Iraq-Vietnam comparison inevitable

[Vanni Fucci]

All media is biased...there's no escaping that now...

Ok then Matty...I provided some "allegations", you asked for evidence, I provided links to news reports and commentary...now you're saying that's not good enough...

The onus is now on you to refute what I say, or shut your f**king mouth...

 

[mattyaloo]

If Iraq has nothing to do with Terrorism, then why are they all getting so pissed off and cutting people's heads off on camera?

the BUSH INVASION, destabilized Iraq. Terrorists gravitated into a destabilized region as could have been predicted. The kidnappings /beheadings are the result of the destabilized enviroment , lawlessness, chaos etc. In fact the invasion FOSTERED terrorism.

Here again......the planners for the invasion did not take into account all the "what if" scenarios.

"war" on terrorism is a euphamism similar to "war" on drugs. The US loves the word war. and uses it liberally.

Military action is not the solution to terrorism; Many on this planet told the US that.........but of course the US "knows better" than many other nations that have dealt with terrorism before.

Yea, FRANCE told them that. But FRANCE also sat back and watched as Hitler waltzed into their back yard and waited for the US to bail them out.

I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but I'll let you in on something: Saddam and the Baath party had very little influence or presence outside of the majorr centres, mainly Bagdhad. Terrosim flourished throughout thecountryside of Iraq,unchecked. IE, an unstable area. They are now beingg snuffed out and none the happier about it. Yes, the environment is unstable right now, but it is because of the sea change that we are workingtoward long term

 

[Ocean Breeze]

You stated that Bush is an asshole for rushing in and changing regime instead of letting the people rise up. You stated that countries should look after their own regime change. -- that "belief".

Did you mean what you said? If you did, then consistency you must also think Chretien an asshole for afgh. got it now?

well..........one can expect a response like that from a bush desciple.

You extract the word asshole ( very appropriately used in that frame of reference..........) and then try to spin it to generalize .

sheesh. Some serious mindlock here. :salute: :banghead:

 

[mattyaloo]

All media is biased...there's no escaping that now...

Ok then Matty...I provided some "allegations", you asked for evidence, I provided links to news reports and commentary...now you're saying that's not good enough...

The onus is now on you to refute what I say, or shut your f**king mouth...

I don't have to refute your one sided rantings. I can simply recognize them for what they are and suggest that broader perspectives may exist. I am not on any side and I keep my mind open, and I know an ideolgue when I see one. You examine a scenario then twist it to fit your beliefs instead of simply observing reality.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

we are workingtoward long term

So what exactly is the "long term " objective??? ( and please be kind enough to spare us the bush rhetoric. No one (in their right mind) believes him anyhow. And why was this long term objective not spelled out so the world could be clear on it?? In fact why wasn't the short term objective spelled out, so we all could be clear on it.

thank you.

 

[peapod]

So in other words loo loo, your just going to troll. Think again!

 

[mattyaloo]

You stated that Bush is an asshole for rushing in and changing regime instead of letting the people rise up. You stated that countries should look after their own regime change. -- that "belief".

Did you mean what you said? If you did, then consistency you must also think Chretien an asshole for afgh. got it now?

well..........one can expect a response like that from a bush desciple.

You extract the word asshole ( very appropriately used in that frame of reference..........) and then try to spin it to generalize .

sheesh. Some serious mindlock here. :salute: :banghead:

Actually, logic would suggest that if you don't like "externally forced regime change (IRAQ)", as you stated then you would not have favored the Afghan invasion. You are not being logically consistent in your argument. It has nothing to do with spin, it has to do with logic. Perhaps you have simply decided en masse that you don't like GW Bush and you're having a little bit of trouble thiking your way out of that little box that you're in.

And I am not a Bush disciple. I have stated many times on this site things he has done that I disagree with. See, I'm not in a box. It's nice out here, you should join me.

 

[johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Re: RE: Iraq-Vietnam comparison inevitable

I was not telling you to read Arabic sites written by insurgents. If you have a satellite dish, just put it on BBS and they will tell you. BBS is in a country supposedly pro-American. However, this news outlet tells it as is.

I don't have a satellite, but I do have the digital cable thing, so I get stuff like news world international, which seems about as objective as I have seen.

 

[mattyaloo]

we are workingtoward long term

So what exactly is the "long term " objective??? ( and please be kind enough to spare us the bush rhetoric. No one (in their right mind) believes him anyhow. And why was this long term objective not spelled out so the world could be clear on it?? In fact why wasn't the short term objective spelled out, so we all could be clear on it.

thank you.

