is a part of the Muslim world, are really happy that the government of the United States, along with others, liberated them from the Taliban. I suspect that people in the Muslim world, as we speak, are thrilled that supplies are being delivered by U.S. servicemen and women. The Iranians -- the reformers in Iran are, I suspect, very hopeful that the United States government is firm in our belief that democracy ought to spread. In other words, there are some places we're not popular, and other places where we're liked.

I can't even comment anymore, it reads like a parody already. Go read the rest of the interview, because it's all like that...

-Dana

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd buy the allies of convenience excuse.... if there were any evidence to support it.

i don't know of any evidence suggesting that there actually was a real alliance, i am just sick of people saying it was impossible because they are idealogically at odds. that seems to be the only evidence that anyone brings up to deny that there was no contact or collaboration between the two parties. just to clarify, i am not connecting 9-11 to saddam, i'm not referencing 9-11, just al-quaeda in and of itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a 20 page paper on a new Foreign Policy Decision Making model (FPDM Model), and used the Iraq war as my example of its application.

It was written almost a year ago, but if anyone would like me to post it here, just let me know. It's 20 pages though, so I won't post it unsolicited.

I didn't research the topic as deeply as I could have, but reading the paper would pretty quickly allow dismissal of posts like "he told us it was for this reason so that's it" or "we went for oil, isn't it obvious?"

Not to neglect those opinions, but often times I see you guys clamoring for an "intelligent discussion"...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a 20 page paper on a new Foreign Policy Decision Making model (FPDM Model), and used the Iraq war as my example of its application.

It was written almost a year ago, but if anyone would like me to post it here, just let me know.  It's 20 pages though, so I won't post it unsolicited.

I didn't research the topic as deeply as I could have, but reading the paper would pretty quickly allow dismissal of posts like "he told us it was for this reason so that's it" or "we went for oil, isn't it obvious?"

Not to neglect those opinions, but often times I see you guys clamoring for an "intelligent discussion"...

Post up!

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, plz post this up it sounds very interesting. I actually had to to a paper for my Lit class last quater and my group topic ended up being Pro-Terrorism :lol: that was the hardest paper to write EVER! not to mention the class looked at us like we were terrorists just for writing the paper.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.