The W
Views: 99840229
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
20.10.07 0325
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Iraqi soccer team mad at Bush Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(737 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (24 total)
JayJayDean
Scrapple
Level: 125

Posts: 1529/4719
EXP: 22161943
For next: 292284

Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, WA

Since last post: 47 days
Last activity: 2 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#1 Posted on 19.8.04 1315.55
Reposted on: 19.8.11 1317.43
Unwilling participants: Iraqi soccer players angered by Bush campaign ads featuring team

To a man, members of the Iraqi Olympic delegation say they are glad that former Olympic committee head Uday Hussein, who was responsible for the serial torture of Iraqi athletes and was killed four months after the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003, is no longer in power.

But they also find it offensive that Bush is using their team for his own gain when they do not support his administration's actions in Iraq. "My problems are not with the American people," says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?"


(edited by JayJayDean on 19.8.04 1116)
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3758/4700
EXP: 21575898
For next: 260764

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1266 days
Last activity: 1063 days
#2 Posted on 19.8.04 1325.07
Reposted on: 19.8.11 1325.18
    Originally posted by the goofy Iraqi Coach
    To a man, members of the Iraqi Olympic delegation say they are glad that former Olympic committee head Uday Hussein, who was responsible for the serial torture of Iraqi athletes and was killed four months after the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq in March 2003, is no longer in power.

    "My problems are not with the American people," says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?"
And how exactly would he have gotten # 1 without # 2.

Of course, Karl Rove asks for this shit when the put it in an ad...

(edited by Grimis on 19.8.04 1425)
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1185/1528
EXP: 4083202
For next: 107946

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2827 days
Last activity: 2669 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on 19.8.04 1954.46
Reposted on: 19.8.11 1956.20
What a bunch of jackasses.

Yeah, the US is destroying everything. It's the US with the car bombs; the US launching attacks from Mosques. And it was the US that tortured your fellow Olympians.

I refer this man to the popular internet acronym "stfu."
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 2422/3273
EXP: 12772010
For next: 319343

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 195 days
Last activity: 195 days
#4 Posted on 19.8.04 2025.37
Reposted on: 19.8.11 2027.43
Oh quit your bitching. The man lives there, so I think he's a bit more entitled to give his opinion on the situation in Iraq than we are.

I dunno, maybe I just don't think that you would take it all that well if people were telling you to "STFU" on 9/12/01.

-Jag
SKLOKAZOID
Bratwurst
Level: 75

Posts: 777/1436
EXP: 3689369
For next: 137552

Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 19.8.04 2033.52
Reposted on: 19.8.11 2034.54
He doesn't like Saddam. He doesn't like our presence in Iraq. Wow, these people are three-dimensional human beings with the capability for complex thought!

See, both Saddam and the US forces have killed his friends and family. I would say he has enough emotional turmoil.

The enemy of his enemy isn't necessarily his friend. The world isn't black and white.

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Yeah, the US is destroying everything. It's the US with the car bombs; the US launching attacks from Mosques. And it was the US that tortured your fellow Olympians.


I don't think he likes those people, either.

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 19.8.04 1921)
Malarky
Bauerwurst
Level: 23

Posts: 3/104
EXP: 64632
For next: 3092

Since: 19.8.04

Since last post: 3663 days
Last activity: 3660 days
#6 Posted on 19.8.04 2120.45
Reposted on: 19.8.11 2121.31
I'd like to see how the Hawks on this board would react to an occupying Iraqi army on their streets.

Would you be so forgiving of the occupying power? Me don't think so.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1188/1528
EXP: 4083202
For next: 107946

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2827 days
Last activity: 2669 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 19.8.04 2207.28
Reposted on: 19.8.11 2208.06
The man, in his statement, accused the United States of "destroying everything." That simply is not true.

Several of you are accusing me of seeing things in black and white. What is it, then, to blame the US for everything? I'm willing to wager that the situation is a lot more complex than the Unied States "destroying everything." THAT is black and white.

I disagree with his contention that the US is responsible for the turmoil in Iraq. Perhaps he should look around and place some blame on his coutnrymen, or at the very least his Iranian neighbors, who are almost certainly funding the worst of the insurgence. Do things suck for this fellow? I'm sure they do. I don't expect him to be pleased with American troops in his country. This doesn't mean, however, that every statement to come out of his mouth is true. Being a victim does not necessarily make one an authority. (Nor does posting on the internet, obviously - but it's pretty clear from firsthand accounts that it's more than the Americans blowing shit up over there).

I fail to see the 9/11 connection, Jag. I didn't blame a liberating army for that, and I don't think anyone else did either.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 197/512
EXP: 727122
For next: 39087

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 221 days
Last activity: 1 day
#8 Posted on 19.8.04 2243.02
Reposted on: 19.8.11 2244.38
    Originally posted by Malarky
    I'd like to see how the Hawks on this board would react to an occupying Iraqi army on their streets.

    Would you be so forgiving of the occupying power? Me don't think so.


If the "occupying power" was there to free me from a mass-murdering madman like Saddam Hussein, I'd be more than happy to see them.

Your analogy is way off...
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 146

Posts: 3247/6740
EXP: 37822030
For next: 691356

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#9 Posted on 19.8.04 2329.13
Reposted on: 19.8.11 2329.22
Von, an analogy.

Say Dubya went insane and started declaring himself king of the universe, complete with a funny little crown and cape made out of Ruben Sierra's back hair. The other NATO members decide that the USA needs to be saved, and you (as a patriotic American that doesn't want to be ruled by a madman) are fully in favour.

However, say that NATO decides that George Pataki is a threat, as a Republican and Bush supporter. "Ok," you think, "that's not unreasonable. Get him out of there too." But then, NATO responds by bombing NYC, despite the fact that Pataki is all the way off in Albany. Your friends and family and half of Manhattan is destroyed, and when you complain, the NATO forces just shrug and blame bad intel, all the while saying "Gee, this American sure is ungrateful."

This is basically what the US is doing over in Iraq thanks to their incredibly shoddy military. You can argue whether it was right to go into Iraq all you want, but I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that the USA hasn't utterly shit the bed in the way that they've actually gone about "liberating" Iraq. For a guy whose friends and family are all dead thanks to a stray missile attack, perhaps 'freedom' isn't all it's cracked up to be.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1190/1528
EXP: 4083202
For next: 107946

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2827 days
Last activity: 2669 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 20.8.04 0001.12
Reposted on: 20.8.11 0001.48
    Originally posted by BigBad
    This is basically what the US is doing over in Iraq thanks to their incredibly shoddy military.


That kind of ignorance speaks for itself, I think. If only we were the bumbling imperialist caricature you take us for.

    Originally posted by BigBad
    You can argue whether it was right to go into Iraq all you want, but I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that the USA hasn't utterly shit the bed in the way that they've actually gone about "liberating" Iraq.


Well, what's your standard? The liberation of Germany involved a lot of deaths. Likewise Italy and Japan. Comparatively, the liberation of Iraq has been an absolute cakewalk. I like your use of quotes, too. Because, really, deposing a dictator is not liberation. What, exactly, do you think is going to happen? You do a fine job of complaining. Can you tell me how we're supposed to solve the real-world problems of al-Sadr, Saddam's loyalists, and every other group bent on destroying the interim governments?

    Originally posted by BigBad
    For a guy whose friends and family are all dead thanks to a stray missile attack, perhaps 'freedom' isn't all it's cracked up to be.


Doubtless you are correct. And for the man who watched his wife get raped and mutliated, or for the mother who watched her children die, the status quo wasn't so great either. Many innocents died in Dresden. Would you not have waged World War II, then?
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 198/512
EXP: 727122
For next: 39087

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 221 days
Last activity: 1 day
#11 Posted on 20.8.04 0019.20
Reposted on: 20.8.11 0020.07
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Von, an analogy.

    Say Dubya went insane and started declaring himself king of the universe, complete with a funny little crown and cape made out of Ruben Sierra's back hair. The other NATO members decide that the USA needs to be saved, and you (as a patriotic American that doesn't want to be ruled by a madman) are fully in favour.

    However, say that NATO decides that George Pataki is a threat, as a Republican and Bush supporter. "Ok," you think, "that's not unreasonable. Get him out of there too." But then, NATO responds by bombing NYC, despite the fact that Pataki is all the way off in Albany. Your friends and family and half of Manhattan is destroyed, and when you complain, the NATO forces just shrug and blame bad intel, all the while saying "Gee, this American sure is ungrateful."

    This is basically what the US is doing over in Iraq thanks to their incredibly shoddy military. You can argue whether it was right to go into Iraq all you want, but I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that the USA hasn't utterly shit the bed in the way that they've actually gone about "liberating" Iraq. For a guy whose friends and family are all dead thanks to a stray missile attack, perhaps 'freedom' isn't all it's cracked up to be.


Big Bad, with all due respect, your analogy is awful too.

If after we were liberated from a Ruben Siera back-hair wearing GWB, the damage to NYC came from a faction of insurgents that support the holy city of the Bronx (the home of Ruben's back-hair), then you would have a clearer picture of the post Saddam era.

Plus, as Palpatine points out, your opinion of the US military is kind of absurd & really invalidates the rest of your point...
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1128/2703
EXP: 8920879
For next: 67940

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#12 Posted on 20.8.04 0845.45
Reposted on: 20.8.11 0845.51
We are an occupying force. What people would enjoy an occupying force no matter how benevolent. Are we as a whole doing this for good reasons? I think we are. But it isn't pretty and I can understand his turmoil. How would we feel if we were in that commercial?

Maybe the former USSR is a good anology. The people are now "free" and many don't like it. No matter how much we enjoy freedom, it's scary for peoples who have never known it. There is more security under dictatorship. We can't comprehend that and perhaps that is why we have trouble in these situations.
Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 63

Posts: 334/1040
EXP: 2091635
For next: 5528

Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2354 days
Last activity: 824 days
#13 Posted on 20.8.04 1613.11
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1613.19
The Iraqi soccer team is mad about more than just an ad. After Uday was killed, the U.S. looked for capable Iraqis to run the sports communities. Unfortunately, most of those people were tied to Uday in some way, and now a guy in charge of the soccer team was a torturer for Uday, and supposedly his right hand man. Supposedly, the guy walks around practice with armed guards and intimidates the athletes at every turn. According to a lot of players, the U.S. ignores the complaints by athletes.

This leads me to believe that maybe the soccer team is being told to say things to avoid torture? Maybe words are being put in their mouth by somebody?

Check out the Tom Papas covered ESPN magazine from last week or so to read an article about the Iraqi soccer team. It's a good read.
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 146

Posts: 3249/6740
EXP: 37822030
For next: 691356

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 11 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#14 Posted on 20.8.04 1827.23
Reposted on: 20.8.11 1828.15
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
      Originally posted by BigBad
      This is basically what the US is doing over in Iraq thanks to their incredibly shoddy military.


    That kind of ignorance speaks for itself, I think. If only we were the bumbling imperialist caricature you take us for.



My mistake. I actually meant to say 'shoddy military ACTIONS.' The US military is obviously not incredibly shoddy....that's the Canadian military.

    Originally posted by BigBad
    You can argue whether it was right to go into Iraq all you want, but I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that the USA hasn't utterly shit the bed in the way that they've actually gone about "liberating" Iraq.


Well, what's your standard? The liberation of Germany involved a lot of deaths. Likewise Italy and Japan. Comparatively, the liberation of Iraq has been an absolute cakewalk. I like your use of quotes, too. Because, really, deposing a dictator is not liberation. What, exactly, do you think is going to happen? You do a fine job of complaining. Can you tell me how we're supposed to solve the real-world problems of al-Sadr, Saddam's loyalists, and every other group bent on destroying the interim governments?



Al-Sadr is only a problem because the US needed to suddenly create another heel in Iraq to turn their attention towards. "What prison scandal, everyone? Look, look, there's an evil cleric drumming up support! He's the one behind all the uprisings, certainly not anything we're doing!" The Globe & Mail had a great article a few months back detailing what a third-rate operation that Al-Sadr really had going, and now he's all of a sudden a major warlord? This is the military equivalent of Bradshaw being pushed as WWE champion.

Deposing a dictator is great. Deposing a dictator and then taking over a year to establish a new government (one led by an accused murderer, no less) is not so great.

The liberations of Germany, Japan and Italy were bloodier because guess what, those countries actually posed a legitimate military threat at the time. Iraq was basically a rung above Grenada.




    Originally posted by BigBad
    For a guy whose friends and family are all dead thanks to a stray missile attack, perhaps 'freedom' isn't all it's cracked up to be.


Doubtless you are correct. And for the man who watched his wife get raped and mutliated, or for the mother who watched her children die, the status quo wasn't so great either. Many innocents died in Dresden. Would you not have waged World War II, then?


THIS IS NOT WORLD WAR II!!!!! The Nazis posed a legitimate military threat to Europe and probably would've at least temporarily taken the whole continent had Hitler not been a moron and broken his pact with the USSR (thus starting the war on both fronts). Iraq didn't even pose a threat to its Middle East neighbours, let alone the United States. Saddam was a tinhorn dictator with no influence who was such a threat to America that after the first Gulf War he was....left in power.

(edited by Big Bad on 20.8.04 1930)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1132/2703
EXP: 8920879
For next: 67940

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#15 Posted on 20.8.04 2304.07
Reposted on: 20.8.11 2305.56
    Originally posted by Roy.
    According to a lot of players, the U.S. ignores the complaints by athletes.

    This leads me to believe that maybe the soccer team is being told to say things to avoid torture?


One, shouldn't they be complaining to the provisional government.

Two, are they being forced to play for the team?
Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 57/374
EXP: 489922
For next: 31444

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2707 days
Last activity: 2697 days
#16 Posted on 21.8.04 0012.47
Reposted on: 21.8.11 0016.29
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Al-Sadr is only a problem because the US needed to suddenly create another heel in Iraq to turn their attention towards. "What prison scandal, everyone? Look, look, there's an evil cleric drumming up support! He's the one behind all the uprisings, certainly not anything we're doing!" The Globe & Mail had a great article a few months back detailing what a third-rate operation that Al-Sadr really had going, and now he's all of a sudden a major warlord? This is the military equivalent of Bradshaw being pushed as WWE champion.

    THIS IS NOT WORLD WAR II!!!!! The Nazis posed a legitimate military threat to Europe and probably would've at least temporarily taken the whole continent had Hitler not been a moron and broken his pact with the USSR (thus starting the war on both fronts). Iraq didn't even pose a threat to its Middle East neighbours, let alone the United States. Saddam was a tinhorn dictator with no influence who was such a threat to America that after the first Gulf War he was....left in power.


Okay. First of all, it doesn't matter how big of an operation Al-Sadr has going. The simple fact of the matter is that he is, right now, attempting to rule by force in hopes of eventually taking over. That needs to be stopped. When you kick down a government that ruled by intimidation, murder and by dint of having the biggest guns, you make DAMN sure that it doesn't get replaced by the same form of government. If that means going after what appear to be second-rate warlords, so be it. Al-Sadr is a threat to the eventual goal in Iraq. Therefore, he needs to go away.

Second. The rules have changed. They changed at about 10 a.m. on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. (Before you start jumping up and down about how there's "no connection" between Iraq and terrorism, read the rest of this paragraph.) It's no longer good enough to be reactive. The U.S. in particular needs to be aggressive in dealing with threats. If you get hit and don't do anything about it _ as the U.S. was REPEATEDLY _ then it simply makes the terrorists bolder. Countries need to realize that if they have a passive reaction to terrorism, or capitulate, then it's only going to make the next attack that much worse. Given that Iraq was, at the very least, rewarding terrorists financially and allowing them in the country, it makes sense to go there. We're talking about a regime that has repeatedly given the middle finger to the U.N. _ when it wasn't bribing officials connected to "Oil for Food" _ and attempted to assassinate the president of the U.S. (Bush I). It doesn't matter if that president is the father of the current president. Attempting to assassinate a head of state is an act of war.

Third. If the U.S. had handled the first Gulf War all on its own, the military would have pretty much ignored Kuwait and driven right into Baghdad, since the Iraqi commitment of force to the invasion stretched them to the point that the U.S. could have rolled right into Iraq, buttoned up the country and cut the supply lines. Then it would have been a matter of time to wait for Iraq's surrender, a condition of which, I'm sure, would have been Saddam Hussein being handed over on a silver platter. Saddam was left in power after the first Gulf War because the other Middle Eastern countries said "Hey, you guys get Iraq out of Kuwait. We'll take care of Saddam." They didn't.
Roy.
Pepperoni
Level: 63

Posts: 335/1040
EXP: 2091635
For next: 5528

Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2354 days
Last activity: 824 days
#17 Posted on 21.8.04 0752.52
Reposted on: 21.8.11 0752.54
    Originally posted by DrDirt
      Originally posted by Roy.
      According to a lot of players, the U.S. ignores the complaints by athletes.

      This leads me to believe that maybe the soccer team is being told to say things to avoid torture?


    One, shouldn't they be complaining to the provisional government.

    Two, are they being forced to play for the team?


Like I said, I don't know. I know that a former crony of Uday is in charge of the team, and when he was first installed (by Bremer, I believe), the players made a stink but were being accused of just wanting one of their friends in charge. I would hope that the guy is "reformed" or something, but from what I've read, he's still kind of a bastard. I would think that the team would do what he says if he has as much power over them as some people seem to think.
dMr
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 1392/2212
EXP: 6877013
For next: 38915

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 41 days
Last activity: 9 hours
#18 Posted on 21.8.04 0939.10
Reposted on: 21.8.11 0939.57
Hasn't this guy got absolutely every right to be pissed off? Sure he hated the old regime, but I think that US and British troops have done enough shit (torturing prisoners, hitting civilian targets) for him to harbour reasonable animosity toward them too. And regardless of the rights and wrongs of the coalition's actions in Iraq, he (and his team mates) are being made unwilling poster boys for pro-Bush propoganda. It wouldn't fricking matter if Bush had moved each and every one of the fuckers into million dollar mansions and provided them with the willing services of the Minogue sisters for the rest of eternity. He still has no right to use these guys in his campaign if they ain't happy about it.

As one of them is quoted:

"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign....he can find another way to advertise himself."

    Originally posted by Crimedog
    Saddam was left in power after the first Gulf War because the other Middle Eastern countries said "Hey, you guys get Iraq out of Kuwait. We'll take care of Saddam." They didn't.


The first Gulf War was always about removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait, not regime change. It was acknowledged by the west that Saddam was 'bad' but that going for outright regime change themselves would also not be viewed as good. Encouragement was given to Iraqi rebels after the Gulf War to overthrow Saddam, but after that little was done by us to help them.
ges7184
Lap cheong
Level: 76

Posts: 1047/1494
EXP: 3945566
For next: 60513

Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 41 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#19 Posted on 21.8.04 1002.56
Reposted on: 21.8.11 1002.56
    Originally posted by Crimedog
      Originally posted by Big Bad
      Al-Sadr is only a problem because the US needed to suddenly create another heel in Iraq to turn their attention towards. "What prison scandal, everyone? Look, look, there's an evil cleric drumming up support! He's the one behind all the uprisings, certainly not anything we're doing!" The Globe & Mail had a great article a few months back detailing what a third-rate operation that Al-Sadr really had going, and now he's all of a sudden a major warlord? This is the military equivalent of Bradshaw being pushed as WWE champion.