They are going to systematically change the poltical landscape in the middle east. It's too long to get into it, but suffice it to say the current landscape is conducive to terrorism. When people don't have rights, when they lose a sense of ownership in their country, they turn to groups like Al Qaeda. It's likecults in our society. It's no coincidence most Al Qaeda's are marginalized mid twenties men. Anyway, Iran could be next, but the US will not stop util that region is stabilized, and yes, it may be ugly in the interim. That is what I think. As to why they haven;t been clear, you'd have to ask them that question.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Obviously Bush has ruffled some serious terrorist feathers.

this is really getting silly. Bush may as well handed the terrorists an engraved invitation to enter Iraq and perform their monstrous acts. Don't know why any one is so shocked that the terrorists would go to such extremes. This should have been anticipated.

POOR PLANNING. very poor planning. In too much of a hurry, not enough critical thought and now "we' have a mess. over 40 Iraqis were killed today. How many more must die before the US gets rid of the "insurgents"??? No one is addressing the fact that the Iraqis are suffering now .......and more so now, then under SH.....(and before you get bent out of shape and say something stupid like I am a SH sympathizer.......NOT the case) The focus must be what is best for Iraqis now........if this is to have any semblance of sanity to it. (could care less how the US comes out of it......as it (according to the US spin , is about the Iraqis and the US doing them a "favor"......... wow, what a favor this is.)

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Anyway, Iran could be next, but the US will not stop util that region is stabilized, and yes, it may be ugly in the interim.

Isn't that comforting. Has anyone with this type of mentality considered the consequences of such aggressive actions in the ME. How far is the US prepared to go to fullfill this crusade???

working with such a premise.......it would seem as far as it has to...........so if one is negating the fact that a fanaticism is involved in the US gov't........one is blinded to the total picture.

this situation could turn explosive on a dime.

 

[mattyaloo]

Obviously Bush has ruffled some serious terrorist feathers.

this is really getting silly. Bush may as well handed the terrorists an engraved invitation to enter Iraq and perform their monstrous acts. Don't know why any one is so shocked that the terrorists would go to such extremes. This should have been anticipated.

POOR PLANNING. very poor planning. In too much of a hurry, not enough critical thought and now "we' have a mess. over 40 Iraqis were killed today. How many more must die before the US gets rid of the "insurgents"??? No one is addressing the fact that the Iraqis are suffering now .......and more so now, then under SH.....(and before you get bent out of shape and say something stupid like I am a SH sympathizer.......NOT the case) The focus must be what is best for Iraqis now........if this is to have any semblance of sanity to it. (could care less how the US comes out of it......as it (according to the US spin , is about the Iraqis and the US doing them a "favor"......... wow, what a favor this is.)

Can you please provide me of evidence of this claim? It is clear there are terrorists in Iraq. That we know. My first thought would be that they were therebefore, but you jump to the conclusion that they migrated in. Where is the evidence of this?
Where did these terrorists come from. I can't imagine why they'd all migrate TOWARD US forces in Iraq?

 

[mattyaloo]

Anyway, Iran could be next, but the US will not stop util that region is stabilized, and yes, it may be ugly in the interim.

Isn't that comforting. Has anyone with this type of mentality considered the consequences of such aggressive actions in the ME. How far is the US prepared to go to fullfill this crusade???

working with such a premise.......it would seem as far as it has to...........so if one is negating the fact that a fanaticism is involved in the US gov't........one is blinded to the total picture.

this situation could turn explosive on a dime.

It already is explosive. But there have been some encouraging signs in the region. You see this region was never colonized the way China, or the Caribbean,or Canada or India was. So they have no concept of "independant courts" or "democracy". In a way like it or not, I think Bush is sort of colonizing that area. And who knows, maybe it'll work long term. This is not a short term plan by any stretch.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Obviously Bush has ruffled some serious terrorist feathers.

this is really getting silly. Bush may as well handed the terrorists an engraved invitation to enter Iraq and perform their monstrous acts. Don't know why any one is so shocked that the terrorists would go to such extremes. This should have been anticipated.

