Great video on iraq! - Page 3

ballz2wallz · 11-01-2006, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I dont believe I heard that in the list of reasons to declare war in Iraq? So this whole time the plan was to lure the terrorists into Iraq so we could build a big fence and trap them all in? Damn, so that was the plan?? Why is this the first I have heard of it??? Couldnt we have done the same thing in Afghanistan?? Oh,,, that is right, the OIL,,,,,,,,

Does there have to be only one reason for fighting over there, or can there be many? Why do you have to simplify everything?

SpicyMcVoodoo · 11-01-2006, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Pointing out good things is propaganda but only covering the negative aspects is ok? nice.

By any objective measure, Iraq has turned into total shit, with the overwhelming majority of things going wrong over there, not right. This video is attempting to, with the use of emotions (gotta love that soft piano

), give the impression that things are actually going pretty well, and it's just the biased media giving you a false negative impression. Of course, that's totally wrong. The media is giving a negative impression because the reality is pretty damn negative, so to answer your question...yes, it's okay to only point out bad things when the good things are negligible and things are overwhelmingly really, really bad.

I mean, if I showed you a soviet video from the 60's showing some of the legitimate good points of communism, would you sit here and argue with me that it's not propaganda to point of good things?

KatKanPlay · 11-01-2006, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Does there have to be only one reason for fighting over there, or can there be many? Why do you have to simplify everything?

You have a point there,,,, if we can come up with enough reasons to be at war, we can eventually justify it. So far I have seen no justification for invading and occupying Iraq. I have heard allegations, I have heard out right lies, I know what the landscape was going into this thing. Trust me I shuffled through alot of complexities to reach a very simple conclusion on this issue.

And then of course there is that whole simple mind thingy.....

JaJae · 11-01-2006, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

You have a point there,,,, if we can come up with enough reasons to be at war, we can eventually justify it.

If we come up with enough reasons to be anti-war we can eventually justify our position. It's a two way street here.

KatKanPlay · 11-01-2006, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

If we come up with enough reasons to be anti-war we can eventually justify our position. It's a two way street here.

Im not anti-war, but I do believe war should only be waged as a very last resort. A war should never be waged without absolute provocation.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-01-2006, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Im not anti-war, but I do believe war should only be waged as a very last resort. A war should never be waged without absolute provocation.

Thats an easy thing to say, what constitutes a last resort? By your notion we should have taken no pre emptive action against hitler.

KatKanPlay · 11-02-2006, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Thats an easy thing to say, what constitutes a last resort? By your notion we should have taken no pre emptive action against hitler.

That is a ridiculous question. Again comparing Hitler and his white supremacy campaign to Saddam Hussein and his US supported rise to power is like comparing a rattlesnake bite to a mesquito bite. You can do better than that.

6SpeedTA95 · 11-02-2006, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

That is a ridiculous question. Again comparing Hitler and his white supremacy campaign to Saddam Hussein and his US supported rise to power is like comparing a rattlesnake bite to a mesquito bite. You can do better than that.

where did I say anything about saddam?

your notion of last resort and provocation means we shouldn't have done jack shit against hitler...

Scrum · 11-02-2006, 12:18 AM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Thats an easy thing to say, what constitutes a last resort? By your notion we should have taken no pre emptive action against hitler.

Godwins law.

KatKanPlay · 11-02-2006, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

where did I say anything about saddam?

your notion of last resort and provocation means we shouldn't have done jack shit against hitler...

This whole thread is about Iraq! I am not making generalizations here, I am talking about Iraq, what led us to war in Iraq and the toppling of Saddam Hussein. And no my notion of last resort and provocation does not mean we shouldnt have done jack shit against hitler. There is no comparison between WWII and the war in Iraq. Our provocation to go after hitler occurred when Japan brought us into the war. We were attacked and we attacked back. Saddam Hussein did not attack us.

My notion of last resort and provocation means we should not have invaded Iraq.

nbiggershaft · 11-02-2006, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Yeah, well there you go. They flocked in because our actions opened the gates for them. But more importantly, I dont think we have the right to refer to all that are fighting against over there as Terrorists! It seems to be the norm these days that we are over there fighting Terrorists and that simply is not true.

To be fair, the foreign fighters there could be pretty easily classified as terrorists and tribal leaders say these foreign terrorists to alot of the random killings.

KatKanPlay · 11-02-2006, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

To be fair, the foreign fighters there could be pretty easily classified as terrorists and tribal leaders say these foreign terrorists to alot of the random killings.

If you say so,,, turn the situation around and if this were happening here then I guess you better call me a terrorist.

nbiggershaft · 11-02-2006, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Isn't that the point? Keep them over there.

That viewpoint pretty much fails if you compare Iraq to Afghanistan. If we wanted to trap terrorists and win the war on terror we should have focused on Afghanistan and not messed with Iraq, a country who already dealt with terrorism pretty well.

nbiggershaft · 11-02-2006, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

If you say so,,, turn the situation around and if this were happening here then I guess you better call me a terrorist.

No I would call you an insurgent or a guerilla. If you went to Canada to kill people randomly after they got teken over you would be a terrorist.

KatKanPlay · 11-02-2006, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

No I would call you an insurgent or a guerilla. If you went to Canada to kill people randomly after they got teken over you would be a terrorist.

Why cant you just call me an American who is resisting the occupation?

nbiggershaft · 11-02-2006, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

Why cant you just call me an American who is resisting the occupation?

Perhaps if joined the ranks of resistance fighters and fought legitamit targets, but if you targeted civilians and infrastructure by definition you would be a terrorist.

KatKanPlay · 11-02-2006, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Perhaps if joined the ranks of resistance fighters and fought legitamit targets, but if you targeted civilians and infrastructure by definition you would be a terrorist.

I dont think it is helpful to tag everyone in Iraq as a terrorist yet that is exactly what has been done since we went in. If your against us you are a terrorist....

nbiggershaft · 11-02-2006, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

I dont think it is helpful to tag everyone in Iraq as a terrorist yet that is exactly what has been done since we went in. If your against us you are a terrorist....

Not necessarily true. While some have done this, most of the legitimate fighters were labeled as inurgents and still are by most news organizations and people in general. When you car bomb a mosques and police stations however, pull innocents out of their cars and shoot them, you are a terrorist.

KatKanPlay · 11-02-2006, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Not necessarily true. While some have done this, most of the legitimate fighters were labeled as inurgents and still are by most news organizations and people in general.

And that is precisely where it gets sticky. You say "legitimate" fighters are considered the insurgents yet a majority of our population, until very recently, consider insurgency/terrorists are basically one in the same. In fact it was my understanding that the insurgency were those entering Iraq specifically to fight us and lend aid to one the shia and or the sunnis.

When you car bomb a mosques and police stations however, pull innocents out of their cars and shoot them, you are a terrorist.

This is what many are calling a civil war. Three sanctions fighting each other for power. They have always fought each other viciously.

If we begin to cloud the meaning of terrorism as it applies to our own national security, we will quickly lose sight of who the true enemies are.

nbiggershaft · 11-02-2006, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

And that is precisely where it gets sticky. You say "legitimate" fighters are considered the insurgents yet a majority of our population, until very recently, consider insurgency/terrorists are basically one in the same. In fact it was my understanding that the insurgency were those entering Iraq specifically to fight us and lend aid to one the shia and or the sunnis.

This is what many are calling a civil war. Three sanctions fighting each other for power. They have always fought each other viciously.

If we begin to cloud the meaning of terrorism as it applies to our own national security, we will quickly lose sight of who the true enemies are.

The definition of terrorism that I am familiar with was attacking civilian targets to instill fear to serve some political or personal goal. Terrorism can still exist in a civil war and can even be conducted by people with legitamite goals,