Americans

[empress]

I'd attack something, but I have to wait 22 more minutes until this dead beating noob times out.

[Titanic]

We should only invade Iran to get our troops out, and that is only after their Supreme Leader (Khamieni (or somethign very similar to that)) says where he is standing on this. If he say to release the troops, they will be released. If he says put them on trial or keep them hostage until we "apologise", I say send in the SAS to get the troops out.

[juggernaut17]

I am not making an analogy between wars, but between circumstances. How about I use a football game, if thats better. When the the defensive line hits the offensive line, what does the O-line do? Let them through? Of course not.

[Titanic]

I am not making an analogy between wars, but between circumstances. How about I use a football game, if thats better. When the the defensive line hits the offensive line, what does the O-line do? Let them through? Of course not.

I dont know too much about American football, but shudn the offensive line be hitting the defensive line, not the other way around?

[juggernaut17]

No, it is generally the defensive line that charges. But my point is, that both sides are gonna fight. Not just us invading and the terrorists welcoming us with open arms.

[unriggable]

Sorry, but your a f*ucking idiot. If you invade a country, are you going to call it a mistake because they fought back? Thats exactly what the terrorists are doing. Hitting us where it hurts. And these liberal P*ussys are saying that losing a single man makes a war unjustified. When we invaded Normany, and our men gun mowed down by the machine guns, did we turn around and go home? No. We fought through it. And thats what we need to do here. If you think a passifistic approach to terrorism is valid, you are vastly misstaken.

Here are the rules to invading a country:

1. You need a valid reason.

There is no reason to be in Iraq. There never was. The reason liberals are pissed off is because people die for no reason. Don't tell me that it's for freedom, there are plenty of countries that deny rights to their citizens. Don't tell me it's for WMD's, we haven't found any (they were NOT snuck into Syria, that is the most guarded border of Iraq). Don't tell me it's to remove Saddam, if it is then we also need to remove Kim Jong Il since he is worse.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Were just there for the Oil

For some reason we havent found the guy who was behind the Twin Towers attack

[unriggable]

Were just there for the Oil

For some reason we havent found the guy who was behind the Twin Towers attack

But we did find martha stewart. Wow, our priorities are top-notch.

[Guiscard]

Sorry, but your a f*ucking idiot. If you invade a country, are you going to call it a mistake because they fought back? Thats exactly what the terrorists are doing. Hitting us where it hurts. And these liberal P*ussys are saying that losing a single man makes a war unjustified. When we invaded Normany, and our men gun mowed down by the machine guns, did we turn around and go home? No. We fought through it. And thats what we need to do here. If you think a passifistic approach to terrorism is valid, you are vastly misstaken.

Did I say it was a mistake because of current casualties?

False justification for going to war. Idiot.

[juggernaut17]

But you did say, Bush promoted terrorism. But in reality they are just getting noticed more because they are "fighting back".

[Guiscard]

But you did say, Bush promoted terrorism. But in reality they are just getting noticed more because they are "fighting back".

'Noticed more'??? Come on.

The July 7th bombings in London were perpetrated specifically because the UK has forces in Iraq. The young Muslims who carried out the terrible crime felt alienated by the divisive religious rhetoric, disregarded by the us and them' attitude and angry about what they see as the occupation of a Muslim state by a foreign power who have labelled themselves as 'crusaders' (and that is a direct quote). Bush encourages terrorism because he has gone to war on false pretences and his foreign policy has alienated the large majority of the Muslim world in the process.

Would we have 'not noticed' horrendous acts of terrorism if the current international political climate were different? You have no argument (or at least you're yet to show it in this thread). Just ignorance.

[juggernaut17]

But you did say, Bush promoted terrorism. But in reality they are just getting noticed more because they are "fighting back".

'Noticed more'??? Come on.