POOR PLANNING. very poor planning. In too much of a hurry, not enough critical thought and now "we' have a mess. over 40 Iraqis were killed today. How many more must die before the US gets rid of the "insurgents"??? No one is addressing the fact that the Iraqis are suffering now .......and more so now, then under SH.....(and before you get bent out of shape and say something stupid like I am a SH sympathizer.......NOT the case) The focus must be what is best for Iraqis now........if this is to have any semblance of sanity to it. (could care less how the US comes out of it......as it (according to the US spin , is about the Iraqis and the US doing them a "favor"......... wow, what a favor this is.)

Can you please provide me of evidence of this claim? It is clear there are terrorists in Iraq. That we know. My first thought would be that they were therebefore, but you jump to the conclusion that they migrated in. Where is the evidence of this?
Where did these terrorists come from. I can't imagine why they'd all migrate TOWARD US forces in Iraq?

US Threatens Syria Due to Terrorists Crossing Border

 

[Ocean Breeze]

Actually, logic would suggest that if you don't like "externally forced regime change (IRAQ)", as you stated then you would not have favored the Afghan invasion.

that is not logic.........that is simplistic generalization.

anyhow, matty, gotta admit , that you remind me of the discussion board I just left. Patronizing, diversional tactics, baiting games condescending and arrogant. And sweetie, those were the "good "points. So a true discussion was not possible.

Some objectivity is called for and some serious honesty with oneself.

You want to support bush so blindly.......go ahead. You want to believe this is about democracy ,freedom in the ME .....go ahead.

I have held the US to a much higher standard ....(my mistake)...than those nations in the ME. I saw them as still locked in an era that was not progressing forward. In time they would have had to. That is the nature of things. Reality is that people will resist change anyhow......and particularly change that is forced on them. That is part of the human equation. .......Now if the population was ready for change.....it would endeavor to take the steps to fascilitate it.

Hope the ME will enjoy being controlled by the US.( :roll: But the US might be in for a bloody battle to achive their imperial goals.

NOw, IF the US had held its focus and continued to deal with terrorism effectively, intelligently there might have been more progress by now. Diverting into Iraq the way it did.....only potentiated more terrorism and the focus was lost.

When the dust settles , the truth will come out.....it always does.

 

[mattyaloo]

Obviously Bush has ruffled some serious terrorist feathers.

this is really getting silly. Bush may as well handed the terrorists an engraved invitation to enter Iraq and perform their monstrous acts. Don't know why any one is so shocked that the terrorists would go to such extremes. This should have been anticipated.

POOR PLANNING. very poor planning. In too much of a hurry, not enough critical thought and now "we' have a mess. over 40 Iraqis were killed today. How many more must die before the US gets rid of the "insurgents"??? No one is addressing the fact that the Iraqis are suffering now .......and more so now, then under SH.....(and before you get bent out of shape and say something stupid like I am a SH sympathizer.......NOT the case) The focus must be what is best for Iraqis now........if this is to have any semblance of sanity to it. (could care less how the US comes out of it......as it (according to the US spin , is about the Iraqis and the US doing them a "favor"......... wow, what a favor this is.)

Can you please provide me of evidence of this claim? It is clear there are terrorists in Iraq. That we know. My first thought would be that they were therebefore, but you jump to the conclusion that they migrated in. Where is the evidence of this?
Where did these terrorists come from. I can't imagine why they'd all migrate TOWARD US forces in Iraq?

US Threatens Syria Due to Terrorists Crossing Border

So they are helping the insurgents in Iraq? What insurgents? The ones that were ALREADY IN IRAQ??? C'mon. Think a little, VF. Cuttin' and Pastin' ain't the answer :wink:

 

[johnnybgoodaaaaa]

we are workingtoward long term

So what exactly is the "long term " objective??? ( and please be kind enough to spare us the bush rhetoric. No one (in their right mind) believes him anyhow. And why was this long term objective not spelled out so the world could be clear on it?? In fact why wasn't the short term objective spelled out, so we all could be clear on it.

thank you.

They are going to systematically change the poltical landscape in the middle east. It's too long to get into it, but suffice it to say the current landscape is conducive to terrorism. When people don't have rights, when they lose a sense of ownership in their country, they turn to groups like Al Qaeda. It's likecults in our society. It's no coincidence most Al Qaeda's are marginalized mid twenties men. Anyway, Iran could be next, but the US will not stop util that region is stabilized, and yes, it may be ugly in the interim. That is what I think. As to why they haven;t been clear, you'd have to ask them that question.

