Is Iraq war part of War on Terrorism? - Page 11

#**101** (**permalink**) 03-20-2005, 09:50 AM

becauce of which there is a local rise in insurgents....and fighting gainst them is the war on terror!!!!!!!...in iraq....where innocent iraqis have to die.

people say us soldiers are heroes for defending their country.dont you see in doing that they are killing other people.....innocent people...to whom their little children will no longer have an oppurtunity to look up to....

doesnt anyone see that the world is not about patriotism .. but its about humanity....its there for humans to live in ...and the countries are there to help the people live better lives by coorporation etc.. but its the opposite today... you are killing in order to make your country america a superpower....and americans sit in america and applaud for what is being done.... PUT YOUR SELVES IN IRAQIS SHOES WHO HAVE LOST THEIR FAMILIES AND HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY HUMANITY AND THINK AGAIN!!!

RedCloud · #**102** (**permalink**) 04-11-2005, 01:01 AM

This whole "war on terror" thing is a complete propoganda tool and is being used to invade sovereign nations illegally. Firstly you cannot have a "war on terror" you are having a war on an fleeting idea that is subjective and can mean anything or anyone who is deemed a terrorist. The whole purpose of it is to make Americans think that there is a huge big "terror network" out there who wish to destroy them.
Hitler and Himmler were right when they said that to control a people you create an invisible enemy, an unseen threat to the people with huge powers and a potential to kill them and destroy their way of life. Another philosopher also said that fear is best mixed with hate to control the people.

As long as Americans think that there is a threat, they are easily controlled and won't thinik twice about their Liberties, that their ancestors fought hard for, being taken away from them by things like the Patriot Act and "homeland security"- (by the way the Nazi's had this type of security during their reign with the SS and Gestapo enforcing it). It will also take Americans minds off the fact that the majority of the World were against this invasion, and whether it really is just or not. If America had a tyrannt, would that give the rest of the World the right to invade it?? I don't think so.
Wake up and think outside the box.

Schwarzwald · #**103** (**permalink**) 05-21-2005, 03:28 PM

Bush couldn't come up with results after 9/11 so he came up with a bogus story that Iraq had "Weapons of Mass Destruction". He said Osama-bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had "connections" and that Iraq was a threat to American security. People were so scared and angry that they accepted Bush's propaganda. The problems came when it was found that there were no weapons or connections with bin-Laden. Afterwords American forces started protecting oil, abusing P.O.W.'s, and invading people's homes. These actions enraged the Iraqi people who were already angry about the American occupation. The end result being civilians attacking American troops and being branded insurgents.

Vassilij · #**104** (**permalink**) 07-13-2005, 11:35 AM

"One in North Korea that actually HAS a WOMD"

For your information they are called WMDs.

I hate when people say, "no nukes, no gas, no WMD!" and then shortly follwed by, "Bush lied, people died!"...

Let's think, what is a weapon of mass destruction?

We all have a general idea of what mass destruction is, but what of weapon?
These people that make claims I listed above have a very strict definition of weapon, "a bomb, or gas". They do this for a reason, it fits their agenda. My point is that WMDs need not be just bombs and gas, but people! Saddam and his sons are WMDs!

To the topic,
The war in Iraq is just the biggest branch of the war on terror. How hard is that to understand?

rikitz · #**105** (**permalink**) 07-14-2005, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard-Driver";p=&quot

I hope it pays off. If in the long run the country of Iraq flourishes and democracy spreads through the middle east, then it may be worth it.

Only time will tell. And your comment is the exact sentiment often expressed by President Bush. And it's the reason he risked it.

yes, it was a HUGE risk for already such a popular president as Bush to invade such a superpower, with all the WMD's they had. could have been a nutshell really, but a quick "shock and awe" and the problem was solved.

NOW the people from other bad countries want to take away freedoms from Iraqi people and honour from good American soldiers handing out candy to children. Iraqi's themselves all love americans by default, only those foreign insurgents, they're jealouse of Iraqi freedom.

