friend injured in Iraq.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jonapete2001, Nov 29, 2003.

  1. jonapete2001, Nov 29, 2003
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012
  2. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #2
    Re: friend injured in Iraq.

    I'm sorry to hear about your friend's bad luck, and even more to hear about his comrades'.

    Perhaps this sort of reality will have to hit home to each and every hawk who has a heart in order for Bush to stop his war rampage.

    Your perspective on it is interesting though:

    Do you think the "terrorists" see things the same way he did? Or the same as you do?

    Can you try to put yourself in their shoes and get your head around why another human being not unlike yourself would launch an RPG at a foreign occupying force? Please try.
     
  3. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #3
    Re: friend injured in Iraq.

    War is hell.

    I'm sorry for your friend. To lose his mates and maybe a leg is very, very sad.

    Why do you call them terrorists? They weren't involved in 9/11 and according to the pentagram the overwhelming majority are Iraqis. Guerillas fighters is what they are pure and simple, defending their country, whether rightly or wrongly against a foreign invader.

    Your friend is in service to the US, not the Iraqi people, they owe him no thanks. gw should be the one thanking him for his service. He hasn't done so though has he?

    Poverty is relative. While the living standards in Iraq are not equal to the US, they are well-educated and proud of who they are and their country. Your condescension does nothing for your friend or for the Iraqis.

    It is people like you who will decide the next election. Why vote for a man who lied to us? Why vote for a man who is sacrificing your friends for the sake of political gain? gw's war in Iraq is not making the world safer nor will it rid it of the terrorists who took out the towers.

    I really am sorry for your friend. I lost an uncle in Vietnam and there's nothing more tragic than a young person's life being destroyed by a greedy politician. I hope he doesn't lose his leg.
     
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #4
    jp

    sorry to hear about your friend. i hope his best days are still ahead of him.
     
  5. Dale Sorel macrumors 6502a

    Dale Sorel

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2003
    #5
    I have a neighbor who just lost a friend in Iraq. Sean was in the army infantry and was escorting children to and from school, trying to help move the Iraq people a step closer towards democracy.

    Those insurgents are a bunch of freakin' losers :mad:
     
  6. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #6
    jonapete2001,
    Sorry about your friend. A friend's husband just rotated out of Iraq after several months. He had many close calls, but wasn't injured. It's a hard, terrible thing. For what it's worth, I think you're right to call them terrorists. Who said that the 9/11 bastards were the only terrorists in the world? They aren't defending their country. More and more of the attacks are against Iraqi civilians. Blowing up the UN HQ wasn't defending their country. Bombing Iraqi police stations isn't defending their country. Most of the Iraqis are glad that Saddam isn't in power, and the Baathist terrorists--a band of thugs and assassins--know full well that there may be hell to pay for them once things settle down. The revenge killings are already underway with former Baathists being targeted and killed by vigilantes. Your friend was defending US interests, but he was also liberating the Iraqi people. They also owe him thanks. I hope for a good recovery for him, both physically and mentally. War is hell.

    Most Americans are thankful for his sacrifice. IMO, the president is no different.

    People like you may decide the next election. If we are lucky, we'll get two candidates who are going to stay the course and finish the job in Iraq and continue the war on terrorism more broadly. Then, it won't matter much which one wins.
     
  7. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #7
    I fail to see why the Iraqis should be made to feel indebted to the US and its troops. An unjust war was declared. Their corrupt, unjust, cruel, sadistic etc, leader is gone but what has replaced Saddam is no better, as a matter of fact things for most people are much worse now than it was last year. A recent report makes it clear that the Pentagon failed to secure the country because of political reasons.

    The people of Iraq are mostly glad that Saddam is gone but most are not happy with the occupation. It's like saying thanks to the FBI for killing the neighborhood bully even though they destroyed the neighborhood, continue to threaten the neighbors and killed your wife and kids. Democracy has to come to Iraq on its own terms not with a sword at their throats.
     
  8. jonapete2001, Nov 29, 2003
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012

    jonapete2001 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    Someone to finish the job? Yeah, let's hope so. Our current situation is that we haven't even started the job.

    Continue the "war on terror" much more broadly? Like against whom? How? Iraq was a pretty broad stroke (and a stretch built on lies) at "terrorism" and we've not hit any al Qaeda or WMD there.

    We've not made the world safer with the Iraqi invasion. To think that more invasions of other nations will make it safer is an extension of this bad policy.

    The only thing safer are the bank accounts of those whose multimillion or -billion dollar defense, reconstruction and oil contracts have been accepted without competitive bids from anyone, let alone foreign contractors.

    The troops are at immense risk.
    The Iraqi civilians are at higher risk than they ever were under Saddam.
    The entire region is on eggshells wondering if the US will decide to invade them.
    The American people are more at risk of terrorist attack now.
    Before, many in the world who were angry with us had a strong notion that we were bent on hegemony and empire.

    Now they know we are.
     