The July 7th bombings in London were perpetrated specifically because the UK has forces in Iraq. The young Muslims who carried out the terrible crime felt alienated by the divisive religious rhetoric, disregarded by the us and them' attitude and angry about what they see as the occupation of a Muslim state by a foreign power who have labelled themselves as 'crusaders' (and that is a direct quote). Bush encourages terrorism because he has gone to war on false pretences and his foreign policy has alienated the large majority of the Muslim world in the process.

Would we have 'not noticed' horrendous acts of terrorism if the current international political climate were different? You have no argument (or at least you're yet to show it in this thread). Just ignorance.

Its hilarious how you justify my ignorance with yours. First of all, I firmly believe as the evidence suggests that the Iraqi weapons are in Syria, as the Syrians told them that they would take them. And you are clarifying what i'm saying. The terrorists have no standing army. So, they can't invade anywhere, nor would it be a smart strategic move, because of the US's superior soldiers, equipment, and tactics. Now how do they fight us? Like I said, hit us where it hurts, and where we can't defend it. Did you think for a minute that terrorist attacks would not follow our invasion?

[unriggable]

But you did say, Bush promoted terrorism. But in reality they are just getting noticed more because they are "fighting back".

Terrorism = anything that inflicts fear. Bush is a monster terrorist by that logic, not just in Iraq but also in the US.

[juggernaut17]

Terrorism: a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.

Straight from the dictionary. Get your facts straight.

[iAnonymous]

Its hilarious how you justify my ignorance with yours. First of all, I firmly believe as the evidence suggests that the Iraqi weapons are in Syria, as the Syrians told them that they would take them. And you are clarifying what i'm saying. The terrorists have no standing army. So, they can't invade anywhere, nor would it be a smart strategic move, because of the US's superior soldiers, equipment, and tactics. Now how do they fight us? Like I said, hit us where it hurts, and where we can't defend it. Did you think for a minute that terrorist attacks would not follow our invasion?

Exacly. Terrorists have no standing army. Now, why would USA invade Iraq? To kill terrorists? LOL. For MDW and such? I hope you don't think that...

Terrorism: a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.

Straight from the dictionary. Get your facts straight.

Hey, straight from the dictionary as well:

4 results for: terrorist

–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Idiot.

[juggernaut17]

The invaded Afghanistan for terrorism, and Iraq for Saddam and Nuclear weapons. Terrorists, naturally are unhappy with this, and Iran is funding them.

I strongly belief Bushes mistake was taking Saddam out of power, and most of his other criticisms are hogwash. And by the way the economy has never been higher.

[foolish_yeti]

Terrorism: a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.

Straight from the dictionary. Get your facts straight.

You know who was actually found guilty of this? The US- many cases would do, but Nicaragua was the specific one in question. The world court (international court of justice and the UN security council) found them guilty. This is by far not an aberration, but a history of foreign policy.

[s.xkitten]

Here are the rules to invading a country:

there are rules?

[iAnonymous]

The invaded Afghanistan for terrorissts

There's a huge difference between invading a country for terrorism and invading a country for terrorists.
Anyways, see what was done. They killed/captured several terrorists and bombed the country to the shit out, killing many civilians and wrecking an already wrecked country. Wohooo.

and Iraq for Saddam and Nuclear weapons.

Do you actually believe that those were the actual reasons?

Terrorists, naturally are unhappy with this,

They're unhappy, not actually "hurt".
If I were a Muslim living in the Middle East, I wouldn't be happy to know that another Muslim country was wrecked just to try to catch a bunch of terrorists either.
Indeed, Iran does fund some terrorists, apparently, but that's not the point.

I strongly belief Bushes mistake was taking Saddam out of power, and most of his other criticisms are hogwash. And by the way the economy has never been higher.

His mistake was invading Iraq. It was obvious that it would spark more terrorism and general disappointement of the world.
Terrorists are not concetrated in a single country/area, therefore invading a country to get rid of them is totally pointless.

[juggernaut17]

He didn't. And no one is trying to claim that Afghanistan was a bad idea, other than you. Even the rest of the world. And with Iraq, again, the entire world thought he had weapons, and many still do. So your telling me Bush, with his master plan hoodwinked the entire world, and made them think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Ridiculous.