Hmm, how sure are you that most of Al Qaeda is "marginalized mid-twenties men"? Just because you think something doesn't mean that it will come true. Of course, give it ten years, more people dead, and maybe you will come around. It's funny that you think that the landscape of the middle east will change with the most hated nation(the Unied States)in that region invading countries and pushing influence. I always thought that our influence in that region is what has caused us to have enemies. I think there was some guy who wrote a book recently about terrorism and how alot of terrorist are actually educated people, working people who commit terrorist acts to get people off thier land, not naive 20 yr olds. While it's true that some probably are 20, from the video I've seen on the net of captured insurgents, alot look in thier 30's, maybe older. I think the problem you are running into is that you are completely ignoring the culture in the middle east and how people's view of the world might be. In the US, talk of rights, democracy, and so on is common place, but in the middle east the view might be different with people on how things should be run. Even the view of the US and thier motives could be completely off. I mean, if a country(let's say mexico for example)had a way better military than the US, and attacked us to impose what they viewed as the right way to live, how would you feel?

Alot of this "change the political landscape" in the middle east sounds an aweful lot like the talk that happened during the Cold War. While the US did actually win the cold war by lasting longer than Russia, this is a war on ideology, and the sad thing is that the US has not made themselves look good with things like the abuse scandels, illegal invasion, civilian deaths, and overall threatening the world. While the US does seem to try diplomacy in some ways, they still threaten nations and push thier wieght(which can be expected being a superpower). The thing about it is, that in pushing thier wieght and doing as they please, they push people further from them and further from wanting to believe in them and trusting them as the "good guy." It's been some years now, and there's still attacks everyday. What makes you think that they will stop and everything will suddenly be so peachy and nice? people cross the border into Iraq to fight, and they did the same thing in Afghanistan. I don't really know what to believe in much anymore, but I do know that the US government screwed up by not finding WMD(when Rumsfeld went on about "they are uhhh duuhhh somewhere around Tikrit, and we will get them," and his other bullcrap lines) First off, HE TOLD US THEY WERE THERE, and then made it sound like they were most certainly there and we just had to do some fighting to get them. It was all bullcrap just like this war. If you have an open-mind(I realise the guy is biased and you shouldn't take everything just as he says -- look it up yourself, because he does conspiracy theories)go to www.infowars.net and check out Alex Jones movie "Martial Law - 911 Rise of the Police State." I doubt you will check it out because you seem like one of those guys that only wants to hear one side and dismisses anything that opposes it, but it's a documentary that is way better than michael moores(he makes fun of michael moore in it I think)and the guy pulls up news articles everywhere. He was re-running an episode that he had on local access here in Texas that was from july 2001 when he was talking about news about terrorist flying planes into the world trade center -- at least I think I remember seeing something about. Rant done.

 

[mattyaloo]

Actually, logic would suggest that if you don't like "externally forced regime change (IRAQ)", as you stated then you would not have favored the Afghan invasion.

that is not logic.........that is simplistic generalization.

anyhow, matty, gotta admit , that you remind me of the discussion board I just left. Patronizing, diversional tactics, baiting games condescending and arrogant. And sweetie, those were the "good "points. So a true discussion was not possible.

Some objectivity is called for and some serious honesty with oneself.

You want to support bush so blindly.......go ahead. You want to believe this is about democracy ,freedom in the ME .....go ahead.

I have held the US to a much higher standard ....(my mistake)...than those nations in the ME. I saw them as still locked in an era that was not progressing forward. In time they would have had to. That is the nature of things. Reality is that people will resist change anyhow......and particularly change that is forced on them. That is a human factor. .......Now if the population was ready for change.....it would endeavor to take the steps to fascilitate it.

Hope the ME will enjoy being controlled by the US.( :roll: But the US might be in for a bloody battle to achive their imperial goals.

NOw, IF the US had held its focus and continued to deal with terrorism effectively, intelligently there might have been more progress by now. Diverting into Iraq the way it did.....only potentiated more terrorism and the focus was lost.

When the dust settles , the truth will come out.....it always does.

Hey, you said it not me: regime change should come fromwithin. Then you changed your mind when I brought up Canada's role in Afghan. Logic, dear, says that you have a double standard. Try to keep consistent. It's not a game, it's what YOU said. If you'd keep on message I wouldn't have to point out the obvious logical fallacy in your argument and elicit the personal attacks you to which you have resorted. I don't support Bush blindly, you are against him blindly.

You must know Paul Martin as you continue to make and repeat statements that are complete at odds with reality.

