Army to recall former members

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11

It doesn't matter if they did, or didn't. What Iraq did, besides being a genocidal regime, was attempt to destabilize the Middle East after 9-11. Our answer to Jihadism (and it wasn't just Wahhabism) was to democratize the region. This was, and is, our best long term defense. That was less likely to happen with the Baathists in power, and much more likely to happen with a democratic Iraq.

If nothing else, Iraq deserved to be invaded for being genocidal. No more reason was needed than that, and I'm ashamed that we waited so long to do so.

Because Iraq was so brutal, we had a war were fewer civillians died than would have died at the hands of the Baathists.

Most importantly, Saudi Arabia is now getting surrounded by democracies and democratizing monarchies. This is the real issue, and this is why we really invaded Iraq. The region will be remade, and history will show America to be in the right.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
It doesn't matter if they did, or didn't. What Iraq did, besides being a genocidal regime, was attempt to destabilize the Middle East after 9-11. Our answer to Jihadism (and it wasn't just Wahhabism) was to democratize the region. This was, and is, our best long term defense. That was less likely to happen with the Baathists in power, and much more likely to happen with a democratic Iraq.

If nothing else, Iraq deserved to be invaded for being genocidal. No more reason was needed than that, and I'm ashamed that we waited so long to do so.

Because Iraq was so brutal, we had a war were fewer civillians died than would have died at the hands of the Baathists.

Most importantly, Saudi Arabia is now getting surrounded by democracies and democratizing monarchies. This is the real issue, and this is why we really invaded Iraq. The region will be remade, and history will show America to be in the right.

Okay... I'll try Rudey tactics... blah blah blah moron blah blah blah bad school blah blah blah can't read.... oh wait I'm not engaging in discussion...

Alright then please back-up your arguements about Iraq destablizing the region after 9-11... ie. Examples of actions political or otherwise. Yes Iraq was genocidal in the 80's however no-one invaded them then, so why do people keep harping on this... by this logic countries such as Turkey, Cambodia, America, or Spain should also be attack for past genocide...

As for the regime causing more deaths than in the war, I'm sorry but I can't follow your logic.. please back this up. While civilian deaths have been estimated at around 10000 (low around 8900, high just over 11000) that is much higher than the "hundreds" reported killed annually by human rights watch groups (such as Amnesty International) under Saddam's regime. So excuse me if I don't follow the logic of your arguement...

Finally the stability of the region hasn't improved, but instead deteriotated as a result of the invasion... witness the rise in terror attacks through-out the region. Whatever Saddam's faults were, he was a strong-man that viewed religious fanatism or fundalmentalism as a threat to his power. Now Iraq has become a breeding ground of hate that may spawn more groups like Al Queda, but in the meantime has become a focal point for terrorists and anti-American/anti-Western hate.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by RACooper
Alright then please back-up your arguements about Iraq destablizing the region after 9-11... ie. Examples of actions political or otherwise. Yes Iraq was genocidal in the 80's however no-one invaded them then, so why do people keep harping on this... by this logic countries such as Turkey, Cambodia, America, or Spain should also be attack for past genocide...

As for the regime causing more deaths than in the war, I'm sorry but I can't follow your logic.. please back this up. While civilian deaths have been estimated at around 10000 (low around 8900, high just over 11000) that is much higher than the "hundreds" reported killed annually by human rights watch groups (such as Amnesty International) under Saddam's regime. So excuse me if I don't follow the logic of your arguement...

Finally the stability of the region hasn't improved, but instead deteriotated as a result of the invasion... witness the rise in terror attacks through-out the region. Whatever Saddam's faults were, he was a strong-man that viewed religious fanatism or fundalmentalism as a threat to his power. Now Iraq has become a breeding ground of hate that may spawn more groups like Al Queda, but in the meantime has become a focal point for terrorists and anti-American/anti-Western hate.

What proof do you have that Iraq ceased to be genocidal in the 80s?

I'll give you some proof to show that you are (again) wrong, and that I am right: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq012503.htm
They were actively engaged in a genocide against the Marsh Arabs very recently.

Iraq did step up activities to destabilize the region after 9-11. If you want to believe your left wing propaganda that they had a wonderful government, that's your right.

And don't be so myopic as to expect the desired results in a year. That type of expectation is absurd. It will take time, but there would have been no acceptable type of stability with the status quo. I'm sorry to rain on your love-fest with Sadaam.

Are all Canadians this ignorant? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Okay... I'll try Rudey tactics... blah blah blah moron blah blah blah bad school blah blah blah can't read.... oh wait I'm not engaging in discussion...

