what is the meaning of this war?

April 21, 2008, 6:41 PM

ok i know that there is a thread that talks about The Execution of Saddam

Hussein but that isn't what i am going to talk about

what i am going to talk about is that the reason starting the war in iraq is to

capture Saddam Hussein right?

well thay captured him and Executed him but we still hear that the war in

iraq hasn't finished no the question is why?

we all know that when a solider achives has objectives he returnes home

becuse his job there has ended.

my opinion is that there is something big is going on in there. it is much

bigger than Executing Saddam Hussein.

so what do you think?

April 21, 2008, 6:51 PM

The conventional "war" in Iraq ended when Saddam was deposed.

As for the point of the war, I think that there could be an economic case, if a hard to defend economic case, and of course Hussein's abuse of human rights. However, funny how the US and UK are playing best buddies with other tyrannical regimes. Double standards, or what? Really though, it was an attempt to make it look as if action was being taken over the 9/11 terrorist attacks. If there really were WMDs, then by all means, action should have been taken. However, the military intelligence was spun and twisted to meet sinister political aims.

Now, it's a war of attrition and ideology which cannot be won by sheer force of arms, it seems.

April 22, 2008, 4:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colonel Volgin

The conventional "war" in Iraq ended when Saddam was deposed.

I'd say it ended earlier, like when they captured baghdad( don't know how it's fucking spelt, so no one comment on it, or tell me how it's spelt correctly

)

the cause of the war and the reasons behind it are more complicated then to get rid of saddam. However, I don't intend to discuss them here.

The thing is, by removing Saddam, there is now a power vacuum in Iraq, which is being filled by Shia muslims mostly. They kill Sunnis when they see fit, Saddam was pro sunni, even though they are in the minority. So part of this is just revenge, also they don't get along, like Prods and catholics in NI.

America is rtying to stabilise Iraq. Bush and co are getting lots of shit from people, because they are complaining because US and colalition troops are being killed. Pretty fucking selfish imo as they are helping people in Iraq but whatever.

Yes there is something much bigger going on, as to what, we can only speculate.

Oh and cerri only merged the threads so she could have an extra poast

April 22, 2008, 8:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iago

I'd say it ended earlier, like when they captured baghdad( don't know how it's fucking spelt, so no one comment on it, or tell me how it's spelt correctly

)

the cause of the war and the reasons behind it are more complicated then to get rid of saddam. However, I don't intend to discuss them here.

The thing is, by removing Saddam, there is now a power vacuum in Iraq, which is being filled by Shia muslims mostly. They kill Sunnis when they see fit, Saddam was pro sunni, even though they are in the minority. So part of this is just revenge, also they don't get along, like Prods and catholics in NI.

America is rtying to stabilise Iraq. Bush and co are getting lots of shit from people, because they are complaining because US and colalition troops are being killed. Pretty fucking selfish imo as they are helping people in Iraq but whatever.

Yes there is something much bigger going on, as to what, we can only speculate.

Oh and cerri only merged the threads so she could have an extra poast

are you saying that bush left the army there becuse iraq can be invaded or simply influenced by a country around it. so there job is to portect it from the invaders.

what i think about that is this:

the US thinks that the other countrys may be the invaders. but the people of iraq are saying that the US is the invader

April 22, 2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colonel Volgin

The conventional "war" in Iraq ended when Saddam was deposed.

As for the point of the war, I think that there could be an economic case, if a hard to defend economic case, and of course Hussein's abuse of human rights. However, funny how the US and UK are playing best buddies with other tyrannical regimes. Double standards, or what? Really though, it was an attempt to make it look as if action was being taken over the 9/11 terrorist attacks. If there really were WMDs, then by all means, action should have been taken. However, the military intelligence was spun and twisted to meet sinister political aims.

Now, it's a war of attrition and ideology which cannot be won by sheer force of arms, it seems.

So. If you're going to make ridiculous statements, you're going to have to be able to back them up with empirical proof. So, with what regimes that commit mass human rights violations is the United States friendly? Last I checked, Saddam Hussein was beyond tyrannical; he was guilty of using chemical weapons against an ethnic minority group. So, what regimes did you have in mind?

Anyway, Iraq is a very complicated war. It was very poorly managed, that much is obvious. However, we're in it now, so we can't just pretend it never happened. God only knows what Bush was thinking, if he was thinking at all. I believe after 9/11, he made the allegation that Saddam Hussein was helping Al Qaeda (which is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, to be quite honest). I think what he really wanted to do was establish a democracy in Iraq, and have it serve as a shining example for the middle east. I believe his hope was that other middle eastern states would see the success of Iraq, and Islamism would wither and die. Okay, so it didn't exactly work out that way. Obviously. For one, way to target a completely SECULAR government. We're attempting to fight radical Islamism, and Bush overthrows one of the few secular middle eastern governments. Brilliant. But I digress. Severe mistakes were made. Now we're involved in a civil war of sorts. And I would argue that it's no longer a war (America v Iraq), per se, but a policing mission. I think it would be a terrible idea to pull out all of the troops now. I really worry about what would happen to Iraq if that were to happen. I feel as though it would break down into little factions who would continue fighting amongst each other. Surrounding countries would probably get involved. Radicalism would run rampant. Al Qaeda (and other radical Islamist groups) would probably reestablish their bases within Baghdad or the surrounding area. Because, guess what? There's no more secular government to persecute them! However, I don't believe that the United States should necessarily attempt to set up a democracy. Let's be honest here, democracy is not going to work for everyone. It will probably fail in the middle east. I don't think that the United States is an "invader" necessarily, but I can understand if Iraqi citizens feel that way. I think the United States means well, but all of its well-meaning actions have been poorly and awkwardly executed. To be quite honest, Iraq really isn't much of a country. Its borders were arbitrarily drawn by a European power a hundred or so years ago. As a result, there are many different peoples-- who don't necessarily get along well-- who are crammed into a country together. Is it so shocking that it's embroiled in a civil war? Many of these different groups want their own country. The United States, of course, had to get involved....so here we are. We can't really leave, but no one wants to stay. The United States is just trying to protects its interests: namely security. If we leave completely, like I said before, extemeist groups will reestablish themselves and probably attempt to attack the United States (or another western nation) again.

