Results 1 to 30 of 48

Thread: When is war justified or when it is simply imperialism

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    In the shadows... Member Vuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    R.I.P. TosaInu In the shadows...
    Posts
    5,992

    Default Re: 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump View Post
    Learn to read. I said "people like you."

    I love how WMDs becomes "chemical and biological" weapons when we delve into the debate. We knew he had chems and bios, because we freaking gave them to him. The war was sold to the public as if Saddaam had big NUKILLER missiles pointed at the united states. When that fell through we started getting talk of "Dirty Bombs" which further demonstrates the average american knows nothing about how wepaons grade nuclear materials work, and that dirty bombs are eseentially impossible in the scope of which they are advertised. We found some trailers and some empty storage facilites. We went to war over mustard gas.

    And even if he did have nuclear weapons and anything less than a warhead pointed at us, the idea that we can walk unprepared into a country and bomb it into oblivion while sacrificng thousands of troops over an abstract political idea is quite frankly disgusting. Even more disgusting are the civ cas coverups, which you should not have to cover up if, you know, your war is justified. Even more disgusting were the war profiteers and the substandard "Services" they rendered our troops while making billions of dollars for them and their cronies in DC.

    Everything about Iraq was wrong. EVERYTHING. It was not worth the cost, not now, not ever.

    Ironic that Iran and Iraq were enemies. Maybe if saddam got his nukes we wouldn't be having this Iran Issue right now, OMGUS

    You insinuated that people were like me in that respect though. If not, then what exactly did you mean?
    WMDs include chemical and biological weapons MRD, as I am sure you know. As far as nukes go, there was pretty good evidence that Saddam was pursuing them. Isn't it better that we stopped him before he got them (and possibly used them against Israel or let nuclear matierial get into terrorist hands)?
    I agree, that there was tons of corruptions, but that is a seperate issue all of its own, and has nothing to do with whether or not we should have went to war with Iraq.
    Hammer, anvil, forge and fire, chase away The Hoofed Liar. Roof and doorway, block and beam, chase The Trickster from our dreams.
    Vigilance is our shield, that protects us from our squalid past. Knowledge is our weapon, with which we carve a path to an enlightened future.

    Everything you need to know about Kadagar_AV:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
    In a racial conflict I'd have no problem popping off some negroes.

  2. #2
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

    Default Re: 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Vuk View Post
    You insinuated that people were like me in that respect though. If not, then what exactly did you mean?
    WMDs include chemical and biological weapons MRD, as I am sure you know. As far as nukes go, there was pretty good evidence that Saddam was pursuing them. Isn't it better that we stopped him before he got them (and possibly used them against Israel or let nuclear matierial get into terrorist hands)?
    I agree, that there was tons of corruptions, but that is a seperate issue all of its own, and has nothing to do with whether or not we should have went to war with Iraq.
    WMDs are not biological and chemical. Again, we knew he had those because we gave them to him. WMDs, and as they were advertised in the buildup to the war, are nuclear weapons capable of long range attack to level a city. Had we been chasing chems and bio, then why didnt Bush say "they have chemical and bio weapons"?? He didn't, instead he played into the whole American guilt about nuclear weapons, and knew that the general public would take it that way. Believe me, they knew what they were doing and chose their words carefully.

    In 1992, We did not finish Saddam off because, as the current Sec of defense Dick Cheney said, we were not prepared for an urban occupation and insurgency. I am at a loss as to where that assessment went 10 years later, when we had virtually all the same equipment and strategy and the SOD was now the VP.

    Saddaam was a bad person. His sons were evil, as was he. Removing him was not worth thousands of american deaths and tens of thousands wounded. There are other ways to handle this. I am not an anti-Isreal person, but Israel is not worth thousands of american lives considering they have never lifted a finger to hurt us. What-ifs are not worth what we spent. Billions dude, billions
    Last edited by Major Robert Dump; 09-13-2012 at 05:11.
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

    Members thankful for this post (3):



  3. #3
    In the shadows... Member Vuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    R.I.P. TosaInu In the shadows...
    Posts
    5,992

    Default Re: 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump View Post
    WMDs are not biological and chemical. Again, we knew he had those because we gave them to him. WMDs, and as they were advertised in the buildup to the war, are nuclear weapons capable of long range attack to level a city. Had we been chasing chems and bio, then why didnt Bush say "they have chemical and bio weapons"?? He didn't, instead he played into the whole American guilt about nuclear weapons, and knew that the general public would take it that way. Believe me, they knew what they were doing and chose their words carefully.

