It's been several years ago that this video was posted but it was in response to our troops being in harms way and this guy compares our sacrifice (war is sacrifice)of our soldiers for our safety and their freedom
Sorry Turk, within 15 seconds I explain what I am responding to, the next 7 seconds is the details of what I am responding to and finally I wasnt making this to entertain anyone, I was saddened that someone would forward the message that we are the terrorist.
You are the perfect example of impatience. The negative focus on the results of the war have fueled the insurgents motivations from the beginning. Nothing is impossible when this country is United, but our failure was believing we could finish this without the support of the left. Patience turkmaniniraq!
"Saddam invaded Kuwait, that is being aggressive."
Agreed.
"he is given an option, turn over the WMD's, leave Iraq or be removed. Saddam chose his fate "
Oh really? I remember weapons inspectors inside Iraq when Bush gave them 48 hours to leave before he started bombing. The way I see it, Bush chose his fate.
Still waiting to hear how an invasion of a nation that hadn't attacked us or anyone else is anything but aggression. Tis a war crime; Bush a war criminal.
You say in the same response that Saddam invaded Kuwait, then you say we invaded a nation that hadn't attacked us or anyone else? Do you see how frustrating this is.
"You say in the same response that Saddam invaded Kuwait, then you say we invaded a nation that hadn't attacked us or anyone else?"
Remember when I asked you to talk to me like you're an adult? I'm not going to play these silly games with you. We both know the first Gulf War was in response to the invasion of Kuwait, and we both know that no one says this war was in response to that invasion a decade prior. Now, cut it out!!
What are you talking about, we wouldn't have been surrounding Iraq if it werent for 1990. You make it sound like Saddam loved the world, carried no hard feelings for having his army destroyed by the great satan "America" and was a forgiving person. Then out of the blue we just attacked him. Karldpeters your naive to even think that Saddam had no evil intentions
"You make it sound like Saddam loved the world, carried no hard feelings for having his army destroyed by the great satan "America" and was a forgiving person."
Right. As if I ever even mentioned the man. You are aware, are you not, that people can read here and now what I've said in my own words? Are you sure you want to make yourself look like an ass who can't back up his assertions?
When I say Naive, I mean this. We didn't attack Iraq, it was a continuation of the failed diplomacy for a decade, that only enriched Saddam and allowed the sanctions to destroy a country. The removal of Saddam is not an attack on the Iraqi people. The purpose was to remove the deadwood and allow the country to prosper
Let's be frank. It was an act of aggression. That's the challenge put to you to argue how it was not. After all these posts, you are still avoiding the issue that started all this. Either provide some support and reasoning for your position or come to terms with the fact that what we have done is committed the supreme war crime -- the crime from which all others stem.
Frank? All you have said is that it was an act of aggression, we funded the taliban, it's not about you..etc etc.. war is a political decision, every fact that drove us to war has been in the open for 17 years and after all that people want to say that it was an act of aggression. It is you, not me, that fails to open their eyes. It is people like you that believe the worst of every thing the US is involved in, not me
Do you remember Weapons Inspectors in Iraq for the last 12 years? Do you remember their hotels being bugged. Do you remember Saddam threatening to Kill his scientist rather than let them be questioned by the weapons inspectors? Do you remember Saddams son in law leaving Iraq and warning the West of his weapons, only to return and be executed?
"Do you remember Weapons Inspectors in Iraq for the last 12 years?"
They were kicked out in 1998. Clinton couldn't stop interfering. Bush got them back in there and I almost thought I was going to have to give the guy praise and due credit -- but then he duly told them to scram. If it was about WMDs, and if war is the option of last resort, then you let the inspectors do their job.
the issue with the inspectors was not that they werent allowed in, but that their hotels were bugged. The scientist they wanted to interview were threatened, the W.I. asked if the scientist and all of their family could be taken out of the country for interviews, that never happened. We were seeking a peaceful resolution, Saddam was just trying to wait out our impatience. People just like you
If war is the last resort how many years would suffice? 20 years of inspectors? I believe they were there for 7 years before being removed. The inspectors were to be able to go anywhere they needed, why do you think the UN kept responding to Iraq with 17 resolutions if all they needed was 1?
Is it your positition that war is not an option of last resort? Are you saying that initiating war is acceptable? That's clearly what you are implying, but unlike you, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. Please say so explicitly if that is the case, but understand that what you are advocating is a war crime if indeed that is what you are advocating.
where is your world? I asked if 12 years of sanctions and UN resolutions sufficed as a nation attempting a peaceful resolution. Saddam was removed because it was plausible that he would have intentions of using his WMD's by giving them to people who wanted to do harm to us. I think that after 911, and after we took action on the Taliban and ran Al Qaeda into the mountains, where might they go to get weapons?
Bush a War Criminal, so everytime someone is brought into a court of law and found not quilty, the courts were the criminals? Basically the world court believed that Saddam had WMD. If you consider his history, who he modeled his government after, what weapons he had used in wars and against his own people, he was the biggest threat, not the US
In your eyes, sure it was an act of aggression, because you beilieve Saddam was a peaceful man, in a peaceful region of the world. If we werent meddleing in their part of the world then 911 wouldnt have happened
People care about this madness in Iraq. That's what you can't support. That's why resort to ad hominem. I don't even know you and you think I care about your opinion of me. People are dying and you want to talk about me.
I'm not resorting to ad hominem, it's not an option. You and people like you want us to believe that we attacked a country for no reason. This video is in response to M3XLC4N's comments that we are the terrorists. You can continue on with this "Acts of Aggression" and I'll continue to ask why?
"You and people like you want us to believe that we attacked a country for no reason. "
Dude! It is not about me or people like me. I'm practically BEGGING you to support your position that this was not a war crime. You still haven't done so, but that remains the unanswered challenge on the table.
Again! This was not a war crime, it was not an "act of aggression" it was a continuation of 1990, after 17 UN resolutions, after the world recognized that terrorist with WMD's was a war we could not fight, we had to remove the weapons that terrorist would seek out. We had to remove Saddam to ensure we removed the WMD's
As for "who attacked who" Afghanistan never attacked us, but that was considered a legitmate military action to remove the Taliban. Iraq was the next logical step in the shaping of the Middle East
You're opening a big can of worms there, fella. You do know that OBL attacked two US Embassies and the USS Cole? You do know the Taliban harbored OBL? You do know the Taliban was considered an illegitimate authority by then entire world?
Hezbollah has the same credentials and yet Israel was criticized for their attempts to protect their nation. Just like you are trying to portray the Iraq war as an act of aggression.
Did you know the Taliban offered to deport OBL to Bush-friendly S.Arabia in exchange for easing up on sanctions? Did you know the Bush adm funded those barbarians to the tune of $43million US taxpayer dollars and even hosted them on American soil in this nations capital -- yet did nothing about OBL?
the Bush adm funded the Taliban? The Bush adm had only been in office for 8 months before the war plans to remove the Taliban. That Budget was developed during the Clinton adm. In the ABC mini series, there was diffence between the Afghanistan army fighting the Russians and the army led by OBL
"the Bush adm funded the Taliban?" That's what I said. That's the truth.
It would've taken you fifteen seconds to do a search that would show you I am right. You spend five minutes weaving a fortress for your fantasies to protect yourself from truth. LOOK IT UP!!
