LIKE ALL WARS THAT HAVE EVER BEEN FOUGHT, IT'S JUST
FOR THE SAKE OF BUSINESS AND PROFITS, IN THIS CASE
SCENARIO, OIL!!! SPRINKLED WITH A COATING OF THAT
EVER DELICIOUS FLAVOR CALLED DEMOCRACY AT THE
EXPENCE OF THE BLOOD OF IT'S BRAVE SOLDIERS, WHO
BELIEVE THERE'RE FIGHTING FOR A CAUSE!!!!!!!!
BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED AND MOST LIKELY NOTHING
EVER WILL!!!!!!!!! PEACE TO THE SOLDIERS!!!!!!!!!
2006-08-08 03:32:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
It's amazing how people try to justify the Iraq war by saying how bad Saddam was. Yes, he was a bad man. But so is Mugabe, and a host of other dictators. But the thing is that you can't just go and invade a country on the basis of the guy leading it is a bad man. There are international laws against that.
That is why Blair & Bush tried to sell the war at the time by any every other reason than that he's a bad man. And since then every reason they've given have been discounted as false, so now "he's a bad man" seems the only thing they can say. Sorry, if that's the reason, the war is illegal.
2006-08-08 10:24:03
·
answer #2
·
answered by k² 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
"War is Hell".
Joker: "Ever shoot any women or children?"
Helicopter Gunner: "Sumtahms."
Joker: "How can you do that?"
Helicopter Gunner: "Easy - you just don't lead "em so much. Harharhar."
Helicopter Gunner grinning to Joker: "Ain't War Hell?"
"In Iraq The Wind Doesn't Blow It Sucks."
-- all paraphrased from Full Metal Jacket.
I do not draw any comparison with Vietnam. It is too simple and foolish. Personally, I find comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam odious - whether they are made by Stop The War (who love these comparisons) and Muslims or pro-Westerners.
I would not dignify cowardly Al Qaida, Hezbollah or the Taliban with the courtesy of being compared to Real Fighters and Guerrillas like Charlie - the VC (Viet Cong) who had the support of the people and peasantry and were not just another Sectarian terrorist organisation in a religious civil war (e.g. Shia vs Sunni).
That would be a gross insult to the VC.
The Viet Cong were fighting for a completely different set of values than Al Qaida, Hezbollah or the Taliban, which have more in common with us than Sharia Law.
In fact the situation could not be more different. North Iraq (Kurdistan) unlike North Vietnam supports the USA. South Iraq is in the grip of a fratricidal sectarian religious civil war pitting Sunni against Shia, and the West is caught in the middle.
I think more constructive insights can be learnt from studying past history in the Middle East.
The word "Assassin" actually comes from Arabic. It was coined from a secretive extremist Shia Jihadi Arabic-Iranian Terrorist organisation based in Lebanon and Iran called the Hashisham (Assassins) of Alamut. They were founded by Hassan i Sabbah of the Persian Ismai'ili sect in 1090. Their Mission was to kill Western Infidels and Crusaders, but they also killed a lot of other Muslims they did not like. They also conducted lots of Suicide Missions. They were major players in the international Drugs trade. The Assassins of Alamut, it is said liked to imbibe copious quantities of Hashish before they assassinated someone. Hence the origin of the word "Assassin". The Assassins were finally destroyed by the Mongols under Genghis Khan. This was greeted with much joy by orthodox Muslims. The Assassins have been a blue print for many of the modern Terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah.
No change in the Middle East there then!
Me Love You Long Time.
Yours The Hebrew Hammer a.k.a. Mordechai Jefferson Carver
Fighting For Peace and Justice
"I'd Rather be a Hammer than a Nail" -- Simon & Garfunkel
2006-08-08 10:33:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Hebrew Hammer 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
And what does the president of Libya, Qadafi, have to do with Iraq?
And as far as the oil thing goes, why do liberals always make the claim that Bush went to Iraq to steal the oil?
Can you make an intelligent claim based on fact as to just how bush is stealing the oil from Iraq? Is there a secret pipeline from the oil fields in Iraq to the Bush ranch in Texas?
2006-08-08 10:21:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Munster 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it's conclusion is being delayed by the same kind of idiots that are causing trouble in Lebanon.
If it were about oil, all the troops would be doing nothing but protecting pipelines and refineries.
And why should anything be done to Qadaffi? He's realised the path he was taking was too dangerous. He's admitted he screwed up and has made atonement overtures. What more do you want? If Saddam had done the same he's still be in charge.
2006-08-08 10:17:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by namsaev 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people during his regime. They continue to find mass graves with several thousand people he killed. Last I checked there has only been a little over 2000 deaths during the war and not all of them have been bad.
How can it be over oil when we do not own the oil that is over there nor do we or Bush want to own it when the war is over. Opec is over the pricing of oil not the U.S.
Ask any military person that has been over there if the people love what we are doing. The majority of the soldiers will tell you the iraqi people are very appreciative of what we are doing.
Don't believe everything you here in the democratic media. It is not always as bad as things are made out to be.
2006-08-08 10:10:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by juicetke 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am against the idea of war, but have to say that I was in favour of almost anything that would stop Saddam...and felt that Blair was right.
But since that time I am deeply concerned that it has gone on so long and killed so many innocent people.
At first I thought that Bush and Blair just didn't think things through - but the debacle about the weapons of mass destructiion went far beyond a joke.
A young woman I know has just got engaged to a British soldier who is in Iraq. She cries hersalf to sleep every night. So many more people have lost loved ones and the war has taken its toll on the Iraqi people.
It is difficult to know who to trust and who to believe. I just hope that it will end soon.
2006-08-08 10:07:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by Suzita 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it is in the best interests to keep the terrorist in the Middle East. Thankfully we have not had a terror attack here since 9/11/2001. I for one never would have guessed that something like that could even happen. If it could happen in New York, it could be in your backyard. Not to mention Saddam Hussein is not a good person and has killed people in the same fashion as Hitler. Of course we must stop him, now we can not just dessert the people he was mistreating. We are suppose to have better ethics and moral values than to let a madman rule. Bin Laden will be found, hopefully dead, but with the determination of our military I have faith that what goes around comes around.
2006-08-08 10:14:54
·
answer #8
·
answered by flip103158 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think we should answer this question by asking what caussed the war. The philosophical foundation of Islam allows one to kill another if he/ she is against the religion which boost a ladder for them. So killing isn't anything weird to them. If U.S is setting in to help, why not? Mind you there are no innocent persons in Iraq. If the people who have died are given a gun, they can shoot you, I bet that with you. Think about it, and be realistic!
2006-08-08 10:11:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by lagbaja 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think all the American troops in Iraq are murderers! American troops should be hanged according to Sharia Law! Until then, the only justice is when a U.S. soldier is killed by the Iraqi resistance.
2006-08-08 10:05:48
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bow down to me 3
·
0⤊
0⤋