  10. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #10
    I don't care to argue about the war or the reasons for it. I can see both sides. Take out Saddam now, or wait let Iraqis keep dying under his band of thugs and UN sanctions. Tough call. We can't tell for sure whether invading Iraq has or will make us safer. If we finish the job, which we most certainly have started, it will make us and the world safer. If we do not finish the job, it will not make us safer. That is why we must finish the job. Hillary Clinton says we need more troops there. If she would run, it's likely that she would win the nomination, and maybe the presidency.

    It doesn't make sense to say the American people are more at risk now than before Iraq was invaded. Were we more at risk on September 10th, 2001? I saw physical evidence of Iraq training terrorists how to get bombs past airport security. That those terrorists are no longer being trained makes me more safe as I travel, not less.

    The war on terrorism involves a lot more than just tracking down and capturing or killing terrorists. It is broader than that. It needs to include more non military efforts, IMO. The most important aspect is to "drain the swamp" which breeds the terrorists. Free and prosperous people don't blow themselves up to get 70 virgins. Removing Saddam can be the first step on that road. Someone commented that other countries are afraid we might invade them. That's the idea. Iran is now more cooperative with UN nuclear inspectors. Having the US military on your border and just having seen them topple in three weeks what you couldn't topple in years will give one pause.
     
  11. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #11
    You see the obvious but come the wrong conclusions that are based upon it.

    We didn't drain the swamp, we added more sludge to it. We pissed off a lot of people. Other countries being afraid of us will only encourage them to accelerate and better hide their WMD programs.
     
  12. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #13
    really? i would rate that 'unlikely' on the conspiracy theory front. after all, it did get him impeached...

    i seriously doubt hilary will enter the '04 race.

    i wonder if she'll really go for it at all. there are SO many people who vehemently hate her (and honestly, i can't figure out a good reason why) that she'd just be setting herself up to be viciously attacked.

    then again, i don't know what's going on in her head :)
     
  13. g5man macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    #15
    She is not entering because she knows she will lose.

    However, it will be interesting if she entered and ran on a platform that we need more troops while Bush is pushing for a troop reduction.

    I think she would give Bush a run for his money if that took place.

    The problem with that scenario is that the radical left wing of her party would have a very hard time supporting her hawkish stance.
     
  14. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #16
    but this unnatural hatred started long before that. maybe when she tried putting together a national health care plan, as first lady. i remember a lot of it happening then.

    btw, she's actually from illinois.

    she did that soon after bill got elected, iirc. imho, she had always wanted to keep rodham, but was talked into dropping it for election purposes (lame).

    but now that you mention it, i think that also caused problems. there are a lot of people who have problems w/ strong women, and she is a strong women. i think that's where a lot of the hatred comes from. personally, i think that's illogical and retarded, but what do i know? i _like_ strong women :)
     
  15. G5ROCKS macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    #17
    That sounds rather arrogant, IMO. That someone else thinks differently from you doesn't make their view wrong. My conclusions aren't any less valid than your conclusions. We simply don't know 100% whether other countries being afraid of us will encourage them to accelerate their WMD programs, or what the other effects of invading Iraq might be. It could be as likely it will scare them off. Iran seems more anxious to take a step back, and the US Army and friends are on the ground in Iraq. There might be a connection, IMO. It's just blind assumptions to argue so forcefully in the opposite direction without evidence, and evidence of WMD isn't a matter of public record in places like Syria and Iran. North Korea continued with its program even when the international community made a deal with them. India and Pakistan made their weapons because of each other.

    It true that we haven't drained the swamp. Yet. And it can't do it alone. But a new Iraqi government can be a start for improvements in the region. I've already seen video of terrorist training facilities in Iraq that aren't in operation any longer. Places where they taught people how to get bombs through airport security.

    The corruption in the Palestinian Authority has got to go and the Israelis have got to get serious about making a settlement that will dry up support for terrorists like Hamas. The Carter Center has sponsored some detailed negotiations in that area in Geneva.

    The hatred some people have for Hillary Clinton is similar to the hatred others have for Bush. It's somewhat irrational, but is a bit of a cottage industry.
     
  16. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #18
    Jonapete, I'm very sorry to hear about your friend. I hope he makes a quick and complete recovery.

    I'll keep the politics on the other threads in here, and maybe the rest of us should too. Let Jonapete blow off some steam, we can all sympathize with his feelings of anger.
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    Let's see, who else can I think of whose first elected office was way to high, and came way to easily? Someone who grew up in a state different from the one they were govenor of? Someone who was a candidate by virtue of who their family name was? Who could that be....

    If that is a source of anger amongst conservatives about Hilary, perhaps a look in their collective mirror might be in order.
     
  18. jonapete2001, Nov 30, 2003
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012

    jonapete2001 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
  19. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #21
    I think I'll attribute that remark to stress...
     
  20. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22

    With that wit, you should be working writing jokes for candidate GWB. Your talents are wasted here.

    OMG I'm off-topic again. Guess I'm gonna get another lecture...
     
  21. jonapete2001, Dec 1, 2003
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012

    jonapete2001 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003
  22. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #24
    No name calling. You force me to report your post.
     
  23. jonapete2001, Dec 1, 2003
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2012

    jonapete2001 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2003

Share This Page