Karldpeters, Collin Powel announcing a grant to the Taliban for their crack-down on opium before 911 and saying that we "funded" the taliban is two different items. Of the 43 Million announced in May 2001, when the budget was proposed, how much was actually allocated to a regime that was then being surrounded
OH. My bad. They were only collaborating with the Taliban. They only promised to fund them, but 9/11 happened before the funds actually were transferred.
Well, now. That make a HUGE difference doesn't it? After all, consorting with the enemy isn't a problem if you didn't actually get to give them the money you promised.
Im only seeing the difference. When the adm seeks out collaborating with the middle east and supporting their actions that would benefit both countries, we are condemed for supporting the ENEMY(?). Well then we were trying to reachout to a nation in a positive way
A $43 million grant to an illegitimate regime under worldwide sanctions whose GDP probably didn't top $1 billion ain't exactly hardball. They were harboring Osama bin Ladin. It sure wasn't Dutch junkies that flew those planes into those towers, was it?
Listen to yourself, we attempted to reward the Taliban for taking a stand on opium farmers. Do you think that might be the first step in establishing a relationship and then build on that relationship?
But let's go back to your original comment. You asserted that the Taliban had to be removed. Why?
Osama had thrice attacked us and made one attempt in these borders. Why did the Taliban not merit removal then? Why didn't they ever attempt to negotiate the bin Ladin problem? Didn't we consider bin Ladin might attack again?
It wasn't Dutch junkies that flew those planes. Why was European heroin more of a concern than a determined and capable terrorist?
Damned if we do huh? Okay, history part 1 - Bin Laden had been expelled by Saudia Arabia and Sudan in 1990, so he returned to Afghanistan where he had fought against the Russian invasion in the late '70's. Part 2 -Bin Laden is "believed" to be involved in the attacks in Yemen in '92. Part 3- He surfaces as a possible threat in '95-'96, Part 4 - '98 he issues his Fatwa agains America and Israel. Part 5- '01 911 attacks by Al Qaeda members
"Osama had thrice attacked us" Before 911 you had 2 philosophies, 1 was the New Bush administration who made a decision coming in that they would not trade punches with terrorist. The new policy would be removal and stop the tit for tat responses. 2 was bin ladens policy, attack the US to get the US to attack him
Please provide a reference for the Bush administration's pre-9/11 policy of removing Osama bin Ladin. I've never heard of such a thing and seen no evidence that he was ever a priority for the Bushies before then.
I want to say is is page 202 of the 911 Commission report, NSA Rice was interviewed and the policy formulating in response to the Cole would be that the US would not respond tit for tat, but to work with other nations and remove terrorist organizations
the bushies? I think the President realized on 911 what was his responsibility and how we that tragedy formulated and took place. Since then he has been very aggressive, using every tool available to assist our government to prevent other attacks at his own peril
Shorthand for "the Bush Administration". Saves keystrokes.
"I think the President realized on 911 what was his responsibility"
9/11 was too late. What responsibility do you feel he had before that and how did they try to fulfill it? Not looking for blame, but this is a fair question of our government, is it not?
why wasnt the bushies more involved in getting osama? Al Qaeda, according to Clark, was his number one concern. Wasnt it the previous administration, not Clark who would have been responsible for relaying that information?
it seems to me that the on-coming adm had 8 months to formulate a relationship with pakistan, which Rice did, intercept the 911 attack plans (with legal hurdles) capture Osama in Taliban controlled territory, which Powell must have been smoozing with the 43 mil offer of aid to deter farmers from growing opium
This is as much about you as it is about me. I take it that you believe we should pull out of Iraq and see if that makes it a safer country. The war is about US, do we want to fight it here or there. If we pull out it will be a victory for them. Common sense tells me that they will want to follow a victory with another one
"I take it that you believe we should pull out of Iraq"
Yes I do. We never had any business over there - still don't. Lives lost for lies. You resist, but you're beginning to see it. Yes. They illegally negotiated with the Taliban -- joining such fine company as Pakistan, SA, and Yemen - legitimizing those cretins who protected a determined and proven successful anti-American terrorist who would carry out 9/11.
The inevitable will happen. Better it start sooner and save American lives.
Our actions in Iraq were necessary. People like you are necessary. There is no way that I could know everything, such as Powell's plan to award the Taliban prior to the 911 attacks. "If everyone, and everything were perfect, how boring it would be" unknown
That's because you're desperate to change the subject. All this time I've never mentioned Saddam, but you insist on trying to paint me as sympathetic. Now faced with facts that your Bush baby was cozy with the Taliban unconcerned with Osama that they protected, you're spinning as fast as you can.
Do you not know how full of crap you are or do you think I don't?
I'm not changing the subject, Im not desperate. Ive always focused on Saddam and not Iraq. I work with Iraqis, Iranians and Pakistanis. They are not excited about their countries history and feel strongly about joining the rest of the world.
Great. Let's bomb the motherfuckers. Are they excited about that? We see how well it's worked out in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure the Iranis are just giddy with anticipation. Why, George W. Bush is in charge. What could possibly go wrong?
Again, because of people like you (and I dont mean that in a negative way) but ya'll keep things in check. I dont see us bombing every country, but Iran is taking a stand against the world, not just the US
Do you think there might be a first step in establishing a relationship and then build on that relationship?
It's too late for Afghanistan, but you've implied that US aid can be a useful diplomatic tool with regimes like the Taliban. Would you think it possible to use this tool with Iran before resorting to bombing?
Are you serious? We assisted Iran in building their Nuclear Power Plant. That was part of establishing a relationship. Remember the Carter years and the American Hostage Crisis? In the late 70s the Islamic Revolution overtook the embassy. Now the threat is they will use this "Aid" and assistance from the US to wipe out Israel
"Now the threat is they will use this "Aid" and assistance from the US to wipe out Israel"
Wasn't the threat from the Taliban that they would use that aid to harbor and support an anti-American terrorist who would attack again?
Please explain to me the difference. It's just not obvious why you think aiding the Taliban was a good idea while aiding Iran is madness. They seem highly analogous circumstances to me.
Dude your picking and choosing times and circumstances. We assisted in building Irans Nuclear Power facility. Then the Muslim Revolution happened, since 1979 Iran has been a hostile state, taking Americans hostage, aiding Hezzbolah and assisting their attacks on Israel
This is my thinking. Aid to these nations MUST be used to negotiate reducing or eliminating or addressing that threat. My opinion. Direct threat-high priority. You may disagree, but that is the root of my objection to the aid to the Taliban. The negotiated nothing regarding Osama bin Ladin. That's where I'm coming from. If you have a different take or a correction, I'm eager to hear it, but I'd first like to know if I've explained my rationale well to this point. TNX
I dont think your full of crap, I think it is easier to take your side, your side doesn't have a plan. Staying in Iraq is harder, but the payoff is more rewarding for the entire world.
Wanna know something? You're quite challenging and keep me on my toes. I hope you haven't found this a cakewalk either. I'm signing off now, but it's been fun. Good to meet someone with a thick skin. I don't much care for mincing words or overly sensitive types.
If you dont like the analogy fine. But saying that we woke up one day and decided to attack another country for no reason, or for financial gain is the immature response. The stakes had been raised after 911, Iraq was considered the potential state to free from tyranny and shine a beacon of freedom for the rest of the middle east. If you dont want to believe that then you can continue to suffering through your life thinking we are evil
Dude, the question put to you is to explain how this was not a war of agression. At most I can figure, you say it was 'to free from tyranny and shine a beacon of freedom for the rest of the middle east'.
That's aggression, my friend. If we nor another state or populace were under attack -- and none were -- then it was aggression and it is a war crime.
Heres the difference, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, that is being aggressive. When we forced him back to Iraq, that was stopping aggression. When we contained him for 10 years and watch 500,000 Iraqis die from the sanctions, that is considered "working". After 14 UN resolutions to comply with the UN Inspections, and after every Nations Intel warns of WMD, he is given an option, turn over the WMD's (possesion is a violation) leave Iraq or be removed. Saddam chose his fate
Wow, facts, evidence and reason against slander, hate and conspiracies? Conservative vs leftard all the way. M3xic4n you are the biggest retard on YouTube!
I'm not familiar with tubetex (only watched this one video, dont intend to watch any more) but I want to give him props for at least trying to make sense. So many republicans dont even seem to care that they're wrong, tubetex actually seems like he wants to do the right thing, even if he is completely incorrect. I could be wrong about him, I only saw this one video and didn't pay too close attention (was reading all the comments)
Mousse4200, appreciate the comment. I stumbled across this site 3 weeks ago, so I am not as polished as senior you-tubers. I took great offense to what M3XLC4N was saying in his American Terrorist video, but wish I had scripted my response.
American soldiers are well intentioned for the most part and are undeserving of the title of terrorist. However, the iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism and democracy. Iraq is not a nation. It is a section of land that was created after WW1 by the British which forced three main groups of people to find a national identity (Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds). This is the problem we're dealing with right now.
Iraq was only unified through strongmen like Saddam Hussien because if the masses had their way their would be no iraq... there would be three different countries. It should be as obvious as it is now that there are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq or that saddam's regime did not pose an international threat (in fact the country was in its weakest state and under constant surveilance by the US through no fly zones) that democracy will not work.
For the "Most Part"?, "Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terrorism"? I doubt if you would have that same opinion if in the success of the 19(?) 9-11 terrorist, an Iraqi WMD or training given to terrorists by the Iraqi regime was allowed to happen.
Your an educated person, would you align with a group that succeeded in attacking the US? You have to admit that the catastrophic attack on 9-11 came very close to damaging our economy beyond repair, along with the murders of 3,000 people.
I'm not asking if "YOU" would align with terrorist, I'm asking if "YOUR" a terrorist would you seek out WMD? After the successful attacks, there was a fear of another, bigger attack. The leaders, Bush and Blair along with 13 other countries agreed that leaving Saddam with WMD's and crazy people seeking out those weapons was not a smart gamble
I have little insight to give on whether the effort of terrorists to gain WMD is a number one priority. I no longer believe that the fear of another, bigger attack was the motivation behind going into Iraq. Saddam was under lock and key... after the first gulf war the US basically controlled it's skyways and the sanctions were weakening the country along with killing thousands of innocents every month. Iraq was a colony of the international community.
I dont think individual soldiers deserve the title of terrorists... I do however believe that the shock and awe operation could be considered a terrorist offensive because it was a direct attack against a civillian population and its purpose was to scare the shit out of them. As for the second question... I might not have the same view but this is not a reality as has been prooven and is commonly accepted.
Keep in mind, we used "smart" bombs to limit collatoral damage. Shock and awe has been used in every war in different levels. The goal is to destroy the enemies WILL to fight without destroying the enemy
Whether or not the bombs were smart or stupid is irrelevant. over 6500 people civillians were killed during this campaign. This was not a World War it was an attack on a weak nation that had little will and even less resource to defend itself.
Okay, I get it. No one in our military could possibly be noble? There is no way that we had good intentions of removing a Dictator and allow the people of Iraq to live withour fear in the hopes that Iraq could be a beacon of change in the Middle East. We are evil
People could've had noble intentions but in general American foriegn policy lacks nobility. Look into the history of the CIA... helping the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Chile and etc... The enemy of our enemy is our friend... If our cause was ridding the world of evil why did it take us so long to make Sudan an issue? Why do we choose Iraq over Sudan? Why doesn't Bush the ICC?
also.. as i stated before. Iraq is barely a "nation" as we know it. The only way it can be held together in the near future is through the power of a "strongman" like Saddam Hussien. The thing people dont understand about these new wars is that they're not being fought against NATIONS...
I disagree, a "strongman" ruled that "region" and look where it went. Now you have an elected government with more people, ethnic groups, regions in power. The reality is this is just not progressing fast enough, our guys (Bush/Chenney/Rumsfield) aniticipated a different transition. That is a mistake that can and should be debated. But staining our Troops with a label of Terrorist fails to meet the stink test. They are heros and they deserve not to be disrespected by Kerry or M3XLC4N
its eurocentric to think this way... afghanistan was not a country and now Iraq is not either... they're regions of warring ethnic groups. We are not freeing anyone by joining a side... we have an agenda and the people have to know that. As noble as you might be, American foriegn policy has RARELY been noble in the past half century.
"We are not freeing anyone by joining a side"??? Where are you coming from? You either have to believe that we are the "Wrong" side or the "Right" side, there is not a middle in this dog hunt. I choose America and America's History. You can always find fault, heck a high school football coach will ask for kickbacks to film the varsity games, but that doesn't mean that the entire program or the school is bad
these are not throwbacks and your analogy is terrible. the problem is that you think in black and white. nothing is ever wrong or right. there is always grey area and that is where you will find the real problems and the real agenda. the black and white is always the rhetoric. just as it was in the spanish-american war and all wars. I'm not saying terrorists are right... but I'm not saying America is either.
See, I film high school football, so I can relate. I dont work for Haliburton or any defense contracting company, but I bet if you ask them they they are proud of their companies and do not like the attention the Dems pay them on a daily basis
Your statement leaves one to believe that it is irrelevant whether or not we strike Military targets vs. carpet bombing the lanscape with little or no regard to human life. It is the same as "Damned if we do and Damned if we dont." Unlike Hezbollah, who was just throwing missiles into Israel with no specific target, we had specific targets. Again your confusing our commitment to sparing life, with those who have no regard for life.
Your statement leaves one to believe that American rhetoric is reality. We say we aim for military targets (which we do) but this is war... it doesnt erase the fact that we killed 6500 people and for literally no reason at all. The death toll is rising and everyone we're supposedly freeing are fleeing the country. Face it... another horribly planned war with little to gain and shady goals to begin with. this is what war is now.
So it is just rhetoric that our targets are planned and billions of dollars in research and development to build these weapons to hit the target, and our troops are putting themselves at risk deploying some of the infrastructure to assist these guided missiles is all rhetoric. You even dispute your own argument when you say "(which we do)" or course we do. I suggest you visit a "Fam Fire" and see what war really is
I dont think we were trying to kill large numbers of people but we did. plain and simple... want to think in black and white? then do it. we killed 6500 people during the shock and awe campaign. FOR NO REASON... nobody can give us a reason. they can give us a bunch of reasons that don't add up and seem completly unrelated. its RHETORIC!
Hospitals have the worst percentages when it comes to their patients surviving surgery. But that is just RHETORIC. Your totally ignoring the facts of war. No one ever said that "civilians will not be killed" Thats absurd. You were not responsible for 300 million Americans, so it is kind of ridiculous to speculate what you might have done with Saddam after 911
Sanctions killed an estimated 343,900 to 529,000 in a UNICEF report in 1999, which is more palatable, the 6,500 that were killed in an effort to stop killing half a million, or continueing to allow another 1/2 million to be killed? Not that 6,500 is acceptable, that is why we work hard to reduce that number and save more lives.