 

[Ocean Breeze]

johnny : bravo. good post.

and you bring up a very important factor. The culture factor , the history of the region etc. It is presumptuous to think that we here in N.America really know what they think, how they think, what their priorities are etc.......Not sure anyone can even describe their lifestyle... It is so vastly different from ours.

This lack of understanding is a big part of the problem.

 

[mattyaloo]

we are workingtoward long term

So what exactly is the "long term " objective??? ( and please be kind enough to spare us the bush rhetoric. No one (in their right mind) believes him anyhow. And why was this long term objective not spelled out so the world could be clear on it?? In fact why wasn't the short term objective spelled out, so we all could be clear on it.

thank you.

They are going to systematically change the poltical landscape in the middle east. It's too long to get into it, but suffice it to say the current landscape is conducive to terrorism. When people don't have rights, when they lose a sense of ownership in their country, they turn to groups like Al Qaeda. It's likecults in our society. It's no coincidence most Al Qaeda's are marginalized mid twenties men. Anyway, Iran could be next, but the US will not stop util that region is stabilized, and yes, it may be ugly in the interim. That is what I think. As to why they haven;t been clear, you'd have to ask them that question.

Hmm, how sure are you that most of Al Qaeda is "marginalized mid-twenties men"? Just because you think something doesn't mean that it will come true. Of course, give it ten years, more people dead, and maybe you will come around. It's funny that you think that the landscape of the middle east will change with the most hated nation(the Unied States)in that region invading countries and pushing influence. I always thought that our influence in that region is what has caused us to have enemies. I think there was some guy who wrote a book recently about terrorism and how alot of terrorist are actually educated people, working people who commit terrorist acts to get people off thier land, not naive 20 yr olds. While it's true that some probably are 20, from the video I've seen on the net of captured insurgents, alot look in thier 30's, maybe older. I think the problem you are running into is that you are completely ignoring the culture in the middle east and how people's view of the world might be. In the US, talk of rights, democracy, and so on is common place, but in the middle east the view might be different with people on how things should be run. Even the view of the US and thier motives could be completely off. I mean, if a country(let's say mexico for example)had a way better military than the US, and attacked us to impose what they viewed as the right way to live, how would you feel?

Alot of this "change the political landscape" in the middle east sounds an aweful lot like the talk that happened during the Cold War. While the US did actually win the cold war by lasting longer than Russia, this is a war on ideology, and the sad thing is that the US has not made themselves look good with things like the abuse scandels, illegal invasion, civilian deaths, and overall threatening the world. While the US does seem to try diplomacy in some ways, they still threaten nations and push thier wieght(which can be expected being a superpower). The thing about it is, that in pushing thier wieght and doing as they please, they push people further from them and further from wanting to believe in them and trusting them as the "good guy." It's been some years now, and there's still attacks everyday. What makes you think that they will stop and everything will suddenly be so peachy and nice? people cross the border into Iraq to fight, and they did the same thing in Afghanistan. I don't really know what to believe in much anymore, but I do know that the US government screwed up by not finding WMD(when Rumsfeld went on about "they are uhhh duuhhh somewhere around Tikrit, and we will get them," and his other bullcrap lines) First off, HE TOLD US THEY WERE THERE, and then made it sound like they were most certainly there and we just had to do some fighting to get them. It was all bullcrap just like this war. If you have an open-mind(I realise the guy is biased and you shouldn't take everything just as he says -- look it up yourself, because he does conspiracy theories)go to www.infowars.net and check out Alex Jones movie "Martial Law - 911 Rise of the Police State." I doubt you will check it out because you seem like one of those guys that only wants to hear one side and dismisses anything that opposes it, but it's a documentary that is way better than michael moores(he makes fun of michael moore in it I think)and the guy pulls up news articles everywhere. He was re-running an episode that he had on local access here in Texas that was from july 2001 when he was talking about news about terrorist flying planes into the world trade center -- at least I think I remember seeing something about. Rant done.

Try to be shorter I am putting out alot of fires here reading everyone on this entire site disagreeing with me. Yet you guys are the independant thinkers eh? lol. Listen. I have read countless books on Al Qaeda, and watched a very revealing hidden camera documentary on "The Passionate Eye", hardly a Bush Friendly program. Terrorists are a combination of the marginalized and the militant religious. Contary to popular belief their desire to kill us has little to do with foreign policy.

And stop predicting the future, you have no idea what the next ten years will hold and whether bush will come out looking good...