Michael Moore on Leno tonight..

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 19, 2004, 2:23 am

Sirton, perhaps you can explain how invading a sovereign nation and being responsible for the deaths of over 15 thousand of their citizens is helping the war on terror....

I'm willing to bet that of those 15k, the majority were moderate (not fanatical) Shiite and Sunni muslims. Not 'america hating terrorists' but your average everyday Iraqi.
How do you think they feel when their families are killed by the American invaders. How would you feel if foreign invaders killed your entire family?

The only way to win the 'war on terror' is to remove the motivations for individual to become terrorists.

Killing innocent people does not help.
Invading sovereign nations does not help.
Massive troop buildup in the middle east does not help.
Unwavering support of Israel does nto help.

We've killed closer to 60k so far.

Why? Ok Democrats and Republicans the UN France and Russia China ect...before we went in we were showing the same intellengence.

Now to think the war on terror is just Bin Laden is idiotic. Its much more than that. The main thing we have to do that Kerry and Bush AGREE on is keep WMD's or nuclear materials getting into the hands of terrorist. Not now, not in 5 years not in 10 years not in 100years...BUT EVER!!!

That means you have to take out unstable regimes such as Iraq had. Just as it was Bill Clinton Policy. Bush just did it.

Why is Iraq unstable? Saddam thought he had protection from the UN. He didn't want to loose prestige. He wanted to eventually get WMD's and continue his conquest of Iran. His most hated enemy. You can NOT TRUST Saddam. I Personally dont care about WMD's that idiot needed to go, because the future problems he could cause us. We do not need to wait till they happen??? That would be like knowing Sept. 11th was happening and to do nothing about it till it did. You act before you are attacked. You bring the war there, so the teror organizations focus on the local regions.

Its short term loss for long term victory. You aggitate the hell out of many of them for some years. But in that time you inserted democratically elected government or atleast responsible governments that police there own.

Now what happens is then these governments gain power and then fight the terrorist with some US help in the region. The fight stays over in the middle east, but instead of having a Iraqi government that HATES the US. WE NOW HAVE ONE THAT IS A US ALLY!

We have a government we DO NOT have to worry about the passing of WMD's to terrorist.

The only way to win the 'war on terror' is to remove the motivations for individual to become terrorists

Miir you know what I agree with you, but I also relize that will never be 100% accomplished...The nature of man is to destroy!!!!!!! But, you must put inplace the vital parts for this to be possible. You must destroy the Enemy with a heavy hand and build up a alliance with those from the region(interm gov'ts)!!!! Then in the long term you rebuild restore and keep friendly governments in place. Similar to the Marshall plan goals.

People need to relize the war on terror and 9/11 may of not had direct links to Iraq, but the war on terror isn't just a war on Bin Laden. Just like when the Japanese bombed us in Pearl Harbor we didnt just wan't to declare war on Japan. We declared it on Germany aswell. We declared it on fascism. We decided to go full force at Germany, who did not bomb us at Pearl Harbor and leave Japan atleast the major offensive for later, because they were a lesser threat in the long term.

With the information(or intelligence) that Bush knew and the time being after 9/11(Or the current Pearl Harbor). I hope he would of taken out Iraq 100,000 times out of 100,000, or I think he should of been impeached for not following his main responsibility to protect the American people. I can not see any reasoning if one was thinking Saddam had WMD's to not want to remove his regime after 9/11, and to not consider it a possible serious threat. Democrats and Republicans agreed at the time. Why do you guys forget?

Now to say the post war strategy is fucked up abit thats a different thing, but Im talking about the situation of being involved to the point that we are now.

Also on my spelling like I said a million times: I am not writing a research paper. I am typing up some crap off the top of my head in 30sec-2min of my opinions. I do not see these boards as the area of correct spelling, but a spot to dump some of your thoughts on current events real quick. I also think people who attack and point out little errors in the way people talk or spelling in areas like this board are trying to be degrading, and that they also know they maybe wrong on the topic, but can't admit it, so they try and make the other person look stupid, but dont counter them on substance or dont come up with an alternate plan. They are followers not leaders. This paragraph isn't directed at anyone personally.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » October 19, 2004, 10:35 am

I think the real difference here than is that we didn't wait until the UN came to the conclusion that Iraq and their intentions were a serious threat to the security of the world. That wasn't done.

Regardless, it's pretty obvious that the security of all nations is more in jeapordy with Pakistan, North Korea, and even Saudi Arabia beep bopping around. The latter is a primary terrorist breeding ground.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 19, 2004, 11:51 am

Sirton wrote:Now to think the war on terror is just Bin Laden is idiotic. Its much more than that.

No, the war on terror is Bin Laden as well as any other country that we've wanted to invade for a while that we might not have had a good reason to until we could make it at least sound like they were actively plotting to crash planes into our buildings. It also ignores a lot of countries that are actually a threat to us who are giving George Bush and his cronies "the old reacharound".

miir · Post by **miir** » October 19, 2004, 4:57 pm

Sirton wrote:K, Sylvus I guess you must be President or God and made a Proclamation, I had not heard about yet....On what the war on Terror is. To my last knowledge GWB was President and I think he is the one that says what parts of the war on terror are including the Axis of Evil ect... You may disagree with him that doesnt make you right, and your wrong in your statement, and just cause ya disagree, it doesn't override the constitution in that your word disproves the will and the power of the President.

