Interesting that the bombings aren't directed strictly towards Americans.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/14/iraq.main/index.html

this just shows that the real goal of the terrorists is to stop a free iraq from forming. the biggest threat to terrorism is a free Iraq, and they will stop at nothing to stop it. its to bad our liberal friends cant direct even a smidgen of their anger at bush at the acutal terrorists blowing up honest iraqi policemen who only want to create a free and stable it iraq we might be a little farther along then we are now. lets seea rally agaisnt those who wnat to keep iraq a dictatorship, and not against those trying to make it a free country.

You just don't get it trav. We are involved in an Iraqi civil war. We started the ball rolling for the civil war to happen. We invaded and occupied a soverign nation. Captured their president, devastated their army, murdered their civilians, bombed their buildings and now we are trying to "keep the peace" and set up a puppet government that they don't want.

Heres a hint - Your minds work best when open.

civil war? between the terrorists and non terrorists? between those who blow up civilians with car bombs and those who dont? its freaking sad you cant even pick a side after all this, still having to play a n anti bush side to everything, you need to open your mind and stop stuffing ful of anti bush bullshit thats coming out your mouth

Gees trav, you just can't separate any conversation from your fanatical political leanings. We weren't discussing bush. We were discussing Iraq and what is going on internally in that country. Not why we are there or whose fault it is or how wonderfull you think dubbya is.

The Iraqi people who are fighting each other are not terrorists. They are fighting a civil war. They are fighting a war to determine what type of government their country will have.

THis is obvious to even your mr bush.

Its a personal belief of mine, that their isnt a country today, that isnt fighting some kind of civil war.

Rather military, politics, drugs.

There is internal conflict in every nation, and of course, in the world in general.

Originally posted by Echo2
Gees trav, you just can't separate any conversation from your fanatical political leanings. We weren't discussing bush. We were discussing Iraq and what is going on internally in that country. Not why we are there or whose fault it is or how wonderfull you think dubbya is.

The Iraqi people who are fighting each other are not terrorists. They are fighting a civil war. They are fighting a war to determine what type of government their country will have.

THis is obvious to even your mr bush.

there you go again, I accuse you of putting a politcal bias into this and you turn around and say thats what I am doing. your childish "I know you are but what am I " arguments are getting old. I will say this again so as to get through your pig head, what are the two sides fighting in iraq? what side is zarquawi and al qeada on? are you still undecided as to who we should back? does zarqawi and al qeada have a legitimate stake in the future of iraq? You have no idea what the situation is in iraq. its not just two sides fighting for control, its al qeada trying to stop the democratic proccess. if you, in your ignorant refusal to see this as anything else but a bush power grab refuse to see it that way, then you will be left looking like an idiot when you unintenionally drift into the side of al qeada. thats what is going to happen. as you claim its simply iraqis trying to decide their future, you ignore the fact that on one side of the "civil war" al qeada has a large hand. this is serious shit, and half assed political hacks such as yourself who have an axe to grind with Bush and the 2000 election need to get educated or just go to the other side and be done with it.

You are hopeless trav. lol
But I must admit that your outlandish ideas are amusing.
This board would be rather dull without your ramblings. Please don't stop. Laughter is good for the soul.:)

Originally posted by Travh20
there you go again, I accuse you of putting a politcal bias into this and you turn around and say thats what I am doing.
Most everyone on this board puts in a political bias. Because we have strong beliefs, and we are usually bias in our opinions on this board. So what’s childish is to assume we aren’t or shouldn’t be bias because that’s what you and most everyone here is like.

Originally posted by Travh20
"I know you are but what am I " arguments are getting old.
Umm, then don’t bring up silly discussions like that, Trav. You know what will trigger them, yet you continue to spew them.

Originally posted by Travh20
You have no idea what the situation is in iraq. its not just two sides fighting for control, its al qeada trying to stop the democratic proccess.
Yes, because Islamic ideals and fundamentals are very anti-western. Until they are willing to accept Western Ideals, there will not be a stable Democracy in Iraq or the Middle East. In order for a Democracy to stay in the Middle East, they have to fight for it. And once they do, they will defend it.

The sad fact is Trav; you are the one who has no clue as to what the situation is like in Iraq. You are blind to your false allegiance to George Bush and his agenda. He claims we are doing this to give them a “Democracy” and to save them from an “evil dictator”…but if I strongly recall this is a war on TERRORISM and avenging 9/11 something Saddam had no connection to.

People are dying of deformities in Iraq, hospitals are not up to standard condition, people are suffering, fighting, dying and they now have a huge war in their backyards. Terrorists are all around Iraq, and we need three times the amount of troops in Iraq which thus means we cannot keep Iraq stable. And this is because Bush will put his evil, sick, and self-righteous agenda before our troops lives and the security of America.

We cannot keep Iraq stable, and we aren’t doing a good job at that, as it’s shown with the recent car bombings, and chaos that has increased in Iraq. More American soldiers are dying a day, and Saddam didn’t have the weapons. That was the reason we went in, and it’s not true. He was no threat to the United States of America. And this war is because we are trying to make America safer, not rid the world of dictators.

If this Administration cared so much about death, and evil dictators, they’d either be fighting and liberating people from world hunger, or invading Saudi Arabia, but we need them for oil and trade. But yet, they kill their people, and there are tons of other dictatorships in the Middle East. It’s silly to assume Bush really cared for the Iraqis, when he has all of these other options that are far more severe.

