• Why the Coalition sucks in the War on Terror.
    232 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Evilan;22946532]You and too many other people in this thread are looking too much at the 2010 hindsight and not the actual 2001 reasons for going to war.[/QUOTE] Read a little bit more my friend. We have covered the reason why we went to war.
[QUOTE=Warhol;22910476] Iran, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Turkey, Qatar, Oman [/QUOTE] How are any of these countries examples of a peaceful middle east? They have all had ethnic and religious violence and/or totalitarian regimes. Going back far before western influence.
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22943985]Wow. You are so God damn ignorant that you don't realize violence and crime are not the same thing.[/quote] violence is not crime? uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wot [quote]The government blatantly said we are going to uphold Resolution 1441. The Bush administration also added that Saddam's regime was getting to powerful. If you had a chance to take out a major dictator within the Mid-East would you take it? I sure as hell would. Less problems I would have to deal with down. The French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Civil War. Many people died, some non-combatants. This is the price we pay for freedom. Their death was not in vain. You must think more long term.[/QUOTE] find me a quote where bush mentioned R. 1441. Or any fucking cabinet member they used that as a fucking loophole, the fuck is wrong with you? and how was Saddam getting too powerful? [editline]08:45AM[/editline] [QUOTE=tomcat13;22949649]How are any of these countries examples of a peaceful middle east? They have all had ethnic and religious violence and/or totalitarian regimes. Going back far before western influence.[/QUOTE] lol, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about [editline]08:51AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22949198]Read a little bit more my friend. We have covered the reason why we went to war.[/QUOTE] lies and oil easy
Modern Wars have just devolved into first world countries curbstomping third world countries.
[QUOTE=Warhol;22973051]lies and oil easy[/QUOTE] Have the Americans gotten an ounce of that oil they supposedly attacked for? I have not heard anything like that
[QUOTE=Warhol;22973051]violence is not crime? uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh wot [/QUOTE] There are plenty of non-violent crimes. This is not talking about crimes. This is purely talking about fighting between the sectarian militias and the Coalition. War is not a crime. [QUOTE=Warhol;22973051] find me a quote where bush mentioned R. 1441. Or any fucking cabinet member they used that as a fucking loophole, the fuck is wrong with you? and how was Saddam getting too powerful? [/QUOTE] First off, have you ever known a dictator who didn't want to be powerful? "In recent months, we've sought and gained three additional resolutions on Iraq--Resolutions 1441, 1483 and 1511--precisely because the global danger of terror demands a global response" President George W. Bush 19 November 2003 "The president and his subordinates have made their intent transparently clear: The impending war on, or occupation of, Iraq is intended to carry out the UN Security Council mandates, not to protect our nation or to punish those responsible for the September 11th attack. The war would uphold the UN's supposed authority and vindicate its role as a de facto world government." Norman Grigg [I] The New American [/I] Date Unknown This is still a clear reason for going to war. Hidden agendas do not count. Allegedly, Bush has been part of a movement to influence congress and presidents to create an American Empire. "Lost in all the discussion about the lies and falsehoods used to justify this tragic war is the little-known determination of top Bush administration officials to attack Iraq before the 9/11 tragedy. After having served together in previous administrations, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and several other Bush administration appointees launched the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997. Its megalomaniacal purpose: create a worldwide American empire as part of our nation's "global responsibilities" and begin to "challenge regimes hostile to our interests." In January 1998, PNAC leaders formally urged President Clinton to attack Iraq. When he failed to do as they wanted, they sent letters in May 1998 to House and Senate leaders seeking the start of action against Saddam's regime. House and Senate leaders didn't follow PNAC directives either"(McManus). On a side note Bush is damn idiot. Also, I believe it is not the CRS you are after, but the IRC (Iragi National Congress) "Referring additionally to false information being given the administration by the exile group Iraqi National Congress (IRC), the report noted that IRC partisans wanted to give the Bush administration some reasons to attack Iraq; therefore, they reported that Saddam's government had nuclear, chemical, and biological weaponry. The Bush administration continued funding the IRC, despite being warned as far back as 2002 that the group's information was unreliable"(McManus). "Iraq war was intended to boost UN." The New American 15 Dec. 2003: 5. Academic OneFile. Web. 29 June 2010. McManus, John F. "Debunking Bush's reason for war." The New American 16 Oct. 2006: 44. Academic OneFile. Web. 29 June 2010.
