Terrorist or Freedom Fighter

[ReThink]

Now, how many people here actually think that the war on Iraq is actually fighting the same group of terrorists the it was originally after?

What I think is that the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq and have had nothing to do with Iraq for a long time. Where I think the "terrorist attacks" on US troops have been coming from is regualar Iraqis who are trying desperately to defend their homeland from an invading force.

Think about it.

If your country was invaded by another nation and your army failed to protect you, wouldn't you stand up on you own to try to beat back the invaders? Or better yet, form militias for organized assults on the invaders? Dosen't this sound like what's hapening in Iraq, unnamed combatants making attacks on troops?

With this in mind, consider what would happen if the US left Iraq. All of those peasant militias would have nothing more to be aggressive about, and there would be much less violence.

[BobDoUrden]

At 12/23/04 05:53 PM, ShadowMind wrote: Now, how many people here actually think that the war on Iraq is actually fighting the same group of terrorists the it was originally after?

No one who has actually been there. Little bastards cross the border like no tommorow. A regional network can be made up of syrians, sauds, Sunnis or Shiite(rarely both) and the occasional Pakistani.

What I think is that the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq and have had nothing to do with Iraq for a long time. Where I think the "terrorist attacks" on US troops have been coming from is regualar Iraqis who are trying desperately to defend their homeland from an invading force.

Heh no, I don't think many people ever believed that Osama's boys were ever involved there. Osama and Saddam never cared for each other.

And those "terrorist attacks" are just that, they rarely target just U.S. personnel or coalition. They kill many, MANY civilians, Iraqi police and ICDC in there strikes, a good portion of the time they never even get close to harming a soldier and innocent bystanders pay the price. If you were defending your country would you target your own countrymen? Doesn't that hurt the cause a bit?

Think about it.

If your country was invaded by another nation and your army failed to protect you, wouldn't you stand up on you own to try to beat back the invaders? Or better yet, form militias for organized assults on the invaders? Dosen't this sound like what's hapening in Iraq, unnamed combatants making attacks on troops?

With this in mind, consider what would happen if the US left Iraq. All of those peasant militias would have nothing more to be aggressive about, and there would be much less violence.

Thats just wrong. Iraq is made up of so many different cultures and peoples and most of them don't like each other. Saddam kept them in line and so are we when we're over there. If we left before the local government has the power to keep the peace the tribal and racial hatreds will flare up and the violence will skyrocket.

Merry x-mas!

[Memorize]

Oh yes, lets blame our troops for all of the killing and defend the terrorists or anyone else killing civilians and yet still support our troops at the same time.

[Demosthenez]

At 12/23/04 05:53 PM, ShadowMind wrote: With this in mind, consider what would happen if the US left Iraq. All of those peasant militias would have nothing more to be aggressive about, and there would be much less violence.

Lol, thats a good one. We left, there would be a power vacum, to be assumed by the hardest thug that can beat down everyone else. Its not like if we left there would be brotherly love and such.

Annnnnnnnd... I dont think when you are killing more of your own people than you are of your invaders, that doesnt bolster your cause. So I am guessing lots of them are foreigners, but I really dont know.

[EnragedSephiroth]

At 12/23/04 05:53 PM, ShadowMind wrote: Now, how many people here actually think that the war on Iraq is actually fighting the same group of terrorists the it was originally after?

It's not. Iraqis aren't refered to as "terrorrists" but instead as "insurgents" which basicaly means: rebels. I beg of you not to take a misconception of rebels though, not as they are portrayed in movies at least, not all rebels are good, some just rebel because they don't like taking orders. Let's analyze which kinds of rebels/insurgents we're dealing with in this case.

What I think is that the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq and have had nothing to do with Iraq for a long time. Where I think the "terrorist attacks" on US troops have been coming from is regualar Iraqis who are trying desperately to defend their homeland from an invading force.

Well if this is true, then these insurgents choose to rebel because they don't feel like an outside force (the U.S.A.) should come into their country, destroy things and order them around. Such actions are understandable, but peple tend to percieve that the insurgents kill our soldiers out of evil intent. Those kinds of people are looking from the outside to the inside (of the conflict) failing to realize that things look much different in the eyes of the insurgents: they (the insurgents) think they might be fighting for a good cause by killing our soldiers. Either way you look at it, it's bad for us to go in and wreck their land, and bad for them to try and kill our soldiers, but it's too late to go back now, we have to finish what we started.

Now obviously the Iraqi insurgents aren't the same as the Al Qaeda terrorrists, those were terrorrists, and they claimed responsibility for the attacks of 9/11. Furthermore, the Al Qaeda were situated in Afghanistan, whilst the insurgents are Iraqi, and both countries seldom had any sort of ties to one another, if any at all. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein never even associated with one another. Therefore to say that Iraq had any ties to Al Qaeda was ludicrous, and surely enough, the Bush administration admitted this a couple months before these past elections.

With this in mind, consider what would happen if the US left Iraq. All of those peasant militias would have nothing more to be aggressive about, and there would be much less violence.

Yes but as others have already argued in this thread, it would be a battle for top-dog right off the bat, we have no other logical choice at the moment then to stick to the plan and keep things cool (that goes for our soldiers too, no more shocking actions or videos) until the elections are held, the people vote, and a government is put into place for Iraq. I just keep my fingers crossed that there is no more bloodshed.

[EnragedSephiroth]

My previous statement(s) were made based on my reliance that the people in these Politics BBS keep up to date on the (major) ocurrences of the world. If some things in my post aren't that "obvious" to you, go look them up in a reliable news source or academic journal.

[MoralLibertarian]

This one is easy. We are the ones over their fighting for freedom. Iraq is already a sovereign nation, which is more than what it was, and we're more of an occupational force than a ruling party.

The terrorists are the pieces of shit who are fighting against democracy and for authoritarian control like they had under Saddam.

I hate that question, "What would you do if someone invaded our nation?" You might as well ask, "What is the limit of an orange?"

We are the US, we fuck shit up, and we don't take shit from no one. When people attack us once, the result is a 40+ year war devoted to exterminating terrorist pieces of shit. If someone invaded us, we would have to kick them out, but only because a precedent has been set and we have to keep it that way.

If I were in a third world country, and Uncle Sam said to me, "Okay, we're going to take away your murderous dictatorship, stick around in your land for a while, take some of your oil, and train your militia so you can keep away from threats. In all honesty, you could die. Maybe your children will die too. That's not us, those guys are insurgents. We may kill civilians, but that will never be our intent. When your militia is ready and the country is stable, we will leave you, and hopefully we'll be good enough friends to participate in a lucrative oil trade after the war. So, are you in?" I would say, "OMG FUCK YEAH!" And from what I hear, many Iraqis appreciate the changes despite the asshole insurgency (a small number of the population. I'm also tired of hearing the media spin the insurgency into the "will of the Iraqi people")

[Hermannator]

I may think Bush is a dumbass, but I believe those TERRORISTS, NOT FREEDOM FIGHTERS in Iraq (unlike in Palestine) are a bunch of spontaneously exploding neanderthals! They are the true blame of why the war is so enduring. If they want the U.S. to leave, then they shouldn't give the U.S. a reason to stay! And they are giving us an even bigger reason to stay by attacking civilians too. If we should blame someone for making the war so long, we should blame those idiots, not Bush (but we should still blame Bush for getting us into it for misinformed reasons).

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/24/04 11:00 AM, Hermannator wrote: If they want the U.S. to leave, then they shouldn't give the U.S. a reason to stay!

Well said Herman. May I call you Herman? lol

[BobDoUrden]

At 12/24/04 11:00 AM, Hermannator wrote: If they want the U.S. to leave, then they shouldn't give the U.S. a reason to stay!

heh yeah, that is pretty damn good. One of those really obvious things that some people overlook

[Slizor]

The US Army is both a terrorist and freedom fighting organisation. It fights against the freedom of nations - deposing democratically elected leaders (Allende, anyone?) and kills civilians left right and centre - so much so they refused to take a body count.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/24/04 11:27 AM, Slizor wrote: The US Army is both a terrorist and freedom fighting organisation. It fights against the freedom of nations - deposing democratically elected leaders (Allende, anyone?) and kills civilians left right and centre - so much so they refused to take a body count.

Hello History Revision...uckch.

[BobDoUrden]

At 12/24/04 11:27 AM, Slizor wrote: The US Army is both a terrorist and freedom fighting organisation. It fights against the freedom of nations - deposing democratically elected leaders (Allende, anyone?) and kills civilians left right and centre - so much so they refused to take a body count.

Main difference being that we don't do it porposely

[Slizor]

Hello History Revision...uckch

?

Main difference being that we don't do it porposely

To assign purpose to actions is a very hard thing to do. Does the US Army mean to kill civilians? They may officially say they don't but you never know.

[BobDoUrden]

At 12/24/04 11:47 AM, Slizor wrote:

To assign purpose to actions is a very hard thing to do. Does the US Army mean to kill civilians? They may officially say they don't but you never know.

I disagree, its pretty easy to say "Hey guys, We're here to help these guys out, win hearts & minds and to kill/capture insurgents."

Heh yeah, its true! Sometimes we like to pile into a five ton and go a-huntin' us some Hoji! YEEHAW!
Seriously though, the U.S. army (and any military organization for that matter) is based on discipline and control. When were given a set of rules of engagement were told not to harm civilians...end of story.

Unfortunately(erm sic? sorry just woke up heh) break downs do occur. Like that whole prison disaster. The commander didn't keep account of her soldiers and they ran wild.

Err sorry, im digressing and rambling. Ill leave it at that.

[MoralLibertarian]

Slizor, I wrote a post just for you and other history revisionists on this board called, "What REALLY happened in Chile, 1973." You'll see that the US did nothing to stage a coup against Allende. We only funded parties in opposition to him, hoping that they would be democratically elected and the country could go back to normal.

[BobDoUrden]

At 12/24/04 11:56 AM, Rooster349 wrote: Slizor, I wrote a post just for you and other history revisionists on this board called, "What REALLY happened in Chile, 1973." You'll see that the US did nothing to stage a coup against Allende. We only funded parties in opposition to him, hoping that they would be democratically elected and the country could go back to normal.

Hey, I got a question.
"History Revisionist" maybe I'm a bit slow (heh maybe) but what are you implying when you say that?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/24/04 12:02 PM, BobDoUrden wrote: Hey, I got a question.
"History Revisionist" maybe I'm a bit slow (heh maybe) but what are you implying when you say that?

History revision is when someone distorts history for whatever reason and it's printed that way. Most people don't even know its been revised. I myself have read a book called "The Politcially incorrect guide to American History" and it's a real eye-opener.

Examples are: McCarthy was an evil man. Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR and didn't create a great economy. Most of the soldiers in Vietnam were drafted. etc. FDR's welfare state got us out of the Depression.

I don't hold history revision against anyone by the way. They don't do it themselves, they just learned it that way. Pick up that book if you want to read a fascinating book. I think the author is Woods? Or something...

[BobDoUrden]

Hey thanks, maybe ill give it a shot. It'll be tough for me though, If it doesn't have large explosions, swords, sharks or cat-girls.

hmm the U.S. doesn't have any history involving cat-girls does it?

[Memorize]

At 12/24/04 12:20 PM, Rooster349 wrote:

Examples are: McCarthy was an evil man. Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the USSR and didn't create a great economy. Most of the soldiers in Vietnam were drafted. etc. FDR's welfare state got us out of the Depression.

I thought Reagan had a part. We create more and more weapons and the USSR couldnt keep up so it crumbled their economy (this is basically it in a nutshell). Most adults would say he did create either a great or good economy (those ive talked with).

[Hermannator]

At 12/24/04 11:02 AM, Rooster349 wrote: Well said Herman. May I call you Herman? lol

Sure, but it's Hermann with two n's!

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/24/04 12:47 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote: I thought Reagan had a part. We create more and more weapons and the USSR couldnt keep up so it crumbled their economy (this is basically it in a nutshell). Most adults would say he did create either a great or good economy (those ive talked with).

Reagan had everything to do with it. I was saying that many liberals have spun his legacy as a meaningless one. Renember when Reagan died and these lefties talked about how evil and cruel he was? It was totally bogus.

At the
MRC, they have the loonie left's quotes on Reagan. They don't give him credit for anything, and even give him credit for things he didn't do. Like the claim that "homelessness started with Reagan." That's a bunch of bullshit. It's astounding that some of the pundits on the left were kinder to Yasser Arafat when he died than Ronald Reagan.

The examples were examples of myths, not realities. Basically, No, McCarthy was not evil, No, FDR Actually prolonged the Depression, etc.

[Memorize]

At 12/24/04 01:22 PM, Rooster349 wrote:

Reagan had everything to do with it. I was saying that many liberals have spun his legacy as a meaningless one. Renember when Reagan died and these lefties talked about how evil and cruel he was? It was totally bogus.

When he died i didnt see or hear anyone talking about how evil he was (Reagan is my fav. president anyway), but when he did die i didnt really like to study anything about past presidents or anything about politics.

At the
MRC, they have the loonie left's quotes on Reagan. They don't give him credit for anything, and even give him credit for things he didn't do. Like the claim that "homelessness started with Reagan."

Stupid Fucktards! Really, i dont see where they get homelessness or even how they can say it started with him.

That's a bunch of bullshit. It's astounding that some of the pundits on the left were kinder to Yasser Arafat when he died than Ronald Reagan.

Yep, i have one simple answer for the reason why some lefts say those things to Reagan, its because he was a republican, and my dad and grandparents say it drove Democrats nuts by how well Reagan handled situations and how well he did during his presidency.

[AntiangelicAngel]

The U.S. could have NOT put Saddam in power and NOT helped an Islamic extremist uprising in Afghanistan and we could have avoided this whole mess. 100,000.

[Hermannator]

Reagan seemed to be a pretty good president. I heard his tax cuts did help the economy a bit, but not as much as people claim it to have helped. For example, I doubt that the increasing economy during Clinton's administration were a result of Reagan's tax cut. That's like saying the increasing economy right now was a result of Clinton (or George Bush Senior)! The point is that I don't think the economic state should be given credit to someone who was president 10 years before it happened.

At 12/24/04 01:22 PM, Rooster349 wrote: No, FDR Actually prolonged the Depression, etc.

Oh come on. Don't diss FDR. He was a cool guy! How was it exactly prolonged? All his New Deal ideas sounded good.

[Memorize]

At 12/24/04 01:55 PM, Hermannator wrote: Reagan seemed to be a pretty good president. I heard his tax cuts did help the economy a bit, but not as much as people claim it to have helped. For example, I doubt that the increasing economy during Clinton's administration were a result of Reagan's tax cut. That's like saying the increasing economy right now was a result of Clinton (or George Bush Senior)! The point is that I don't think the economic state should be given credit to someone who was president 10 years before it happened.

Meh, i dont know if it was the result of Reagan or not, but all of my grandparents say the same thing, "Reagan set an economic wave". Apparently to some people there was sa reccession (sp) either during the last years of Clinton or the very beginning of Bush Jr. But i do give credit for Reagan acually getting the economy up.

At 12/24/04 01:22 PM, Rooster349 wrote: No, FDR Actually prolonged the Depression, etc.

Oh come on. Don't diss FDR. He was a cool guy! How was it exactly prolonged? All his New Deal ideas sounded good.

Im not sure about FDR. My parents seem to like him, but there is some evidence suggesting that he let pearl harbor happen (altho i doubt it). He did want to go to war, and the US needed to test their new Atom Bomb on live people. But he was also preoccupied with another war going on and he didnt really know about the Atom Bomb at all until he became president. I dont know.

[MoralLibertarian]

Yeah, Hermann, the economy can not be completely manipulated. A lot of it is good luck. Keeping tax down is always a good idea though, especially if you're a small government conservative like me.

At 12/24/04 01:22 PM, Rooster349 wrote: No, FDR Actually prolonged the Depression, etc.

Oh come on. Don't diss FDR. He was a cool guy! How was it exactly prolonged? All his New Deal ideas sounded good.

Im not sure about FDR. My parents seem to like him, but there is some evidence suggesting that he let pearl harbor happen (altho i doubt it). He did want to go to war, and the US needed to test their new Atom Bomb on live people. But he was also preoccupied with another war going on and he didnt really know about the Atom Bomb at all until he became president. I dont know.

I feel the same way about FDR. I feel like some of his policies were necessary for the time, like social securtiy. However, many of his programs are the cause of the welfare state that makes the government accountable for all people. This is where lefties get the idea that government should take care of people. I do think that his philosophy was "Well, we can just spend our way out of this deficit!" and I also think that his excessive regulation of banks and businesses decreased profits and we could have got out a lot sooner.

I think that FDR took some good steps for a Depression, but he went to far with his New Deal and ended up over regulating banks and businesses.

[Hermannator]

Hmm, whatever. We do have separate opinions on government regulation and such.

Now back to Iraq. I had this thought for a while. If I was an American soldier in Iraq and an Iraqi civilian comes up to me and complain about the U.S. presence and how they want us to leave, I would say, "Well, geez, where was you rebellious and hostile attitude when Saddam was in power?" I'm not saying that Iraqis have no reason to complain about the U.S. presence, but if I had to fight to protect people who hate us (although there are plenty of Iraqis who support us), I would be pretty grumpy about it.

[Memorize]

At 12/24/04 03:57 PM, Hermannator wrote:

I would say, "Well, geez, where was you rebellious and hostile attitude when Saddam was in power?"

Interesting, my response would be, "Well what the fuck do you want me to do about it?"

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/24/04 03:57 PM, Hermannator wrote: Hmm, whatever. We do have separate opinions on government regulation and such.

Now back to Iraq. I had this thought for a while. If I was an American soldier in Iraq and an Iraqi civilian comes up to me and complain about the U.S. presence and how they want us to leave, I would say, "Well, geez, where was you rebellious and hostile attitude when Saddam was in power?" I'm not saying that Iraqis have no reason to complain about the U.S. presence, but if I had to fight to protect people who hate us (although there are plenty of Iraqis who support us), I would be pretty grumpy about it.

It's funny you mention that. You should go over to the Iraq = Vietnam post and read the book review for In the Red Zone, the novel I'm reading right now.

Many Iraqis feel that way. They feel humiliated by Americans because the Americans had to come set them free instead of themselves.

It's amazing how their have been two sets of truth coming from this war. There is doom and gloom on one side and total optimism from the other.