State you case on the War (read top post first)

[Divinus Arma]

We have done the war argument for some time now, and gone back and forth every which way.

Here is the purpose of this thread:

State your full position on the Global War on Terrorism, and provide facts to support your conclusions.

For example: If you think Iraq campaign was a detour but the war is just, say why. If you think Bush lied, provide proof. If you think the Iraq campaign was justified, state facts showing why.

Also, do not respond to others and start an argument yet. Just post your position and supporting facts please.

I want to hear from a variety of people and get facts.

I look forward to hearing from you all ~:cheers: ,

DA

[King Ragnar]

Helping the Americans invade Iraq was a very bad decision, we are sticking our noses in other peoples buisness, if we hadnt inavded Iraq then im very sure the Londom Bombings would never of happened.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

State your full position on the Global War on Terrorism, and provide facts to support your conclusions.

Well think were still fighting it half assed. We support terrorists in Kosovo while attacking them eslewhere. If this is really a world war then treat it as such. Also in Iraq I wuld try to seal off the borders and send in more troops not pull any out. We have to show these people we mean bussiness. If they have bases in Syria hit them.

I was against the invassion of Iraq because I was afraid of exactly whats happening. However once we committed troops its our duty to support them. We certainly cannot cut and run at this point. If it wasnt at the start , the war in Iraq now certainly is about fighting terrorism.

[yesdachi]

Interesting idea for a thread, good luck. I have already mentioned my thoughts in the other thread https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=897961&postcount=45 and the fun for me in the forums is to discuss, not fact find (its just too hard as many things are seen on TV and heard form individuals or classified) and then split hairs on the facts or decide who has the biggest facts or who’s facts can pee further. I look forward to reading the posts but because I am not willing to fulfill the criteria I will not participate :bow: .

[Kaiser of Arabia]

The war in Iraq, and against Terrorism, is as justified as the Declaration of War against Japan on December 8th, 1941. We were attacked, on American soil, by Islamic Fundementalists who's only intention was to end American lives in a fit of rage, for no reason other than we are, and always have been, a Christian nation. Thousands of Americans perished in the assaults that day, the worst attack on American civilians in the history of America. When the attack on Americans happened on December 7th, 1941, we went to war to punish the agressors, and we have done so with the war on Terrorism.
We are fighting it in the wrong way, as Gawain said. We still support Terrorists in the Balkans, who fight against the government of Serbia, who could have aided us in fighting Terrorism in the balkans. We still support the Pakistani and Saudi Governments, who harbor and support Terrorists. We haven't questioned France on how they allowed Osama Bin Laden to get his kidney transplant there. Nor have we helped Russia deal with the terrorist stronghold of Chechnya, or the Indonesian government deal with the terrorism there. We haven't taken out Syria, who have opressed the Lebonese people and harbor Terrorists and Insurgents. Nor have we devoted enough men to our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
While I disagree with the way the war is being carried out (our new military strategy that does not call for Total War [no pun intended] is obviously a massive failure), I do support it's cause and I do beleive it was the right response to the murder of thousands of Americans on September 11th. Too bad the Clinton Administration didn't have the courage to deal with it after the Embassy Bombings and the attack on the USS Cole.

[Adrian II]

We haven't questioned France on how they allowed Osama Bin Laden to get his kidney transplant there.Oh I love that one. Can you give any indication as to where this story comes from? And when is the transplant supposed to have happened?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Oh I love that one. Can you give any indication as to where this story comes from? And when is the transplant supposed to have happened?
I was in an argument with a liberal and they screamed it. It goes against the #1 rule of the extreme left (never insult france) soI figured it was true ~:)

[Leodegar]

Define, who is a terrorist.

[Sigurd]

From a military point of view the war on the Iraqi regime was justified. The reason is simple; they were in breach of the terms of the cease fire of Gulf War I. The terms of the cease fire was already breached after only 14 days after the cease fire. From that point on and the following 12 years the coalition led by the US had all rights to resume the war against the Iraqi regime as they finally did. The war was only on pause.

As for the war on terrorism; the world has entered a new paradigm which demands new thinking and action. The world wide terrorist threats and wannabies have altered the way we perform security and makes the lives of many a sour hell. Just last week a guy threatened to blow up 4 bombs in my hometown Bergen just because he had a heated argument with the police. The man was brought in and is still in custody. There is no leeway anymore for anything. Just to get into an oil installation is more than troublesome for someone who actually works there. If this continues we will soon become police states with control posts everywhere and where you will do jail time for having a big mouth. Something must be done, something incredible clever.

[Meneldil]

I was in an argument with a liberal and they screamed it. It goes against the #1 rule of the extreme left (never insult france) soI figured it was true ~:)


Funny, a lot of people in France said that Osama often had chirugical (is it a word ?) operations in the US, that he was in good relation with some high ranked member of the CIA, etc.

People are often dumb when they claim things while they have no clues...



He who makes attacks against the US. You can make the exact same attacks against someone else, but if it isn't against US interests than it isn't against the US (Osama in Afghanistan against the Russians, for example). And, of course, anyone who disagrees with Bush's foreign policy must be a terrorist sympathizer.

We've already got the mentality for a police state, people.. It would not surprise me to see that mentality become law within my life time.

Don't forget socialists. They are obviously terrorists. Non-christian people are also weird, and thus, shouldn't be trusted and are likely terrorists.

[Divinus Arma]

:stop: PLEASE. :bow:

Refresh, regroup. Take a breath. Read the first post. There are many of us who want the facts, not conjecture.