Alright then please back-up your arguements about Iraq destablizing the region after 9-11... ie. Examples of actions political or otherwise. Yes Iraq was genocidal in the 80's however no-one invaded them then, so why do people keep harping on this... by this logic countries such as Turkey, Cambodia, America, or Spain should also be attack for past genocide...

As for the regime causing more deaths than in the war, I'm sorry but I can't follow your logic.. please back this up. While civilian deaths have been estimated at around 10000 (low around 8900, high just over 11000) that is much higher than the "hundreds" reported killed annually by human rights watch groups (such as Amnesty International) under Saddam's regime. So excuse me if I don't follow the logic of your arguement...

Finally the stability of the region hasn't improved, but instead deteriotated as a result of the invasion... witness the rise in terror attacks through-out the region. Whatever Saddam's faults were, he was a strong-man that viewed religious fanatism or fundalmentalism as a threat to his power. Now Iraq has become a breeding ground of hate that may spawn more groups like Al Queda, but in the meantime has become a focal point for terrorists and anti-American/anti-Western hate.

You are an idiot because you can't think.
You are a moron because you can't read.

Stop posting it that I say this stuff to you for no reason. You really like to be punished online. Never have one ounce of fact, no statistic, no proof - nothing. All you ever have is your dumb ass experience in the "Canadadian" army where you weren't even an officer. When you're bored and looking for leisure you also bash other fraternities (probably better than yours) at your school including mine.

So when you can think let us know.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss

Are all Canadians this ignorant? Inquiring minds want to know.

No. Not all. My relatives there developed the West Edmonton Mall and the Mall of America. I think only the ones in the army maybe?

-Rudey

[RACooper]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
What proof do you have that Iraq ceased to be genocidal in the 80s?

I'll give you some proof to show that you are (again) wrong, and that I am right: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq012503.htm
They were actively engaged in a genocide against the Marsh Arabs very recently.

Iraq did step up activities to destabilize the region after 9-11. If you want to believe your left wing propaganda that they had a wonderful government, that's your right.

And don't be so myopic as to expect the desired results in a year. That type of expectation is absurd. It will take time, but there would have been no acceptable type of stability with the status quo. I'm sorry to rain on your love-fest with Sadaam.

Are all Canadians this ignorant? Inquiring minds want to know.

Are all Americans this belligerant? Inquiring minds want to know...

Okay I'm sorry I was using the conventional defenition of genocide... what Sadam was doing to the Marsh Arabs should be called "Ethnic Cleansing"... if it was genocide they would try to drive them out, they'd just kill them. Yes it's horrible, but words such as genocide shoudn't be used so liberally by either side for the shock value.

Okay I asked for examples of Iraq's active efforts to destablize the region.. not the Rumsfeld told me so argument... after-all I could just as easily accuse you of falling for "right-wing" propoganda (you know WMD, Al Queda connection, greeted with open arms, out in a year.. stuff like that). But no I don't believe that they had a wonderful government, and know I'm not a "Sadam-lover", but it is important to realize that evil men will fight to stay on top, and while that's shitty for "good" or innocent people, it also means that other "evil" people are viewed as a threat too.

No I didn't expect results in a year, but the level of terrorism has risen... to I believe record levels? If religious fanaticism can be viewed as the root cause for much of this terrorism, then removing a significant opponent of it (whatever his motivations) will undoubtedly lead to a rise in this fanaticism as power vacuums are filled. It is a very real risk that the Iraq war could spawn more terror groups or new strongmen in the region (if not Iraq). If you look beyond the polls on whether or not the Iraqi's love or hate the US, and look at the percentages of Iraqi's demand security, then you see the threat of them following whomever provides them with this "security". Now we have the newly appointed leader of Iraq, a former CIA operative who engaged in "insurrgent activities" against Sadam saying that he will clamp down and restore security by whatever means are neccesary...

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Are all Americans this belligerant? Inquiring minds want to know...

Okay I'm sorry I was using the conventional defenition of genocide... what Sadam was doing to the Marsh Arabs should be called "Ethnic Cleansing"... if it was genocide they would try to drive them out, they'd just kill them. Yes it's horrible, but words such as genocide shoudn't be used so liberally by either side for the shock value.

Okay I asked for examples of Iraq's active efforts to destablize the region.. not the Rumsfeld told me so argument... after-all I could just as easily accuse you of falling for "right-wing" propoganda (you know WMD, Al Queda connection, greeted with open arms, out in a year.. stuff like that). But no I don't believe that they had a wonderful government, and know I'm not a "Sadam-lover", but it is important to realize that evil men will fight to stay on top, and while that's shitty for "good" or innocent people, it also means that other "evil" people are viewed as a threat too.

No I didn't expect results in a year, but the level of terrorism has risen... to I believe record levels? If religious fanaticism can be viewed as the root cause for much of this terrorism, then removing a significant opponent of it (whatever his motivations) will undoubtedly lead to a rise in this fanaticism as power vacuums are filled. It is a very real risk that the Iraq war could spawn more terror groups or new strongmen in the region (if not Iraq). If you look beyond the polls on whether or not the Iraqi's love or hate the US, and look at the percentages of Iraqi's demand security, then you see the threat of them following whomever provides them with this "security". Now we have the newly appointed leader of Iraq, a former CIA operative who engaged in "insurrgent activities" against Sadam saying that he will clamp down and restore security by whatever means are neccesary...

I've posted repeatedly on their attempts to destabilize the region - everything from attacking Israel to invading Kuwait, launching a war against Iran, to killing and massacring a large amount of Kurds and Shiites. There is proof of a connection to Al Quaeda and it seems you don't read. Nobody said they were working with Al Quaeda strongly, but the connection was there. If you have anything other than ignorance you might look my post up with the links to it. WMD? I guess the WMD that the world, the UN, and the US believes they had - well I guess you believe they didn't.

-Rudey

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

there are people that believe in the WMD but they haven't been found yet...
there are people that believe in Santa but he hasnt been found yet...

edit: I dont think that came out right.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
there are people that believe in the WMD but they haven't been found yet...
there are people that believe in Santa but he hasnt been found yet...

They existed before. They were accounted for before. The UN, much of the governments and intelligence agencies around the world, including the US, knew of their existence.

Your comparison to Santa, like your comparison of slutty girls to rapists, again is flawed.

-Rudey

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by RACooper

Okay I'm sorry I was using the conventional defenition of genocide... what Sadam was doing to the Marsh Arabs should be called "Ethnic Cleansing"... if it was genocide they would try to drive them out, they'd just kill them. Yes it's horrible, but words such as genocide shoudn't be used so liberally by either side for the shock value.

Okay I asked for examples of Iraq's active efforts to destablize the region.. not the Rumsfeld told me so argument... after-all I could just as easily accuse you of falling for "right-wing" propoganda (you know WMD, Al Queda connection, greeted with open arms, out in a year.. stuff like that). But no I don't believe that they had a wonderful government, and know I'm not a "Sadam-lover", but it is important to realize that evil men will fight to stay on top, and while that's shitty for "good" or innocent people, it also means that other "evil" people are viewed as a threat too.

No I didn't expect results in a year, but the level of terrorism has risen... to I believe record levels? If religious fanaticism can be viewed as the root cause for much of this terrorism, then removing a significant opponent of it (whatever his motivations) will undoubtedly lead to a rise in this fanaticism as power vacuums are filled. It is a very real risk that the Iraq war could spawn more terror groups or new strongmen in the region (if not Iraq). If you look beyond the polls on whether or not the Iraqi's love or hate the US, and look at the percentages of Iraqi's demand security, then you see the threat of them following whomever provides them with this "security". Now we have the newly appointed leader of Iraq, a former CIA operative who engaged in "insurrgent activities" against Sadam saying that he will clamp down and restore security by whatever means are neccesary...

"systematic bombardment of villages, widespread arbitrary arrests, torture, “disappearances,” summary executions, and forced displacement"

That's a liberal interpreation of genocide? Granted, it wasn't the Holocaust. Nothing else was, but it was genocide. Why do you think Eli Weisel pleaded with President Bush to invade Iraq in first week of March, 2003? Let me guess, Eli Weisel knows little about genocide, but you do.

The example that Iraq tried to destabilize the region? How about this; after 9-11, Iraq began to flood money into groups like Hamas. They became the #1 funder of such groups. Its really that simple, but maybe you think that the stability of the Middle East is divorced from media portraya ofl the Israeli-Palestenian conflict.

As far as an increase in terrorism, it hasn't happened on American soil, so yeah, we're safer.

And the root cause is deeper than religous fanatacism. That fanataicism has root causes, which are state controlled media that blames everything on the US and Israel (and I mean everything), madrasas that teach hate, and depressed economic conditions caused by corrupt and incompetent governments.

Those are the root causes. The status quo reinforces them, and stregthens them. Attacking Al Qaeda in Afghanistan won't remove the root causes. Playing nice with Sadaam Hussein won't remove the root causes.

Democracy will diminish, and eventually eliminate the root causes of Jihadism. By removing the most brutal dictatorship in the region, that would have fought regional democratization every step of the way, and replacing it with a democracy, there is now real hope. It just may prove to be a stroke of genius.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Rudey
I've posted repeatedly on their attempts to destabilize the region - everything from attacking Israel to invading Kuwait, launching a war against Iran, to killing and massacring a large amount of Kurds and Shiites. There is proof of a connection to Al Quaeda and it seems you don't read. Nobody said they were working with Al Quaeda strongly, but the connection was there. If you have anything other than ignorance you might look my post up with the links to it. WMD? I guess the WMD that the world, the UN, and the US believes they had - well I guess you believe they didn't.

-Rudey

Ahem.. please read the original posts, because it mentioned that it was specfically post 9-11 actions by Iraq to destablize the region that was the focus of discussion.... because last time I checked all of the incidents you cite (with the exception of military actions against Kurdish "insurgents") happened somewhat prior to 9-11.

As for Al Queda connections... yes there was a base in northern Iraq affiliated with this group, but Ironically it was protected from Iraqi military action by the no-fly zone enforcement. I also believe that there was evidence one military officer linked with Al Queda... however that is a weak arguement, as members of the US military have also been found to have connections to Al Queda too.

As for WMD I believe that the UN was conducting inspections to determine the destruction or neutralization of WMD, and as they had found no WMD they were looking then for evidence of their destruction... and nor did the whole world didn't believe he still possessed WMD, as that was one reason cited that I know Canada, France, Germany, and Russia for not engaging in the military action (aside from the side-stepping of the UN by the US & UK).

[Rudey]

Where is your evidence of the destruction of WMD???

For there to be no WMD it would mean there would have to be a destruction of the WMD because they did exist.

So where is that landfill of weapons???

Let me know when you can...Where is the landfill Cooper????? Where is it?? It's like Santa. You say it exists but it doesn't. All those years that Hussein didn't cooperate with the UN. All the months that the US brought even more pressure on Iraq and still no WMD destruction sites. Even now, no WMD destruction sites.

-Rudey
--So show us where they are...you have military training and yada yada hate other fraternities so where are they old man???

Originally posted by RACooper
Ahem.. please read the original posts, because it mentioned that it was specfically post 9-11 actions by Iraq to destablize the region that was the focus of discussion.... because last time I checked all of the incidents you cite (with the exception of military actions against Kurdish "insurgents") happened somewhat prior to 9-11.

As for Al Queda connections... yes there was a base in northern Iraq affiliated with this group, but Ironically it was protected from Iraqi military action by the no-fly zone enforcement. I also believe that there was evidence one military officer linked with Al Queda... however that is a weak arguement, as members of the US military have also been found to have connections to Al Queda too.

As for WMD I believe that the UN was conducting inspections to determine the destruction or neutralization of WMD, and as they had found no WMD they were looking then for evidence of their destruction... and nor did the whole world didn't believe he still possessed WMD, as that was one reason cited that I know Canada, France, Germany, and Russia for not engaging in the military action (aside from the side-stepping of the UN by the US & UK).

[RACooper]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
The example that Iraq tried to destabilize the region? How about this; after 9-11, Iraq began to flood money into groups like Hamas. They became the #1 funder of such groups. Its really that simple, but maybe you think that the stability of the Middle East is divorced from media portraya ofl the Israeli-Palestenian conflict.

As far as an increase in terrorism, it hasn't happened on American soil, so yeah, we're safer.

Okay Sadam was funding actions of groups like Hamas, but I thought that was in this practice prior to 9-11.

No I don't think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seperate from the Middle East... in fact I see it as one of the most important problems to be overcome in the region, as the support of the Palestine by the countries in the region is a major stubbling block on the road to peace.

Yes American soil hasn't been attacked, but "Westerners" are now terrorist targets abroad, when they weren't before...

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Okay Sadam was funding actions of groups like Hamas, but I thought that was in this practice prior to 9-11.

No I don't think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is seperate from the Middle East... in fact I see it as one of the most important problems to be overcome in the region, as the support of the Palestine by the countries in the region is a major stubbling block on the road to peace.

Yes American soil hasn't been attacked, but "Westerners" are now terrorist targets abroad, when they weren't before...

Oh really? So Daniel Pearl he wasn't a target before Iraq? I see. The bombing of the Cole, the barracks in Lebanon, bombings in Africa...those weren't but a figment of one's imagination.

-Rudey

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by RACooper
Okay Sadam was funding actions of groups like Hamas, but I thought that was in this practice prior to 9-11.

Prior to 9-11, more money came from the US, Saudi Arabia, and Iran than Iraq. After 9-11, the US shut down the funding of these "charities" and Saudi Arabia and Iran cut back. Iraq jacked up their funding of such groups and became the #1 source of funds for Hamas, and other similar groups.