( search forums )
War In Iraq/Election : Real discussion
Soldat Forums - Misc - The Lounge
FliesLikeABrick
July 16, 2004, 4:40 am
In light of the mostly downward trend in the quality of the other War In Iraq thread:
What do you guys, as American/European teens, think of the war, how it has gone, and whether it has achieved any of its "original goals", if there were any. For you Europeans, im curious to see what you think of America, and its recent world affairs in light of 9/11 and this "war against terrorism" It should be interesting to see what different teens throughout the world's more populated nations think about what the entire situation has turned into. Do your opinions differ from those of your parents?

my post from the other thread:
quote:
Nobody has come out ahead with any of the Iraq BS. Bush wasn't exactly wise with what he did, and didn't have a good enough plan when he took upon himself the burden or Iraq. Anyone who proclaims their support of Bush is giving the world the impression that us Americans support the actions of Bush. When all you American teens on this forum are old enough to vote, and you start thinking about who deserves your vote, then you will realize that you really don't want to support the nonsense that Bush has brought in the past 4 years. I have been thinking about it lately and realize that if Bush gets re-elected, then we come off to the world as saying "Yes, we do support our president's actions", when really, the only people who do support him now are those who are in the armed forces, going into the armed forces, or hopeful family members of servicepeople.

As for people like CHALLENGER, dropping nukes on Iraq would go against a lot of what we have stood for in the years since all the nuclear treaties and the cold war. It wouldn't solve anything, piss off everyone in the middle east and the UN, drop us outta the UN, and justify the use of nukes against us through terrorism or proper military strikes.

As for everyone else who thinks this war is still going on, it is effectively over. As of last wednesday, Iraq was turned over to it's own interim government and it's own police forces are replacing the remaining occupation of US and other world forces.

Most of the world thinks that we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq as a quick response after 9/11 for revenge, and given the latest reports of inaccurate intelligence about WMDs in Iraq, that seems more and more true.

In closing, the world knew that this war would not turn out with a clear winner, it wasn't like Iraq had an organized army that could possibly rival what the US could bring to the table. Too many people watched the original broadcasts on CNN of the main attack on baghdad and that impressed the image on them that we are going full out on Iraq. Now that the occupation is formally over, we can do nothing but wait for the terrorism and disruptions to end in the middle east, but we all know that this may never happen, as it has not in other less-than-peaceful countries of that region. Hopefully Bush will be ousted in the upcoming election, and Kerry can clean up what Bush started, and preserve our image among our allies and fellow people of the world.
my two cents
-Brick


Do you American teens have any opinion on the election of 2004, and do you think that terrorists are going to attempt to interfere with our election process?
Of the candidate for this election, who do you support and why?
I support Kerry because he is "cautious on the war issue" and even though that is all he has really said, it makes me feel more comfortable that he may put more thought into it than President Bush, who seemed a little too focused on showing the world how powerful we are. At a point, the Bush administration had made small mentions of a draft, and although those thoughts have passed with the formal occupation of Iraq, I find it bothersome that our president would go against past laws specifically disallowing any future draft. Moreso, he would draft women and college studends and those who are college bound, potentially ruining their lives and the lives of everyone close to them. Kerry seems a little more sensitive to the lives of the American people, and being more liberal, I think that he would help with other issues that would help us all, namely stem cell research. With Bush, it seems that just about all he is focused on is the actions of the military. On NPR (National Public Radio) I had heard about numerous groups who had been promised time with the president, only to be blown off for no reason, and on many different occasions. Do these sound like the actions of a man you would want leading your country. If you are bored and feel like being informed about many things, mainly politics, i would reccomend listening to your local public stations that run NPR programs, or streaming it from their site. A good one to stream is www.wamc.org because it has the NPR programs plus a lot from BBC and other news/political information

I think im just looking to see what people think of the US, and what us Americans think of what is going on, from the view of the younger generations.

Hopefully this thread will stay cleaner than the other one, im looking forward to hearing what you have to say.
Thanks for your input,
-Brick

BManx2000
July 16, 2004, 4:57 am
To quote yourself: This thread is gonna last about 2 seconds.

Soulsnipa
July 16, 2004, 5:23 am
Bush, I support him, but not everything that he DID, but I do support him. I just can't stand Kerry.