The Bush Administration Ok’d the prisoner abuse, and that has lead to Al Queda being able to recruit new people to dislike and hate America. I cannot stress this enough, Iran and Pakistan are far more linked to terrorism. Yet we didn’t go after them. We went after the man who was threatening Bush Senior. How ironic? And you know what? North Korea has weapons, Saddam didn’t. He wasn’t a threat. We should be fighting terrorism, not spending our whole time in Iraq. We are taking 95% of the burden, deaths and spending 95% of the money in Iraq. Yet, it’s hardly helping us in the fight against terrorism.

Bush did not prepare to go into Iraq, not enough troops, support or funding. Now we have a huge deficit, world disgust, chaos in Iraq, no weapons, and yet you still support this war. It’s amazing to me how blind you are…

ya. we have heard your canned answers overdose, and we know for you all th blame for everything is squarely on Bush. I just thought it might be nice if you maybe put a tiny bi of blame on the maniacs blowing up car bombs in crowds of iraqis simply trying to sign up to serve their country and help it become a free and stable part of the world, instead of some third world shithole stuck in the 5th century, as the zelots in the al qeada cells want to make it like. I guess that asking you to much though, you can only see things one way, tahts bUSH BAD, BUSH FAULT, MUST ELECT KERRY, ALL WILL BE WELL" LMAO

Originally posted by Travh20
ya. we have heard your canned answers overdose, and we know for you all th blame for everything is squarely on Bush.
He is the commander in chief, right? And the last I checked, it all falls on the President. He sent our troops to Iraq, and he thus gets the blame.

Originally posted by Travh20
instead of some third world shithole stuck in the 5th century, as the zelots in the al qeada cells want to make it like. I guess that asking you to much though, you can only see things one way, tahts bUSH BAD, BUSH FAULT, MUST ELECT KERRY, ALL WILL BE WELL" LMAO
Okay. Let’s just take this one at a time.

First of all, are you speaking of Imperialist Terms dear Trav? Because if I recall correctly, the Europeans went and invaded Africa to quote “give them a better life” and that they were actually the “good guys in doing so”. But in all reality, they were there for land, resources and power. It’s fairly similar to what’s going on right now. Plus, the fact is, this is a war on terrorism, not helping them escape the “5th century”. And to be honest, Iraq was not that “ill advanced”. According to our standards, yes. But they had cities, businesses and many things.

But lets be realistic. You say the Bush Administration is helping them out of poverty? Yet, in Africa, and all around the world, there are far worse places then Iraq. I suggest Bush get a better perspective of what areas need the most help. Because I can assure you death and other dictatorships are far worse in other countries. So the reason of “helping” them is utterly false. Not to mention, it was never brought up before the war. Wow, can you say "covering Bush's ass for a mistake he made?"

Secondly, you speak of Al Queda. Well, Bush has helped the Al Queda movement by having his Administration OK the Prisoner Abuse.

And Trav, the fact remains. Saddam had no link to 9/11, very weak ties to Al Queda, other countries were far more linked to Al Queda, he had no ties to Osama Bin Laden and yet he was our first pick on fighting terrorism? Or wait, I forgot Afghanistan was! Where we sent 15,000 troop to, and over 150,000 troops to Iraq. And where is that Osama Bin Laden?

And it’s ironic, because none of the reasons Bush gave us are still valid today. WMD’s? No, he didn’t have them. He was no threat to the United States. Terrorism? Hardly linked, at least according to the 9/11 Panel.

It’s costing us billions of dollars, we have no world help, and it’s a lost cause. Iraq is hardly better. With the chaos running high, deformities sky rocketing, hospitals still not up to date, terrorist attacks daily, and Americans dying at a higher rate then ever before.

Yet, you call this a success? When terrorism has actually increased? When we don’t have enough troops for Iraq and we need three times the amount we have now?

It’s all so funny to me how blind you are. But yes, you are correct...in this respect

bUSH BAD (Bush is bad), BUSH FAULT (It is his fault), MUST ELECT KERRY (And yes, Kerry is our only hope), ALL WILL BE WELL (One can only hope)

Originally posted by Overdose



Okay. Let’s just take this one at a time.

Secondly, you speak of Al Queda. Well, Bush has helped the Al Queda movement by having his Administration OK the Prisoner Abuse.

And Trav, the fact remains. Saddam had

It is interesting to note that one of the terrorist who just beheaded an American had recently been released from the American controlled prison. We abuse him by making making him pose nude infront of an american woman and he cuts the head of an american off.

Liberals cry about us imprisoning terrorist but where are their tears when our prisoners/hostages are murdered for no crime except for being an easy target.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb

Liberals cry about us imprisoning terrorist but where are their tears when our prisoners/hostages are murdered for no crime except for being an easy target.

old reb You'll find out real quick that the liberals will bore you silly with long winded posts telling anyone who will listen that U.S. foriegn policy created these terrorists and its the only way to get their point across.

Prepare yourself reb, they dont like being classified liberals here either. I was preached to earlier today for "labeling" people.

Hello Havok,

Would a rose by any other name smell so sweet. What if I call them Democrats. Is that a bad word too?

good to hear from you.

old reb

By the way, welcome to Allforums.

Originally posted by old-reb
It is interesting to note that one of the terrorist who just beheaded an American had recently been released from the American controlled prison. We abuse him by making making him pose nude infront of an american woman and he cuts the head of an american off.

Old-Reb are you really that ill educated in the matter of the Prisoner Abuse Scandal? I suggest you turn off the Rush Limbaugh.

