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

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

I see a HUGE difference between the two, ...

Thanks, NetDoc.

[Theodore]

Originally Posted by robtex

1) the 911 attack was by a religious group, as opposed to a country, with most members from afganistan including the ring leader

I think you would find that most members were from Saudi Arabia.

2) Iraq had never declared war on the USA or its interests overseas before our invasion

Wrong again. We were still at war with Iraq form Desert Storm. Saddam repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire he signed and so voided the agreement.

3) I don't see how it is possible for us to see children and elderly as "threating bad guys" yet we leveled the cities in which they lived prior to the invasion and killed thousands of them.

Show me evidence of one city we leveled prior to the invasion. We didn’t fly B-52’s over Iraq prior to our invasion. We used smart munitions to bomb very specific targets. Our policy has always been to minimize collateral damage in order to safeguard as many Iraqi civilians as possible.

4) The war is a war of economics as the prime motivator and as such seems more ethical to fight in an economical areana as opposed to a military one.

No, it’s a war of defense. If all we wanted was their oil wells, that’s all we would have taken. This war is not over oil, no matter how much you want it to be.

5) The miltary premonition you describe creates a self-fullfilling prophecy. By treating each foreign country as a prospective enemy you will create the enemies you define. However, to be fair I don't think the foreign policy is not set-up this way but more set-up to speculate parameters and risks of each country and that I find as a sound and strong tatic.

I would like to respond to this but it’s incoherent.

6) the current executive adminstation has defined the bounderies of "my god versus your god" which makes any type of common ground much more difficult to establish and from a country that is suppose to adminster secular foreign policies, a breach of seperation of church and state etiquette.

Show me some evidence of this. I have yet to see the United States forcing any religious doctrine on Iraq.

I would certainly say there was a hostile element in Iraq towards the USA before 911 but that the element was not a majority nor was it a threat to our demostic existance. Conversly speaking our invasion and occupation of their country, placing it under martial law while not black and white either is certainly a threat to their domestic existance long after their tyranical dictator was removed from office.

The United States is trying to set up a free and Democratic Iraq. Radical Islamic terrorists, with a variety of motives, are trying to destabilize that process. These terrorists are the ones that are killing the vast majority of Iraqi citizens. Whenever you hear of a car bombing in Iraq, you can be relatively certain that it was not Americans blowing themselves up.

[Theodore]

Originally Posted by FeathersinHair

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.

I picked this Bush speech at random. Why don't you read through it and tell me why it has no substance. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20050618.html

[Feathers in Hair]

Originally Posted by Theodore

I picked this Bush speech at random. Why don't you read through it and tell me why it has no substance. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20050618.html

I'm sorry- can you pick another speech? In order to discuss this particular speech, I would be tripping over the many ways in which I disagree with it, and I don't think that would help anyone understand one another. (I'm sure that would also apply to my take on most of Clinton's speeches, too.)

You know what? I'm just too tired by all the lies that are being spread by both sides, and that people are allowing their anger against political parties to swell over and affect how we treat each other on the forums. We're better than this, and my heart can't take any more hurting just now.

[BUDDY]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

Since we seem to blow up civilian and combattant alike, I am sure that there are MANY Iraquis who consider us terrorists. It's a matter of perception.

But, do you consider us terrorists? That is the question and I believe that is what your post suggests. Please explain.

[Theodore]

Originally Posted by FeathersinHair

I'm sorry- can you pick another speech? In order to discuss this particular speech, I would be tripping over the many ways in which I disagree with it, and I don't think that would help anyone understand one another. (I'm sure that would also apply to my take on most of Clinton's speeches, too.)

The question I believe was one of the existence of substance, not whether you agree with it (I assumed you wouldn’t). I’m saying that his speeches actually contain useful information, which this one does. I suppose we will now argue over the definition of “substance”.

You know what? I'm just too tired by all the lies that are being spread by both sides, and that people are allowing their anger against political parties to swell over and affect how we treat each other on the forums. We're better than this, and my heart can't take any more hurting just now.

Hey, it’s only politics. No need to take any of this personally, or too seriously. It’s just the internet. At the end of the day I would be happy to buy a round for everybody on the forum.

[Scuba Pete]

EEWRED,

I am NOT the one being bombed and straffed. Our troops are prosecuting this war in a noble fashion and merely following the orders of our warmonger president. However, my point is that the NATIVES of Iraq might very well see us AS terrorists because of the randomness of the collateral damage and because we have invaded their land. As I pointed out in an earlier thread, it is indeed a matter of perspectives.

[Ulver]

Originally Posted by Eewred

However, our enemy (terrorism)is in Iraq now and we are there to face that enemy.

Saddam was a tyrant but he was as hardly as big of a fish when it came to sponsering terrorism compared to other countries that may now be playing nice to the USA with their happy masks on. Some of our "allies" in the middle east are more of the problem.

Terrorists are in Iraq becasue they came into Iraq after Saddam's government fell. Bush is right in saying by takign the fight to them, we don't have the fight at home. MEANING that having our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan allows them to be the targets for the terrorists, while for the time being they seem to ignore directly attacking America. The soldiers are really getting screwed by our governemnt.

Originally Posted by Theodore

We didn't fly B-52's over Iraq prior to our invasion. We used smart munitions to bomb very specific targets. Our policy has always been to minimize collateral damage in order to safeguard as many Iraqi civilians as possible.

Yet don't say it's been perfect or even close to. Faulty/old information can mean that a bomb meaning to hit a government building actually hits a building converted in the past five years into an apartment.

Originally Posted by Theodore

No, it's a war of defense

The irony of that considering our biggest threats are outside of Iraq. Iraq is a distraction, hardly the solution that will prevent more 9/11's and even worse. Just wait till the Saudi/Pakistanian or perhaps even British/American born terrorist release a nuke, bought from a former Soviet general, in some city..... I don't want to even think about it, but I know it's possible.

The Cold War set the seeds for the War on Terrorism and now it's full grown.

np: God Forbid- Washed Out World

[Theodore]

Originally Posted by Ulver

Terrorists are in Iraq becasue they came into Iraq after Saddam's government fell. Bush is right in saying by takign the fight to them, we don't have the fight at home. MEANING that having our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan allows them to be the targets for the terrorists, while for the time being they seem to ignore directly attacking America. The soldiers are really getting screwed by our governemnt.

Just how do you figure the soldiers are getting screwed by our government? They are soldiers and trained to fight the enemy. It’s what they do. How can putting them in an enemy rich environment be screwing them. Talk to some of the soldiers and find out if they think that sending them to defend our country is screwing them.

Yet don't say it's been perfect or even close to. Faulty/old information can mean that a bomb meaning to hit a government building actually hits a building converted in the past five years into an apartment.

Did I ever claim perfection? Civilians are always killed in wars. Right now most of them are being killed by terrorists who target civilians specifically. I guess that’s OK by you since we must be the bad guys.

The irony of that considering our biggest threats are outside of Iraq. Iraq is a distraction, hardly the solution that will prevent more 9/11's and even worse. Just wait till the Saudi/Pakistanian or perhaps even British/American born terrorist release a nuke, bought from a former Soviet general, in some city..... I don't want to even think about it, but I know it's possible.

We haven’t had any terrorist attacks since we took the fight to the middle east. I guess it’s working.

The Cold War set the seeds for the War on Terrorism and now it's full grown.

How did you make that leap?