For godsake! It is not just dethroning a dictator. There are terrorists in that place that are ranting on and on about how they want to blow the hell out of america and it's alies. If you want to get your ass blown off in the next epic terrorist attack then let's leave the terrorists alone to the bombmaking and public execution. What some of our troops in the middle east have done is nothing in comparison to what the Taliban, Al-Qaeda. Hamas, etc. want to do to us, and their own people.The Job is not finished people. Just because Saddam got the rope does not mean that There are not people in The Middle Eastern Countries who want to blow us off the face of the earth, and will at the first chance.
[QUOTE=code_monkey0523;22981286]For godsake! It is not just dethroning a dictator. There are terrorists in that place that are ranting on and on about how they want to blow the hell out of america and it's alies. If you want to get your ass blown off in the next epic terrorist attack then let's leave the terrorists alone to the bombmaking and public execution. What some of our troops in the middle east have done is nothing in comparison to what the Taliban, Al-Qaeda. Hamas, etc. want to do to us, and their own people.The Job is not finished people. Just because Saddam got the rope does not mean that There are not people in The Middle Eastern Countries who want to blow us off the face of the earth, and will at the first chance.[/QUOTE] Well if we didn't desert the Middle East after the Soviet-Afghan war in the 80's. We wouldn't have this problem.
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22979792]There are plenty of non-violent crimes. This is not talking about crimes. This is purely talking about fighting between the sectarian militias and the Coalition. War is not a crime.[/quote] tbh, war in my eyes is crimes against humanity. how do you measure battle? seriously? [quote]First off, have you ever known a dictator who didn't want to be powerful?[/quote] wanting and doing are two different things [quote]"In recent months, we've sought and gained three additional resolutions on Iraq--Resolutions 1441, 1483 and 1511--precisely because the global danger of terror demands a global response" President George W. Bush 19 November 2003[/quote] "global danger of terror" lol holy shit, he lied right there [quote]"The president and his subordinates have made their intent transparently clear: The impending war on, or occupation of, Iraq is intended to carry out the UN Security Council mandates, not to protect our nation or to punish those responsible for the September 11th attack. The war would uphold the UN's supposed authority and vindicate its role as a de facto world government." Norman Grigg [I] The New American [/I] Date Unknown[/quote] lol, the new america brilliant source could you get a worse possible source please? how about conservapedia? [quote]This is still a clear reason for going to war. [B]Hidden agendas do not count[/B]. Allegedly, Bush has been part of a movement to influence congress and presidents to create an American Empire.[/quote] are you fucking serious? Are you literally THAT retarded? [quote]"Lost in all the discussion about the lies and falsehoods used to justify this tragic war is the little-known determination of top Bush administration officials to attack Iraq before the 9/11 tragedy. After having served together in previous administrations, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and several other Bush administration appointees launched the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997. Its megalomaniacal purpose: create a worldwide American empire as part of our nation's "global responsibilities" and begin to "challenge regimes hostile to our interests." In January 1998, PNAC leaders formally urged President Clinton to attack Iraq. When he failed to do as they wanted, they sent letters in May 1998 to House and Senate leaders seeking the start of action against Saddam's regime. House and Senate leaders didn't follow PNAC directives either"(McManus).[/quote] what? mate, what are you even arguing? And this guy sounds like one of those Alan colmes type. Mind you he's spot on, but fuck... [quote]On a side note Bush is damn idiot.