Terrorists Have Invaded America

[iago]

Terrorists have invaded the united states
 
Taken out your president
 
Sacked your government
 
Took over whitehouse
 
Put Bush in court
 
Because the terrorists said Bush had weapons of mass destruction
 
No weapons were found
 
The terrorists said it doesn't matter
 
We're staying in America until the American people stop launching attacks on the terrorists
 
The terrorists have destroyed your area
 
They bombed your schools
 
Your neighbours are disabled for life
 
The terrorists realise they've made a mistake and the American people won't stop attacking them to get their country back
 
The terrorists ask bin laden for help to stop the American people bombing them so they can leave the united states
 
Bin laden and the rest of the world decide not to take part
 
Bin laden didn't want his own community bombed for helping the terrorists regain control and security in America
 
The terroirst say no bin laden you've got to help us, Bush bombed our country and killed everyone in Iraq, you've got to help us
 
Bin laden says no, the invasion of Iraq was wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right
 
The terrorists are left to inforce security and implement the whitehouse and congress, the old congress and whitehouse officals were killed by the terrorists, so now the terrorists need to restore claim amougst the American people and say "We invaded America on good grounds, we thought you had weapons of mass destruction, we didn't find any, we're sorry for killing half of the American population"
 
The terrorists say they'll go back to Iraq and leave the American people to get back to normal life
 
The terorists tell Iraq, we're fighting America on their soil, so we don't need to fight them in Iraq
 
The Iraqi people don't believe the terrorists and ask them to leave America
 
The terrorists say we won't leave America until our job is done!
 
Half the population of America is dead, : men, women, children
 
You live in fear the terorists will bomb your community
 
The terrorists say the war is over in America, although everyday the American people are desperate and they decide to bomb city center shopping centres in America to make sure the terrorists don't look as if they've managed to take over America
 
The last thing the American people want is pictures on world wide tv of the terrorists shaking hands with the American people in New York, picutres of the American people welcoming the terrorists into America and praising them for their good faith that they were looking for the weapons of mass destruction
 
The American people want to make sure the terrorists are the most evil people on the planet, they don't want them to be heros
 
The Americans are not killers, but because of the biggest terrorist attack on the planet that has destroyed everything the American people stood for, the Americans have no choice but to fight the terrorists, until the terrorists leave America!

[GameSnake]

Yeah, whats your source?
Right now it looks like another boring rant.

[dark_drake]

Because the terrorists said Bush had weapons of mass destruction
 
No weapons were found

Wow... they must not have looked very hard.

[CrAz3D]

I call total BS on that for many reasons, one drake has already pointed out.

Also, the obvious ...contradictions?... too. 

The terrorists realise they've made a mistake and the American people won't stop attacking them to get their country back

It is mostly Saudis attacking in Iraq.
...& fun things like that.


Yay for leftist propaganda

[Warrior]

This is stupid, someone just has diaper rash over the other topic.

[MyndFyre]

Right now it looks like another boring rant.

Wow iago, you know something's wrong with your leftist position when GameSnake says it's boring. 

Wow... they must not have looked very hard.

LOL @ true.

Terrorists have invaded the united states
Taken out your president
Sacked your government
Took over whitehouse
Put Bush in court
Because the terrorists said Bush had weapons of mass destruction

I'm pretty sure it's not because Sadaam had WMDs that he's on trial for, but war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide following the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings after the first Gulf War.

We're staying in America until the American people stop launching attacks on the terrorists
 
The terrorists have destroyed your area
 
They bombed your schools

Yeah cuz, you know, we're not rebuilding or anything like that.  *That's* not why there are even Americans still in Iraq.  No, clearly, it's because we just want to bomb schools and maim everyone.  Except we don't want to look like we're doing it, so instead of running *everyone* over with a tank, we get just a select few.

Bin laden and the rest of the world decide not to take part
 
Bin laden didn't want his own community bombed for helping the terrorists regain control and security in America

Yeah, right.

The terroirst say no bin laden you've got to help us, Bush bombed our country and killed everyone in Iraq, you've got to help us
 
Bin laden says no, the invasion of Iraq was wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right

Yeah, right.  Have you ever heard Carlos Mencia talk about 9/11?

I guarantee you, I guarantee you, as soon as Osama bin Laden was linked to 9/11, I guarantee you, he got a phone call from Japan.  "You screw up big time!  You no have a History Channel?  We used to think just like you.  We think we kick ass at Pearl Harbor.  We drop over thousand bombs.  We go back and party 'Who da man?  I da man.  Who da man?  I da man.'  We didn't know we pissed them off.  They come to us.  They don't drop twenty bomb, thousand bomb.  They drop two bomb.  Just two.  Bomb so big, even our penis got smaller.

Clearly, bin Laden didn't think that the United States was capable or willing to retaliate.  It was a grave mistake on his part.

The terrorists are left to inforce security and implement the whitehouse and congress, the old congress and whitehouse officals were killed by the terrorists, so now the terrorists need to restore claim amougst the American people and say "We invaded America on good grounds, we thought you had weapons of mass destruction, we didn't find any, we're sorry for killing half of the American population"

Half?!?  Holy shit!  Wikipedia reports between 8,000 and 194,000 Iraqis dead (so we will conservatively estimate 100,000).  Iraq has a population of 28.8 million.  Now, let me do the math here.... 28.7 million divided by 28.8 million...  carry the two... 0.035% of the population.  I can see how that's only marginally less than half, and statistically not that much different than half!
 

Half the population of America is dead, : men, women, children

See above.

You live in fear the terorists will bomb your community

Yes, I do.  Good reason for closing the borders.
 

The terrorists say the war is over in America, although everyday the American people are desperate and they decide to bomb city center shopping centres in America to make sure the terrorists don't look as if they've managed to take over America
 
The last thing the American people want is pictures on world wide tv of the terrorists shaking hands with the American people in New York, picutres of the American people welcoming the terrorists into America and praising them for their good faith that they were looking for the weapons of mass destruction

...even though it's happening, like when the local Iraqis turned in al-Zarqawi (who, by the way, died the same day in history as the prophet Muhammed.  Eat that for your "this day in history" thread, Joe).


Well, you can see how there's a little bit of spin here, Ron.  I hope.

[GameSnake]

Terrorists have invaded the united states
Taken out your president
Sacked your government
Took over whitehouse
Put Bush in court
Because the terrorists said Bush had weapons of mass destruction

I'm pretty sure it's not because Sadaam had WMDs that he's on trial for, but war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide following the Shiite and Kurdish uprisings after the first Gulf War.

I think this part of his rant was saying that America, is, in a way superficially losing this war thru changes, reforms and money loss than actual life loss.

your leftist position

Why are you surprised? The European Union and Canada tend to more "left" (in our view) in thier political spectrum, thats just how they like it - their country is run just fine.
Buy yeah, I do agree with you on many of your points, especially the one about our borders being closed.

[Armin]

iago, there's a huge couple flaws in what you're saying. Iraq was run by an evil dictator, that has used chemical weapons on his own people. The Iraqi's had very limited rights. I'm also pretty sure that we're not bombing schools, yet building schools. We are spreading freedom, which many Iraqi's are greatful for, and I'm sure all of them would be greatful for if they knew exactly what was going on. We are also spreading democracy, which will help the United States. Every war has it's losses.

Let me ask you this. Say it's back in the 1800s, and a civil war is about to break out in the US to free slaves. Would you support it? The United States Civil War has the largest loss of death life in any war (if you don't count those who died in concentration camps durng WWII). Do you think we should've just let the slaves rot forever? If it wasn't for that war, black people in the southern part of the US would still be slaves.

Death lasts a lifetime, while freedom lasts forever.

MyndFyre edit: fixed a subtle yet very important word to mean what you wanted it to mean. 

[iago]

I think it's still interesting to look at the story from the side of the terrorists.  Sure, it's not the exact situation, but it's a pretty neat fiction anyways. 

So what if he's killed his own people?  There are horrible dictators that treat their people cruelly all over Africa and Asia.  Canada is in over a dozen African countries maintaining the peace, but where is the US?  The US is in places where it profits from being. 

