Iraq, What's The Answer?

Users who are viewing this thread

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
Ok, I know the rights and wrongs of the war have been debated to death here, we can't change the past. So, looking to the future how do you see the best way to go? Saddam was an evil dictactor but he kept the country together, all be it by tyranny. Now it's in a state now that fear has been lifted due to religious nut war lords. Personally I think the best way to achieve stability now is to have is split into two countries, a Sunni one and a Sheite one. What do you see as the answer?
 
  • 209
    Replies
  • 4K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Keight

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,443
Reaction score
26
Tokenz
175.38z
No matter what answer they come up with there will always being war of sorts in said countries.. I agree splitting the two would be the best option but i don't know if i see it settling things down
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
A multi-state deal, with each faction having its own state. Most of the problems in Iraq are because a bunch of allies sat down after WW2 and traced lines to carve up sections of the middle east at random, not paying attention to the various sects dwelling there.
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
President Bush did make a bad mistake in the war on terrorism. But the mistake was not his decision to go to war in Iraq .Bush's mistake came in his belief that this country is the same one his father fought for in WWII. It is not.

Back then, they had just come out of a vicious depression. The country was steeled by the hardship of that depression, but they still believed fervently in this country. They knew that the people had elected their leaders, so it was the people's duty to back those leaders.

Therefore, when the war broke out the people came together, rallied behind, and stuck with their leaders, whether they had voted for them or not or whether the war was going badly or not.And war was just as distasteful and the anguish just as great then as it is today. Often there were more casualties in one day in WWII than we have had in the entire Iraq war. But that did not matter. The people stuck with the President because it was their patriotic duty. Americans put aside their differences in WWII and worked together to win that war.

Everyone from every strata of society, from young to old pitched in. Small children pulled little wagons around to gather scrap metal for the war effort. Grade school students saved their pennies to buy stamps for war bonds to help the effort.

Men who were too old or medically lied about their age or condition trying their best to join the military. Women doubled their work to keep things going at home. Harsh rationing of everything from gasoline to soap, to butter was imposed, yet there was very little complaining.

You never heard prominent people on the radio belittling the President. Interestingly enough in those days there were no fat cat actors and entertainers who ran off to visit and fawn over dictators of hostile countries and complain to them about our President. Instead, they made upbeat films and entertained our troops to help the troops' morale. And a bunch even enlisted.And imagine this: Teachers in schools actually started the day off with a Pledge of Allegiance, and with prayers for our country and our troops!

Back then, no newspaper would have dared point out certain weak spots in our cities where bombs could be set off to cause the maximum damage. No newspaper would have dared complain about what we were doing to catch spies.

A newspaper would have been laughed out of existence if it had complained that German or Japanese soldiers were being "tortured" by being forced to wear women's underwear, or subjected to interrogation by a woman, or being scared by a dog or did not have air conditioning.

There were a lot of things different back then. We were not subjected to a constant bombardment of pornography, perversion and promiscuity in movies or on radio. We did not have legions of crackheads, dope pushers and armed gangs roaming our streets

No, President Bush did not make a mistake in his handling of terrorism. He made the mistake of believing that we still had the courage and fortitude of our fathers. He believed that this was still the country that our fathers fought so dearly to preserve.

It is not the same country. It is now a cross between Sodom and Gomorra and the land of Oz. We did unite for a short while after 911, but our attitude changed when we found out that defending our country would require some sacrifices.

We are in great danger. The terrorists are fanatic Muslims. They believe that it is okay, even their duty, to kill anyone who will not convert to Islam. It has been estimated that about one-third or over three hundred million Muslims are sympathetic to the terrorists cause...Hitler and Tojo combined did not have nearly that many potential recruits.

So...we either win it - or lose it - and you ain't gonna like losing.

America is not at war. The military is at war. America is at the mall.
 

COOL_BREEZE2

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Divide and rule may cause further prejudice.

Not sure I have the solution to the problem but perhaps a fair and caring goverment, one not concerned with raping the country's wealth for personal gain and power.......and a greater understanding of it's peoples to foster peace and harmony amongst it's bredrin toward the end in mind would help.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
It just kind of reminds me of N Ireland. Its been dragging on there for years and it's extremely hard to gain peace if two lots of religious fanatics who hate each others guts are forced to share the same country.:(
 

DannyK

New Member
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I still fail to see what the war in Iraq has got to do with terrorism, Bin Laden hated Saddam and his regime.

Yup. [SIZE=-1]al-Qaeda [/SIZE]attacked America, not Iraq. Iraq isn't even about terrorism!

But don't you think its better to go after terrorism than to drop your head, sigh and give up completely? Iraq has got the stink of terrorism all over it, there is no doubt there. Its not like we are over there shooting up civilians purposly or obliterating the army of a lesser power because we think the government isn't giving us names, these people have had nothing, have nothing and will never have anything if the proper steps are not taken. If anything going over there has helped at least a little bit, everyone always looks over the fact that there is at least some progress. If our troops are being attacked by terrorists in Iraq then I think its important to be there. There is no country called al-Qaeda so naturally we are going to be in some other country looking for the extremists who have been brainwashed into thinking that their god wants them to crash our airplanes and blow up our buildings killing thousands of innocent lives in the process. In my personal opinion some sort of initiative to solving this global problem is better than none.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
But don't you think its better to go after terrorism than to drop your head, sigh and give up completely? Iraq has got the stink of terrorism all over it, there is no doubt there. Its not like we are over there shooting up civilians purposly or obliterating the army of a lesser power because we think the government isn't giving us names, these people have had nothing, have nothing and will never have anything if the proper steps are not taken. If anything going over there has helped at least a little bit, everyone always looks over the fact that there is at least some progress. If our troops are being attacked by terrorists in Iraq then I think its important to be there. There is no country called al-Qaeda so naturally we are going to be in some other country looking for the extremists who have been brainwashed into thinking that their god wants them to crash our airplanes and blow up our buildings killing thousands of innocent lives in the process. In my personal opinion some sort of initiative to solving this global problem is better than none.