      THIS IS NOT WORLD WAR II!!!!! The Nazis posed a legitimate military threat to Europe and probably would've at least temporarily taken the whole continent had Hitler not been a moron and broken his pact with the USSR (thus starting the war on both fronts). Iraq didn't even pose a threat to its Middle East neighbours, let alone the United States. Saddam was a tinhorn dictator with no influence who was such a threat to America that after the first Gulf War he was....left in power.


    Okay. First of all, it doesn't matter how big of an operation Al-Sadr has going. The simple fact of the matter is that he is, right now, attempting to rule by force in hopes of eventually taking over. That needs to be stopped. When you kick down a government that ruled by intimidation, murder and by dint of having the biggest guns, you make DAMN sure that it doesn't get replaced by the same form of government. If that means going after what appear to be second-rate warlords, so be it. Al-Sadr is a threat to the eventual goal in Iraq. Therefore, he needs to go away.

    Second. The rules have changed. They changed at about 10 a.m. on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. (Before you start jumping up and down about how there's "no connection" between Iraq and terrorism, read the rest of this paragraph.) It's no longer good enough to be reactive. The U.S. in particular needs to be aggressive in dealing with threats. If you get hit and don't do anything about it _ as the U.S. was REPEATEDLY _ then it simply makes the terrorists bolder. Countries need to realize that if they have a passive reaction to terrorism, or capitulate, then it's only going to make the next attack that much worse. Given that Iraq was, at the very least, rewarding terrorists financially and allowing them in the country, it makes sense to go there. We're talking about a regime that has repeatedly given the middle finger to the U.N. _ when it wasn't bribing officials connected to "Oil for Food" _ and attempted to assassinate the president of the U.S. (Bush I). It doesn't matter if that president is the father of the current president. Attempting to assassinate a head of state is an act of war.

    Third. If the U.S. had handled the first Gulf War all on its own, the military would have pretty much ignored Kuwait and driven right into Baghdad, since the Iraqi commitment of force to the invasion stretched them to the point that the U.S. could have rolled right into Iraq, buttoned up the country and cut the supply lines. Then it would have been a matter of time to wait for Iraq's surrender, a condition of which, I'm sure, would have been Saddam Hussein being handed over on a silver platter. Saddam was left in power after the first Gulf War because the other Middle Eastern countries said "Hey, you guys get Iraq out of Kuwait. We'll take care of Saddam." They didn't.


So why did the rules change after 9/11 and not after Pearl Harbor? Isn't that a similar type of event (except that the attack on Pearl Harbor was by an actual sovereign nation and not just a small group of people and thus represented a much bigger threat)? I think it's scary that some people think we need to do whatever it takes to prevent any attack from ever happening again, regardless of whose rights we may have to trample on to even attempt to make that happen (and even though it's impossible anyway).

I'm would be more comfortable with a "we don't start wars, we finish them" stance. The problem with pre-emptive strikes is that you really need to be 100% sure that you would be struck first without action, something we clearly were not with Iraq. In fact, it is now clear that Iraq wasn't a threat to this nation (or any other for that matter) at all. And since we taken a position of pre-emptive strike, it stands to reason that some nations may feel the need to adopt a similar pre-emptive strike position against us. After all, if we are not going to wait for them to make the first strike, why should they wait for us to make the first strike? I just think pre-empitve strategy is just a bad idea all around, especially to deal with a problem which is way down the list of things that will likely kill you.

(edited by ges7184 on 21.8.04 1633)
The Goon
Boudin blanc
Moderator
Level: 94

Posts: 869/2429
EXP: 8184095
For next: 172593

Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 8 hours
#20 Posted on 21.8.04 1353.42
Reposted on: 21.8.11 1355.08
Maybe out of an anger toward Bush, the Iraqi soccer team is kicking ass and taking names.
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Is your mind made up? (Presidential election)
Next thread: Domestic Partner benefits
Previous thread: Explosives found in both Russian Airliners
(737 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Iraqi soccer team mad at BushRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.189 seconds.