EPTUS pulling out of Iraq - Page 12
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
JiYan
United States3668 Posts
| ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:31 docvoc wrote: I like how all the people from other nations on here are commenting about how wrong we were to be there when most were in complete agreeance after 9/11. its interesting to see how fast public opinion changes after a war. Its good news, but until they say, "mission accomplished" i don't believe it. Why are you bringing up 11th September when that had literally nothing to do with the Iraq War? Furthermore, every country I know of had a majority against invading Iraq. Even the UK, America's biggest ally in it, had about a million people protesting against it (and I was there) with the majority against the invasion according to every poll I saw. Where do you get your patently wrong information? | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:31 docvoc wrote: I like how all the people from other nations on here are commenting about how wrong we were to be there when most were in complete agreeance after 9/11. its interesting to see how fast public opinion changes after a war. Its good news, but until they say, "mission accomplished" i don't believe it. The 9/11 war was in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with that, and was condemned by most countries from the get go, and also by the UN. It was technically the same war crime that Hitler commited when he invaded Poland. I don't know where you got the idea that you were backed up. The UK isn't all other nations, even though that might be your world view. There are 196~ countries in the world. The US and the UK are two of them. Do you watch Fox News? Obviously a couple more supported it. Denmark for instance, but all in all it was condemned. I'm pretty sure Bush could be summoned to the court in Haag for war crimes? | ||
|
Thebbeuttiffulland
Brazil288 Posts
 | ||
|
fant0m
964 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:44 FuzzyJAM wrote: Why are you bringing up 11th September when that had literally nothing to do with the Iraq War? Probably because we've been in Iraq so long that there are people who are now 18-19 and don't have any memory of the debate/invasions that happened in 2001 and 2003. There are plenty of people 15-17 on the internet/playing SC2 as well, they would have been 5-8 years old when we invaded Afganistan and Iraq. I feel old..... | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:51 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: well we all know that usa cant live long enough without war so they will find another country It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's. | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote: It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's. Wasn't Saddam places there by the US though? I just hope they don't invade Sweden. We do have high taxes, so at a glance we might be considered a communism, and we all know communisms cause problems since the 50's. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
Because I believed Bush when he said on TV 'I know that they have weapons of mass destruction'. More fool me ... I supported, and continue to support, going into Afghanistan. Because they were behind 9/11. I didn't and don't support our actions in Libya because I feel they are none of our business. Either way: getting out of Iraq is good news for pretty much everyone, except maybe Iraqi police officers ... | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:59 aebriol wrote: I supported the war in Iraq 100% when it started. Because I believed Bush when he said on TV 'I know that they have weapons of mass destruction'. More fool me ... I supported, and continue to support, going into Afghanistan. Because they were behind 9/11. I didn't and don't support our actions in Libya because I feel they are none of our business. Either way: getting out of Iraq is good news for pretty much everyone, except maybe Iraqi police officers ... You do know that they found old chemical weapons, right? And that Saddam Hussein was giving $10k to every suicide bomber's family who killed people in Israel? | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On October 22 2011 12:00 0neder wrote: As long as Iraq remains stable and free of corruption and violence, okay, but wisdom dictates that President Obama probably did it for political reasons. You can spin it one of two ways: 1) He finally managed to get the troops home. Well done. 2) He tried to keep troops there to stabilize the nation, but was too inept to actually manage to get a deal so he fucked up and is trying to sell it as a victory. Pathetic. Whichever way you want ... | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On October 22 2011 12:03 0neder wrote: You do know that they found old chemical weapons, right? And that Saddam Hussein was giving $10k to every suicide bomber's family who killed people in Israel? Him supporting suicide bombers is something I really don't think is any sort of WMD. And the old chemical weapons were useless and known about, and was not what Bush referred to when he said WMD. He fucked up - he pretty much admitted it too. In that he shouldn't have said 'known' but 'sources indicate' which was the truth - and the sources was wrong. That 'we found some old chemical weapons' is an excuse only used by die hard republicans that can't admit that - at times - both sides can be wrong. | ||
|
Darkalbino
Australia410 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States User was warned for this post | ||
|
xevis
United States218 Posts
| ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On October 22 2011 12:03 0neder wrote: You do know that they found old chemical weapons, right? And that Saddam Hussein was giving $10k to every suicide bomber's family who killed people in Israel? Saddam was placed and funded by the US. If you should invade anyone, invade the person behind that decision's home and bring him to court. I rather smell a heavy odour of oil when it comes to the reasons behind the war. The occupation of Palestine is another illegitimate war that there's no need to bring in to the discussion right now imo. | ||
|
LoneWolf.Alpha-
123 Posts
Bush's re-election based on getting into Iraq. Obama's re-election based on getting out of Iraq. | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:56 OsoVega wrote: It's not a matter of "finding another country" to wage arbitrary war against. It's a matter of declaring war against a country which has been giving the US more and more reasons and justification to invade them since the 50's. Iraq was invaded around 15 years after the US was in direct alliance with it, providing military support whilst they were engaged in an active war with Iran. This was after the US supported the Ba'ath party (i.e. the ruling party that was later so evil it had to be deposed) in their bid to take power and throughout its rule. The reason they supported it was because they disliked Iran's government, the one that had deposed the American-implemented regime. American relations only really soured only after the annexation of Kuwait, in 1990 - 30-40 years after the date you're talking about. The UN, with the US leading, repelled Iraq and put heavy sanctions on it as punishment/in an attempt to prevent future problems. They stopped their WMD programs and that was that, at least in theory, until the US and UK lied about them not stopping WMD programs and invaded illegally. The claim that it was 60 years of Iraq doing "bad stuff" (whatever that might be) until the US finally stopped them is laughable. Please educate yourself on the history of a region before posting; it's not black and white by any means - pretty much every country who has ever had any involvement, including the US, has done pretty terrible things in the Middle East. | ||
|
PhoenixDark
United States286 Posts
| ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On October 22 2011 12:09 Euronyme wrote: Saddam was placed and funded by the US. If you should invade anyone, invade the person behind that decision's home and bring him to court. I rather smell a heavy odour of oil when it comes to the reasons behind the war. The occupation of Palestine is another illegitimate war that there's no need to bring in to the discussion right now imo. At the time we obviously got into bed with someone we didn't quite understand. It's not like just because people put someone into power that when that person ends up becoming a reprehensible person the people who put him into power in the first place is at complete fault and not allowed to do anything to try to right the situation. Which country can say that they've never been allies with some other country with a reprehensible leader? | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37058 Posts
US soldiers back home baby~! | ||
| ||