Please show me some evidence that al Qaeda existed in Iraq when we invaded? Especially seeing that Bin Laden publically denounced Saddam and his regime as infidels! There is a lot of evidence of al Qaeda activity in Saudi Arabia, why do you think that Bush won't even denounce a 6 month prison sentence and lashing imposed on a woman there for being raped?
 

All Else Failed

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,205
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.00z
But don't you think its better to go after terrorism than to drop your head, sigh and give up completely? Iraq has got the stink of terrorism all over it, there is no doubt there. Its not like we are over there shooting up civilians purposly or obliterating the army of a lesser power because we think the government isn't giving us names, these people have had nothing, have nothing and will never have anything if the proper steps are not taken. If anything going over there has helped at least a little bit, everyone always looks over the fact that there is at least some progress. If our troops are being attacked by terrorists in Iraq then I think its important to be there. There is no country called al-Qaeda so naturally we are going to be in some other country looking for the extremists who have been brainwashed into thinking that their god wants them to crash our airplanes and blow up our buildings killing thousands of innocent lives in the process. In my personal opinion some sort of initiative to solving this global problem is better than none.
You don't need to invade every country that has supported terrorism to keep your country safe from terrorism. All preemptive strikes like iraq do, is spawn more hate for us and more terrorists. We should have just concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan. We also have the stink of terrorism all over us. We've funded and trained many Islamic groups, and still do today. Hell, by the government's definition of terrorism, all the individuals who took part in the American revolution would be considered terrorists.


I mean, can you even blame them for fighting us? I'm not condoning their actions or saying they are right, but if some military invaded your backyard you'd be doing the same thing.
 

COOL_BREEZE2

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,337
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Yup. [SIZE=-1]al-Qaeda [/SIZE]attacked America, not Iraq. Iraq isn't even about terrorism!

But don't you think its better to go after terrorism than to drop your head, sigh and give up completely? Iraq has got the stink of terrorism all over it, there is no doubt there............

*Ahem* Welcome to the jungle DannyK. Hope you got plenty of time. :)

Please show me some evidence that al Qaeda existed in Iraq when we invaded? Especially seeing that Bin Laden publically denounced Saddam and his regime as infidels! There is a lot of evidence of al Qaeda activity in Saudi Arabia, why do you think that Bush won't even denounce a 6 month prison sentence and lashing imposed on a woman there for being raped?

You don't need to invade every country that has supported terrorism to keep your country safe from terrorism. All preemptive strikes like iraq do, is spawn more hate for us and more terrorists. We should have just concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan. We also have the stink of terrorism all over us. We've funded and trained many Islamic groups, and still do today. Hell, by the government's definition of terrorism, all the individuals who took part in the American revolution would be considered terrorists.

I mean, can you even blame them for fighting us? I'm not condoning their actions or saying they are right, but if some military invaded your backyard you'd be doing the same thing.

Give Jack he jacket. Good point.
 

DannyK

New Member
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Please show me some evidence that al Qaeda existed in Iraq when we invaded? Especially seeing that Bin Laden publically denounced Saddam and his regime as infidels! There is a lot of evidence of al Qaeda activity in Saudi Arabia, why do you think that Bush won't even denounce a 6 month prison sentence and lashing imposed on a woman there for being raped?

You don't need to invade every country that has supported terrorism to keep your country safe from terrorism. All preemptive strikes like iraq do, is spawn more hate for us and more terrorists. We should have just concentrated our efforts in Afghanistan. We also have the stink of terrorism all over us. We've funded and trained many Islamic groups, and still do today. Hell, by the government's definition of terrorism, all the individuals who took part in the American revolution would be considered terrorists.


I mean, can you even blame them for fighting us? I'm not condoning their actions or saying they are right, but if some military invaded your backyard you'd be doing the same thing.

An organization like al-Qaeda is not going to be confined to one spot, Bin Laden himself was from Sudan. Knowing the state of the region in my mind there was reason to believe that the area had some of the people we were looking for. As far as invasion goes, if you never look how are you going to find what you're looking for. Its not us that are spawning the terrorists, its other terrorists who are playing on the emotions and beliefs of the people of the area. They are being brainwashed into believing that Allah wants them to blow themselves up for the nation of Islam. Even if we were not there they would still be leading unprovoked attacks on the rest of the world. If the leaders are not found then it will never stop. Also, Americans were revolutionaries not terrorists. I agree that the two are only titles and the ideals behind them walk almost hand in hand, but fighting to make a new independent nation with your people's best interest in mind is way different than tricking your people (even worse, saying there are virgins or whatever are waiting for you after death) into committing suicide for the purpose of killing innocent people that for some reason you view as enemies. If you think about it you'll find its completely different.
 

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
An organization like al-Qaeda is not going to be confined to one spot, Bin Laden himself was from Sudan. Knowing the state of the region in my mind there was reason to believe that the area had some of the people we were looking for.

Are you serious? Where's your proof? There was more evidence of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia but I didn't see anyone wanted us to invade there. Once again, Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda!
 
78,875Threads
2,185,389Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top