PS: I don't think this thread should have been merged with the other one...it's kind of a different subject.

April 22, 2008, 11:58 AM

Ridiculous? I'm afraid not. Though, perhaps "best buddies" was a little ill-chosen.
Well, at the time of the Iraq invasion, the UK was still being quite friendly with Mugabe's regime.
And at the moment, there is little criticism of China's human rights record by senior US and UK politicians, and little is done about it. Don't forget that the UK and US are also using Saudi Arabia, which has the most appaling treatment of women in the world, by bolstering its armed forces to meet those of Iran. Or that western nations have not taken action in many other situations, when they could have. No doubt, China is more complicated than most, as it has massive armed forces and an economic stranglehold on the west, but to simply not criticise... reminds one of allied appeasement of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Not to mention that China appears to have strong influence over its satellite nations... namely Vietnam, North Korea, Burma, Cambodia, etc, and thus those nations are not going to face western military action any time soon.

I think that the Iraq war was neccessary, but the way evidence was exaggerated, and the lack of military intervention in similar nations, leaves something to be desired. Yet again, most wars aren't over human rights abuses. An illusion of "moral intervention" is often just used to convince the dumb masses into supporting them. It mostly works, whether a war is "neccessary" or not. Add to that, the conflict between the west and Islamic radicalism... whichever is the current downright mortal enemy or scapegoat, and you get quite the following from the masses.
You're right, the current political situation is very complicated, even confusing.

April 22, 2008, 12:15 PM

you are right colonel volgin

The war has no purpose other than oil. This "war on terror" is a horseshit cover meant to convince this dumb**** nation that it's the right thing to do.I'd go so far as to say that 9/11 was orchestrated in order to give the US a reason to invade.

Think about it: If the US went over there as a retaliation to the attack on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and (potentially) the White House, then why the **** haven't thay caught Osama Bin Laden? The minute thay got over there, he was forgotten about and suddenly Saddam Hussein became the bad guy. Why? We had not heard a peep from his *** in twelve years. And suddenly he's a threat? Give me a goddamn break.

April 22, 2008, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by old snake

you are right colonel volgin

The war has no purpose other than oil. This "war on terror" is a horseshit cover meant to convince this dumb**** nation that it's the right thing to do.I'd go so far as to say that 9/11 was orchestrated in order to give the US a reason to invade.

Think about it: If the US went over there as a retaliation to the attack on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and (potentially) the White House, then why the **** haven't thay caught Osama Bin Laden? The minute thay got over there, he was forgotten about and suddenly Saddam Hussein became the bad guy. Why? We had not heard a peep from his *** in twelve years. And suddenly he's a threat? Give me a goddamn break.

Everyone knows the Jews did WTC.
That is a load of shit, Bush may have been negligent about it(I don't know enough about it to be sure) but he did not say "HEY U A-RAB GUISE HERE R SUM PLANEZ. KRASH DEM INTO DEM TOWERZ IN NYC DEN I KAN HAS MY WOAR ON TERRAH"
See? It's fucking stupid.
Oil was probably a motivator for the invasion, but I and many other people have may the point that war is not entirely altruistic. Infact it probably never is.
So part of the reason they invaded was for oil. What about England and Northern Island, it's a country trying to still be an imperial power. Not a worthy motive imo.

Saddam was a mini fucking Stalin, good fucking ridence as far as I'm concerned.
Have you ever tried to find someone who doesn't want to be found? No, and it's highly unlikely that the US will find Osama, let alone capture him.

Quote:

I don't think that the United States is an "invader" necessarily, but I can understand if Iraqi citizens feel that way

It's more of an occupation and an attempt at peace keeping. They wouldn't need to be there if they hadn't overthrown Saddam, but it's the lesser of two evils imo. Also in a war on 'terror', the US may feel obligated to remove a dictator such as Saddam.

Quote:

And at the moment, there is little criticism of China's human rights record by senior US and UK politicians, and little is done about it

Countries don't tend to get involved other country's domestic affairs if it falls short of genocide. That's why no one has told the UK to leave the Irish alone.

It's more than just Iran as well. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, the US stationed troops in Saudi, which made Israel want more arms from the US. Then Saudi decided they wanted more as well. The middle east is extremely complicated like that.

April 22, 2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iago

The middle east is extremely complicated like that.

what are you talking about?

the middle east isn't extremely complicated. most of the countrys in thhe middle east hates war and don't like to begin the attack. but they were forced to enter the war and fight to portect there country.

most of them live by this statement

" So long as we remain loyal to our countries to the end "