First of all, it was not just “posing naked” there were reports of up to 11 deaths, that were coming from our prisons. Which thus means, we are no better then the terrorists. We attacked them with dogs, and did things that reminded our Senators of the Holocaust. Not all of the Prisoner Abuse pictures or video was released to the public, for it was too graphic. So what we know now, is nothing compared to what is out there.

If you are going to call their (terrorists) acts inhuman, and evil, then we better not commit the same atrocities. Because that is not only hypocritical, but also degrading to America as a whole. Plus, 90% of the people that were in the Prisons were civilians and had no reason to be abused.

Originally posted by old-reb
Liberals cry about us imprisoning terrorist but where are their tears when our prisoners/hostages are murdered for no crime except for being an easy target.


Old Reb, I have nothing but sorrow for what happened to our prisoners. But we expect that from these terrorists. We don’t expect this to happen from our side. If we are fighting evil, like George Bush says, we cannot act like the “evil” we are fighting. For that will make us no better then them.

Plus, when we abuse them, it does nothing more but recruit more hate and disgust for America. Which thus leads to more be-headings, and rampages against America. If we were to fight terrorism effectively, we wouldn’t do it in a fashion that leads us to having more enemies.

But I find it wonderful, how you pinpoint one part of my long two posts about the Iraq War, and focus on some of the more non-strong points of why this war is incorrect.

Oh and...
Welcome to allforums ;)

I hope you enjoy your stay.

Originally posted by Overdose

But I find it wonderful, how you pinpoint one part of my long two posts about the Iraq War, and focus on some of the more non-strong points of why this war is incorrect.

Oh and...
Welcome to allforums ;)

I hope you enjoy your stay.

Sorry overdose but I don't multi task too well. I only work on one point at the time. Too many things busy up the old mind to make errors.

Thanks for the welcome.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
Sorry overdose but I don't multi task too well. I only work on one point at the time. Too many things busy up the old mind to make errors.

Thanks for the welcome.

old reb

Hey, it's okay. I'm 15, so I am just a busy bee! But anyway, I hope you liked my reply?

I look forward to many debates with a nice Republican.
;)

Hello Overdose,

15 and in Portland. I have a 15 year old step-grand-daughter in Vancouver. I am 63. I visited Vancouver and the newspapers were so liberal that I would become a liberal if I had no other source of news.

old reb

Liberal? The Oregonian endorsed George Bush last election. I suggest you research a little bit, before you make false accusations. But I'm still waiting for a reply to my last rebuttal.

Originally posted by Overdose
Liberal? The Oregonian endorsed George Bush last election. I suggest you research a little bit, before you make false accusations. But I'm still waiting for a reply to my last rebuttal.

I only was there a week and my sons newspaper whatever it was was very very anti-bush.
While I was there I visited Portland and took a walking tour. I liked the city and their ideas on keeping cars out of the heart of the city. A lot of history there too.

Please enlighten me on the reply you so eagerly await.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
I only was there a week and my sons newspaper whatever it was was very very anti-bush.
Most things that are factual come off Anti-Bush.

But anyway, in Oregon our paper endorsed George Bush. Proving it's not liberal. So, you're wrong. Moving on...

Originally posted by old-reb
Please enlighten me on the reply you so eagerly await.

I replied to your questions about the "prisoner abuse" and you haven't replied back. I'm wondering if you still stand with your opinions, because I addressed every criticism you had.

It is important to you to be right, isn't it. I will have to ask my son what paper he gets in Vancouver.

Our treatment of prisoners is like a college prank compared to their take no prisoner policy. The hate was not caused by prisoner abuse, that is only their latest excuse. Before 9/11, I would watch the crazy Islamics chanting death to America and laugh. But now I know the are able and willing to act out that hate. I am not laughing anymore.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
It is important to you to be right, isn't it.
No, but when I am, I'm not afraid to say it.

Originally posted by old-reb
Our treatment of prisoners is like a college prank compared to their take no prisoner policy.
12 deaths were reported from our prisons. We abused them with dogs, beat them, and did things that were not "college pranks". Turn off the Rush Limbaugh, please. If we act like them, we are equal. We are no better then the terrorists. Is that what you want America to be like? Sink down to the tactics the terrorists use?

Oh, and Old-Reb, not all of the images/video were released, and the material that was not released, our Senators viewed. They described it as "appalling, gruesome, and horrific" and it reminded some of the Holocaust. Which thus means, it is not just college pranks…or at least according to the Senators. And even President Bush called it “horrific”.

Originally posted by old-reb
The hate was not caused by prisoner abuse, that is only their latest excuse.
Now they have one more reason. Good job Bush!

Originally posted by Overdose

Now they have one more reason. Good job Bush!

These are not your everyday good guy gone wrong, they are hardened, extremist terrorist.

Do you recall that our first Afghan prisoners rebeled and Killed a lot of Americans. We learned to take off the kid gloves then.

If you can squeeze some information out of the prisoners then you can save American, British, and Iraq lives. So if you are a rational thinker you will chose to protect the innocent and not the terrorist.

Maybe you should know that we are there to try to put together an Multiethnic government that accepts the right for both Sunni and Shittes to live together. Both religions only allow Islamic governments and Shittes don't recognize Sunni and vice Versa.

What a novel Idea in the middle east. A country that tolerates all religions. It is not an easy task because these are some bad dudes and they demand to be the dictator in power just like in Afghanistan.

We are having a hard time because we are civilized people fighting uncivilized people. Saddam knew that they didn't understand reason, they use and believe in power and only respect power. Saddam rulled by being more brutal than them. We are trying to make them respect each others right to live in a single country.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
These are not your everyday good guy gone wrong, they are hardened, extremist terrorist.
Old Reb, I fully understand their motives and disgust for America. What you fail to realize is that killing them, and using the same tactics they use, will only fuel the hate and the division. It will only create more and more disgust for America.

Originally posted by old-reb
If you can squeeze some information out of the prisoners then you can save American, British, and Iraq lives. So if you are a rational thinker you will chose to protect the innocent and not the terrorist.
Well, since 90% of the prisoners were civilians, how much information do you think we could get out of them? They had no information, and were not terrorists.

Plus, studies show that if you abuse prisoners harshly, they will tell you what they think you want to hear (in order to not be abused). But if you don’t abuse them in harsh ways, they will tell you information that you need to know.

Originally posted by old-reb
Maybe you should know that we are there to try to put together an Multiethnic government that accepts the right for both Sunni and Shittes to live together. Both religions only allow Islamic governments and Shittes don't recognize Sunni and vice Versa.
Right. And I thought this was a war on terrorism? We went in to avenge 9/11, and make America safer. These reasons do not apply, and are only created in defense of what we are doing in Iraq.

Originally posted by old-reb
What a novel Idea in the middle east. A country that tolerates all religions. It is not an easy task because these are some bad dudes and they demand to be the dictator in power just like in Afghanistan.
A Democracy will never work in the Middle East unless they fight for one. The only way in which you have something last, is if you fight for it. The reason we defend ours so greatly, is because we remember the cost in which we had to get it.

But, again, this is a war against terrorism…not dictators. This was a war started on the thought of WMD’s, not mending the relations in the Middle East.

When Japan attacked the Us we attacked Japan to make the world safer.

When Islamic terrorist attacked the US we attacked Islamic terrorist in Afghanistan and now they are in Iraq. We fight them in Iraq.

We could pull out, like Russia did in Afghanistan and leave a rich homebase for terrorist to attack the world.

We fight in Iraq or we die in New York. There is no safe place to bury your head and pretend there are no terrorist that spend their lives trying to destory America or any American they can get their hands on.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
When Japan attacked the Us we attacked Japan to make the world safer.

When Islamic terrorist attacked the US we attacked Islamic terrorist in Afghanistan and now they are in Iraq. We fight them in Iraq.

We could pull out, like Russia did in Afghanistan and leave a rich homebase for terrorist to attack the world.

We fight in Iraq or we die in New York. There is no safe place to bury your head and pretend there are no terrorist that spend their lives trying to destory America or any American they can get their hands on.

old reb
Alas, they are not concentrated in Iraq, and never were. There's a whole bunch in Saudi Arabia, our supposed allies, why didn't we attack there?

Fact is, Saddam had very weak ties to al-Qaeda and terrorism. It was the wrong place to attack at the wrong time.

Originally posted by old-reb
When Japan attacked the Us we attacked Japan to make the world safer.
We attacked Japan because they attacked us. Saddam didn’t attack us.

Originally posted by old-reb
When Islamic terrorist attacked the US we attacked Islamic terrorist in Afghanistan and now they are in Iraq. We fight them in Iraq.
Actually, they really aren’t in Iraq. Saddam had weak ties to terrorism, and Iran and Pakistan were far more linked to terrorism. Which thus means, Iraq was not the place to go in terms of “fighting” terrorism. Since the Iraq War we are at a 21 year high in terrorist attacks. Terrorism has gotten worse, since the Iraq War. We are not making America safer by being in Iraq, we are making us less safe.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Alas, they are not concentrated in Iraq, and never were. There's a whole bunch in Saudi Arabia, our supposed allies, why didn't we attack there?

Fact is, Saddam had very weak ties to al-Qaeda and terrorism. It was the wrong place to attack at the wrong time.

Hello borg,

They are concentrated in the middle east and Iraq is in the middle East and Iraq did take kuwait and tried to take saudai Arabia but we stopped them. Is Saddam had of succeded we would be cut off from the oil. That means we could stop driving those SUV's and burning the lights.

Saddam killed tens of thousands of his own people just to keep them in line. Now we know how it is to walk a mile in his shoes. He mustard gassed his own people. The UN embargo was killing tens of thousands of children, who died quitely in the night from malnutrition.

We need to see if we can get Muslims of different faiths to live together in peace. This is important for peace in the world.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
They are concentrated in the middle east and Iraq is in the middle East and Iraq did take kuwait and tried to take saudai Arabia but we stopped them. Is Saddam had of succeded we would be cut off from the oil.

1. Terrorists are not all in the Middle East. They are all around the world.

2. We helped supply him with weapons that he used against these people.

3. Saudi Arabia helped 11 of the high jackers on 9/11…and are very much linked to terrorism. Yet, you don’t see us attacking them.

4. Iraq was hardly linked to terrorism. I suggest you read the 9/11 Panel's findings...

Originally posted by old-reb
Saddam killed tens of thousands of his own people just to keep them in line. Now we know how it is to walk a mile in his shoes. He mustard gassed his own people.

We gave him these weapons in 1988, and that was when he killed a lot of his people. Secondly, this is a war on terrorism not dictators

I’ve already addressed this reason many times…

Here are two versions of my responses…

Yet, in Africa, and all around the world, there are far worse places then Iraq. I suggest Bush get a better perspective of what areas need the most help. Because I can assure you death and other dictatorships are far worse in other countries. So the reason of “helping” them is utterly false. Not to mention, it was never brought up before the war.

If this Administration cared so much about death, and evil dictators, they’d either be fighting and liberating people from world hunger, or invading Saudi Arabia, but we need them for oil and trade. But yet, they kill their people, and there are tons of other dictatorships in the Middle East. It’s silly to assume Bush really cared for the Iraqis, when he has all of these other options that are far more severe.

Originally posted by Overdose
1. Terrorists are not all in the Middle East. They are all around the world.

They cannot allow a mulitethnic government in the Middle East so the Al Quadia terrorist of the world have moved in to fight the great satan in Iraq. They can't afford to lose nor can we.

2. We helped supply him with weapons that he used against these people.
So should the gun makers of the world be responsible for the guy that shoots his neighbor because he was pissed off.

3. Saudi Arabia helped 11 of the high jackers on 9/11…and are very much linked to terrorism. Yet, you don’t see us attacking them.
We voted for Bush to make those calls. I think he has far more info on which to base his decisions than we do. In anycase I could agree with you

4. Iraq was hardly linked to terrorism. I suggest you read the 9/11 Panel's findings...
Most every country in the Middle east is linked to terrorist. Bush was voted to make those calls and he did.



We gave him these weapons in 1988, and that was when he killed a lot of his people. Secondly, this is a war on terrorism not dictators

I’ve already addressed this reason many times…

Here are two versions of my responses… [/B]

Originally posted by old-reb
What a novel Idea in the middle east. A country that tolerates all religions. It is not an easy task because these are some bad dudes and they demand to be the dictator in power just like in Afghanistan.

We are having a hard time because we are civilized people fighting uncivilized people. Saddam knew that they didn't understand reason, they use and believe in power and only respect power. Saddam rulled by being more brutal than them. We are trying to make them respect each others right to live in a single country.

old reb

From a historical standpoint, Muslim countries had been more tolerant of other religions than Christian ones.

It wasn't until the beginning of the last century, when European colonial powers started grabbing up chunks of the Middle East in their thirst for oil that the Muslims started to hate the west. Since then it has been a history of conflict as the western powers exploited the natural resources of the region for their own gain. In this process, western governments attempted to install friendly governments, which fueled opposition groups that remain to this day.

I think your description of Iraqis as "uncivilized" is ironic considering that Iraq is considered the cradle of civilization.

Welcome to allforums Reb, and tell me if you would...why do you think we are hated in the Middle East?

Originally posted by old-reb
They cannot allow a mulitethnic government in the Middle East so the Al Quadia terrorist of the world have moved in to fight the great satan in Iraq. They can't afford to lose nor can we.
Iraq hardly has terrorism, nor did it ever. What are you trying to say?

Originally posted by old-reb
So should the gun makers of the world be responsible for the guy that shoots his neighbor because he was pissed off.
No, because they don’t personally hand mad men the gun. We handed a mad man weapons…there is a big difference.

Originally posted by old-reb
Most every country in the Middle east is linked to terrorist. Bush was voted to make those calls and he did.
Iraq had far less then most…besides this war was founded on the WMD threat, which was false.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
From a historical standpoint, Muslim countries had been more tolerant of other religions than Christian ones.

It wasn't until the beginning of the last century, when European colonial powers started grabbing up chunks of the Middle East in their thirst for oil that the Muslims started to hate the west. Since then it has been a history of conflict as the western powers exploited the natural resources of the region for their own gain. In this process, western governments attempted to install friendly governments, which fueled opposition groups that remain to this day.

I think your description of Iraqis as "uncivilized" is ironic considering that Iraq is considered the cradle of civilization.

Welcome to allforums Reb, and tell me if you would...why do you think we are hated in the Middle East?

Before there were Muslims in the middle east there were Jews and Christians. Where did the Jews and Christians go? Was it Muslim love that made them disappear? It is a death punishment to leave Islam and it is a death punishment for a kafir to try to win a Muslim away from his religion.

I can say why we are hated in the middle east in one word: Israel. The Muslims have an irrational hatred of Jews and want to drive them into the Sea. We supply Israel with weapons and UN votes. We are in the way of their quest to kill the Jews.



old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
I can say why we are hated in the middle east in one word: Israel. The Muslims have an irrational hatred of Jews and want to drive them into the Sea. We supply Israel with weapons and UN votes. We are in the way of their quest to kill the Jews.

They hate Israel, because we put them in after World War II, and took Muslim owned land, and put Jews there.

They thus started invading areas that was not originally given to them, invaded the West Bank, broke UN resolutions, and has been a horrible Government.

We blindly love them, when they are really the cause of most of the issues.

And you don't think the Jews hate the Muslims as much as the Muslims hate the Jews?

Originally posted by Overdose
Iraq hardly has terrorism, nor did it ever. What are you trying to say?



:D :D :p :p :p

Originally posted by Overdose

And you don't think the Jews hate the Muslims as much as the Muslims hate the Jews?

Muslims live in peace within the borders of Israel while an Israel caught in palestine territory is dead meat.

Palestines are taught to hate and kill the Jews. The Jews just want to live. If it is not the Christians killing the Jews, it is the Muslims. There is very few places where the Jew is welcome and it is because of religious hatred being taught.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
:D :D :p :p :p

Saddam had no link to 9/11, very weak ties to Al Queda, other countries were far more linked to Al Queda, and he had no ties to Osama Bin Laden and yet he was our first pick on fighting terrorism?

Saddam was hardly a threat to us in terms of terrorism. This is all cited and backed up with the 9/11 panel.

And Saddam had no weapons, and this war is totally un-justified.

Originally posted by old-reb
Muslims live in peace within the borders of Israel while an Israel caught in palestine territory is dead meat.
Well, putting them in the center of all Muslim Countires was totally smart wasn't it?

Originally posted by old-reb
Palestines are taught to hate and kill the Jews. The Jews just want to live. If it is not the Christians killing the Jews, it is the Muslims. There is very few places where the Jew is welcome and it is because of religious hatred being taught.


1. Jews dislike Palestine’s...as well

2. The Palestine’s just want to live as well

3. The Jews kill, and invade Muslim countries and are just as much responsible for the chaos and violence in the Middle East.

4. There is very few places where they are welcome? And allowing them to invade more land that isn't theres is going to make them more welcome?

Originally posted by Overdose
Saddam had no link to 9/11, very weak ties to Al Queda, other countries were far more linked to Al Queda, and he had no ties to Osama Bin Laden and yet he was our first pick on fighting terrorism?

Saddam was hardly a threat to us in terms of terrorism. This is all cited and backed up with the 9/11 panel.

And Saddam had no weapons, and this war is totally un-justified.

He had Mustard gas and was working on nukes. He has missile attacked Israe before so he was a threat to the destruction of Israel. this would have made him a hero in the middle east.

Saddam would not come clean on what he had or didn't have. If he was honest with us, he would still have a job.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
Before there were Muslims in the middle east there were Jews and Christians. Where did the Jews and Christians go? Was it Muslim love that made them disappear?

Judaism and Christianity never took hold throughout the Middle East, which is why Islam was able to spread so rapidly. When Islam spread through the Arab world it wasn't in conflict with Jews or Christians, it was spreading as a way to end tribal warfare.

It is a death punishment to leave Islam and it is a death punishment for a kafir to try to win a Muslim away from his religion.

You are speaking about radical Muslim fundamentalism. The Bible says adulterers and recalcitrant children should be stoned to death, yet we don't commonly associate those ideas with Christians today, despite the fact that some radical Christians think it's ok to kill abortion doctors. We recognize that they represent the lunatic fringe, but we have a tendency to erroneously think of all Muslims as knife-wielding butchers based on the acts of a few extremists.

I can say why we are hated in the middle east in one word: Israel. The Muslims have an irrational hatred of Jews and want to drive them into the Sea. We supply Israel with weapons and UN votes. We are in the way of their quest to kill the Jews.

The question of Israel is just one episode in our history of colonialism in the region.

Originally posted by old-reb
He had Mustard gas and was working on nukes. He has missile attacked Israe before so he was a threat to the destruction of Israel. this would have made him a hero in the middle east.
The UN said he didn't have any weapons past 1996, and we haven't found any. Wrong, he was no threat.

Originally posted by old-reb
Saddam would not come clean on what he had or didn't have.
David Kay said he was working with us, and letting us do all of what we wanted in the inspections. He didn't have any WMD's...period.

Originally posted by Overdose
Well, putting them in the center of all Muslim Countires was totally smart wasn't it?



1. Jews dislike Palestine’s...as well

You don't see Jews climbing over the wall to kill any Palestine they can bomb.

2. The Palestine’s just want to live as well
They just don't want the Jews to live because they aren't Muslims.

3. The Jews kill, and invade Muslim countries and are just as much responsible for the chaos and violence in the Middle East.
The Jews came there to escape the Nazis killing them. Some rumors were spread and mobs attacked and killed Jews so they learned to defend themselves and when they got a country all their Islam neighbors attacked to destory them.

4. There is very few places where they are welcome? And allowing them to invade more land that isn't theres is going to make them more welcome?
It was the Muslims that invaded the Jews but when the dust cleared the Muslims lost land instead of gaining land. This extra land has become vital for the defense of Israel. If they were not under attack they wouldn't need any land to call their own. They would live in peace with their Muslim friends.

Originally posted by Overdose
The UN said he didn't have any weapons past 1996, and we haven't found any. Wrong, he was no threat.


David Kay said he was working with us, and letting us do all of what we wanted in the inspections. He didn't have any WMD's...period.

These are all things that I can't argue. The fact is that we are there and we have to make the best of it.

old reb

I just thought I would pop in for a visit and already I have made 20 post.

You guys know how to make old reb feel at home.

Good night, I go to bed early and get up with the chickens.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
You don't see Jews climbing over the wall to kill any Palestine they can bomb.
The Jews invaded the West Bank, and areas that were not given to them. They attacked with tanks and soldiers, areas that were owned by the Palestine’s. That has lead to the Palestine’s retaliating against Israel.

Originally posted by old-reb
They just don't want the Jews to live because they aren't Muslims.
Well, it wasn’t wise to put them in a section filled with Islamic Extremists was it? But it’s also because they are so ruthless, and power hungry.

Originally posted by old-reb
The Jews came there to escape the Nazis killing them. Some rumors were spread and mobs attacked and killed Jews so they learned to defend themselves and when they got a country all their Islam neighbors attacked to destory them.
Ummm, okay…I know this. But just because they were escaping the Nazis, does that mean we can force Muslims that have been settled for thousands of years to all of a sudden move?

Originally posted by old-reb
It was the Muslims that invaded the Jews but when the dust cleared the Muslims lost land instead of gaining land. This extra land has become vital for the defense of Israel. If they were not under attack they wouldn't need any land to call their own. They would live in peace with their Muslim friends.
Originally yes, the Muslims attacked first because they were being forced to move out of their land. But Israel took more land, because they are greedy. If they hadn’t taken more land, a lot of the issues now wouldn’t be happening. Plus, they have taken more land now, and broken more UN Resolutions.

Originally posted by old-reb
These are all things that I can't argue. The fact is that we are there and we have to make the best of it.

Yes, and Bush gave us the WMD reason, as the first reason as to why we invaded Iraq. It's not true, which thus means Saddam wasn't a threat.

interesting how OD has never mentioned al the UN resolutions Saddam broke but is quick to point out Israel doing it

Originally posted by Travh20
interesting how OD has never mentioned al the UN resolutions Saddam broke but is quick to point out Israel doing it
Interesting how you didn't mention the fact that the UN did not sanction the war in Iraq...and thus any UN resolutions he broke are irrelevant unless and until the UN itself starts caring about them...

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Interesting how you didn't mention the fact that the UN did not sanction the war in Iraq...and thus any UN resolutions he broke are irrelevant unless and until the UN itself starts caring about them... I dont feel the sanctions are irrelevant considering that our country is the main driving economical and military force within the U.N.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Interesting how you didn't mention the fact that the UN did not sanction the war in Iraq...and thus any UN resolutions he broke are irrelevant unless and until the UN itself starts caring about them...

exactly, and considering we and the british were the only one even trying to enforce the UN's resolutions, I think it is safe to say the UN never had any intention of following up on any of its resolutions or threats, knowing waht we know now about the oil for food scandal,its clear they prefered saddam break their resolutions. like a parent that never carries through on their threats, the UN is joke that will always get suckered and pushed around by unruly kids. Time outs wont get it done, a spanking was needed.

Originally posted by Travh20
exactly, and considering we and the british were the only one even trying to enforce the UN's resolutions, I think it is safe to say the UN never had any intention of following up on any of its resolutions or threats
Lets see, Saddam did break resolutions...and we are so concerned about that. Yet, we don't care if Israel does...now isn't that a double standard?

Oh, and according to David Kay, Saddam was complying with all of our demands in the last UN Inspection. So why would we attack Saddam when he was starting to comply with our demands?

Not to mention, they had reports that showed he didn't have weapons past 1996. You cannot refute that, and it's simply sad you would bring this up.

Saddam did not have weapons, and it's proven by the fact we haven't found any. He was not a threat to the United States.

Originally posted by Travh20
exactly, and considering we and the british were the only one even trying to enforce the UN's resolutions, I think it is safe to say the UN never had any intention of following up on any of its resolutions or threats, knowing waht we know now about the oil for food scandal,its clear they prefered saddam break their resolutions. like a parent that never carries through on their threats, the UN is joke that will always get suckered and pushed around by unruly kids. Time outs wont get it done, a spanking was needed. The U.N. is an ongoing joke. As you said there were main members of the U.N. who preferred the food for oil deal they had in place because they were making large sums of money.

OD defends Saddam saying he was conforming to resolutions when we went in. Thats funny. If he were old enough to actually remember how Saddam "started" to comply with resolutions about 20 times in the 10 + years he had been given, maybe he would know what he was talking about. As it is, I guess his generation will be happy to learn their revisionist history and pretend America is evil and the rest of the world has humanity's best interest at heart.

Originally posted by HaVoK

OD defends Saddam saying he was conforming to resolutions when we went in. Thats funny. If he were old enough to actually remember how Saddam "started" to comply with resolutions about 20 times in the 10 + years he had been given, maybe he would know what he was talking about. As it is, I guess his generation will be happy to learn their revisionist history and pretend America is evil and the rest of the world has humanity's best interest at heart.

When do I defend Saddam? Is speaking the truth defending Saddam? Yes, Saddam at the start did not "comply" with our demands. I recognize that.

But why of all times would we attack him, when he was STARTING to comply? It seems ironic, and silly to do that. Maybe we should of let the UN stay in Iraq, and then they would have found no weapons. And then we would have known for sure if he had weapons.

When we have Bush and his Administration come out and say he has them, and we know where they are, we should be 100% positive before we invade a country on false information. And we should be even more careful since we don't have enough troops to even stabilize Iraq.

But...

We haven't found any weapons, period. He was no threat to the United States...and he wasn't past 1996.

Well, gtg. school time! fun! fun! fun!:D

so you admit he was a threat to america in 1996? what happened in 1996 that made him so harmless?

Originally posted by Travh20
so you admit he was a threat to america in 1996? what happened in 1996 that made him so harmless?

He didn't have weapons past 1996, that was the year he disarmed. Yet, we didn't find him a threat when he had the weapons. This is all according to the UN reports, you know minor stuff Bush didn't listen to...

OD is looking at the past. Talking about the past does nothing to help on what we should do now.

Was it right for China to take Tibet? No, but it is history. We must deal with today.

OD just wants to dwell on anything that makes Bush look bad.

OD, what should we do now in Iraq?

old reb

Originally posted by Overdose
He didn't have weapons past 1996, that was the year he disarmed. Yet, we didn't find him a threat when he had the weapons. This is all according to the UN reports, you know minor stuff Bush didn't listen to...

As I recall he would take to refusing UN inspections until the US mobilized and then he would allow some inspections again. Well he played the game too close. We were tired of being jerked around so we just went in and took Saddam out.

The UN fell for his stupid game but not us.

Originally posted by old-reb
OD is looking at the past. Talking about the past does nothing to help on what we should do now.
Old Reb, we are discussing why we went into Iraq. I disagree with that decision, and I will talk about the past. If you have an issue with it, I suggest you leave the debate.

Originally posted by old-reb
OD just wants to dwell on anything that makes Bush look bad.
Yes, actually I do. I’m for John Kerry this election, so why wouldn’t I want Bush to look bad? But, thanks for stating the obvious.

Originally posted by old-reb
OD, what should we do now in Iraq?
Personally, I don’t know what to do exactly. We need three times the amount of troops in Iraq to keep it stable, we were hoping for 100,000 Iraqi Security Forces, but we only have 5,000 and car bombings our occurring daily, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6021654/ (news today)

And because of Bush’s miss planning and unilateral attitude in this war, we are at a huge disadvantage. We have almost no world support, and we didn’t have enough troops to begin with. The Iraqis are fighting us, and terrorists are making chaos strong in Iraq. We now have to take troops from South Korea, even though they are needed there.

But the next step would be to get John Kerry elected. He can gain the world support we need to win this war. Yes, we are in Iraq and there is no changing that, but since Bush is not trusted by the world, and he miss-planned this war, we have to get him out of office in order to change the mess we have caused in Iraq.

Originally posted by old-reb
As I recall he would take to refusing UN inspections until the US mobilized and then he would allow some inspections again.
Okay, Old Reb he was allowing inspections. Just not in the way we wanted them to be done in. So yes, he was not doing what he was told and was playing games with us. But in the latest UN inspection, he was cooperating and doing everything he was asked. And please tell me why we would attack him, when he was starting to comply with our demands?

But we have yet to find these weapons he was “hiding”

Originally posted by Overdose
Old Reb, we are discussing why we went into Iraq. I disagree with that decision, and I will talk about the past. If you have an issue with it, I suggest you leave the debate.



As per your request, I leave this debate. It is usless beating a dead horse. I will save my energy for a debate that is going forward not backward.

old reb

Originally posted by old-reb
As per your request, I leave this debate. It is usless beating a dead horse. I will save my energy for a debate that is going forward not backward.

old reb

Thanks, ;)

Originally posted by Overdose

Okay, Old Reb he was allowing inspections. Just not in the way we wanted them to be done in. So yes, he was not doing what he was told and was playing games with us. But in the latest UN inspection, he was cooperating and doing everything he was asked. And please tell me why we would attack him, when he was starting to comply with our demands?

But we have yet to find these weapons he was “hiding” OD...you seem to be an intelligent kid. I dont know what part you dont understand about the games Saddam was playing. I mentioned it in my reply earlier and you chose to kinda brush right by what i said. You will not consider the fact that Saddam "was starting to comply with our demands" many many times and kept ignoring the warnings we gave him about complying absolutely. He never did. He repeatedly ordered inspectors out of the buildings they were inspecting, told other inspectors they could not go into other buildings they wanted to. For over 10 years he played these games of cat and mouse and it just finally caught up to him.

You're advocating a policy of all bark and no bite. The world doesnt respect that at all. You can bet your bottom dollar that while the world may not respect George Bush the man, they do respect the fact that when he warns someone, chances are he ill follow through with it if he has to.

Originally posted by HaVoK
OD...you seem to be an intelligent kid.
Well, I try. Hehe

Originally posted by HaVoK
I dont know what part you dont understand about the games Saddam was playing. I mentioned it in my reply earlier and you chose to kinda brush right by what i said.
No, I addressed it in this post right here…the one you are replying to

So yes, he was not doing what he was told and was playing games with us

Originally posted by HaVoK
You will not consider the fact that Saddam "was starting to comply with our demands" many many times and kept ignoring the warnings we gave him about complying absolutely. He never did. He repeatedly ordered inspectors out of the buildings they were inspecting, told other inspectors they could not go into other buildings they wanted to. For over 10 years he played these games of cat and mouse and it just finally caught up to him.
HaVok? Do you go to war based on assumption or fact? You are assuming he was playing the games because he had weapons. When that is undeniably not true. Where are they? Have we found them? No, we haven’t.

The fact is, HaVok…he was playing games. Do you not understand that was, is past tense? He was playing games, but in the last UN Inspection, the one that reported no weapons to be found, he was complying with our demands.

According to David Kay, he was complying with all demands, and he was doing everything we asked. That thus means, if we were “scared” he may have weapons because of past experiences, I suggest we keep inspecting. Not just assume he has them, because of past relations. We should of gone on the present information, which was he had no weapons. And that he was complying, and if we were worried about him being a threat, we should have continued the inspections.

Originally posted by HaVoK
You're advocating a policy of all bark and no bite. The world doesnt respect that at all.
HaVok, there has never been this much Anti-Americanism around the world.

Originally posted by HaVoK
You can bet your bottom dollar that while the world may not respect George Bush the man, they do respect the fact that when he warns someone, chances are he ill follow through with it if he has to.
Ummm, okay millions protested him in Europe and across the world. I suggest you pay more attention to astrapol’s posts. He says the world loathes George Bush…and I think we can take his word for it.

Have a great day OD!! :D

Originally posted by HaVoK
Have a great day OD!! :D

Oh, trust me, I will :D