[/quote] then stop defending him, fuck! [quote]Also, I believe it is not the CRS you are after, but the IRC (Iragi National Congress)[/quote] lol, a few of the people worked for the IRC, that's why I mentioned Chalabi. [editline]09:52PM[/editline] [QUOTE=code_monkey0523;22981286]For godsake! It is not just dethroning a dictator. There are terrorists in that place that are ranting on and on about how they want to blow the hell out of america and it's alies. If you want to get your ass blown off in the next epic terrorist attack then let's leave the terrorists alone to the bombmaking and public execution. What some of our troops in the middle east have done is nothing in comparison to what the Taliban, Al-Qaeda. Hamas, etc. want to do to us, and their own people.The Job is not finished people. Just because Saddam got the rope does not mean that There are not people in The Middle Eastern Countries who want to blow us off the face of the earth, and will at the first chance.[/QUOTE] I hope you're trolling
[QUOTE=Warhol;22986988]tbh, war in my eyes is crimes against humanity. how do you measure battle? seriously? [/QUOTE] That is simply your opinion. Now ask your self if it is legally O.K to go to war with another country. To answer your question: by comparing recent events with current events. [QUOTE=Warhol;22986988] lol, the new america brilliant source could you get a worse possible source please? how about conservapedia? [/QUOTE] I love every source you have brought to the table. Just your simple opinions backed up by pure nothingness. Instead of criticizing my sources how about you do some damn research and do yourself a favor so you don't look so ignorant. To be quite frank, do these really look like Republican views to you? [QUOTE=Warhol;22986988] are you fucking serious? Are you literally THAT retarded? what? mate, what are you even arguing? And this guy sounds like one of those Alan colmes type. Mind you he's spot on, but fuck... [/QUOTE] Have you seen any hardcore evidence of these hidden agendas? I sure as hell haven't. They are simply interpretations of actions. My main argument is that the Coalition needs to continue occupation of Iraq. (If you would paid more attention in your High School English, you would understand what a thesis statement is.) I also believe it was a necessary choice to invade Iraq.
The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are terrorists.
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22987653]That is simply your opinion. Now ask your self if it is legally O.K to go to war with another country.[/quote] No, not without the UN's permission. There are two factors in the United Nations Charter that allow for war. The UN never agreed to the war, and thus the war was both unconstitutional and illegal. [quote]To answer your question: by comparing recent events with current events.[/quote] There's many more factors. [quote]I love every source you have brought to the table. Just your simple opinions backed up by pure nothingness.[/quote] better then Chalabi's lackeys [quote]Instead of criticizing my sources how about you do some damn research and do yourself a favor so you don't look so ignorant. To be quite frank, do these really look like Republican views to you? [/quote] lol, you haven't presented any fucking points. I don't even know what you're on about. What is your point? [quote]Have you seen any hardcore evidence of these hidden agendas? I sure as hell haven't. They are simply interpretations of actions.[/quote] uh... lol [quote]My main argument is that the Coalition needs to continue occupation of Iraq.[/quote] lol, so far the results say otherwise. [quote](If you would paid more attention in your High School English, you would understand what a thesis statement is.)[/quote] you're an arrogant little fuck wit. btw, your essay was terrible and any sane professor or lecturer would fail that. [quote] I also believe it was a necessary choice to invade Iraq.[/QUOTE] you have no idea why, do you? lol what next, you going to defend what the US did after post-war iraq?