Sadistic-Savior · #**106** (**permalink**) 07-14-2005, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Iraqi's themselves all love americans by default, only those foreign insurgents, they're jealouse of Iraqi freedom.

Yeah, pretty much.

Iraqis may or may not love Americans, but there is no question that the insurgents hate the idea of democracy. They have openly said so in fact (they consider it a Western decadence).

treat2 · #**107** (**permalink**) 07-16-2005, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard-Driver";p=&quot

President Bush is CONSTANTLY talking about the war on terror and the war in Iraq as the same thing. He then is saying that if you disagree with the war in Iraq, then you must conversely be soft on terrorism or are appeasing terrorists, etc. The question is that if the former Iraqi regime had no known links to international terrorist acts, how can the war in Iraq be part of the war on terrorism.

It's a positive sign to see his approval numbers and his support dwindling.

It's also why I voted for him.

treat2 · #**108** (**permalink**) 07-16-2005, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hard-Driver";p=&quot

President Bush is CONSTANTLY talking about the war on terror and the war in Iraq as the same thing. He then is saying that if you disagree with the war in Iraq, then you must conversely be soft on terrorism or are appeasing terrorists, etc. The question is that if the former Iraqi regime had no known links to international terrorist acts, how can the war in Iraq be part of the war on terrorism.

Let's recap the history. We were first attacked by al Qaeda in 1993 with the murder of a CIA agent in front of Langley followed by the first WTC attack. One might ask why? According to speeches made by bin Laden, he didn't like the fact that we, the United States, were in Saudi Arabia. And why were we there? We were there because of Iraq. We were enforcing the "no fly zone" as a result of the end of the first Gulf War. Saudia Arabia's government wanted us there....and so did the United Nations. And this was a war STARTED by Saddam Hussein who brutally invaded his neighbor. He not only continued to shoot at our planes, he continued to defy the UN Resolutions, thumbing his nose at the world. After signing onto the Resolutions to save his ass, he reneged on everything he promised to do.
Secondly, Saddam Hussein did nothing for his people while he took BILLIONS in KICKBACKS for selling oil in violation of the UN's "Oil-For-Food" program. And all those BILLIONS have yet to be accounted for. We know he was a state sponsor of terrorism....Hamas, and others. It's becoming clearer every day that terrorists groups are loosely connected if not tightly connected.
There are enough indirect connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorists....and even al Qaeda, that it wasn't worth the risk to do nothing. This became even more obvious after 9/11.
So yes, it is definitely part of the War On Terrorism. And the world is better off , and safer, without Saddam Hussein in power. Even most of the nations they weren't involved in Iraq have admitted to that fact.

Assuming one would even agree, there's still no sufficient reason for a drop of American blood to be spilt there, but since it ain't gonna be your blood, go right on babbling away about how everyone else should be there, except you. lol

treat2 · #**109** (**permalink**) 07-16-2005, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadistic-Savior";p=&quot

Quote:

Iraqi's themselves all love americans by default, only those foreign insurgents, they're jealouse of Iraqi freedom.

Yeah, pretty much.

Iraqis may or may not love Americans, but there is no question that the insurgents hate the idea of democracy. They have openly said so in fact (they consider it a Western decadence).

On the other hand, when we're not justifying other folks doing the fightin and dyin for us there, we're talkin about them "A-Rabs", as dirt!

What would we be without our babbling about Democracy to hide our amoral duplicity.

Sadistic-Savior · #**110** (**permalink**) 07-16-2005, 08:15 AM

Quote:

On the other hand, when we're not justifying other folks doing the fightin and dyin for us there, we're talkin about them "A-Rabs", as dirt!

Not all Arabs, just the ones that oppose democracy.

View Poll Results: Was the War in Iraq part of the war on terrorism?
Yes, it has reduced the risk of terrorism	75	32.75%
No, it has actually created a new source for terrorism in the world	154	67.25%
Voters: 229. You may not vote on this poll

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google	Yahoo	Furl	Reddit

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode