Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Welcome to Fusion. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!

If you are registering with a Yahoo e-mail address, or if you are having trouble receiving your validation e-mail, please refer to this topic for assistance.


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 14
Do you want success in Iraq?; finally, and Iraq topic...
Topic Started: Dec 20 2005, 12:47 PM (2,642 Views)
Brazy CK
Member Avatar
5 warnings=ban

Sentenal
Dec 22 2005, 12:29 AM
Richie
Dec 22 2005, 12:19 AM
Sentenal
Dec 21 2005, 10:50 PM
Quote:
 
Well, it's my personal opinion that if we're going to fix Iraq, we're going to do what the people want, not just take the quickest route out of a dictatorship.

See elections with huge turnout, and the Iraqis drafting their own constitution.

Quote:
 
Do I want victory in Iraq? Of course! I don't want the United States to be defeated in anything, as long as our argument is the moral one. But what terms is this victory under? Giving the Iraqi people what they want? Of course! But if the US influences their decisions at all, I don't think it's a victory at all.

Okay, good good, you want us to win.

Now, explain why exactly the Iraqis creating a representative republic where they vote on who is in office, etc etc, is not a moral cause.

I'm not saying it's not a moral cause, I'm just saying that I find it hard to believe that the United States had no influence on the election, which pretty much negates all nobility in this war, doesn't it? =/

Your suggesting that the US is staging and/or fixing the elections?

Maybe. Maybe the aspect of losing the US's protection influenced the election. Who knows?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zexion
Member Avatar
Ca Romana

Richie
Dec 22 2005, 04:33 AM
Well, it's my personal opinion that if we're going to fix Iraq, we're going to do what the people want, not just take the quickest route out of a dictatorship. :unsure:

70% of Iraqi's want democracy.

If thats not what the majority wants, correct me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harmato


According to the the latest issue of Time, the Iraqis want democracy but also want us out of there.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mind Bomber
Member Avatar
Unofficial M:tG Overlord

Looking back, I don't think the election itself was rigged. If it was, there's no way radical fundamentalists could've won. That's the problem with making democracies: The will of the people isn't always the will of the people that matter.
HLL>-0)U<ZAWU0AW|-IHv^=^-EEW3H|-I|-IW|-L<Zv^_|<|-H0Z

Posted Image
[size=-2]This is not a subliminal message[/size]
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sentenal
Member Avatar
Won the Impossible Debate (twice)

Mind Bomber
Dec 22 2005, 05:42 PM
Looking back, I don't think the election itself was rigged. If it was, there's no way radical fundamentalists could've won. That's the problem with making democracies: The will of the people isn't always the will of the people that matter.

First people go on a rant about the US fixing elections, or us forcing our government on people. Then, when its clear that we are not fixing elections, or forcing our government on people, and they choose what they want, the complain.

We are there to help them get a representative republic going, one where THEY choose what they to vote on. They voted for their Transitional Government. They voted on a constitution that guarantees the rule of law, freedom of assembly, property rights, freedom of speech and the press, freedom of religious belief and practice, women's rights, and the right to vote. And recently, they elected who they wanted, who suprise, wasn't the US's choice canadiate.
Posted Image[/center]
Conquered FEFF Awards

Quote:
 
Laharl: 48/2(9+3)=36
Quote:
 
Laharl: Also, you can't multiply a number by one.
Quote:
 
Laharl: 1 cannot be used as a multiplier.
Quote:
 
Laharl: I wasn't good at math. That doesn't make me an idiot!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brazy CK
Member Avatar
5 warnings=ban

Dschinghis Khan
Dec 22 2005, 01:16 PM
Richie
Dec 22 2005, 04:33 AM
Well, it's my personal opinion that if we're going to fix Iraq, we're going to do what the people want, not just take the quickest route out of a dictatorship.  :unsure:

70% of Iraqi's want democracy.

If thats not what the majority wants, correct me.

Results from a poll taken by a country that went to war and has lost 2,000 lives in this liberating mission. =)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sentenal
Member Avatar
Won the Impossible Debate (twice)

Richie
Dec 23 2005, 01:18 AM
Dschinghis Khan
Dec 22 2005, 01:16 PM
Richie
Dec 22 2005, 04:33 AM
Well, it's my personal opinion that if we're going to fix Iraq, we're going to do what the people want, not just take the quickest route out of a dictatorship.  :unsure:

70% of Iraqi's want democracy.

If thats not what the majority wants, correct me.

Results from a poll taken by a country that went to war and has lost 2,000 lives in this liberating mission. =)

Compare causalitys to Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War 1, World War 2, Koran War, or Vietnam.

EDIT: Scratch that, I'll do it for you.

Revolutionary War
American Troops: 217,000
American battle deaths: 4,435

American Civil War
Union Troops: 2,213,363
Union battle deaths: 140,414

Confederate Troops: 1,050,000
Confederate battle deaths: 74,524

World War 1
US Troops: 4,734,991
US battle deaths: 53,402
Other US deaths: 63,114

World War 2
US Troops: 16,112,566
US battle deaths: 291,557
Other US deaths: 113,842

Koran War
US Troops: 5,720,000 (1,789,000 serving in-theatre)
US battle deaths: 33,741

Vietnam War
US Troops: 8,744,000 (3,403,000 serving in-theatre)
US battle deaths: 47,410
Posted Image[/center]
Conquered FEFF Awards

Quote:
 
Laharl: 48/2(9+3)=36
Quote:
 
Laharl: Also, you can't multiply a number by one.
Quote:
 
Laharl: 1 cannot be used as a multiplier.
Quote:
 
Laharl: I wasn't good at math. That doesn't make me an idiot!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Inui
Member Avatar
Power of Flower

You beat me to it, Sentenal.

Kids these days don't know what a real war is.

A bunch of pussies, IMO.

2000 lives is nothing compared to other wars, people. It's a teeny little sacrafice to make the world a better place.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zexion
Member Avatar
Ca Romana

Richie
Dec 23 2005, 06:18 AM
Dschinghis Khan
Dec 22 2005, 01:16 PM
Richie
Dec 22 2005, 04:33 AM
Well, it's my personal opinion that if we're going to fix Iraq, we're going to do what the people want, not just take the quickest route out of a dictatorship.  :unsure:

70% of Iraqi's want democracy.

If thats not what the majority wants, correct me.

Results from a poll taken by a country that went to war and has lost 2,000 lives in this liberating mission. =)

NEVER say that 2,000 is something to be all like "omfg no way not worth it". 2,000 deaths, though saddening, is NOTHING.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sam767
Member Avatar
Arf

Mind Bomber
Dec 22 2005, 11:54 AM
I'm going to have to take a deep breath for this one:

[size=14]NO FREAKIN' DUH![/size]


Watch it. This is a debate, not a shouting match. ^_^
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brazy CK
Member Avatar
5 warnings=ban

Eiji Kikumaru
Dec 23 2005, 07:34 AM
You beat me to it, Sentenal.

Kids these days don't know what a real war is.

A bunch of pussies, IMO.

2000 lives is nothing compared to other wars, people.  It's a teeny little sacrafice to make the world a better place.

2000 is a lot for a fucking liberation INVASION.

There's one thing I don't get. Generally wars are between countries, not terrorist groups.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Reaver
Troll

Dschinghis Khan
Dec 23 2005, 06:47 PM
NEVER say that 2,000 is something to be all like "omfg no way not worth it". 2,000 deaths, though saddening, is NOTHING.

I disagree with that. I don't think the lives were worth this war, even if I am blood related to one of the casualties. CNN, Fox, none of them even bothered to say soldiers died on the first Iraqi elections. He was killed going back to his base by an IED.

No life was worth it. All young men that should've had a better shot at a better future.
Neon,June 8 2005
07:34 PM
@Reaver: Me grammer is better than ur post count newbie.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zexion
Member Avatar
Ca Romana

Reaver
Dec 23 2005, 09:57 PM
Dschinghis Khan
Dec 23 2005, 06:47 PM
NEVER say that 2,000 is something to be all like "omfg no way not worth it". 2,000 deaths, though saddening, is NOTHING.

I disagree with that. I don't think the lives were worth this war, even if I am blood related to one of the casualties. CNN, Fox, none of them even bothered to say soldiers died on the first Iraqi elections. He was killed going back to his base by an IED.

No life was worth it. All young men that should've had a better shot at a better future.

Guess what? Soldiers die everyday. That's war. Oh, and I'm related to 2 people in Iraq, and have 4 family friends there. Last time I checked, they all said this was worth it.

Ask your dead relative if it was worth it when you get to heaven. He'll slap you for making such a disrespectful comment and tell you it was worth it.

As for a better future, what if Zarqawi manages to obtain a nuclear warhead, or Osama for that matter. We pull all our troops out, and then wham, our country goes to hell in a handbasket. That's some future we have there.

Quote:
 
2000 is a lot for a fucking liberation INVASION.

There's one thing I don't get. Generally wars are between countries, not terrorist groups.


a 2 year long invasion wow didnt know. i thought we had iraq in our control apparently were still attacking it than defending hm k

2000 is nothing, considering they ALL didn't die in the invasion, but over 2 and a half years. Guess what, that's war. Don't like it? Don't have to, but now you hopefully know how many people die in a war.

Oh, and wars today aren't necessarily fought between two countries. What would you call civil wars then? And what would you call the war on terror? Just because something isn't in your definition of war, doesn't mean it's not a true war.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Brazy CK
Member Avatar
5 warnings=ban

Civil wars are fought between a country. This "war" is an invasion, we just barged in and took over the place. If we had not gone over there to begin with, the 2000 lives would be not lost.

ANY amount of lives lost in a cause this rash is horrible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Harmato


We should be very concerned with Zarqawi. He poses much more of a threat than bin Laden currently.

@Richie: You need to break a few eggs in order to make an omelette. A harsh analogy yes but an accurate one as well.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 14



Theme by Lewis of the ZetaBoard Theme Zone, Outline and Talk Themes