[QUOTE=Warhol;22988152]No, not without the UN's permission. There are two factors in the United Nations Charter that allow for war. The UN never agreed to the war, and thus the war was both unconstitutional and illegal. [/QUOTE] You have no sources so therefore your statement is invalid. [QUOTE=Warhol;22988152] There's many more factors. [/QUOTE] Then why in the hell are you asking me? [QUOTE=Warhol;22988152] better then Chalabi's lackeys [/QUOTE] Yup, still you have no source from your statements. [QUOTE=Warhol;22988152] lol, you haven't presented any fucking points. I don't even know what you're on about. What is your point? [/QUOTE] Yeah....O.K. [QUOTE=Warhol;22988152] lol, so far the results say otherwise. [/QUOTE] So then what, Iraq falls into an uncontrollable civil war in which a new dictator comes to power? [QUOTE=Warhol;22988152] you're an arrogant little fuck wit. btw, your essay was terrible and any sane professor or lecturer would fail that. you have no idea why, do you? lol what next, you going to defend what the US did after post-war iraq?[/QUOTE] ....I got a 98% on that paper. You cannot grade someones views on society. On second thought, why don't you read the God damn paper. It is very clear that you haven't. "United States should continue to occupy Iraq to provide stability, ensure political success, and continue reconstruction." This is called a thesis statement. Now, from this simple sentence, I hope it is very...let me emphasize...VERY clear that this paper specifically talks about post-war Iraq.
Why is Canada even mentioned in the OP anyway? Canada refused to go to Iraq.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;22992194]Why is Canada even mentioned in the OP anyway? Canada refused to go to Iraq.[/QUOTE] Because we've been in Afghanistan since 2002.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;22992328]Because we've been in Afghanistan since 2002.[/QUOTE] But the OP is arguing about the War in Iraq and he mentions the coaltion, refering to the MNF-I in Iraq. Canada wasn't part of the MNF-I, we're part of the ISAF, the NATO coalition in Afghanistan. There is a difference there considering the Afghanistan mission was justfied. Not to mention the MNF-I was replaced by the USF-I and coalition forces were withdrawn in January.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;22992443]But the OP is arguing about the War in Iraq and he mentions the coaltion, refering to the MNF-I in Iraq. Canada wasn't part of the MNF-I, we're part of the ISAF, the NATO coalition in Afghanistan. There is a difference there considering the Afghanistan mission was justfied. Not to mention the MNF-I was replaced by the USF-I and coalition forces were withdrawn in January.[/QUOTE] Just OP confusion then mixing up Afghanistan and Iraq. It's like saying the Soviet Union is all Russians, I guess.
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22990510]You have no sources so therefore your statement is invalid.[/quote] uh, you can just read the UN charter... [url]http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/[/url] here have fun [quote]Yup, still you have no source from your statements.[/quote] dude... you cited him, you should fucking know. [quote]So then what, Iraq falls into an uncontrollable civil war in which a new dictator comes to power?[/quote] ... uh Iraq already IS in fucking civil war. Ethnic fucking cleanings. Jesus christ, if you are so fucking ignorant to this shit, then why did you even write the paper without fucking researching it. [quote]....I got a 98% on that paper. You cannot grade someones views on society. [/quote] your teacher is retarded. [quote]On second thought, why don't you read the God damn paper. It is very clear that you haven't.[/quote] uh i did, ffs [quote]"United States should continue to occupy Iraq to provide stability, ensure political success, and continue reconstruction."[/quote] by continue, you're implying that its started [quote]This is called a thesis statement. Now, from this simple sentence, I hope it is very...let me emphasize...VERY clear that this paper specifically talks about post-war Iraq.[/QUOTE] what the fuck are you talking about? you're literally just making fucking strawmen argument. [editline]01:54AM[/editline] and stop fucking pointing to your shitty high school paper, it's fucking terrible.
[QUOTE=Warhol;22993298]uh, you can just read the UN charter... [url]http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/[/url] here have fun [/QUOTE] "The purpose of that resolution [1441] was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years." "Resolution 1441 ultimately passed—by a vote of 15-0—because its ambiguous wording was able to placate all parties. Recognizing the continued threat Iraq poses to international peace and security, recalling that Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to implement relevant subsequent resolutions, and noting that Resolution 687 imposed conditions on Iraq—with which it has not complied—the council made clear that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions." It is significant that the council explicitly noted that it was acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. Resolution 1441 then mandates the creation of an enhanced inspection regime and lays out the process to be implemented if Iraq fails to comply. Paragraph 4 of the resolution makes clear that false statements, omissions, and failures to cooperate with the requirements of the resolution will be considered a material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12. Paragraph 11 directs Hans Blix, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC (the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) and Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) to report any Iraqi noncompliance to the Security Council. Paragraph 12 directs the Security Council to convene immediately upon receipt of a report under either Paragraph 4 or Paragraph 11 to determine how to respond." Why in the hell would you fuel my argument? I'm honestly beginning to think that you cannot read. From this we now understand that the United States, however, did have the legal authority to enter Iraq. This is directly related to Resolution 1441, and prior Resolutions during the First Gulf War. Seeing as Iraq did not comply with Resolution 1441, the United states was then granted authority to uphold the resolution and remove the dictator from power. [QUOTE=Warhol;22993298] ... uh Iraq already IS in fucking civil war. Ethnic fucking cleanings. Jesus christ, if you are so fucking ignorant to this shit, then why did you even write the paper without fucking researching it. [/QUOTE] I knew you were going to say that. This is a controllable Civil War. The United States has already set up a government within Iraq. As long as the United States stays there, the Civil War can be contained and will eventually die off. Now let me ask you this, what would happen if the United States were to leave Iraq? rhetorical question. The Civil War will continue until one guy promises peace and prosperity and turns the country too its former glory. Then what? Ten years down the road, we find ourselves listening to a broken record. A blind man could tell you that I did my research. [QUOTE=Warhol;22993298] by continue, you're implying that its started [/QUOTE] Indeed it has. Yes it is covered within the paper. Yes there is evidence to prove it. The day they walked into Baghdad is the day reconstruction began. So what you're saying is leave right now so that way a new dictator comes to power and then we're fucked all over again.
[QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22997166]"The purpose of that resolution [1441] was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years."[/quote] Iraq was disarmed lol and please, vocal massacre, tell me, where are those Weapons of mass destruction? [quote]"Resolution 1441 ultimately passed—by a vote of 15-0—because its ambiguous wording was able to placate all parties. Recognizing the continued threat Iraq poses to international peace and security, recalling that Resolution 678 authorized member states to use all necessary means to implement relevant subsequent resolutions, and noting that Resolution 687 imposed conditions on Iraq—with which it has not complied—the council made clear that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions." It is significant that the council explicitly noted that it was acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter. [/quote] uh... dude, this this not a reason to go to war. The resolution is an inspection thing do you READ what you cite? [quote]Resolution 1441 then mandates the creation of an enhanced inspection regime and lays out the process to be implemented if Iraq fails to comply. Paragraph 4 of the resolution makes clear that false statements, omissions, and failures to cooperate with the requirements of the resolution will be considered a material breach of Iraq's obligations and will be reported to the council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12. Paragraph 11 directs Hans Blix, the executive chairman of UNMOVIC (the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) and Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency) to report any Iraqi noncompliance to the Security Council. Paragraph 12 directs the Security Council to convene immediately upon receipt of a report under either Paragraph 4 or Paragraph 11 to determine how to respond."[/quote] you quoted more then you read, sweet [quote]Why in the hell would you fuel my argument?[/quote] you didn't read it [quote]I'm honestly beginning to think that you cannot read.[/quote] you don't know what the fuck a weapons inspector is, do you? [quote]From this we now understand that the United States, however, did have the legal authority to enter Iraq.[/quote] mate, if you can't read the source, then I don't really know what to do with you [quote]This is directly related to Resolution 1441, and prior Resolutions during the First Gulf War. Seeing as Iraq did not comply with Resolution 1441, the United states was then granted authority to uphold the resolution and remove the dictator from power.[/quote] inspectorsssssssssssssss [quote]I knew you were going to say that. This is a controllable Civil War. The United States has already set up a government within Iraq. As long as the United States stays there, the Civil War can be contained and will eventually die off. [/quote] you do realise that government is pretty much helping the ethnic cleanings... right? [quote]Now let me ask you this, what would happen if the United States were to leave Iraq? rhetorical question. The Civil War will continue until one guy promises peace and prosperity and turns the country too its former glory. Then what? Ten years down the road, we find ourselves listening to a broken record.[/quote] [quote]A blind man could tell you that I did my research.[/quote] no you didn't lol [quote]Indeed it has. Yes it is covered within the paper. Yes there is evidence to prove it. The day they walked into Baghdad is the day reconstruction began.[/quote] ... oh my god i hate you, I have never been really spiteful of ignorance, but that made me hate you So what you're saying is leave right now so that way a new dictator comes to power and then we're fucked all over again.[/QUOTE] your paper is sourced by one source and a few articles, one person in that committe is part of the INC. you are in it for the fucking win, aren't you?
Just something I've noticed. While Vocal Massacre responds to Warhol's comments with actual well-thought out responses, Warhol pretty much simply calls people stupid and then says "lol" in one line. Honestly Warhol, you're not doing a very good job of making yourself look intelligent. You're pretty much just taking the standpoint that anyone who says ANYTHING different from you is an idiot. I would have quote something, but honestly, you've pretty much posted the same thing over and over ever since page four.
He seems to forget the whole looting thing and ORHA asking Rumsfeld for help etc etc that's not rebuilding
[QUOTE=Warhol;22997758]Iraq was disarmed lol and please, vocal massacre, tell me, where are those Weapons of mass destruction? [/QUOTE] How the hell should I know? Just because we didn't find any, doesn't mean they didn't exist. Hell the Iraqis could have sold them to the blackmarket. Or just disarmed them and destroyed the evidence. [QUOTE=Warhol;22997758] uh... dude, this this not a reason to go to war. The resolution is an inspection thing do you READ what you cite? [/QUOTE] If the Iraqis did not comply with the inspections of Resolution 1441, the United States are then granted legal authority to invade Iraq. [QUOTE=Warhol;22997758] you don't know what the fuck a weapons inspector is, do you? inspectorsssssssssssssss [/QUOTE] You are mistaking Resolution 1441 for previous Resolutions during the 90's where inspections actually occurred. Edit: Successful inspections actually occurred. [QUOTE=Warhol;22997758] your paper is sourced by one source and a few articles, one person in that committe is part of the INC. you are in it for the fucking win, aren't you?[/QUOTE] Your point being? To be quite frank I have around 8 sources. Three of which are from the Congressional Research Service. [QUOTE=Warhol;22997951]He seems to forget the whole looting thing and ORHA asking Rumsfeld for help etc etc that's not rebuilding[/QUOTE] No, but what is mentioned within my paper is. Those are examples of rebuilding. I'm not saying that the reconstruction efforts are good. I'm saying that it is clear that reconstruction needs to continue. And don't lash back at me and try saying something stupid like, "Your sources are shit." or, trying to re-iterate "We've never began reconstruction." It's really getting old. [QUOTE=Warhol;22997758] your paper is sourced by one source and a few articles, one person in that committe is part of the INC. you are in it for the fucking win, aren't you?[/QUOTE] On a side note, how in the hell is that related to this? [QUOTE=Vocal Massacre;22997166] So what you're saying is leave right now so that way a new dictator comes to power and then we're fucked all over again.[/QUOTE] It is completely irrelevant. I really don't understand why you continue criticizing your my sources when...I say again....when you do not provide one iota of evidence to back up your claims. It is sad that you criticize the CRS, because the CRS reporters are more intelligent that you will ever be. Why would you criticize someone smarter than you. Pure jealousy? Hmm..this can be used as a metaphor.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.