Proof That Iraqis Love Dubya and America

I think the progress in iraq is exceptional. And i would support it much more if the reason for invasion was to oust hussein rather than to disarm imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

I think the united states should take initiative and disarm thier own "weapons of mass destruction", i know the whole "BUT THEN THEY COULD NUKE/GASS US AND THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WE COULD DO". wrong, even without nuclear weapons united states still has the most powerfull military in the world. I think there is some things that man should not play with, and "mass destruction" is one of them.

As for being idealistic, I dont think so. I understand that the ideals are unattainalbe, but as human beings it is our duty to try and get as close to utopia as we possibly can. basically to shorten the gap between what we have, and what the ideal is.

and in Canada I am old enough to vote(and drink - 18(I love quebec)) and have done so before.

Canada is an isolationist country, like the us used to be back in 1914. (funny enough canada at the time also was a military superpower. My oh my how things change eh?) Which I support, were to small population wise to really have an impact on anything. Leave it to the big boys.

Now just a bit to the france hating, part of the american jokes about the french are about how the government surrenderd in the second world war. Might I add against the will of the people, who then conducted one of themost successfull guerilla wars of all time, tieing up thousands of soldiers and hundreds of SS agents. Now the U.S. on the other hand didnt enter the war at all, untill both the alliance and the nazi's were ready to fall apart. Of course the americans won, their was no way they could of lost. (well unless maybe they didnt bomb the japanese, and required the massive amount of troops to actually take it over. Oh and i think bombing them was the right decision, the amount of people on both sides that would have died in an invasion would have been discusting.) so who was more cowardly? the people who were betrayed by thier government? Or the people to scared to muddy thier boots?

Rob The Plant wrote: It's sick to insult the french concerning WW2, how could someone sink that low? If America was prepared to enter a war to liberate it would be different, however it's an unrealistic goal, and unless Dubya (or rather those who control him) were complete idiots they would realize that it is not going to happen, therefore they must have entered the war for resources.

gdub411 wrote: Hmm....the nazi's were ready to fall apart in late 41'?....you have really never examined the military Germany  possessed then. With Russia in the War there is no telling how WWII would have gone without the USA. Indeed we were isolationists, but trust me when I say we were not ready for war in 39' militarily or mentally. It would have been a disaster. Apparently France had not the stomach for war either as they rolled over after the nazi's captured Paris. Indeed the French citizenship fought a valiant guerrilla campaign, but their government failed them big time. That whole pro nazi Vichy French thing was an embarrassment for their country. I don't blame France for what happened in WWII...the Germans clearly had better leadership and a more modern military and there was little they could have done. Even if the French government would have fought on, though, Germany was taking them anyway. I just don't like their present day attitude. Also saying we were too scared to muddy our boots when we fought a highly bloody campaign in the dense jungles of the  Pacific and lost tons of soldiers in the battle for Okinawa, is just silly. You Europeans weren't dealing with a nation with the crazed,never say die, fervor, the Japanese possessed. We would of had to kill darn near every one of those crazed maniacs to take that Island.

dont get me wrong, if not for the us involvement the alliance probably would have been defeated and the world would be a very different, most likely devastated, place. The nazi army though was pressed on all sides, and was in serious trouble. Attacking the USSR was a horrible tactical mistake.

As for modern french, they are all over the place both politically and just well... personailty wise. Coming from someone who was raised French Canadian , the french from france love to insult anything that isnt from france (at least the travelling ones do). Hating them for it is like hating grasshoppers for jumping. It doesnt make sense.

and for the japanese, yeah they were pretty nuts. Thats why the nuclear weapons were employed. I mean the religious fanatics that were there are scarier than the historical christian ones (although less agressive) and the modern islamic fanatic. They really didnt give up.

What are we talking about again?

Are you guys serious w/ this argument?

Is this thread not a joke?
Does it really matter why the US invaded Iraq? They did and the body count is just beginning. Building up a democracy in the up-'til-recently most secular arab nation is a goal worthwhile a fight and a bunch of casualities. Too bad, it will not last - no matter how many ppl turned up to vote - if the neighboring isalmic despots stay in power. Because I am able to foresee the future, I might just as well tell you guys what will happen in Iraq in the near (if not immediate) future. Iraq will turn out to be an islamic nation filled with loath of the western world and christianity (or the picture of it drawn by the leaders of the free). The Iraqi people will not feel equal to each other nor will they feel equal to their leaders and most certainly not feel equal to the Europeans or Americans. The emerging line of Iraqi despots will not issue rapings, tortures, decapitations and assasinations randomly or against small minorities struggling for their freedom, they will, however issue these "punishments" (among other things) to everyone who they see as a threat and everyone who is different (race, religion, basically everything up to eye-color).

The US went to "war" against an unstable secular nation which was a threat to it's neighbors and its own citizens. The US is to leave Iraq an unstable islamic nation which is a threat to its neighbors and its own citizens.

The invasion could have been measured as necessary or even compulsory (and surely acceptable) "for the sake of democracy and mankind". Some might even be ready to accept the means-for-an-end attitude (shown at its prime in the abuse pictures from Iraqi prisons). The question is, however: to what end? What is the goal that justifies all or, for that matter, any ill-doings from the "liberators"? What if that goal is never reached? (a rhethorical question)

In my opinion, going 'round the world attacking countries that are measured as the greatest threats to democracy and freedom and liberating their inhabitants is not a very good (nor fruitful) way of fighting terrorism or international crime. There will always be a nation, country, region or county that is the least democratic or the most despotic or whatever needs to be measured, to build such a list.