    In 1992, We did not finish Saddam off because, as the current Sec of defense Dick Cheney said, we were not prepared for an urban occupation and insurgency. I am at a loss as to where that assessment went 10 years later, when we had virtually all the same equipment and strategy and the SOD was now the VP.

    Saddaam was a bad person. His sons were evil, as was he. Removing him was not worth thousands of american deaths and tens of thousands wounded. There are other ways to handle this. I am not an anti-Isreal person, but Israel is not worth thousands of american lives considering they have never lifted a finger to hurt us. What-ifs are not worth what we spent. Billions dude, billions
    Certain biological and chemical weapons are indeed considered WMDs. When the phrase was first termed nuclear weapons had not yet been invented, and it was in reference only to bio and chem weapons. Wiki Article
    Even the Demorats who later objected to the war and claimed that because nukes were not found WMDs were not found had earlier referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs.

    And I can't find the video tonight, but I have seen vids where Bush referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs. Yeah, nuclear weapons were one of the big threats, but not the only threat. What we found was that he had the intent and ability to create them. How then is the justification for the war untrue?
    You didn't answer me the first time MRD, so I will ask you again: If we had ignored the potential threat Iraq could have been, and terrorist got hold of nuclear material and detonated a nuclear weapon on US soil, would you be blaming Bush now for ignoring the lessons of 911 and not going in and defeating Saddam before he was that big of a threat?
    I cannot say I really like the way the war was waged, but that is not the same as not thinking that we should have attacked Iraq. When we were done, we should have seized control of enough of their oil reserves to make up for the money we spent on the war. Call it their price for freedom.

    I have flip-flopped several times in my life between supporting the War in Iraq and not supporting, seeing new evidence and hearing new arguments. I really cannot say for 100% sure if it was right, or I will always think so. However, based on what I know about it now, I think it was probably the right choice.

    You say there were other ways to stop them from being a threat to us though. Mind sharing what those are?
    Last edited by Vuk; 09-13-2012 at 06:34.
    Hammer, anvil, forge and fire, chase away The Hoofed Liar. Roof and doorway, block and beam, chase The Trickster from our dreams.
    Vigilance is our shield, that protects us from our squalid past. Knowledge is our weapon, with which we carve a path to an enlightened future.

    Everything you need to know about Kadagar_AV:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
    In a racial conflict I'd have no problem popping off some negroes.

  4. #4
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

    Default Re: 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Vuk View Post
    Certain biological and chemical weapons are indeed considered WMDs. When the phrase was first termed nuclear weapons had not yet been invented, and it was in reference only to bio and chem weapons. Wiki Article
    Even the Demorats who later objected to the war and claimed that because nukes were not found WMDs were not found had earlier referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs.

    And I can't find the video tonight, but I have seen vids where Bush referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs. Yeah, nuclear weapons were one of the big threats, but not the only threat. What we found was that he had the intent and ability to create them. How then is the justification for the war untrue?
    You didn't answer me the first time MRD, so I will ask you again: If we had ignored the potential threat Iraq could have been, and terrorist got hold of nuclear material and detonated a nuclear weapon on US soil, would you be blaming Bush now for ignoring the lessons of 911 and not going in and defeating Saddam before he was that big of a threat?
    I cannot say I really like the way the war was waged, but that is not the same as not thinking that we should have attacked Iraq. When we were done, we should have seized control of enough of their oil reserves to make up for the money we spent on the war. Call it their price for freedom.

    I have flip-flopped several times in my life between supporting the War in Iraq and not supporting, seeing new evidence and hearing new arguments. I really cannot say for 100% sure if it was right, or I will always think so. However, based on what I know about it now, I think it was probably the right choice.

    You say there were other ways to stop them from being a threat to us though. Mind sharing what those are?
    IRAQ DID NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DETONATE A NUCLEAR BOMB ON US SOIL

    Surely you are not suggesting they would have launched a nuclear missle, which they didnt have and we would have shot down.

    And surely you are not falling into the ruse of the "suitcase bomb". Newsflash!!!! A suitcase bomb would kill like a busload of people with a little fallout that would disiipate in a few minuites. There entire concept of a suitcase bomb blowing up NYC is not based in fact. IT is an impossibility. The amount of carry space to transport a devastating nuclear payload by land or sea without melting anyone within a 100m radius would make ti impossible to move without detection, much less move thousands of miles over the open sea and through a us port.

    I didn't answer your question because it is irrelevant. You are suggesting that wasting tens of thousand of US lives was worth a "what-if", your what-if being that had not Bush not acted and Iraq used an imaginary super bomb to blow up a US City they had no chances of reaching, then would we blame him? Yeah, sure, I suppose we would, because thats how politics works, and saving a presidents ratings in the public opinion polls is still not worth tens of thousand of ruined lives. Take your rhetorical questions elsewhere.

    Iraq was a waste of human lives and American resources, it was an utter circus, and it drew huge amounts of resources away from the legitimate, honorable war in afghanistan. Afghanistan was brished under the rug and Bush pretended we won, when all we did was tutrle inside of giant FOBs and let the Taliban regroup and reap huge poppy profits, all of which the CIA warned us about. By the time we got to focus on Afghanistan again, the battle was already lost. That is Iraq's legacy. It wasted our time, and may very well go down as the stupidest war in American history
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

    Member thankful for this post:



  5. #5
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

    Default Re: 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Vuk View Post
    Certain biological and chemical weapons are indeed considered WMDs. When the phrase was first termed nuclear weapons had not yet been invented, and it was in reference only to bio and chem weapons. Wiki Article
    Even the Demorats who later objected to the war and claimed that because nukes were not found WMDs were not found had earlier referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs.

    And I can't find the video tonight, but I have seen vids where Bush referred to chem and bio weapons as WMDs. Yeah, nuclear weapons were one of the big threats, but not the only threat. What we found was that he had the intent and ability to create them. How then is the justification for the war untrue?
    You didn't answer me the first time MRD, so I will ask you again: If we had ignored the potential threat Iraq could have been, and terrorist got hold of nuclear material and detonated a nuclear weapon on US soil, would you be blaming Bush now for ignoring the lessons of 911 and not going in and defeating Saddam before he was that big of a threat?
    I cannot say I really like the way the war was waged, but that is not the same as not thinking that we should have attacked Iraq. When we were done, we should have seized control of enough of their oil reserves to make up for the money we spent on the war. Call it their price for freedom.

    I have flip-flopped several times in my life between supporting the War in Iraq and not supporting, seeing new evidence and hearing new arguments. I really cannot say for 100% sure if it was right, or I will always think so. However, based on what I know about it now, I think it was probably the right choice.

    You say there were other ways to stop them from being a threat to us though. Mind sharing what those are?
    There is no point in arguing other ways to stop him from being a threat because I never believed he was a threat. That being said, we could have maintained the status quo like we have with that one country who is a real threat, RONK. Our embargos and bombings adversely affected the Iraqi poor, and I cared not for that policy either, but it is still better than engagin on fool hardy adventure that risks other peoiples lives. Furthermore, another 2 months of planning may have worked wonders for our take-and-hold strategy. We did not launch a surprise attack, we did not have the initiative. We did not have to remove Saddam Hussein that very moment. It was not an emergency.

    Perhaps you were too young, or to busy wrapped up in the flag, to remember how legitimate debate on this issue was virtually stifled under the ruse that dissenters were not only unpatriotic, but that they were somehow harming our troops. The public bought it hook, line and sinker, and it was disgusting. You attempts to point to Democrats who supported the war does nothing for me. It changes nothing. They were asses, too, for agreeing to go into war based on secret *evidence* the administration would not even share with life long, career senators. This is not a black and white issue. This was not a situation where we only had two choices.
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

    Member thankful for this post:

    rvg 


  6. #6
    Enlightened Despot Member Vladimir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In ur nun, causing a bloody schism!
    Posts
    7,906

    Default Re: 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump View Post
    There is no point in arguing other ways to stop him from being a threat because I never believed he was a threat. That being said, we could have maintained the status quo like we have with that one country who is a real threat, RONK. Our embargos and bombings adversely affected the Iraqi poor, and I cared not for that policy either, but it is still better than engagin on fool hardy adventure that risks other peoiples lives. Furthermore, another 2 months of planning may have worked wonders for our take-and-hold strategy. We did not launch a surprise attack, we did not have the initiative. We did not have to remove Saddam Hussein that very moment. It was not an emergency.

    Perhaps you were too young, or to busy wrapped up in the flag, to remember how legitimate debate on this issue was virtually stifled under the ruse that dissenters were not only unpatriotic, but that they were somehow harming our troops. The public bought it hook, line and sinker, and it was disgusting. You attempts to point to Democrats who supported the war does nothing for me. It changes nothing. They were asses, too, for agreeing to go into war based on secret *evidence* the administration would not even share with life long, career senators. This is not a black and white issue. This was not a situation where we only had two choices.
    Now that we're onto Iraq: The fault wasn't in taking her but in not knowing what do do once we had her.


    Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
    How do you motivate your employees? Waterboarding, of course.
    Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pinten
    Down with dried flowers!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    Member thankful for this post:



  7. #7
    smell the glove Senior Member Major Robert Dump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    OKRAHOMER
    Posts
    7,424

    Default Re: 9/11

    I partially agree with tyou there.

    We cannot go back in time, and ultimately, we were all powerless to stop the invasion because once The Man sets his mind to it, it's going to be done.

    I greatly respect and accept the arguments, harsh as they may be, that the US needed Iraq because we needed a puppet regime in the region for national strategic purposes. I also accept and respect, although harsh, the premise that war is good for your eceonomy and good for your military, as long as it, ya know, doesn't drag on for 10 years.

    I m not saying I necessarily agreee with those reasons, just that they are forthcoming and take the big picture into account.

    But prattling on and on about a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who might know someone who can build a nukiller weapon is retarded. Pointing out that Saddaam gave money to suicide bombers in Palestine and that means he is in bed with terrorists is BFD. The whole argument of nation building is retarded, as that ws not the original intent but it is a necessary side affect of modern wars in the information age, so when people argue about spreading peace and freedom I cannot hellp but say DUH, we have to, its the right thing to do in a country we just leveled....

    But the most painful argument, I started hearing this about 1/2 through the war when the WMDs started to fizzle, was the argument that we were there to fight Al Queda, and it was better to do it in another country than on US soil. Wow. What a pig headed, selfish, no-respect-for-any-other-nation mentality that is, and I am sure it went miles and miles at improving our standing as an international super power: dear world, we would rather start a fight in a soverieng nation to draw the evil sith out of hiding like a bad Star Wars novel, than maybe run the risk of another attack on US soil......

    We needed Iraq to succeed, whether it was justified and worth the cost or not. Iraq, as it currently stands, is not a success.
    Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!

    Member thankful for this post:



  8. #8
    Enlightened Despot Member Vladimir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In ur nun, causing a bloody schism!
    Posts
    7,906

    Default Re: 9/11

    Tell, the Queda Magnet Theory was a favorite of mine but was likely an unintended side effect. Done right, Iraq would have been an effective strategic part of the war on terror; however, the plan for Iraq relied on hope and change, which should sound familiar.

    Would you prefer a fight in a non-sovereign nation? It's not about respect, and there were enough reasons to invade just like there were in 1998, and when he tried to assassinate a former president, and...

    Agreed, it is not a success. It is a very expensive risk.


    Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
    How do you motivate your employees? Waterboarding, of course.
    Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pinten
    Down with dried flowers!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  9. #9
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Senior Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,958

    Default Re: 9/11

    Quote Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump View Post
    But the most painful argument, I started hearing this about 1/2 through the war when the WMDs started to fizzle, was the argument that we were there to fight Al Queda, and it was better to do it in another country than on US soil. Wow. What a pig headed, selfish, no-respect-for-any-other-nation mentality that is, and I am sure it went miles and miles at improving our standing as an international super power: dear world, we would rather start a fight in a soverieng nation to draw the evil sith out of hiding like a bad Star Wars novel, than maybe run the risk of another attack on US soil......

    We needed Iraq to succeed, whether it was justified and worth the cost or not. Iraq, as it currently stands, is not a success.
    a line of argument i explored back at the start of 2009:

    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...ached-its-peak
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  10. #10
    In the shadows... Member Vuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    R.I.P. TosaInu In the shadows...
    Posts
    5,992

    Default Re: 9/11

    EDIT: oops, double post.
    Last edited by Vuk; 09-13-2012 at 06:33.
    Hammer, anvil, forge and fire, chase away The Hoofed Liar. Roof and doorway, block and beam, chase The Trickster from our dreams.
    Vigilance is our shield, that protects us from our squalid past. Knowledge is our weapon, with which we carve a path to an enlightened future.

    Everything you need to know about Kadagar_AV:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV View Post
    In a racial conflict I'd have no problem popping off some negroes.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO