Terrorists Have Invaded America

[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.