Why did we go to war? (Messiah, America, religion, divine)

[Feathers in Hair]

Originally Posted by Theodore

Diverting attention away from what the President has to say by criticizing his delivery or denying substance is typical of someone who can’t refute the message. There is more substance in one of Bush’s speeches than all of Clinton’s fuzzy-feel-good talks combined.

But there is no substance! I don't care if a guy can barely pronounce his own name and can't pronounce words over three syllables (I'm not saying that Bush falls into that category- if I was having to address so many people so often, I would be doing that), you can still differentiate between when a person says something new and insightful and when they spout tripe.

Okay... *calms self down* I think I may need to step out of the Politics threads for awhile.

[Scuba Pete]

So EEWRED,

what terrorist elements that were a part of 9/11 were we trying to eradicate in Iraq?

Feathers,

aren't you glad that -I- don't get that worked up about politics!

[robtex]

Originally Posted by EEWRED

Did I say Iraq was our enemy? If I ever came across as labeling everone in Iraq as our enemy, that is not my intent and it is certainly not my belief. However, our enemy (terrorism)is in Iraq now and we are there to face that enemy. I do not think that Iraq is our enemy and I do not believe that they hate us. I believe that they are better off now then they were because they have a hope that they did not have before we were there. They have a promise of freedom and prosperity that they have not had before and it is because we went and gave it to them.

You label Iraq as the enemy by labelling them an institution of terroism and acting accordingly. You cannot segregate the idea from the action. If you invade on the premise that terrorist operate there you invade the WHOLE country not just the "terrorist" part of it.

Secondly, they do have a goverment in the works that is better than the one before we jumped in but at what price? I am not a believer in the idea that the "ends justify the means". Doesn't mean I am expecting you to reject that notion too (or even know if you do or don't) but I think the meathod used could have and should have been more policical and economical than miltaristic in application.

Lastly there is not a uniform hate or non-hate of the USA but a segregation of the popluation that leans both ways for various reason varying from loss of family or home to gain of economics. The bigger and more important question I think is to ask "what meathods would have lead the least amount of dissantance and unhappness to the people of Iraq." I don't see how the answer to that question could have been an invasion preceeded by heavy bombings on major cities in Iraq.

[huajiro]

Originally Posted by jamaesi

... Obviously you've never read the Quran or you would know that that's not in it.

Here, have a Snope's article.

Obviously you didn't read my post....I said a friend sent it....I was sharing it.

[BUDDY]

Originally Posted by robtex

You label Iraq as the enemy by labelling them an institution of terroism and acting accordingly. You cannot segregate the idea from the action. If you invade on the premise that terrorist operate there you invade the WHOLE country not just the "terrorist" part of it.

As I have pointed out, there is a distinct difference between why we went and why we are there. The terrorists are trying to prevent a democracy from forming and most of them are not Iraqi. From the news reports I have seen, most of them are Syrian, Jordanian and Iranian. We are not there to fight Iraq, we are there to ends terrorism. Terrorists are the enemy. Terrorist are the ones we declared war on right after 9/11 (NetDoc).

Originally Posted by robtex

Secondly, they do have a goverment in the works that is better than the one before we jumped in but at what price? I am not a believer in the idea that the "ends justify the means". Doesn't mean I am expecting you to reject that notion too (or even know if you do or don't) but I think the meathod used could have and should have been more policical and economical than miltaristic in application.

I think the juice is worth the squeeze. In the big picture of things, our being there, while causing death and destruction because that is what armies are made for, saves lives. It is a shame that the terrorists are still wreaking havic on bystanders, but I think it would be much worse if were not there.

Originally Posted by robtex

Lastly there is not a uniform hate or non-hate of the USA but a segregation of the popluation that leans both ways for various reason varying from loss of family or home to gain of economics. The bigger and more important question I think is to ask "what meathods would have lead the least amount of dissantance and unhappness to the people of Iraq." I don't see how the answer to that question could have been an invasion preceeded by heavy bombings on major cities in Iraq.

The I think we will have to agree to disagree. And thank you for the great rebuttal.

[Scuba Pete]

I think that there is a vast difference between terrorists and insugents. We have INVADED their country and , go figure, some of their patriots resent our presense and don't buy into our non-altruistic motives. In Iraq, WE are the terrorists. WE are causing the havoc in that country by our very presense.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

I think that there is a vast difference between terrorists and insugents.

Are we the terrorists in Afghanistan?

[Scuba Pete]

To my knowledge, we only engaged Al Queada in Afghanistan, and not the entire country. We were surgical as opposed to toppling an entire government. No power vaccuum, no large scale continuation. I see a HUGE difference between the two, and even think that Shrub was justified in his actions there.