I would urge you, if you will please humor me :bow: , to edit your posts to provide facts. If you have something off the wall, like OBL getting a transplant in France (Kaiser ~;) ), provide some type of solid proof. "Because a liberal told me" or Michael Moore said so, or Powell said so at the UN, etc are NOT facts. Stay away from sarcastic comments like "socialists are terrorists", etc...

Please humor me on this thread, fellow patrons. I know this is a public forum, and you will do as you rightly see fit. I am looking for diverse opinions grounded in reality. There are plenty of other threads to enjoy ourselves with squabble.

So will you join me? Will you volunteer for this adventure into emotionless truth? I will take this risk with you, and open my mind to all options. But it is a fine line we tread.

I, Divinus Arma, a proponent of "sheet of glass" strategy, am seeking honesty from all sides and those without sides. No bashing. No party lines. No politics. Just conclusions based on facts. I know most of you through these threads. We all know where each of us stands. But only from emotional party lines.

Surrender your passion with me, and let us walk this fine delicate line together. Let us be honest now. And speak softly. And allow all to come together, uninterrupted.

What say you? Will you join me?~:cheers:

[Divinus Arma]

When the object in question is more often than not the one which provides the "facts" (i.e. the Government) then a debate like you ask for is pretty thin. Sorry.

Consider this, my 1X1X1 Jello friend, read the following and my comments, please:


Okay, let's come to an understanding together. I think there has been some confusion. Proponents of the War in Iraq are not saying that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

This was from another thread. I am conceding that 911 and saddam are unrelated.



Let's get some facts straight:

(1) Osama bin Laden and Al qaeda are a nationless political/social movement with the stated goals of destroying the west, and specifically, the United States. They would love to use nuclear/chemical/biological weapons to do this. This is a known fact.

(2) Al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11th 2001. Fact.

(3) President George W. Bush declared a "Global War on Terrorism". Not on Al Qaeda. Not on Bin Laden. Not on Afghanistan. On terrorism. This means that we are fighting individuals and groups who target innocent civilians as a means to achieve a political/theological/social aim. There are organizations and nations that may support terrorism

The specific direct targeting of innocent civilians through violence to achieve aims.


(4) We invaded Afghanistan as a campaign in the War on Terrorism because they harbored terrorists.

(5) We invaded Iraq as a campaign in the War on Terrorism because intelligence showed that Iraq had weapons of Mass Destruction and supported terrorists.

(6) The intelligence on Iraq was very wrong. Fortunately, Saddam was an evil guy anyway.



(7) The motive for staying in Iraq has now changed, regardless of the impetus. We have a moral obligation to restore security to Iraq. It is also in our nation's best interests to do so: The Iraq conflict is attacting terrorist wannabes like a roach motel. It is more effective to deal with them proactively through our military in Iraq, than reactionary through law enforcement and internal defense tactics (which we employ anyway). Additionally, a stable democratic Iraq may spur positive change in the region.


Number (7) is an opinion, but it is based on my understanding of the facts. I try to state that here. Whether or not my conclusions are correct do not matter.

This, my friend, is the dialouge I seek. Does this help?

[Redleg]

From a military point of view the war on the Iraqi regime was justified. The reason is simple; they were in breach of the terms of the cease fire of Gulf War I. The terms of the cease fire was already breached after only 14 days after the cease fire. From that point on and the following 12 years the coalition led by the US had all rights to resume the war against the Iraqi regime as they finally did. The war was only on pause.

That is a fact - not only is it supported by documents from the United States but documents from the United Nations. Personally I am still a little pissed at Bush Sr. for not following through on his word by implied statements - in supporting the 1992 Rebellion of the Kurds and Shai'

All the violations of the United Nations Resolutions by Iraq are supported by the Dueffler Report, the Report by Blix, and in both United States documents and even documents from the United Nations.

[Divinus Arma]

To this, though, I have to say rubbish. We're supporting several dicatorial regimes in Africa, IIRC. Are we supposed to say one oppressive dictator is bad, and another isn't? What's the difference? Oh wait.. we didn't control Iraq. But we do now.

Your view is a little idealist. Bush is the next worst thing to a draft dodger, he's lived his entire life in opulence being groomed for a position of power, and his cabinet is filled with very wealthy and greedy people. Altruism is not this administration's bag.

I will quote another of my posts in response:


A service member's duty is only this:

"I _________do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

As a U.S. Marine, I am the enforcement arm of American policy. My leaders, who are elected by the people through the constitutional process, know better than I how best to achieve the strategic aims of national security. Whether that be in Iraq, or elsewhere, but not somewhere else, is not up to me.

If my leaders decide that invading one country while ignoring a different country is what bests serves our national security, than so be it.

I do not pretend to have the facts, knowledge, and resources to make this type of decision. My responsibility, my duty, is to follow orders, and bear faith that my nation has elected the best individuals to decide military policy, whether I voted for the individual or not.

Which terrorists we decide to face down at which time is a matter of strategy. I am sure we have plans for them all. Our leaders do what will preserve the Nation. Whether you agree with their strategy is what is the real debate. But I will not violate my own thread restrictions any more with further debate. I concede the final word on our individual debate to you, if you so choose to post. :bow:

[King of Atlantis]

I think the war on terror is necesarry and actually needs to be stepped up. But, the war on Iraq probably hurt the anti-terrorist effort and I its true goal is propably to make a stable government in the middle east, which i truly beleive will fail in the end.

Sorry I didnt provide facts, but thats my opinion...

[Strike For The South]

The war of terror is maybe the most important thing that will happen in my life and we must continue. qiutting is not an option and never will be

[PanzerJaeger]

Ive posted it too many times...