When it comes to "Life and Death", protecting our country and creating hope for people in the Middle East by removing hostile regimes that harbor terrorist or WMD's or both, what gray area do you want to stand in when the next attack hits?
I have made such a crystal clear argument against the fact that Iraq was a hostile regime... Iraq was not harboring terrorists and no WMDs were found. prove me wrong on any of these points and we can continue arguing but please stop giving me these "what if's" and scare tactics. All we have to do is clean up our international image and we aren't going to be a target. We really pissed off a lot of people during the cold war and we're facing the wrath of it's ghost.
Crystal Clear? Arm chair qb'ing maybe. But our government didn't have that crystal ball to see into the future. We acted on advice, intellegence, defectors and probably the most compelling evidence that it was Saddam. On-line News Hour has a video from 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The American hostages in Kuwait, their children in fear of their lives is all rhetoric to you!
Okay, hadn't read that one before. If it is true, and how can either of us prove it true or false, it is still recording actual events, but they may be exaggerated.
As for "Shock and Awe" that message was not limited to the fighting force of Iraq. It was also a message to those in the world that have similar interest in agression such as Saddam.
yeah we really showed Iran and North Korea didnt we? Showing off your guns to the world only escalates the thirst for weapons and power. Look at what happened when we bombed Japan... is this how we are going to live forever? we have the upper hand. the bombs and the UN veto power... we should be setting the example of peace. stop trying to rationalize the most irrational war in our history. Even Kissinger says it's hopeless, man.
Are you arguing the Bush Doctrine of removing hostile regimes engaged in terror? Because I think Lybia got the message, it may take longer for Korea and Iran to get it. But with that said, a united front against hostile regimes is more compelling than the Dems policy of "attack the president at all cost"
Libya... That was under Reagan anyways and had just as much to do with Gaddafi backing Iran in the Iran-Iraq war as it did with terrorism. They were changed through sanctions and good diplomacy btw not war and regime change. ALSO not siding with the Dems.. i know how politics works and I know the Dems aren't heros. neither are the republicans... dont kid yourself. I don't relate to either party's policies.
Libya? Under Reagan? What Africa only has an 8 year history? After 18 years of sanctions, so from 1985 to 2003 (that would include Clinton and Bush 43) Colonel Kadafi finally vows to surrender his banned weapons. This is during a time when the coalition forces are surrounding Iraq.
yes it started with Reagan... you were talking about the "bush doctrine" which was not in place during the Reagan administration. you have faith in sanctions with libya... why none in Iraq?
Where do you get that I have faith in sanctions? I think that the forces defeating the taliban with limited resources, and surrounding Iraq forced Kadafi to give up his WMD ambitions. But with the Dems calling the policy ridiculous, why wouldn't he just do as n korea did and go ahead with the wmds? (see there is no conviction with the dems, the dems pretend to be on the other side which causes the bad guys not to have clear guidelines.)
Your right, the 04 election started in 03 (when our troops were in major combat). The propaganda against America and our policies in the Middle East were the number 1 agenda for most Libs. You want to see what I'm talking about watch my video "Americas Truth"
if i remeber correctly, neither candidate was running as an anti-war candidate... Speaking out against the war doesn't put anyone in harms way. This war's supposedly about freedom but why is there all this fascist sentiment? Ater 9/11 we were told to keep shopping to show the terrorists we weren't afraid... what about our civil rights? We let them have those like they were nothing.
Neither? How about 10 candidates, the only one that remained hawkesh was Lieberman. Kerry and Edwards both turned against the war effort after Howard Dean won the first primary. And you Really dont think "Booing" your team plays psychologically with their efforts, and doubles the efforts of the leadership to correct the course of the ship?
Kerry didn't run as the anti-war candidate. He wanted to end it faster but he was not calling for withdrawal.. I wouldnt be surprised if Kerry would have caused an escelation. Fortunately in America we're not all on the same "team." This is not a sports event where there is your team and your opponents... there are many different "teams" if you want to call them that.
There are two teams, one is trying to kill the other. Our team has and always will try to "kill the enemies will to fight" out of strength and resolution. The other team tries to win by prolonging a victory until we get tired and go home. If that happens, nobody wins
You argue that we're fighting in the name of freedom yet you're quick to denounce those with different opinions from the Bush administration who take advantage of it. Its not like dissidents are giving away classified infromation... they're just disagreeing. Your logic puts our countries ideals in harms way.
I'm not sure I understand your philosophy. My video response to m3xc4ln was because he was labeling America as the terrorist. I dont work with terrorist, I didnt serve in the Marines with terrorist and I dont think your a terrorist. Why should I have agreed with m3xlc4n? Do all dissedents think alike?
not all dissidents think a like but there is one thing they have in common... their opinions are contrary to the leading ideology. All I'm saying is.. calling a US soldier is a terrorist does not put a soldier in harms way and should not be considered treasonous. We have the first amendment... supposedly thats what soldiers are fighting for.
Let me see if your theory holds water? A small group of muslims hi-jacked 4 planes and crashed each one of them. They were part of a continueing act of terrorism accros the globe. Do you think their actions have put other muslims at risk?
acloudynotion: I gave a poor analogy. M3XLC4N has the freedom to say what ever he wants. We as the people have the duty to determine if what he says crosses the line. With Senator Reed saying "the war is lost" while our troops are in harms way. Does that increase or decrease their risk? It should be obivous that any statement that bolsters the enemy, is bad.
Calling an american soldier a terrorist is the worst thing someone can do?
You obviously don't get the idea of a person having their family killed, house burned down, wife and daughter raped by horny US soldiers... oh sorry, you call that "Hope"
No, what I call hope is the Iraqi people working with the coalition forces to isolate and destroy the enemy. No where, no way do I condone our military performing in any fashion other than honorable and the VAST Majority are! Everything you just said increases the risk of our soldiers from performing their duties, just like m3xlc4n increases their risk.
Just remember America, Love it or Leave it, we must blindly follow our leaders, because only through blind obedience can we succeed. We must Never question authoritym, for if we do, obviously such a person is a traitor to thier country.
You have to be kidding me, dissention is a patriotic act. However calling the President "The Greatest Facilitator of War Crimes", and telling you that you fear the wrong terrorist. Implying that we are the terrorist. There is a difference, and I will be glad to point out the differences.
The terrorists have killed many journalists and have tortured and killed many of our soldiers. The terrorists are not eligible to be treated under the Geneva Convention, and should have no rights. Perhaps many of you have forgotten what we are up against.
she blames all muslims for terror. read her bio and you realize that she has haq a close encouter with terrorim and she now blames ALL muslims for it. Last time I heard that was called prejudism.
Again Think your own thoughts - and shayatan - if you have something intelligent to say than I will respond. You and tubetex have cornered the market in paranoya not me. AND your an idiot...
History is already deciding and US will do nothing in Korea, who by the way really do have WMDs unlike Iraq. What they are afraid of is Japan having to arm themselves with Nuclear weapons because of the Korean threat which would force China to ally itself with Korea. Do some thinking dude. don't be a meat puppet. Have an opinion which different than my own if needed but based on your morality and real perception instead of one based on American Goverment Propaganda.
What government propaganda do I need to be the puppet of? Have you seen the "Non-Government" Al-Jazera interview of Wafa Sultan? Check it out and then tell me who is speaking with Passion, M3XLC4N or Wafa?
To go after the terrorist involved in 9/11 and eradicate them is one thing, but to invade a country kill over 40,000 people with no proof of involvement is another. You don't see us invading Iran, Syria, North Korea, or any of the other countries accused of harboring terrorists or having WMDs. How many friends and family of the Iraqi fallen will now want revenge on the US because of this and become TERRORISTS?
tubetex your an idiot because you dont see that part of loving your country is making sure that it is the best country it can be. To shut your eyes to stupid behaviour is to do the same as the some people did in Germany when the Nazis took over. Your blind devotion to the flag is actually a weakness in your part, but I think you are too dumb to know that. To say that someone must be prosecuted for their views is so 1942 Germany,
Dude I stumbled across this guys video because of it's name. And stayed up over 26 hours figuring out how to setup the camera and upload the video to you-tube. Before last week I was just casual visitor to youtube
See, now weve gone from Nazis to Terrorists. Do you have any idea what the Nazi regime was doing? What I see is a country that restrained from turning the middle east into glass (thank God) and instead took on the burden for the world to try and remove oppression that breeds terrorism
No, commiting the war crimes is an embarassment. A country of this calubur should be able to act with a slight bit of sophistication, and maybe act to set an example rather than spark more hatred.
I tell you what, you go start a company that employees well over 3 million people and lets see if you can run it without a legal team, security and HR, with 2-3 people in charge!
Don't blame the soldiers... They are just following orders. But when the pictures come out. The polticals gotta feign shock and disbelief and submit the soldiers to trial for what they were instructed to do...
If your Speaking on Abu Graib, Donald Rumsfield took full responsibilty. Dont blame the soldiers? Now who drank the Kool-aide? In every organization there is that 2%- you see it here in You-Tube
Sleep deprival is not standing a long time at attention... It is days and days and days on end. The light cycle is distorted to instill extreme jet lag.
If you want an impression try staying awake longer then 5 days... The longest I have done is 3 days (work requirements) before uh, sensory distortions kick in...
Oh by the way, they also use drugs to heighten the effect in "sleep dep"...
It is a war crime to go to Iraq to remove a dictator and kill 60000 iraquies in the process and every day more and more. You are a chicken hawk you are no soldier.
That will be kind of an act of treason to your brothers I mean maybe I'm wrong just wanted to share my opinion .and I haven't meet a single American not proud of his army respect to you.
free of speech? a military guy wish him death because his opinion goes against his government i feel that you are angry because sounds like hi is not appreciating the huge sacrifice you guys doing for your country , That is incorrect , you have no idea how much people appreciates you guys but critics are for the government not the army or is it discipline, honor respect that doesn't aloud you to even question your self .
My tour ended in 1991. Hopefully congress will clarify "Free Speech", because it is obviously open to interpretation. You can label the President a "War Criminal" for carrying out the UN Charter.
I can name at least 2 members of the UN that realized that if the UN didn't act and follow it's own charter then the UN had lost its purpose and usefulness
I didn't here that guy call the soldiers terrorist???
jrtt19 3 years ago
did you notice the title of his video?
did you understand the substance of his video?
It's been several years ago that this video was posted but it was in response to our troops being in harms way and this guy compares our sacrifice (war is sacrifice)of our soldiers for our safety and their freedom
tubetex 3 years ago
please u took ages to finish i fed up and couldn't get to the point in ur long story
turkmaniniraq 5 years ago
Sorry Turk, within 15 seconds I explain what I am responding to, the next 7 seconds is the details of what I am responding to and finally I wasnt making this to entertain anyone, I was saddened that someone would forward the message that we are the terrorist.
tubetex 5 years ago
You are the perfect example of impatience. The negative focus on the results of the war have fueled the insurgents motivations from the beginning. Nothing is impossible when this country is United, but our failure was believing we could finish this without the support of the left. Patience turkmaniniraq!
tubetex 5 years ago
"Saddam invaded Kuwait, that is being aggressive."
Agreed.
"he is given an option, turn over the WMD's, leave Iraq or be removed. Saddam chose his fate "
Oh really? I remember weapons inspectors inside Iraq when Bush gave them 48 hours to leave before he started bombing. The way I see it, Bush chose his fate.
Still waiting to hear how an invasion of a nation that hadn't attacked us or anyone else is anything but aggression. Tis a war crime; Bush a war criminal.
karldpeters 5 years ago
You say in the same response that Saddam invaded Kuwait, then you say we invaded a nation that hadn't attacked us or anyone else? Do you see how frustrating this is.
tubetex 5 years ago
"You say in the same response that Saddam invaded Kuwait, then you say we invaded a nation that hadn't attacked us or anyone else?"
Remember when I asked you to talk to me like you're an adult? I'm not going to play these silly games with you. We both know the first Gulf War was in response to the invasion of Kuwait, and we both know that no one says this war was in response to that invasion a decade prior. Now, cut it out!!
karldpeters 5 years ago
What are you talking about, we wouldn't have been surrounding Iraq if it werent for 1990. You make it sound like Saddam loved the world, carried no hard feelings for having his army destroyed by the great satan "America" and was a forgiving person. Then out of the blue we just attacked him. Karldpeters your naive to even think that Saddam had no evil intentions
tubetex 5 years ago
"You make it sound like Saddam loved the world, carried no hard feelings for having his army destroyed by the great satan "America" and was a forgiving person."
Right. As if I ever even mentioned the man. You are aware, are you not, that people can read here and now what I've said in my own words? Are you sure you want to make yourself look like an ass who can't back up his assertions?
It still isn't about me.
karldpeters 5 years ago
When I say Naive, I mean this. We didn't attack Iraq, it was a continuation of the failed diplomacy for a decade, that only enriched Saddam and allowed the sanctions to destroy a country. The removal of Saddam is not an attack on the Iraqi people. The purpose was to remove the deadwood and allow the country to prosper
tubetex 5 years ago
Let's be frank. It was an act of aggression. That's the challenge put to you to argue how it was not. After all these posts, you are still avoiding the issue that started all this. Either provide some support and reasoning for your position or come to terms with the fact that what we have done is committed the supreme war crime -- the crime from which all others stem.
karldpeters 5 years ago
Frank? All you have said is that it was an act of aggression, we funded the taliban, it's not about you..etc etc.. war is a political decision, every fact that drove us to war has been in the open for 17 years and after all that people want to say that it was an act of aggression. It is you, not me, that fails to open their eyes. It is people like you that believe the worst of every thing the US is involved in, not me
tubetex 5 years ago
Do you remember Weapons Inspectors in Iraq for the last 12 years? Do you remember their hotels being bugged. Do you remember Saddam threatening to Kill his scientist rather than let them be questioned by the weapons inspectors? Do you remember Saddams son in law leaving Iraq and warning the West of his weapons, only to return and be executed?
tubetex 5 years ago
"Do you remember Weapons Inspectors in Iraq for the last 12 years?"
They were kicked out in 1998. Clinton couldn't stop interfering. Bush got them back in there and I almost thought I was going to have to give the guy praise and due credit -- but then he duly told them to scram. If it was about WMDs, and if war is the option of last resort, then you let the inspectors do their job.
karldpeters 5 years ago
the issue with the inspectors was not that they werent allowed in, but that their hotels were bugged. The scientist they wanted to interview were threatened, the W.I. asked if the scientist and all of their family could be taken out of the country for interviews, that never happened. We were seeking a peaceful resolution, Saddam was just trying to wait out our impatience. People just like you
tubetex 5 years ago
If war is the last resort how many years would suffice? 20 years of inspectors? I believe they were there for 7 years before being removed. The inspectors were to be able to go anywhere they needed, why do you think the UN kept responding to Iraq with 17 resolutions if all they needed was 1?
tubetex 5 years ago
Is it your positition that war is not an option of last resort? Are you saying that initiating war is acceptable? That's clearly what you are implying, but unlike you, I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth. Please say so explicitly if that is the case, but understand that what you are advocating is a war crime if indeed that is what you are advocating.
karldpeters 5 years ago
where is your world? I asked if 12 years of sanctions and UN resolutions sufficed as a nation attempting a peaceful resolution. Saddam was removed because it was plausible that he would have intentions of using his WMD's by giving them to people who wanted to do harm to us. I think that after 911, and after we took action on the Taliban and ran Al Qaeda into the mountains, where might they go to get weapons?
tubetex 5 years ago
Bush a War Criminal, so everytime someone is brought into a court of law and found not quilty, the courts were the criminals? Basically the world court believed that Saddam had WMD. If you consider his history, who he modeled his government after, what weapons he had used in wars and against his own people, he was the biggest threat, not the US
tubetex 5 years ago
Are you ever going to get around to making the case that the invasion of Iraq was not an act of aggression?
karldpeters 5 years ago
In your eyes, sure it was an act of aggression, because you beilieve Saddam was a peaceful man, in a peaceful region of the world. If we werent meddleing in their part of the world then 911 wouldnt have happened
tubetex 5 years ago
People care about this madness in Iraq. That's what you can't support. That's why resort to ad hominem. I don't even know you and you think I care about your opinion of me. People are dying and you want to talk about me.
karldpeters 5 years ago
you mean your impatience? The insurgents are counting on your imapatience, so did the democrat party
tubetex 5 years ago
I'm not resorting to ad hominem, it's not an option. You and people like you want us to believe that we attacked a country for no reason. This video is in response to M3XLC4N's comments that we are the terrorists. You can continue on with this "Acts of Aggression" and I'll continue to ask why?
tubetex 5 years ago
"You and people like you want us to believe that we attacked a country for no reason. "
Dude! It is not about me or people like me. I'm practically BEGGING you to support your position that this was not a war crime. You still haven't done so, but that remains the unanswered challenge on the table.
It's not about me.
karldpeters 5 years ago
Again! This was not a war crime, it was not an "act of aggression" it was a continuation of 1990, after 17 UN resolutions, after the world recognized that terrorist with WMD's was a war we could not fight, we had to remove the weapons that terrorist would seek out. We had to remove Saddam to ensure we removed the WMD's
tubetex 5 years ago
"In your eyes, sure it was an act of aggression, because you beilieve Saddam was a peaceful man, in a peaceful region of the world"
Is that all you have? Jingo? It's not about me. Not now. Not ever. Never will it be.
karldpeters 5 years ago
As for "who attacked who" Afghanistan never attacked us, but that was considered a legitmate military action to remove the Taliban. Iraq was the next logical step in the shaping of the Middle East
tubetex 5 years ago
You're opening a big can of worms there, fella. You do know that OBL attacked two US Embassies and the USS Cole? You do know the Taliban harbored OBL? You do know the Taliban was considered an illegitimate authority by then entire world?
karldpeters 5 years ago
Hezbollah has the same credentials and yet Israel was criticized for their attempts to protect their nation. Just like you are trying to portray the Iraq war as an act of aggression.
tubetex 5 years ago
Did you know the Taliban offered to deport OBL to Bush-friendly S.Arabia in exchange for easing up on sanctions? Did you know the Bush adm funded those barbarians to the tune of $43million US taxpayer dollars and even hosted them on American soil in this nations capital -- yet did nothing about OBL?
karldpeters 5 years ago
the Bush adm funded the Taliban? The Bush adm had only been in office for 8 months before the war plans to remove the Taliban. That Budget was developed during the Clinton adm. In the ABC mini series, there was diffence between the Afghanistan army fighting the Russians and the army led by OBL
tubetex 5 years ago
"the Bush adm funded the Taliban?" That's what I said. That's the truth.
It would've taken you fifteen seconds to do a search that would show you I am right. You spend five minutes weaving a fortress for your fantasies to protect yourself from truth. LOOK IT UP!!
karldpeters 5 years ago
Karldpeters, Collin Powel announcing a grant to the Taliban for their crack-down on opium before 911 and saying that we "funded" the taliban is two different items. Of the 43 Million announced in May 2001, when the budget was proposed, how much was actually allocated to a regime that was then being surrounded
tubetex 5 years ago
OH. My bad. They were only collaborating with the Taliban. They only promised to fund them, but 9/11 happened before the funds actually were transferred.
Well, now. That make a HUGE difference doesn't it? After all, consorting with the enemy isn't a problem if you didn't actually get to give them the money you promised.
That's what you're telling me?
karldpeters 5 years ago
Im only seeing the difference. When the adm seeks out collaborating with the middle east and supporting their actions that would benefit both countries, we are condemed for supporting the ENEMY(?). Well then we were trying to reachout to a nation in a positive way
tubetex 5 years ago
A $43 million grant to an illegitimate regime under worldwide sanctions whose GDP probably didn't top $1 billion ain't exactly hardball. They were harboring Osama bin Ladin. It sure wasn't Dutch junkies that flew those planes into those towers, was it?
karldpeters 5 years ago
Listen to yourself, we attempted to reward the Taliban for taking a stand on opium farmers. Do you think that might be the first step in establishing a relationship and then build on that relationship?
tubetex 5 years ago
But let's go back to your original comment. You asserted that the Taliban had to be removed. Why?
Osama had thrice attacked us and made one attempt in these borders. Why did the Taliban not merit removal then? Why didn't they ever attempt to negotiate the bin Ladin problem? Didn't we consider bin Ladin might attack again?
It wasn't Dutch junkies that flew those planes. Why was European heroin more of a concern than a determined and capable terrorist?
karldpeters 5 years ago
Damned if we do huh? Okay, history part 1 - Bin Laden had been expelled by Saudia Arabia and Sudan in 1990, so he returned to Afghanistan where he had fought against the Russian invasion in the late '70's. Part 2 -Bin Laden is "believed" to be involved in the attacks in Yemen in '92. Part 3- He surfaces as a possible threat in '95-'96, Part 4 - '98 he issues his Fatwa agains America and Israel. Part 5- '01 911 attacks by Al Qaeda members
tubetex 5 years ago
"Osama had thrice attacked us" Before 911 you had 2 philosophies, 1 was the New Bush administration who made a decision coming in that they would not trade punches with terrorist. The new policy would be removal and stop the tit for tat responses. 2 was bin ladens policy, attack the US to get the US to attack him
tubetex 5 years ago
Please provide a reference for the Bush administration's pre-9/11 policy of removing Osama bin Ladin. I've never heard of such a thing and seen no evidence that he was ever a priority for the Bushies before then.
karldpeters 5 years ago
I want to say is is page 202 of the 911 Commission report, NSA Rice was interviewed and the policy formulating in response to the Cole would be that the US would not respond tit for tat, but to work with other nations and remove terrorist organizations
tubetex 5 years ago
OK. Like what?
karldpeters 5 years ago
the bushies? I think the President realized on 911 what was his responsibility and how we that tragedy formulated and took place. Since then he has been very aggressive, using every tool available to assist our government to prevent other attacks at his own peril
tubetex 5 years ago
"the bushies?"