[alex_white101]

the thing is you are pointlessly arguing over something that has happened, and clearly no one is willing to change their opinion no matter what anyone else says, so rather than continue this argument that can never be won, im more interested to hear what you all think should be done about terrorism and the occupation of iraq. if you devote half the energy to this topic that you have to the war in iraq well have a solution in no time

[Skittles!]

I think it was wrong that the US and other countries invaded Iraq. Sure the Weapons of Mass Destruction was a good term to put the invasion in place, they found no WMD, and then therefore was wrong to invade the country.

[Guiscard]

He didn't. And no one is trying to claim that Afghanistan was a bad idea, other than you. Even the rest of the world. And with Iraq, again, the entire world thought he had weapons, and many still do. So your telling me Bush, with his master plan hoodwinked the entire world, and made them think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Ridiculous.

OK. The WMDs didn't exist. The two exhaustive and conclusive GOVERNMENTAL reports (that means they were authorised by and given the stamp of approval by your beloved Bush and by Blair) which were allowed unprecedented privileges of investigation (more so than the UN inspectors who were impeded by Saddam to an extent) conclude that THERE WERE NO WMDs, they weren't shipped to Syria, they weren't hidden in a hole... THERE WEREN'T ANY! What stocks of chemical weapons Saddam did have were decommissioned in 1991 and unusable (not able to be repaired) in there current state.

Now I can fully accept that you believed your government when they told you Iraq had WMDs and that was the reason for an invasion. Now, however, they tell you that they made an honest mistake and that WMDs actually didn't exist. You can viably cling on to 'removing a despot' and 'stopping terrorism' as reasons for invasion, but seriously... The government is lieing about WMDs not existing????? If we say that America the government has lied you say 'shut up you goddamn liberals with your conspiracy shit' but then you go and say that the Government is lieing about WMDs now! They were secretly shipped to Syria? Bullshit.

[Guiscard]

I strongly belief Bushes mistake was taking Saddam out of power

Also justify this/\

Your belief if that we are there to fight terrorism, and Bush is telling you Saddam harboured terrorists (he did support the PLO in the 80s and there were vague links to Al-Qaeda, but not on the same scale as the Taliban or, for that matter, governments like that of Pakistan where extremism is rife in some areas).

If there were ANY good result of the invasion of Iraq it would be that they took Saddam, a despot who used chemical weapons in an attempt at genocide, a guy who's secret police took away people in the night and who's henchmen and family lived in luxury on the oil profits of his country, out of power. I don't agree it was the right time and I don't agree it was done in the right way, plus it is hypocritical and the motivations are questionable, but at least the result was a good one in itself (if we don't consider the turmoil in Iraq which is a result of bad management by the Americans rather than a lack of Saddam himself). We shouldn't have taken away the infrastructure of power in its entirety like we did (i.e. the entire ruling party and police force) and the British commanders, alongside American experts, urged against this. Getting rid of Saddam, however, was a good thing. Perhaps the only good thing in the whole goddamn mess.

[flashleg8]

We should only invade Iran to get our troops out, and that is only after their Supreme Leader (Khamieni (or somethign very similar to that)) says where he is standing on this. If he say to release the troops, they will be released. If he says put them on trial or keep them hostage until we "apologise", I say send in the SAS to get the troops out.

I say apologise and remove our troops from the situation. At present everyone of the captives have admitted they were in Iranian waters. No independent 3rd party can confirm the British claim that they were in Iraqi waters (which I question the legality of anyway). The coordinates the government released are based on a region whose ownership is debated (and incidentally has not been surveyed for 20 years and subject to mud flats moving regularly over that time making positioning notoriously inaccurate).
Even if the British navy was in Iraqi waters as they say they were - what were they doing so close to a disputed border with the tension so high at present? A bit of sense and tact was clearly lacking in this boarding policy - or was the governments aim more sinister, I wonder, trying to escalate the current diplomatic problems with Iran.