[ZTWsquared]

Call us when you figure out how to stop thinking in black and white ... so far you've spent more energy slagging other posts than contributing positively to the discussion.

Oh wait ... just read your sig ... you're an asshole busy doing important stuff... never mind.

tdot-zx3,Oct 22 2005, 08: Wrote:

ZTWsquared,Oct 21 2005, 05:53 PM Wrote:IMO the Bush regime lied about the actual goal of the war ... it was not WMD.

Im laughing so hard at this too...

Give this guy a trophy.. "IMO".. "lied" ... lol ... thats great. *claps*
[right][snapback]150913[/snapback][/right]

[tdot-zx3]

No you just dont know my stance....

My stance is if you have any doubt there wasnt more motives then just nuclear weapons (which wasnt even a motive at all.. it was an excuse) your basically an idiot. So my reply to you contained utter sarcasm because its been fairly obvious for over a year now ...

And the other post was "slagged" with all due right. He was ragging on the muslims in another thread before and did it again.... This is not a 'war' where you can only call 1 side animals.

[K_OS]

This war was not about WMD's but about control and influence on a global scale. The US wants to control the oil flowing out of Iraq into its own stockpiles, before the war Iraq was in major debt with Russia and France the 2 countrys that were helping Iraq develop there oil fields. When the US invaded Iraq and forced the regime change it effectively cancelled all the contracts that the former Government had signed, with the regime change the US took control of the 2nd largest reserve of oil on the planet. Now with control over the Iraqi oil the US can leverage indirect influence and control over the European and Asian economies wich are dependent on oil from the middle east.

Laterz :)

[ZTWsquared]

tdot-zx3,Oct 23 2005, 06: Wrote:No you just dont know my stance....

That's right, I didn't ... because you chose to attempt ridicule rather than state your stance; a sign IMO of intellectual weakness.

tdot-zx3,Oct 23 2005, 06: Wrote:My stance is you have any doubt there wasnt more motives then just nuclear weapons (which wasnt even a motive at all.. it was an excuse) your basically an idiot.

Your "stance," otherwise known as your "opinion" (that's the "O" in IMO) is duly noted. Using IMO is often considered a sign of intellectual honesty when stating things that are still subject to debate; and sorry, even if my opinion is the same as yours, the existence of WMD (which Saddam claimed he had), and whether or not influential people in Bush's circle of advisors truly believed he had them, are two subjects that are still open to debate and new discovery. There are a lot of people in this world who know a lot more about this subject than you do, who think that people who believe as you do are naive idiots.

tdot-zx3,Oct 23 2005, 06: Wrote:fairly obvious for over a year now ...

"Fairly obvious" is hardly the absolute truth that you would apparently have us believe; and it's been "fairly obvious" for a lot longer than a year. But thanks for sharing.

tdot-zx3,Oct 23 2005, 06: Wrote:just nuclear weapons (which wasnt even a motive at all.. it was an excuse) your basically an idiot.

This could be part of your problem right here ... the acronym WMD includes a lot of weapons that are not nuclear ... and BTW, Saddam has already used them on at least one occasion, and that is a matter of fact.

And, oh ... you better dig a little deeper into your thesaurus because the difference between "motive" and "excuse" is hardly enough to warrant calling thoughtful people "idiots."

And if you're going to call people idiots because of their opinion, don't you think you need to back that up with more than just your own opinion? Or does your particular brand of intellectual honesty not include that kind of a notion?

tdot-zx3,Oct 23 2005, 06: Wrote:This is not a 'war' where you can only call 1 side animals.

So this is it? You thought about it long and hard and "war is bad" is the grand total of the wisdom you want to share? Why not respond to things that were actually written rather than some imaginary slight of the "other" side.

And for those of you still reading ... the term "insurgent," as used to describe certain armed fighters in Iraq, IMO would only be misused if you don't believe there is a legitimate civil authority in Iraq. And given the high level of participation in elections there (despite American influence) my opinion right now is that there is a legitimate civil authority; and therefore the term insurgent is appropriate.