If you dont like Kerry, why vote for him. I liked Bush, and what he did had reason even if we dont believe it. The only thing is now that the war was dragging on everyone started to complain. Not nearly as many people were worried when we went into war right after 9/11, and even when the Iraqi War Started. The media has even made it sound as Bush is in fault now that his campaign nears, but again, I feel he went in with reasoning. Even if he went in with the wrong reason, we still captured Saddam, somone who has been pissing us off for the past 10-20 years. If you can remember how you felt during 9/11 and then think of going into War, then you can see how its easy to forget the bad things of War.

FliesLikeABrick
July 16, 2004, 5:47 am
I don't only have a problem with Bush, but the rest of his administration too. The events of 9/11 lead us into Afghanistan, and then terrorist ties led us into Iraq. But we only opened up on Iraq after we had found "significant evidence of WMDs", which we now found out was inflated intelligence used to convince Bush. His administration made many mistakes in the processing of intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq, as well as huge errors in how they went about the intelligence they had regarding possible terrorist attacks around the time of 9/11. I have looked over lots of information in my Participation in Government classes and it is almost embarrassing how much information they had that something could happen, and we never heard anything about possible attacks, nor any change in our then-idle alert warning system (the box of crayons that changed every week for months following 9/11). Then once 9/11 came we all of a sudden do everything we can and tell the public everything. I don't think the leaders of our nation should wait for a problem in order to respond to it, but rather take preventative measures, especially when they have as much information as they did leading up to 9/11.
-Brick

Noobile
July 16, 2004, 6:49 am
it's not a war, stop listening to t.v. Congress has not declared war since the 1940's it's bush trying to have a [:-censored]-waving contest with the rest of the world....and I'm a registered republican, I just dont personally agree with bush, or his polocies in alot of matters. especially his oil company holdings, and the monetary ties to the bin-laden family. I don't like where he is heading this country, he has no right to impose his will on any other country, wether or not they were wrong. Kerry....he's just a pinko-commie noob, who's just going to screw this country squarely in the rectum, so "the needy" can have everything they've ever wanted, all they have to do, is sell their house, their car, quit their job, move into government housing, and pop out kids every 9 months. just to get those outta the way.... as far as the "war on terrorism"...cliche`...hype....fear. somone is trying to scare you into "some day, some time, the terrorists *might* try and harm YOU" ...and? so? it's what they've done since the beginning of time, like they're gonna stop? like anyone's gonna completely stop them? how do you stop a guy, who's WILLING to strap 10lbs of tnt on their nuts, walk into thee middle of a croud, and frag himself, and 30 other people? you gonna check every single person that walks by? hello nazi's, why how are you today? yes, please take my civil rights, and liberties away, I don't need them to be "safe",oh, you're actually STOPPING terrorists? wow, I guess it's all worth it. WRONG!! why can't people get over their stupid,petty differences, and realize that every single person has a right to be on this tiny crowded planet? doing whatever the hell they want, at any given time. ok, you worship allah, and you worship buddah,and you like jesus, and that guy's aethiest. ok, whatever,relax. no need to blow eachother up over somthing that nobody can really prove beyond the shadow of a doubt.


ranting at 2 in the morning is fun....

Cookie.
July 16, 2004, 7:20 am
lol www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com
i dont like bush -_- nuff said?

Keinonen
July 16, 2004, 11:54 am
Bush's achievments top three:

1) Afganistan war; Drove talibans & al-Qaeda ppl out of Afghanistan, but didn't actually crush the whole organisation

2)Foreing policy; Relations with other countries have began a huge downfall

3)War in Iraq; Weapons of mass destruction? Where are they? Oh, yeah. They don't exist. Foreign muslim terrorists & Al-Qaeda? Ironically, there weren't Al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq before the war, but now there are.

Cookie.
July 17, 2004, 11:02 pm
prove it :)

Kazuki
July 18, 2004, 4:23 am
Honestly, I know almost nothing about this issue. I'd really like to get into it though. Looks like I'll have to watch that Farehnheight movie. Is that how you spell the temperature measurement? :P

that fuking sniper
July 18, 2004, 10:07 am
I heard that the Bush administration tried to get this movie *off* the theatres. Maybe theres something to it after all? I always thought to myself "Oh, another right-wing propoganda movie", but now I begin to wonder. I'll go see it tomorrow.