Warfare on the streets and gardens and around the homes of the poorest will not make this world a better place. It will, however, make the bitter young men and women more ready to turn against their "liberators" because they still haven't seen a refrigerator during their lifetime.

The black &white attitude of "those who aren't with us are against us" of the Budya regime makes almost all the universe an enemy - even though the "allies" try to claim otherwise. There is no nation (no ally) in this world that is ready to fight for the needs of the US (or anyone else). Period.

I'm sure that most TV audiences have been thrilled to see the multi-coloured posters presenting candidates of the Iraqi elections. I was too - but only until I realised that a major part (maybe not majority) of them were written in English... Let's just say it made me reconsider the justification of my earlier gladness. Those ads were made to meet the needs of an audience, of course - surely an audience that plays a major role in the then-future elections.

Should candidates in free elections address an audience thousands of miles away/not eligible to vote? Should that (partially mistrusting) audience therethrough justify earlier actions of their own government? Through this justification, should the government plant their own muppeteers to run in the elections of a far-away country?  Should those muppeteers address an audience not eligible to vote? etc.

What comes to the French building nuclear power plants in Iraq; I guess they won the Russians and the Americans and the Japanese in the competition to build them. Neither the French nor the US have anything to be proud of in the disarmament of our planet.

Nov.26 1983 >The National Security Council makes propping up Saddam’s regime a high priority after a NSC study concludes that an Iranian victory would be catastrophic for American interests in the Persian Gulf. Washington is well aware that the Iraqis are regularly using chemical weapons on the battlefield.
Pic december 1983


What I actually meant to say is that it really doesn't matter what the reasons to any action have been. What matters is the outcome and what is actively done to reach that outcome. Some actions may be justifiable if a preferred outcome is reached, some other things not. If the preferred goal stays beyond reach, no action may be justified by that goal...
Expecting some heads to be "dropped" in the near future...

A joke (because humor is fun):
A soldier with diarrhea is patroling the streets in some small Iraqi town. the same second he is unable to hold it any longer, therefore crapping his pants, he sees a group of enemies emerging from a near-by house. these two simultaneous things make him shout out loud:
"Oh shi'ite! Terrorists!"

Cheers
-Beau

Hangedman wrote: . I think the united states should take initiative and disarm thier own "weapons of mass destruction", i know the whole "BUT THEN THEY COULD NUKE/GASS US AND THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WE COULD DO". wrong, even without nuclear weapons united states still has the most powerfull military in the world. I think there is some things that man should not play with, and "mass destruction" is one of them.

Yeah...and then I am sure the rest of  the world will follow suit and then get together for one giant hug!! Please!!!!

One fact seems to have eluded most people in all the excitement over these elections..

The war was fought on a false premise. The world was told that Iraq posessed WMD that endangered the west. Tony Blair stood up in parliment and told us that they could be deployed in 45 minutes. He lied. Removing Saddam from power was on Clintons agenda. 9/11 gave the Bush administration the excuse they needed to invade. The American people were led to believe that Saddam was complicit in the attacks. The Amercian servicemen were fed the same falacy. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (who had been publically blamed for 9/11) were idealogical enemies, went ignored. Furthermore the 9/11 commision concluded there had been no Iraqi involvement.

The outcome of these elctions is virtually irrelevant. Iraq will be a mess for generations to come, just as it has been for generations past. The only winners are the construction companies who are rebuilding the place, those who cream off the oil profits, and of course Israel has had one of its enemies decapitated. I hope it was all worth it. I'm sceptical.

Spartacus wrote: Blacksword wrote: One fact seems to have eluded most people in all the excitement over these elections.. The war was fought on a false premise. The world was told that Iraq posessed WMD that endangered the west. Tony Blair stood up in parliment and told us that they could be deployed in 45 minutes. He lied. Removing Saddam from power was on Clintons agenda. 9/11 gave the Bush administration the excuse they needed to invade. The American people were led to believe that Saddam was complicit in the attacks. The Amercian servicemen were fed the same falacy. The fact that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden (who had been publically blamed for 9/11) were idealogical enemies, went ignored. Furthermore the 9/11 commision concluded there had been no Iraqi involvement. The outcome of these elctions is virtually irrelevant. Iraq will be a mess for generations to come, just as it has been for generations past. The only winners are the construction companies who are rebuilding the place, those who cream off the oil profits, and of course Israel has had one of its enemies decapitated. I hope it was all worth it. I'm sceptical. Well Said People must remember the whole reason to go to Iraq was greed.  As long as the US corporations make their money, that is all that matters to the US government.  How can you trust governments that are run by political parties that care more about funding than principal and justice.

 

As was the countries who opposed the US going in. They had put thier eggs in Sadams basket and they lost.   It was all greed. 

 

Wasnt the Winchester Rifle known as a peacemaker, because the Indains couldnt get near enough to fight back?

 

Reed Lover wrote: Wasnt the Winchester Rifle known as a peacemaker, because the Indains couldnt get near enough to fight back?

Indeed...beautiful design and invention...I love the Tale of the Gun show on The History channel!