Shorthand for "the Bush Administration". Saves keystrokes.
"I think the President realized on 911 what was his responsibility"
9/11 was too late. What responsibility do you feel he had before that and how did they try to fulfill it? Not looking for blame, but this is a fair question of our government, is it not?
karldpeters 5 years ago
why wasnt the bushies more involved in getting osama? Al Qaeda, according to Clark, was his number one concern. Wasnt it the previous administration, not Clark who would have been responsible for relaying that information?
tubetex 5 years ago
it seems to me that the on-coming adm had 8 months to formulate a relationship with pakistan, which Rice did, intercept the 911 attack plans (with legal hurdles) capture Osama in Taliban controlled territory, which Powell must have been smoozing with the 43 mil offer of aid to deter farmers from growing opium
tubetex 5 years ago
Have you watched the my video "Americas Truth"
tubetex 5 years ago
I must have because I'm commenting there, but don't remember it by now. I'll be sure to watch it again.
karldpeters 5 years ago
This is as much about you as it is about me. I take it that you believe we should pull out of Iraq and see if that makes it a safer country. The war is about US, do we want to fight it here or there. If we pull out it will be a victory for them. Common sense tells me that they will want to follow a victory with another one
tubetex 5 years ago
"I take it that you believe we should pull out of Iraq"
Yes I do. We never had any business over there - still don't. Lives lost for lies. You resist, but you're beginning to see it. Yes. They illegally negotiated with the Taliban -- joining such fine company as Pakistan, SA, and Yemen - legitimizing those cretins who protected a determined and proven successful anti-American terrorist who would carry out 9/11.
The inevitable will happen. Better it start sooner and save American lives.
karldpeters 5 years ago
Our actions in Iraq were necessary. People like you are necessary. There is no way that I could know everything, such as Powell's plan to award the Taliban prior to the 911 attacks. "If everyone, and everything were perfect, how boring it would be" unknown
tubetex 5 years ago
I'm still waiting to hear how much was actually budgeted or given to the Taliban from Powells announcement?
tubetex 5 years ago
That's because you're desperate to change the subject. All this time I've never mentioned Saddam, but you insist on trying to paint me as sympathetic. Now faced with facts that your Bush baby was cozy with the Taliban unconcerned with Osama that they protected, you're spinning as fast as you can.
Do you not know how full of crap you are or do you think I don't?
karldpeters 5 years ago
I'm not changing the subject, Im not desperate. Ive always focused on Saddam and not Iraq. I work with Iraqis, Iranians and Pakistanis. They are not excited about their countries history and feel strongly about joining the rest of the world.
tubetex 5 years ago
Great. Let's bomb the motherfuckers. Are they excited about that? We see how well it's worked out in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm sure the Iranis are just giddy with anticipation. Why, George W. Bush is in charge. What could possibly go wrong?
karldpeters 5 years ago
Again, because of people like you (and I dont mean that in a negative way) but ya'll keep things in check. I dont see us bombing every country, but Iran is taking a stand against the world, not just the US
tubetex 5 years ago
To paraphrase you...
Do you think there might be a first step in establishing a relationship and then build on that relationship?
It's too late for Afghanistan, but you've implied that US aid can be a useful diplomatic tool with regimes like the Taliban. Would you think it possible to use this tool with Iran before resorting to bombing?
karldpeters 5 years ago
Are you serious? We assisted Iran in building their Nuclear Power Plant. That was part of establishing a relationship. Remember the Carter years and the American Hostage Crisis? In the late 70s the Islamic Revolution overtook the embassy. Now the threat is they will use this "Aid" and assistance from the US to wipe out Israel
tubetex 5 years ago
"Now the threat is they will use this "Aid" and assistance from the US to wipe out Israel"
Wasn't the threat from the Taliban that they would use that aid to harbor and support an anti-American terrorist who would attack again?
Please explain to me the difference. It's just not obvious why you think aiding the Taliban was a good idea while aiding Iran is madness. They seem highly analogous circumstances to me.
karldpeters 5 years ago
Dude your picking and choosing times and circumstances. We assisted in building Irans Nuclear Power facility. Then the Muslim Revolution happened, since 1979 Iran has been a hostile state, taking Americans hostage, aiding Hezzbolah and assisting their attacks on Israel
tubetex 5 years ago
I'm trying to get it, but I'm still missing something.
Let me try to articulate sort of an abstract principle of my position without yet applying it specifically to the countries we're discussing.
There are nations in the world hostile and threating to the US and our people. Nothing objectionable in that I hope.
We've discussed the use of aid as a bargaining chit with nations where there exist hostilities and threats. If I've misunderstood, tell me else ...
karldpeters 5 years ago
This is my thinking. Aid to these nations MUST be used to negotiate reducing or eliminating or addressing that threat. My opinion. Direct threat-high priority. You may disagree, but that is the root of my objection to the aid to the Taliban. The negotiated nothing regarding Osama bin Ladin. That's where I'm coming from. If you have a different take or a correction, I'm eager to hear it, but I'd first like to know if I've explained my rationale well to this point. TNX
karldpeters 5 years ago
hope im not miss-reading this, if we provide aid to our hostile enemies, wont this only promote more hostilies in the hopes of receiving more aid?
tubetex 5 years ago
I dont think your full of crap, I think it is easier to take your side, your side doesn't have a plan. Staying in Iraq is harder, but the payoff is more rewarding for the entire world.
tubetex 5 years ago
"I dont think your full of crap"
Wanna know something? You're quite challenging and keep me on my toes. I hope you haven't found this a cakewalk either. I'm signing off now, but it's been fun. Good to meet someone with a thick skin. I don't much care for mincing words or overly sensitive types.
Cheers.
-K
karldpeters 5 years ago
"This was not a war of aggression."
How do you figure?
"Do you consider someone holding others hostage being invaded by the police when the police take action?"
Spare me the hysterics and the propaganda. Talk to me like you are an adult. Thanks.
karldpeters 5 years ago
If you dont like the analogy fine. But saying that we woke up one day and decided to attack another country for no reason, or for financial gain is the immature response. The stakes had been raised after 911, Iraq was considered the potential state to free from tyranny and shine a beacon of freedom for the rest of the middle east. If you dont want to believe that then you can continue to suffering through your life thinking we are evil
tubetex 5 years ago
Dude, the question put to you is to explain how this was not a war of agression. At most I can figure, you say it was 'to free from tyranny and shine a beacon of freedom for the rest of the middle east'.