P.S. to tdot ... the only thing "utter" about your sarcasm was its transparency and lack of wit. Do try harder next time.

[darkpuppet]

I think we're still missing the point. It's not entirely about the US's motives that the war will continue to rage.

It's because the population as a whole will not be easily suppressed. That's the greatest failing of all this. You run into a country that's been run by a feudal society and dictatorship for centuries, and you think that 2 years of bombing people who don't agree with you is going to change the entire culture of the entire country.

Bush needs to go for some diversity training. The biggest failing in all of this is that they went in with the wrong motives, and without understanding the entire cultural landscape of the country. Sure he had local supporters, just as China has western-idealists. but the people who were in control weren't westerners.. and they have the 'right' (I hate to use that word, but it's what americans would do) to fight back.

It's funny becuase you talk to any american and chances are good that the insurgents are asshats. Yet, they're the ones who believe they should own a gun so that they can protect their country from an invading force.

If they just realized that a portion of the population isn't going to accept occupation, they should work on a diplomatic route.. the more you fight, the greater the chances more people are going to pick a side that isn't yours and the fighting continues. Especially when you're dealing with a feudal society that's used to extremist behaviour. it's all they know and the US isn't showing them anything different (other than instability).

[FociPhil]

ZTW squared...good post.

I would have to say that most of us trust and respond to whats in the news or written by reporters. So we really arnt certain whats it like over there.

Anybody that was actually over there, jump in and tell us what you throught. We got a couple people in the military here.

[Flofocus]

FociPhil,Oct 24 2005, 11:39 AM Wrote:ZTW squared...good post.

I would have to say that most of us trust and respond to whats in the news or written by reporters. So we really arnt certain whats it like over there.

Anybody that was actually over there, jump in and tell us what you throught. We got a couple people in the military here.
[right][snapback]151121[/snapback][/right]

I visited the region in 98. Not Iraq but Israeal, Egypt, lebanon.....

Things are much, much, much different than they are here. I can really agree with what Dan has said in his posts. We see these people as being terrorists and such but these are people defending their country. They DO see USA as being INSURGENTS & Terrorists. This isnt Canada where the most genarations a family has been here is what? 7-8? Your talking about a section of the planet and human civilisation that has history like no other part of the world. We (The coalition or whatver) have no right to be there right now.

What the USA is doing is murder, simple as that.

Everyday I read that another 10-40 people were killed in bagdad. Its a regular thing on MSN.ca to see. We read that over like its nothing now and beleive what the american news is saying. Shame on us.

What the US media shows is just the tip of the iceberg my freinds, it is very disturbing at what some of the s**t that those soldiers (or the people giving the orders) are getting 'away' with.

Nobody bring up "Yeah but its better now without saddam"

1) How do you know? Go ask the Iraquis, I think they'll give you an honest answer, not what Bush wants the media to perceive.

2) Who drove 2 planes into the towers? Oh yeah.....Canada is looking for that guy right now...

Pics from my freind in Afghanistan...hes there for another year, this is his second tour there.

[ANTHONYD]

YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE NEW VIETNAM WAR PEOPLE.

Over the next decade or so, the U.S. will lose thousands upon thousands of soldiers chasing something thay can't see.

Religion.

[FociPhil]

We get mad at people from other countries (immigrants) "occupying" our counrty.

Could you imagine these people coming over and blowing s**t up and killing other canadians? Would you fight back?

I guess thats sort of what the Iraqi people are going through.

[tdot-zx3]

ZTW... This is fine and all but you blew a small post way out of proportion... Unsure of what your trying to prove by fighting with me... But chill down boy.. theres no need whatsoever...

Im just gonna comment on a couple things...

ZTWsquared,Oct 24 2005, 01:03 AM Wrote:and whether or not influential people in Bush's circle of advisors truly believed he had them, are two subjects that are still open to debate and new discovery. There are a lot of people in this world who know a lot more about this subject than you do, who think that people who believe as you do are naive idiots.

No your misunderstanding...

1. What validity/merit/anything would come out of this 'debate and new discovery'? Has not the truth of this war already been told? What would be the point of this, to say "I told you so"? Would that make things better? Im not sure where/what your trying to prove with this.

2. I think that people who cannot think for themselves and do truely believe what is on american tv and pushed through the media are yes, indeed idiots. This is my IMO as you would like me to say, but it doesnt come without proper reason and isnt that far off the mark at all, you yourself know this, why fight it.

Quote: it's been "fairly obvious" for a lot longer than a year. But thanks for sharing.

Again, it has been. But to people who look to american media solely for answers, it hasnt been! Hell it still isnt for ALOT of people. You had to look deaper before then, and you actually had to think a bit which comes tough for people who turn on CNN and just watch it like its IV'd into their system. Ive been bashing the American government on these forums and making predictions for a long time... Trust me your not proving anything to me that I havent known for a long time by saying that.

I originally posted sarcasm to you because you basically said something that I believe everyone on this forum already knows well about, or should for that matter.

Quote:Saddam has already used them on at least one occasion, and that is a matter of fact.

Which again, is GREAT fuel for the media. The USA has already used them before... How many other countries have used banned weapons, gone against policy.. yada yada... s**t we might as well just go after everyone.

To me this is not a 'good enough' reason at all and doesnt merit going on a wild goose hunt with other motives going on behind the scene... No?

Quote:And if you're going to call people idiots because of their opinion, don't you think you need to back that up with more than just your own opinion? Or does your particular brand of intellectual honesty not include that kind of a notion?

ha ha ha ha ... read on...

Quote:So this is it? You thought about it long and hard and "war is bad" is the grand total of the wisdom you want to share? Why not respond to things that were actually written rather than some imaginary slight of the "other" side.

Did you not read my other post that wasnt even directed at you? Im not talking about war at all in that comment, its in reference to the fact that people NEVER think about whats going on in IRAQ and only think about this from our end. My response and comment again was directed at something else in this thread... Your 'go for the gold lets fight on the internet attitude' made you miss that obviously...

Anyways.. how about you come and talk to my friends that were born in Iraq and still talk to their family on the phones all the time. How about you ask them their opnion on their dead relatives.. dead friends... ? How about you ask them how they cried for their lives when Bush was elected again? How about you ask them about the schools that have been blown up, the public areas, the areas with no trouble at all? How about you ask them how much their lives have changed there and will probably never return to normal again....

I will say it again.

People who do not look at this war from 2 sides are IGNORANT ASSHOLES from my opinion. Grow up and realize how many f-ing lives are being ruined down in the middle east every day because of this s**t. Have we no more dignity anymore, or did we ever for that matter, when it comes to human rights and the priviledges of others? All we can do is sit here and bash people who are fighting for their lives down there and look at them like savages? How is this even considered a valid opinion at all?

Wars like this make me sick. The american media makes me sick. Americans who push for killing (and the canadians that are included in this) make me sick.

If you dont like that opinion.. Go f uck yourself. Because if they came and blew up your family for no reason you sure as hell wouldnt just sit there and look at it from an american perspective. I very much doubt anyone who came home from work to realize their house and family were blown up would be very civil about it.

Thats why I think its stupid to even think about motives and all this other stuff anymore. While we sit and debate wether the wars reasons are justified, more and more peoples lives are being ruined.

Take it how you want.

[NOS2Go4Me]

Whoa Danno, lotta hostility for a guy asking a question.

I didn't want to see this war started in the first place. I'd rather everyone else who has ever flamed me here into battle before Captain Oilgeyser, aka GWB.

Dan, all I said was that these guys, in their latest "letsblowshitup" routine, launched mortar rounds into an ELEMENTARY school.

I don't care who you are and what's been done to you and how angry you are... the common lesson here is 2 wrongs NEVER make a right. NEVER.

GWB was wrong to go to Iraq. The UN should have stopped his ass before he set foot on Iraqi soil. But the damage is done, and for every donkey blown up near the "Green Zone", that's another month they'll spend there "securing the area". Game set and match.

They're handing autonomous control of Iraq over to the US, the more they do this s**t. Do I agree with a forced democracy? No, because then it's not a true democracy. But the alternative here is that one of a few things may happen if the US / half-assed coalition pulls out tomorrow:

Iran takes over. Nobody wins in that one, and they keep building "power" nukes. Yikes.

The country gets divvied up between Iran, Syria, and Kuwait amongst others. Whoops, there goes the Kurds' rights. Again.

Syria takes it over. The suicide bomber superhighway is one step closer to completion.

You know what's funny, though? In a perfect world, I'd say let them all fight it out. Screw 'em. They were given a chance (forced as it was) for a diversified voice and a chance for real elections and real population representation. If they don't want it, let them take it back and see how long they last without an army.

I'm not justifying the war, in closing... far from it. I merely ask will it end? Wasn't that the topic name? :huh:

[tdot-zx3]

I only have hostility towards ignorance of culture and with due right, I have many close friends that have been affected greatly by this war.

The rest of my post should be taken in normal regards. Its not fired up in the slightest.

[NOS2Go4Me]

Good, I'm glad we see eye-to-eye. :)

Can I go to sleep yet? FAAAAAAAAACK I'm tired.

Pwned by early flights and time zone shifts. :(

[ZTWsquared]

tdot-zx3,Oct 24 2005, 07: Wrote:People who do not look at this war from 2 sides are IGNORANT ASSHOLES from my opinion. ...

If you dont like that opinion.. Go f uck yourself.

Look in the mirror son because the only one here with a closed mind is you ... and frankly I could even deal with that if you were able to put two cogent ideas together; but all I'm seeing is a lot of anger wrapped up in half-baked "truths" and spewed out in rambling rants ... and IMO that's part of the problem not part of the solution.

You have no idea who I am, who I've spoken to or what I've written on this subject ... and yet you're ready to dismiss me and others in this thread as uncaring idiots who just don't "get it" like you do. Well it's your loss.

If you have any interest in convincing others that your ideas are right ... then open your mind to the idea that just maybe there are other people who can teach you something of value. You might also think about taking your head out of your ass and putting a civil tonque in it.

Sorry NOS ... I thought it was an excellent question and a great opportunity for a thoughtul discussion. My apologies for whatever role I played in taking it off course.

[tdot-zx3]

1. Lol I never called you an idiot... if you read my post you would see that im not reffering to you at all based on certain things I said and previous things you said... Lets put 2 and 2 together, you dont fit into the catagory I made. So therefore your taking offence to nothing and still mad at my sarcasm... =P

2. Im very open minded on the subject .. for me to look at it from both sides I have to be. I dont think me dismissing people who cant think for themselves as being anything I want to call them is close minded.... Infact, they are being so themselves for not thinking. Isnt that right? I would think so. "If you sit and believe everything the TV says, your pretty close minded". Im fairly sure that works.

3. I asked you a bunch of questions in my writtings up there... Answer them why dont you? If I had dismissed you like you say... I wouldnt have asked them and taken the time to write them out would I have. Instead of a thesaurus... Maybe you should go look stuff up in the dictionary now? See it works both ways... Theres no reason for me to do this though... Just like there wasnt any reason for you to in the first place. ;)

Remember this is the internet man.... youre the one being the baby now and taking everything I wrote personally when most is not even directed at you! I have no idea where you went with your last response here.... but you're way off.

Cheers man.

[NOS2Go4Me]

I understand the matter has a lot of people riled. If we all step back and put on our rational hats... this will come out ok. Nobody needs to apologize for having an opinion or defending their point of view... however mutual respect is always a good thing.

I've tried to discount the media coverage I've seen so far as partisian and biased. I've always tried to keep an open mind. However, unfortunately for me, I can't bring myself to even remotely trust Al-Jazeera. The US "dog and pony show"s the troops helping people, Al Jazeera "dog and pony show"s the dead and the wounded, all without offering an alternative. It's also funny how every injured kid I've seen on there has been injured by the US... so the insurgent suicide bombers never hit their own? :huh:

Anyways, I really do wish the war would stop tomorrow and that the people of Iraq could go on with their lives. (cue Ms America theme) :P

Seriously, they're screwed over there. The UN needs to step in and take responsibility for the scene, even if they didn't start it. The world will have a much easier time with the fact the UN is calling the shots rather than the US. We don't need UN "vote observers", we need a UN command framework where EVERYONE reports to them and noone else.

Whether the US will take that lying down is another story. If they believe their own spin and press, they will.

[ZTWsquared]

If you accept that strategically and militarily the U.S. has already achieved their objectives in Iraq (regime change, security from WMD) announced as the end of major combat operations, then what's keeping them there?

3 things IMO ... their need to continue working towards the publicly stated objective of "freedom" for the Iraqi people, their responsibilities under the Geneva Convention with respect to an occupying army's duty to protect citizenry (ironic, I know), and of course the American/Bush need to "win" a battle in the fight against terrorism.

So what's it going to take to get the American's to leave? Wouldn't the institution of a proper civil authority and reasonable safety and security for Iraqi citizens be their cue to go?

So why would any sane Iraqi intent on having the Americans out of their country even show a weapon, let alone kill Americans and Iraqi civilians? Wouldn't an Iraqi intent on freeing his country of Americans do what a lot of Iraqis are already doing and try to rebuild the infrastructure or join the police force? And yet it is these people who seem to be the targets of the insurgents.

I think we are being pretty naive if we think that everyone bearing arms in Iraq is either a malicious American or a noble Iraqi freedom fighter.

In a part of the world where lawlessness and corruption is far more the norm than here, I think the safer bet is this: there are significant numbers of armed Iraqis who are indeed just criminals ... people and organizations who are thriving in the chaos and working to keep it chaotic ... and the average American soldier in Iraq just wants to survive, keep out of trouble and get the hell home.

Did the Americans make a huge mistake in invading? Yes ... and I've said so from the beginning. NOS's characterization of Pandora's box was right on. They went in for the wrong reasons and at best with the wrong intel and at worst, ignoring the right intel. And their so-called exit plan assumed an awful lot that simply wasn't reasonable to assume.

Was their invasion illegal? Without explicit U.N. sanction I think it was. Is that academic now? Yes.

Are horrific numbers of innocent Iraqi's dying every day? Yes ... 1 is too many ... but the Americans are not the only ones killing Iraqis ... Iraqis are killing more Iraqis than coalition soldiers ... and if the Americans left tomorrow the killing would continue unabated and probably even escalate.

And if you think otherwise than you probably don't know the history of this country / region. Saddam alone was the cause of death for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (he basically flushed a whole generation of young men down the toilet) and that doesn't even consider the quietly bloody rule of the Hashemites, or the overthrow of Qassim, the bloody rule of the brothers Arif or even their overthrow at the hands of the Ba'athists.

Speaking of which ... the only people in Iraq who will miss Saddam are the hardcore Ba'athists and the wealthy Sunni's they co-opted. Do the Iraqis want the Americans out? Yes, with a vengeance ... but that doesn't mean they miss Saddam.

The U.N. probably does have a role to play but it won't be until a relatively toothless force will be able to survive on its own ... and I don't think that will be for a while. At its best the U.N. can apply the political pressure needed to get all countries aligned in working towards a safe Iraq. We haven't even discussed how the Saudi's were complicit in the American plans to invade ... but that's for another thread.

As ironic as this seems, I think the only chance the average Iraqi has now for a decent future is in the Americans' willingness to stay the course in helping to build Iraqi security forces that on their own can take on the insurgents (whatever their motives) and keep the streets there relatively safe.

There are a lot of people in Iraq killing people and blowing things up to prevent that from happening. You may refuse to call them insurgents if you want ... but I don't know how you could even consider calling them freedom fighters.

The nobility in Iraq IMO is in the average guy or gal risking their life to swing a pickaxe or man a firehose, drive an ambulance ... and especially the guy willing to sign up to be an Iraqi policeman.

Just my .02.