Aquarius
July 18, 2004, 10:33 am
quote:Originally posted by Keinonen
Ironically, there weren't Al-Qaeda fighters in Iraq before the war, but now there are.

It's sad but true... Bin-Laden hates Saddam almost as much as Bush. Bin-Laden is a religious fanatic. Saddam is not. He was an old fashioned dictator, he crushed the fanatics in Iraq (he crushed anyone who was against him - the good people and the bad people).

FliesLikeABrick
July 20, 2004, 12:43 pm
do not believe anything that Michael Moore uses as proof to back up points in Farehnheight 9/11. He was highly criticized for his first "documentary," Bowling for Columbine. see http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html for details about that. But to sum it up, Farenheight 9/11 is already under criticism for pulling the same thing off: twistings facts, nifty editing, and being the BSed cousin of a documentary.
A quick fill-in for people who aren't aware of Bowling for Columbine, and Michael Moore's film tactics: Michael Moore made Bowling for Columbine, and created a very high quality movie, unfortunately not worthy of its title as a documentary. As that link above points out, Moore edited and spliced together news broadcasts, speeches, and flat-out made up some parts of the information he relied on to prove the points in that movie. Although thought provoking, BfC and F911 should not be taken as truth, but rather be a conversation starter and nothing more.
Just wait, and you are sure to see pages all over the internet pointing out the innacuracies of F911.
-Brick

Kazuki
July 20, 2004, 3:02 pm
Well, they slapped an R rating on the Farenheight movie, since they couldn't get it off theatres. The director was really pissed off because the movie was actually meant for teenagers, because they are the ones that have to know the world of politics the most, or so he says. I still haven't gone to see it. No chance yet. :( Shame. I'll see it whenever possible.

Can someone make this a temporary sticky? It's definately one of the better topics around here.

Tha Doggfather
July 20, 2004, 4:03 pm
no need to make it sticky, its been on the front page ever since it started. if enough people find it interesting, it will remain there.

Kazuki
July 20, 2004, 4:58 pm
I guess so. The Lounge and the Bash Pit are dying now that Weed and GI Joe aren't around much.

Jack2
July 20, 2004, 6:54 pm
Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings but I think that George Bush went to Iraq because of the oil. Thats why even there the fanatics have blowen dozens of times the large oil pipe leading to Turkey lately. And his next step if he somehow gets to be a president after the re-election or the goverment will somehow agree, the next step will be to attack Iran, because of possible terrorist-tides. When they've occupied Iran, United States will have one of the largest oil reserves in their use and they will become a super-goverment. Too much blood has been spilled now, let the soldiers come home and forget it. Ill bet that Us-Military will have to leave to Middle-East because of the suicide bombers and count how many times those fanatics have even captured US- and UN-personell in Iraq. Just like the Vietnam,,, [these were only my thoughts, k?]

Noobile
July 20, 2004, 7:12 pm
As much as I disgree with bush.....

You have to understand that he is CAPITOLIST, whats good for his bank account, isn't always good for peoples lives, and like thoe things matter....duh. only money matters, because money =power=control=god. and who doesn't want to be god?

palloco
July 20, 2004, 7:52 pm
quote:Originally posted by Jack2
Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings but I think that George Bush went to Iraq because of the oil.

It was not Bush intentions. USA went to Iraq because it had to. How the hell can you maintain such an enormous army without using it?

koil
July 20, 2004, 7:55 pm
well.. being an israeli, i dont really care about WHY it started.. i just care that it HAS happend.

evrybody remembers gulf-war.. the one that started in the early 90's. iraq launched 'skuds' (aka 'katyushot' among the jews) at us, and stuff. proof#1 that saddam = has power.

you remember the iraq-iran war too, right? when saddam used mausterd (typo prolly) gas (illegal weapon btw) on the kurds (another typo, methinks). proof#2 that saddam = evil.

whether there were any WMP's, or werent, it doesnt change the fact:
that man was evil. the US (..actually, the whole world shouldve done that, . but thats another subject ¬_¬)should've done it, and i'm glad they did.

/me puts on his I <3 USA poster on the wall

Noobile
July 20, 2004, 8:42 pm
Somone mentioned the Iran-Bush thoery.... read this

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=1&u=/latimests/20040720/ts_latimes/bushciaatoddsoniran

enough said

SuperKill
July 20, 2004, 9:24 pm
i have the same opinnion as koil the nerd that wont come to eilat in the summer.