I, personally, have nothing against war.  I do, however, have problems with lying and deception.  If you want to go dethrone a horrible dictator, then say you're going to do that and do it.  Don't tip-toe around with bullshit about WMDs that there was no evidence of.  Now, if the weapon inspectors had found evidence of WMDs, then that would be different. 

[CrAz3D]

I think it's still interesting to look at the story from the side of the terrorists.  Sure, it's not the exact situation, but it's a pretty neat fiction anyways. 

So what if he's killed his own people?  There are horrible dictators that treat their people cruelly all over Africa and Asia.  Canada is in over a dozen African countries maintaining the peace, but where is the US?  The US is in places where it profits from being. 

I, personally, have nothing against war.  I do, however, have problems with lying and deception.  If you want to go dethrone a horrible dictator, then say you're going to do that and do it.  Don't tip-toe around with bullshit about WMDs that there was no evidence of.  Now, if the weapon inspectors had found evidence of WMDs, then that would be different. 

The US holds something 700? military bases in 170? countries.

We're quite involved in humanitarian aid thorughout the world as well...you just hear more about Iraq.

I, personally, have nothing against war.

...maybe you should rethink that.

[Warrior]

That's stupid, this guy has launched chemical agents on his own people..what's stopping him from doing it on the rest of the world? Not to mention the insane amount of terrorists that were in Iraq..

Any country that harbors terrorists needs to be attacked. We arn't only going for people who kill their own people, but for people who have potential to others in the rest of the world. We have to weigh out priorities here.

Don't act like this is the last war we'll ever be in, we can surely get to the other aggressive dictators when we have more time but right now we're hell bent on capturing Osama and ending terrorism for the most part in the Middle East.

Crazed is right, we provide humanitarian aid to other countries. It isn't like we're giving them the cold shoulder either. When a country isn't actively in a war such as Canada, it's pretty easy to be involved with everything in the world.

I don't think it's fair to try to compare Canada, a country that isn't doing anything major in Iraq to the United States who spear headed the invasion and is helping rebuild Iraq. Slowly, power is being given back to the Iraqi people. Instead of the army taking care of things like robberies, they are training Iraqi police to handle the situation. Eventually the United States will train the Iraqi military as well.

The going in for WMD's thing was based on bad intelligence and we've acknowledged it. Now however, we arn't going to topple a dictator and leave. It will lead to a civil war and even more trouble than before. If we stay, things will get much better and Iraqi will be on the road to a great democracy. We arn't writing their constitution or anything, we are just there to secure them until they are able to secure themselves.

I'd say Iraq is a much more stable place, we went from having one soldier killed a day to capturing Saddam and to training Iraqi Police..I'd say that's good as hell.

We have the son of a bitch, he's on trial, and he will be executed. We're going to prevail in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in the War on Terror.

[CrAz3D]

You forgot al-Zarqawi too!

He's done & out

[Armin]

I think it's still interesting to look at the story from the side of the terrorists.  Sure, it's not the exact situation, but it's a pretty neat fiction anyways. 

So what if he's killed his own people?  There are horrible dictators that treat their people cruelly all over Africa and Asia.  Canada is in over a dozen African countries maintaining the peace, but where is the US?  The US is in places where it profits from being.

It's far more effective to head to one country at a time. Anyways, we were already in the middle east in Afganastan, why not clean up that area while we're at it?

I, personally, have nothing against war.  I do, however, have problems with lying and deception.  If you want to go dethrone a horrible dictator, then say you're going to do that and do it.  Don't tip-toe around with bullshit about WMDs that there was no evidence of.  Now, if the weapon inspectors had found evidence of WMDs, then that would be different. 

/signed.

[MyndFyre]

It's far more effective to head to one country at a time. Anyways, we were already in the middle east in Afganastan, why not clean up that area while we're at it?

And, interestingly enough, it's far more effective to go to the places first from which we'll be able to recover some economic gain.

[Armin]

The only way I can forsee us getting any economic gain is by becoming trading partners with Iraq once they become a stable democracy, which we can do with any country we convert to a democracy.

[Super_X]

The only way I can forsee us getting any economic gain is by becoming trading partners with Iraq once they become a stable democracy, which we can do with any country we convert to a democracy.

Or, Oil. We can install a figure-head to run their government while thy give us cheep oil. Then we can bartar it off to other countries for much more than it's worth! Woo for capitalism..

[MyndFyre]

The only way I can forsee us getting any economic gain is by becoming trading partners with Iraq once they become a stable democracy, which we can do with any country we convert to a democracy.

Or, Oil. We can install a figure-head to run their government while thy give us cheep oil. Then we can bartar it off to other countries for much more than it's worth! Woo for capitalism..

Well, that wasn't exactly what I was going for, but I'd pretty well assume we'll become trading partners with Iraq once it stabilizes.  Sure, we could do that with anybody, but I don't think that shum bum bubalai from Zimbabwe is going to go nearly as far economically for us as Iraqi oil.

[iago]

That's stupid, this guy has launched chemical agents on his own people..what's stopping him from doing it on the rest of the world?

Oh, I don't know.  How about the world's armies and weapons?

[Warrior]

That's stupid, this guy has launched chemical agents on his own people..what's stopping him from doing it on the rest of the world?

Oh, I don't know.  How about the world's armies and weapons?

Yea because EVERY NATION is capable of stopping this right? Just like Iran was able to stop his initial invasion withought our help and just like Kuwait was able to defend their oil fields from burning. He isn't going to look far to launch them.

[iago]

That's stupid, this guy has launched chemical agents on his own people..what's stopping him from doing it on the rest of the world?

Oh, I don't know.  How about the world's armies and weapons?

Yea because EVERY NATION is capable of stopping this right? Just like Iran was able to stop his initial invasion withought our help and just like Kuwait was able to defend their oil fields from burning. He isn't going to look far to launch them.

Iran and Kuwait aren't the "rest of the world". 

We don't stop African countries from attacking each other.  We don't stop other middle-eastern countries from fighting.  If countries want to attack each other and their neighbours, that's fine, let them resolve their little disputes.  That's the way the world has always worked, and there isn't much sense in stopping it.  There's no reason for us to go mucking about in their affairs. 

Now, if they represent a threat to us, or to our allies (Americas, Western Europe, Eastern Asia), then yeah, there's an issue.  But until they are a threat to the "rest of the world", as you said, there isn't much sense in stepping in. 

[Warrior]

That's stupid, this guy has launched chemical agents on his own people..what's stopping him from doing it on the rest of the world?

Oh, I don't know.  How about the world's armies and weapons?

Yea because EVERY NATION is capable of stopping this right? Just like Iran was able to stop his initial invasion withought our help and just like Kuwait was able to defend their oil fields from burning. He isn't going to look far to launch them.

Iran and Kuwait aren't the "rest of the world". 

We don't stop African countries from attacking each other.  We don't stop other middle-eastern countries from fighting.  If countries want to attack each other and their neighbours, that's fine, let them resolve their little disputes.  That's the way the world has always worked, and there isn't much sense in stopping it.  There's no reason for us to go mucking about in their affairs. 

Now, if they represent a threat to us, or to our allies (Americas, Western Europe, Eastern Asia), then yeah, there's an issue.  But until they are a threat to the "rest of the world", as you said, there isn't much sense in stepping in. 

So you're for letting an oppresive dictator potentially use chemical and biological agents on other people? Good to know.

[iago]

So you're for letting an oppresive dictator potentially use chemical and biological agents on other people? Good to know.

I'm for either always doing it, or not doing it.  In almost all cases, you don't do it.  If you're only doing it in cases where it benefits your own country in some way, then I call bullshit. 

[CrAz3D]

That's stupid, this guy has launched chemical agents on his own people..what's stopping him from doing it on the rest of the world?

Oh, I don't know.  How about the world's armies and weapons?

Yea because EVERY NATION is capable of stopping this right? Just like Iran was able to stop his initial invasion withought our help and just like Kuwait was able to defend their oil fields from burning. He isn't going to look far to launch them.

Iran and Kuwait aren't the "rest of the world". 

We don't stop African countries from attacking each other.  We don't stop other middle-eastern countries from fighting.  If countries want to attack each other and their neighbours, that's fine, let them resolve their little disputes.  That's the way the world has always worked, and there isn't much sense in stopping it.  There's no reason for us to go mucking about in their affairs. 

Now, if they represent a threat to us, or to our allies (Americas, Western Europe, Eastern Asia), then yeah, there's an issue.  But until they are a threat to the "rest of the world", as you said, there isn't much sense in stepping in. 

So you're for letting an oppresive dictator potentially use chemical and biological agents on other people? Good to know.

...maybe you missed what iago said the other day, he doesnt have a problem with war

[iago]

I don't have a problem with war.  I DO have a problem with dishonesty. 

[Warrior]

So you're for letting an oppresive dictator potentially use chemical and biological agents on other people? Good to know.

I'm for either always doing it, or not doing it.  In almost all cases, you don't do it.  If you're only doing it in cases where it benefits your own country in some way, then I call bullshit. 

We're benefiting by losing money and lives on a war? I'm sure the money we're using in Iraq COULD go to rebuild New Orleans but we're helping people start a greater country. We're going to do this in each and every country we find harboring terrorists or with an oppresive dictator. If this war were about Oil we wouldn't be buying it from them, we'd be taking it. This is just another stupid theory people make to try to justify their dislike for the war even in situations when it doesn't make sense.

[CrAz3D]

I don't have a problem with war.

......and again

Who in their right mind is ok with war!?  Its a horrible thing!

[Chavo]

I don't have a problem with war.  I DO have a problem with dishonesty. 

I hope this is one of those 'iago-taking-the-losing-side-of-an-argument-just-to-make-it-more-interesting' situations

whether you like it or not, politics is politics
I'm pretty sure the death tole from politics is a lot lower than war.

[MyndFyre]

I don't have a problem with war.

......and again

Who in their right mind is ok with war!?  Its a horrible thing!

Shh.  I'm not pro-war, I'm just not anti-war.  Sometimes it's necessary.

[CrAz3D]

I don't have a problem with war.

......and again

Who in their right mind is ok with war!?  Its a horrible thing!

Shh.  I'm not pro-war, I'm just not anti-war.  Sometimes it's necessary.

We should all be anti-war, but we should also except that it is necessary..if that makes any sense, mayb ei'll reword later.

I dont believe in abortion, but I support it.
I dont like war, but I know we need it sometimes.

[iago]

War is often necessary and beneficial.  Like if the US had decided to dethrone Saddam Hussein, that would have been a good war.  If only they'd done that.  But instead, they mislead, lied, and declared victory on a goal that they hadn't set out to achieve (publicly). 

And incidentally, supporting war as being necessary isn't the same as saying that I like it. 

And yes, a lot of money was spent on the war, but look at all the oil and land that was captured.  I'd bet that the war in Iraq will pay for itself. 

How can you say, "Who in their right mind is ok with war" while at the same time support nuking the entire middle-east?  That would result in A LOT more death and suffering than any war has. 

[deadly7]

I'm not anti-war.  War is useful.  Some things politics and being civilized can't do.

[Armin]

War is often necessary and beneficial.  Like if the US had decided to dethrone Saddam Hussein, that would have been a good war.  If only they'd done that.  But instead, they mislead, lied, and declared victory on a goal that they hadn't set out to achieve (publicly).

NOBODY lied about that. Leaving Iraq after we dethroned Saddam would be very stupid and rediculous. There are about 8 different religious terrorist groups trying to take power in Iraq right now, who's to say the next dictator they get isn't worse than Saddam? The war was called Iraqi Freedom, meaning our goal is to give the people of Iraq freedom. We can't just run in a country, take down their government, then let a new dictator take over a deprive the people of the same exact rights that Saddam deprived them of. Back to square 1, yet with about 2,000+ wasted lives.

And about the whole money thing: you don't know whether or not we went to Iraq rather than other nations for economic reasons. It's a lot more likely that we went to Iraq because we were already in Afganistan which is in the same area, and that there isn't much awareness about the problem in Africa. Why start in the middle east, then randomly jump to Africa? With the awareness that's rising (http://www.invisiblechildren.com/theMovement/globalNightCommute/), I'm sure that we will be in Africa soon. Your statement is null untill you get ANY solid proof to back yourself up.

[CrAz3D]

...we havent captured anything in Iraq, it still belongs to Iraq.  Iraq isnt a province or state of the US now...