It deff. is part of the war on terror now...which Im glad its there instead of here. Im glad the terrorist focus is there instead of here. Now the terrorist gotta spend all there resources trying to topple government's weve setup instead of targeting America in general. A free Iraq and a friendly Iraq to the US will be a devestating blow to the terrorist, and its why they have been saying its the central front now.

OK, the first paragraph is completely nonsensical to me.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.

The second paragraph is perplexing.

You're rationalizing that the loss of over a thousand American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and at the cost of tens of billions of dollars is worth it because the terrorists are focusing their efforts in Iraq and not in on US soil?

If you're trying to spin the situation into a favorable one for Bush, you're doing an abysmal job.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 19, 2004, 5:12 pm

Sirton wrote:Its short term loss for long term victory. You aggitate the hell out of many of them for some years. But in that time you inserted democratically elected government or atleast responsible governments that police there own.

I wonder if you are aware of our past efforts to do just that: Iran. Perhaps, you are aware of the British effort to do that in Iraq? The West has had fantastic success in manipulating that region in the past hundred years: why change our strategy now?

miir · Post by **miir** » October 19, 2004, 5:15 pm

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » October 19, 2004, 5:23 pm

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Post by **Sylvus** » October 19, 2004, 5:25 pm

First, Sirton wrote:Now to think the war on terror is just Bin Laden is idiotic. Its much more than that.

Then, Sirton wrote:K, Sylvus I guess you must be President or God and made a Proclamation, I had not heard about yet....On what the war on Terror is.

Yeah, you apparently just have a better grasp on being able to interpret what the "War on Terror" is. Perhaps we should just leave it to your succinct and lucid posts to tell us what the "War on Terror" is or isn't.

On second thought, no. I was responding to your ludicrous claim that anyone thought the "War on Terror" was only Osama bin Laden. No one does, but intelligent people (read: a demographic that you don't belong to) realize that some of the actions that have recently been done in the name of the "War on Terror" are misguided. Namely, Iraq. So far there have been what, 6 different justifications for the war on Iraq? Most of the supporters of the war are now falling back to "well Saddam was a bad guy and he needed to go" justification. That's a stance I can sort of appreciate, I agree that Saddam was a bad guy, but Iraq doesn't and didn't have shit to do with the war on Terror.

Remember, we first went into Iraq because Saddam had WMDs, not because he was a terrorist. Then he had "Weapons of Mass Destruction Program Related Activities", not because he was harboring terrorists. When those proved false, they brought out the "well, one of his key people had a sister whose cousin went to prom with the nephew of an Al Queda member" defense. Then when that link was proved to be pretty unstable, they moved onto something else that I can't even remember.

Removing a bad guy from power doesn't seem like a good enough justification, to me, for the loss of tens of thousands of lives. That is my opinion, and I think you're pretty far off in your understanding of the Constitution (as well as the English language) if you think that it forbids me from disagreeing with the President. Oh well, I guess Civics (and English) weren't required classes at Texas Upstairs Medical College.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 19, 2004, 9:05 pm

To Miir and Sylvus: I deleted that post, because I read sylvus response wrong..Miir stop trying to be an ass. Sylvus that wasnt my response, because I read your response wrong.

On removing him:
Actually, I was saying all 6 on day one. WMD's, Not responding to UN resolutions, Light links they could find to terrorist groups, Saddam killed over 300,000 of his people and is responsible for over 1million arab deaths

Also his ambitions and quotes of wanting nuclear technology and WMDs to use as leverage. His biggest mistake he claimed was he didnt makesure he had nukes before he invaded Kuwait. His ambitions to be the leader of the region. Attempting to assasinate a US president. A declared enemy of the US. Shooting at our planes in the no fly zone. Being a dictator. Being policy under Bill Clinton for regime change, after he didnt comply with the first gulf war resolutions. Using WMD's on his own people and Iran showing he didnt have any problem using them.

Ive said this since day one and have heard the administartion say most of it aswell.... They just leaned on WMD's being the main reason.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 19, 2004, 9:10 pm

You're rationalizing that the loss of over a thousand American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives and at the cost of tens of billions of dollars is worth it because the terrorists are focusing their efforts in Iraq and not in on US soil?

Yes its by far better than the outcome from the way you would do it.

Ohh yea thats right you've never had any solutions.

Its far better than 3000 lives lost and 1 trillion$ lost to our economy destroyed buildings and over 1million jobs lost in 3 months afterwards. In the futrue there will be harder hits, so I hope they are focusing on us over there then here, becasue they'll be coming after us no matter if we run or fight..

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 19, 2004, 9:36 pm

Iraq war helped 'al-Qaeda' recruit

-=Lohrno

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 19, 2004, 9:36 pm

I wonder if you are aware of our past efforts to do just that: Iran. Perhaps, you are aware of the British effort to do that in Iraq? The West has had fantastic success in manipulating that region in the past hundred years: why change our strategy now?

You bring up common knowledge.

Because this time the United States will be doing it without a major counter force the Soviet Union. I think we really fucked up in Iran. I think Carter and some others fk’d up. Btw Britain WAS NOT a democracy most the time when it was in the process of all that crap. You are talking about 2 completely different ways and now when a democratic government may about to be over thrown by some fanatics we can go in there and lend our support. Look at all the countries we've been involved with and look at the success rate then around the world, and yes of coarse there are some failures. Japan during WWII would be as hard or harder than any country in the middle east. I don’t care what is spun about Islam being too stupid to be democratic. Japan thought there Emperor was GOD.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 19, 2004, 9:38 pm

Iraq war helped 'al-Qaeda' recruit

-=Lohrno

DUH!!!!

Answered that already..basically short term set backs for long term gains.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 19, 2004, 9:39 pm

Long term gains of terrorists?

They're not going to just politely stay there you know...

-=Lohrno

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 19, 2004, 9:47 pm

I still can't believe Sirton thinks the US of all countries have a shot in hell of creating a middle eastern democracy.. of all the countries in the world you have the least chance.

Also can't believe you expect to win the war on terror in the long run. It can't be won by military forces. In fact I dare say it will never be won unless we work more on evening out the differences in the world. And that is not done with a B-52.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 19, 2004, 9:49 pm

Im sure the insurgent groups would of been living productive lives today and peaceful if Kerry was in the Whitehouse!!

When the US eventually props up Iraq and they are self-supporting then the US will lie low in Iraq. Then you should see the terrorist acts in the region decrease...Something that will take time as it did in Europe and Japan. I know atm its going to flare up people that’s a given. Look simple question. Are you going to face these death fanatical cults now or wait till they are much stronger?? Personally I think Iraq it a perfect spot to face them, better ground than Afganistan and can get many Iraq allies to help, since the world is to timid. Look at the conflict around the world. Look it up and see who its between.

I bet if Bill Clinton was in this situation half of you would be supporting it to the end.

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 19, 2004, 9:53 pm

Also can't believe you expect to win the war on terror in the long run. It can't be won by military forces. In fact I dare say it will never be won unless we work more on evening out the differences in the world. And that is not done with a B-52.

I agree Kelsh. I think military is only for certain steps mainly at the starting stages. I think the key is to have the governments there to be holding these fanatical groups down. Some of the governments there want these groups and prop em up and want them around. Some of these governments looked as a threat in the future with past situations. I don’t see were we are disagreeing here on your statement...atleast not fully..

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » October 19, 2004, 9:56 pm

Sirton wrote: I bet if Bill Clinton was in this situation half of you would be supporting it to the end.

Bill Clinton would not have done that. He would have let the UN do its job and do everything with the help of international forces. We would have been done in a month.

-=Lohrno

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » October 19, 2004, 10:09 pm

I still dont believe some nut job who thinks he speaks to " God" can all of a sudden set up and change the lives of millions of people who have lived this way since the start of their history.

Not only is it their History, its also their religion. Im not talking about terror, but the way their government/social/wealth/ and views on life are. What Bush is tring to do is " My God, is the only true god, and you are all worshipping a fake god and you must change so everyone is free and to think like us" line of attack. No one will mentions that Iraq was the most advance region in womens rights, and other aspects that went outside of Allah's word. Matter of fact a lot of the other mid east countries, looked down on Saddam for his " radical thinking" asides from him wanting to rule the region.

It would be as if a more advanced army/country of Black Africans who believe in Allah, invaded the US and claimed it was because they were setting the whiteman back in the role of a slave, because Allah deems it to being peace. Im pretty sure a lot of white pissed off "religious" men and women wouldnt like it, and post to be a terror threat.

Its one extreem to another, yet they are the same. Its history+relgion+Faith vs Bush's god and his vision for them. Of course itll cause more terriorsts. Why some of you cant see this, I dont know.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » October 19, 2004, 10:09 pm

I think the key is to have the governments there to be holding these fanatical groups down. Some of the governments there want these groups and prop em up and want them around. Some of these governments looked as a threat in the future with past situations.

Uh you don't see where I disagree with this? You can't create change by making people hate you more. You wont create change by killing their families. What you expect is similar to bombing the white house and the congress then expecting to be thanked for it. Doesn't work like that.[/code]

Sirton · Post by **Sirton** » October 20, 2004, 1:38 am

Ohh I know where ya disagree with me on that Kelsh. I was talking about how I agree with you that military force isn't the key. I differ. with you though that it can be used in the first stages to take out the enemy gov't. Then its back to doing stuff like the marshall plan or what we did in Japan and to protect the newly formed gov't from collapse.

The process will take years to complete. Even with full UN support it would. You would still have insurgents and Iraqi nationals fighting any new gov't you setup there even if it was Iraqi nationals that did it. It maybe easier, but as were seeing with this oil for food program the UN was never even gonna come close in the effort...not with securty council members having veto power.