You said you're ok with war...to me that sounds like "hey, war, eh, whatever, fine with me"

I think war is bad, but necessary.  It is a disturbing thought, I'm not terribly fond of the idea of being responsible for the death of anyone, but sometimes it needs to happen (i.e. ww2, ww1, mid east, africa, europe, etc)

[Armin]

Missed the third page, or just forgot to quote iago? 

[CrAz3D]

Missed the third page, or just forgot to quote iago? 

quoting is boring, when I allow for confusion it gets more interesting......................I guess

[MyndFyre]

War is often necessary and beneficial.  Like if the US had decided to dethrone Saddam Hussein, that would have been a good war.  If only they'd done that.  But instead, they mislead, lied, and declared victory on a goal that they hadn't set out to achieve (publicly).

NOBODY lied about that.

A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Alie

[dark_drake]

I don't have a problem with war.  I DO have a problem with dishonesty. 

That's my biggest problem with the war in Iraq.  It has been too riddled with lies and deceit.

Also, another of my problems with this war in Iraq is that the US is once again fighting a limited war.  When a country enters into a war, the country should fight to win.  It's ridiculous to think that we have had to capture many towns more than once.

[Armin]

War is often necessary and beneficial.  Like if the US had decided to dethrone Saddam Hussein, that would have been a good war.  If only they'd done that.  But instead, they mislead, lied, and declared victory on a goal that they hadn't set out to achieve (publicly).

NOBODY lied about that.

A lie is a statement made by someone who believes or suspects it to be false, in the expectation that the hearers may believe it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Alie

I still stand by my statement. Nobody said that we would go to Iraq, take down Saddam, then leave. If anybody said that, they would be stupid as it wouldnt work, due to the reasons I have stated in the post you quoted.

[Armin]

I seriously can't believe I just wrote all this for a myspace discussion about the movie "Loose Change", when nobody in the topic was making any sense. Anyways, I've used a lot of the material that I've posted at these forums at one time. Take a look:

There's no way I'm going to read every post in this topic, since the majority of the posts are people without any facts that are just repeating what other people have told them, so I'm just going to post my opinions on the matter.

Sure, there's a possibility that this whole thing is a conspiracy, as there's coincidental evidence along with motive, yet that's all it is. A possibility. Since there's no absolute proof, it's also possible that there is no conspiracy, and that 9/11 was planned and executed by terrorists located in the middle east like we're told to believe. What I don't get is why so many people look at these possible coincidences shown in the video as facts, or these unanswered questions as lies. I don't get how so many people are 100% sure that there is a conspiracy, when these documenterys are filled with only unanswered questions. Don't walk around close minded, believing that the only thing possible about 9/11 is conspiracy, as it's incredibly ignorant and arrogant.

Here's another way to look at things. You're listening to the Loose Change video, so you believe that the government has manipulated and lied to you. What if the Loose Change video is manipulating and lieing to you right now? I'm sure if I wanted, I could make my on documentery on Loose Change, throw out a bunch of believable "facts", and get my own set of believers. Don't get my wrong, I'm not against the video, but I'm not against what the government is telling us either. Keep an open mind is all I have to say. This is America, we're supposed to be educated enough so we don't become close minded.


Now that everyone knows my point of view on that, I'd like to bring up the possibility that the conspiracy is true. Of course, the only motive there is for the government to make such an attack against it's own people is to get support for the war on terrorism, because if we would've went to war pre 9/11, there would be barely any support for it. Why would a war on terrorism be such a high priority for the government to kill it's own people, for?

One of the most common responses to this is that we're in Iraq for oil. As you can see here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html , we are getting only 531 million barrels of oil a month from Iraq compared to us getting 1, 710 million barrels a month we are recieving from Canada. As you can see here: http://zfacts.com/p/196.html , the prices of oil have gone up significantly since the war in Iraq. I used to have a website showing that we are paying market price for Iraqi oil, yet I wasn't able to find it this time.

Now, what are some more likely reasons? One thing that may have influenced it greatly is the problem with terrorism in the middle east. Many terrorists can obtain weapons of mass destruction of they please, which is now proven by Saudi Arabia's nuclear warhead that they threatened us with. As you can tell by suicide bombings, terrorists aren't afraid to go anywhere, as they're not afraid of death. Our government might have seen this as a hug potential threat to the American People. I personally believe that if the conspiracy is true, that this would be the main influence. One huge pluss to this could be to spread democracy. Not only we would another ally in the middle east, but a partner to trade with to help our economy.

One huge pluss to this is the freeing of the Iraqi people. The Iraqi's had very limited rights before the war. We are spreading freedom, which many Iraqi's are greatful for, and I'm sure all of them would be greatful for if they knew exactly what was going on.

Let me ask you this. Say it's back in the 1800s, and a civil war is about to break out in the US to free slaves. Would you support it? The United States Civil War has the largest loss of death life in any war (if you don't count those who died in concentration camps durng WWII). Do you think we should've just let the slaves rot forever? If it wasn't for that war, black people in the southern part of the US would still be slaves.

Let's take a look at an even more important war: the Revolutionary War. The war that gave us all of our freedoms. If I remember correctly, there were around 2, 000 deaths, which is around the amount of deaths there have been in Iraq so far. If it wasn't for that war, none of us would have the freedom we are excercising right now, which is freedom of speech. None of us would be able to post on these forums right now, talking about conspiracies. Are you depriving Iraq of the same freedoms we have, because you're against the war, which is what gave us these freedoms?

Here's a little line I've made up recently that applys wonderfully to the war in Iraq: Death lasts a lifetime, yet freedom lasts forever. If you don't understand that, re-read it a couple times until you do.

Now, one last thing. A very common arguement is about how we should leave Iraq now that we've captured Saddam Hussien. Leaving Iraq now would be very rediculous and irresponsible. There are about 8 different religious terrorist groups trying to take power in Iraq right now, who's to say the next dictator they get isn't worse than Saddam? The war was called Iraqi Freedom, meaning our goal is to give the people of Iraq freedom. We can't just run in a country, take down their government, then let a new dictator take over a deprive the people of the same exact rights that Saddam deprived them of. Back to square 1, yet with about 2, 000+ wasted lives. If you're trying to support pulling out of the war now, you're actually supporting the idea of wasting what 2, 000+ people have given their lives for.

Just try to keep an open mind about everything, as it's very easy to be manipulated. And remember this.

Death lasts a lifetime, yet freedom lasts forever.

[dark_drake]

Let's take a look at an even more important war: the Revolutionary War. The war that gave us all of our freedoms. If I remember correctly, there were around 2, 000 deaths, which is around the amount of deaths there have been in Iraq so far. If it wasn't for that war, none of us would have the freedom we are excercising right now, which is freedom of speech. None of us would be able to post on these forums right now, talking about conspiracies. Are you depriving Iraq of the same freedoms we have, because you're against the war, which is what gave us these freedoms?

I'd just like to start out by saying comparing the Revolutionary War and the War in Iraq is like comparing apples and oranges; they are completely different (aside from the fact they are both fruit). First of all, the Iraqi people did not rise up against their government themselves.  With the Revolutionary War, we rose up against the government ourselves.  Also, in that war, we fought to win by any means necessary.  With the War in Iraq, we are holding back many of our weapons to try to keep the Iraqi people somewhat happy.

Also, I'm not for depriving Iraq of anything.  I just don't feel we should have to fight their war for them.  Why should the US have to fight another country's revolution for them?  If the Iraqis were ready to overthrow their government, they would have.

I by no means support leaving immediately; we broke Iraq, it's our job to fix it.

[Warrior]

Let's take a look at an even more important war: the Revolutionary War. The war that gave us all of our freedoms. If I remember correctly, there were around 2, 000 deaths, which is around the amount of deaths there have been in Iraq so far. If it wasn't for that war, none of us would have the freedom we are excercising right now, which is freedom of speech. None of us would be able to post on these forums right now, talking about conspiracies. Are you depriving Iraq of the same freedoms we have, because you're against the war, which is what gave us these freedoms?

I'd just like to start out by saying comparing the Revolutionary War and the War in Iraq is like comparing apples and oranges; they are completely different (aside from the fact they are both fruit). First of all, the Iraqi people did not rise up against their government themselves.  With the Revolutionary War, we rose up against the government ourselves.  Also, in that war, we fought to win by any means necessary.  With the War in Iraq, we are holding back many of our weapons to try to keep the Iraqi people somewhat happy.

Also, I'm not for depriving Iraq of anything.  I just don't feel we should have to fight their war for them.  Why should the US have to fight another country's revolution for them?  If the Iraqis were ready to overthrow their government, they would have.

I by no means support leaving immediately; we broke Iraq, it's our job to fix it.

I agree with you on everything except consider this.

We had a lot of help from France during the Rev. War. Also the English were an ocean apart giving us ample time to even get ready. In Iraq one iraqi uprising would be squashed by Saddam. It sort of killing the morale of the people. They lost the will to fight. These people were as good as enslaved.

The Iraqis are grateful to us for helping them and working with them to give them their country back. It is a country divided by sectionalism and a country which has had an oppressive dictator for quite some time. I'm sure there have been attempts to rise up.

We didn't win the Rev. War too easily so I wouldn't go marking it off as something we got off withought a scratch. We probably wanted it as much as they want theirs now. The only difference is circumstance. Say we were in their position except no country is aiding us. We wouldn't rise up, and if we did we'd lose.

I do however agree with you on how we should stay in and repair, I don't trust some of the reasons we went in and it's acknowledged it was on bad intel but just look at how much we are helping them, soon these people will be an established nation.

[dark_drake]

We had a lot of help from France during the Rev. War. Also the English were an ocean apart giving us ample time to even get ready. In Iraq one iraqi uprising would be squashed by Saddam. It sort of killing the morale of the people. They lost the will to fight. These people were as good as enslaved.

Well, we started the Revolutionary War, not the French.  Also, the English had many troops over in the US at the time of the start of the revolution.  Finally, I am sure with all the countries willing to spread democracy that Iraq would have had many allies had they started a real revolution.  If there were enough people in Iraq willing to start a massive uprising, there would have been, at least in my mind.  It's not like 20 people in America were fed up with the English; most of the people were. 

[Armin]

Let's take a look at an even more important war: the Revolutionary War. The war that gave us all of our freedoms. If I remember correctly, there were around 2, 000 deaths, which is around the amount of deaths there have been in Iraq so far. If it wasn't for that war, none of us would have the freedom we are excercising right now, which is freedom of speech. None of us would be able to post on these forums right now, talking about conspiracies. Are you depriving Iraq of the same freedoms we have, because you're against the war, which is what gave us these freedoms?

I'd just like to start out by saying comparing the Revolutionary War and the War in Iraq is like comparing apples and oranges; they are completely different (aside from the fact they are both fruit). First of all, the Iraqi people did not rise up against their government themselves.  With the Revolutionary War, we rose up against the government ourselves.  Also, in that war, we fought to win by any means necessary.  With the War in Iraq, we are holding back many of our weapons to try to keep the Iraqi people somewhat happy.

Also, I'm not for depriving Iraq of anything.  I just don't feel we should have to fight their war for them.  Why should the US have to fight another country's revolution for them?  If the Iraqis were ready to overthrow their government, they would have.

I by no means support leaving immediately; we broke Iraq, it's our job to fix it.

I see your point, but the idea of death vs freedom is still there. A lot of the Iraqis want freedom, but a lot of them are to uneducated to understand what's going on.

[Warrior]

We had a lot of help from France during the Rev. War. Also the English were an ocean apart giving us ample time to even get ready. In Iraq one iraqi uprising would be squashed by Saddam. It sort of killing the morale of the people. They lost the will to fight. These people were as good as enslaved.

Well, we started the Revolutionary War, not the French.  Also, the English had many troops over in the US at the time of the start of the revolution.  Finally, I am sure with all the countries willing to spread democracy that Iraq would have had many allies had they started a real revolution.  If there were enough people in Iraq willing to start a massive uprising, there would have been, at least in my mind.  It's not like 20 people in America were fed up with the English; most of the people were. 

You make good points, I still think however that it was mostly out of fear they didnt rise. These people had been oppressed for some time and any uprisings crushed.

[Armin]

Add what Warrior said to my post.

[Warrior]

Ah didnt even notice you posted a reply.