That's aggression, my friend. If we nor another state or populace were under attack -- and none were -- then it was aggression and it is a war crime.
karldpeters 5 years ago
Heres the difference, when Saddam invaded Kuwait, that is being aggressive. When we forced him back to Iraq, that was stopping aggression. When we contained him for 10 years and watch 500,000 Iraqis die from the sanctions, that is considered "working". After 14 UN resolutions to comply with the UN Inspections, and after every Nations Intel warns of WMD, he is given an option, turn over the WMD's (possesion is a violation) leave Iraq or be removed. Saddam chose his fate
tubetex 5 years ago
Actually, wars of aggression are indeed war crimes my good friend. We attacked Iraq. It is a war crime.
karldpeters 5 years ago
This was not a war of aggression. Do you consider someone holding others hostage being invaded by the police when the police take action?
tubetex 5 years ago
you are dead on sir, thank you for saying every thing i cant putinto words!!!11
fastroadkill 5 years ago
hey Joe, come and liberate venezuela plz
leogan 5 years ago
Wow, facts, evidence and reason against slander, hate and conspiracies? Conservative vs leftard all the way. M3xic4n you are the biggest retard on YouTube!
templarart 5 years ago
I'm not familiar with tubetex (only watched this one video, dont intend to watch any more) but I want to give him props for at least trying to make sense. So many republicans dont even seem to care that they're wrong, tubetex actually seems like he wants to do the right thing, even if he is completely incorrect. I could be wrong about him, I only saw this one video and didn't pay too close attention (was reading all the comments)
Mousse4200 5 years ago
Mousse4200, appreciate the comment. I stumbled across this site 3 weeks ago, so I am not as polished as senior you-tubers. I took great offense to what M3XLC4N was saying in his American Terrorist video, but wish I had scripted my response.
tubetex 5 years ago
American soldiers are well intentioned for the most part and are undeserving of the title of terrorist. However, the iraq war has nothing to do with terrorism and democracy. Iraq is not a nation. It is a section of land that was created after WW1 by the British which forced three main groups of people to find a national identity (Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds). This is the problem we're dealing with right now.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
Iraq was only unified through strongmen like Saddam Hussien because if the masses had their way their would be no iraq... there would be three different countries. It should be as obvious as it is now that there are no weapons of mass destruction in iraq or that saddam's regime did not pose an international threat (in fact the country was in its weakest state and under constant surveilance by the US through no fly zones) that democracy will not work.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
For the "Most Part"?, "Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terrorism"? I doubt if you would have that same opinion if in the success of the 19(?) 9-11 terrorist, an Iraqi WMD or training given to terrorists by the Iraqi regime was allowed to happen.
tubetex 5 years ago
Your an educated person, would you align with a group that succeeded in attacking the US? You have to admit that the catastrophic attack on 9-11 came very close to damaging our economy beyond repair, along with the murders of 3,000 people.
tubetex 5 years ago
of course i would not. I dont see what this has to do with the war in Iraq. There is no connection to the 9/11 attacks.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
I'm not asking if "YOU" would align with terrorist, I'm asking if "YOUR" a terrorist would you seek out WMD? After the successful attacks, there was a fear of another, bigger attack. The leaders, Bush and Blair along with 13 other countries agreed that leaving Saddam with WMD's and crazy people seeking out those weapons was not a smart gamble
tubetex 5 years ago
I have little insight to give on whether the effort of terrorists to gain WMD is a number one priority. I no longer believe that the fear of another, bigger attack was the motivation behind going into Iraq. Saddam was under lock and key... after the first gulf war the US basically controlled it's skyways and the sanctions were weakening the country along with killing thousands of innocents every month. Iraq was a colony of the international community.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
I dont think individual soldiers deserve the title of terrorists... I do however believe that the shock and awe operation could be considered a terrorist offensive because it was a direct attack against a civillian population and its purpose was to scare the shit out of them. As for the second question... I might not have the same view but this is not a reality as has been prooven and is commonly accepted.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
Keep in mind, we used "smart" bombs to limit collatoral damage. Shock and awe has been used in every war in different levels. The goal is to destroy the enemies WILL to fight without destroying the enemy
tubetex 5 years ago
Whether or not the bombs were smart or stupid is irrelevant. over 6500 people civillians were killed during this campaign. This was not a World War it was an attack on a weak nation that had little will and even less resource to defend itself.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
Okay, I get it. No one in our military could possibly be noble? There is no way that we had good intentions of removing a Dictator and allow the people of Iraq to live withour fear in the hopes that Iraq could be a beacon of change in the Middle East. We are evil
tubetex 5 years ago
People could've had noble intentions but in general American foriegn policy lacks nobility. Look into the history of the CIA... helping the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala, Chile and etc... The enemy of our enemy is our friend... If our cause was ridding the world of evil why did it take us so long to make Sudan an issue? Why do we choose Iraq over Sudan? Why doesn't Bush the ICC?
mattbleyle 5 years ago
also.. as i stated before. Iraq is barely a "nation" as we know it. The only way it can be held together in the near future is through the power of a "strongman" like Saddam Hussien. The thing people dont understand about these new wars is that they're not being fought against NATIONS...
mattbleyle 5 years ago
I disagree, a "strongman" ruled that "region" and look where it went. Now you have an elected government with more people, ethnic groups, regions in power. The reality is this is just not progressing fast enough, our guys (Bush/Chenney/Rumsfield) aniticipated a different transition. That is a mistake that can and should be debated. But staining our Troops with a label of Terrorist fails to meet the stink test. They are heros and they deserve not to be disrespected by Kerry or M3XLC4N
tubetex 5 years ago
its eurocentric to think this way... afghanistan was not a country and now Iraq is not either... they're regions of warring ethnic groups. We are not freeing anyone by joining a side... we have an agenda and the people have to know that. As noble as you might be, American foriegn policy has RARELY been noble in the past half century.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
"We are not freeing anyone by joining a side"??? Where are you coming from? You either have to believe that we are the "Wrong" side or the "Right" side, there is not a middle in this dog hunt. I choose America and America's History. You can always find fault, heck a high school football coach will ask for kickbacks to film the varsity games, but that doesn't mean that the entire program or the school is bad
tubetex 5 years ago
these are not throwbacks and your analogy is terrible. the problem is that you think in black and white. nothing is ever wrong or right. there is always grey area and that is where you will find the real problems and the real agenda. the black and white is always the rhetoric. just as it was in the spanish-american war and all wars. I'm not saying terrorists are right... but I'm not saying America is either.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
See, I film high school football, so I can relate. I dont work for Haliburton or any defense contracting company, but I bet if you ask them they they are proud of their companies and do not like the attention the Dems pay them on a daily basis
tubetex 5 years ago
Your statement leaves one to believe that it is irrelevant whether or not we strike Military targets vs. carpet bombing the lanscape with little or no regard to human life. It is the same as "Damned if we do and Damned if we dont." Unlike Hezbollah, who was just throwing missiles into Israel with no specific target, we had specific targets. Again your confusing our commitment to sparing life, with those who have no regard for life.
tubetex 5 years ago
Your statement leaves one to believe that American rhetoric is reality. We say we aim for military targets (which we do) but this is war... it doesnt erase the fact that we killed 6500 people and for literally no reason at all. The death toll is rising and everyone we're supposedly freeing are fleeing the country. Face it... another horribly planned war with little to gain and shady goals to begin with. this is what war is now.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
So it is just rhetoric that our targets are planned and billions of dollars in research and development to build these weapons to hit the target, and our troops are putting themselves at risk deploying some of the infrastructure to assist these guided missiles is all rhetoric. You even dispute your own argument when you say "(which we do)" or course we do. I suggest you visit a "Fam Fire" and see what war really is
tubetex 5 years ago
I dont think we were trying to kill large numbers of people but we did. plain and simple... want to think in black and white? then do it. we killed 6500 people during the shock and awe campaign. FOR NO REASON... nobody can give us a reason. they can give us a bunch of reasons that don't add up and seem completly unrelated. its RHETORIC!
mattbleyle 5 years ago
Hospitals have the worst percentages when it comes to their patients surviving surgery. But that is just RHETORIC. Your totally ignoring the facts of war. No one ever said that "civilians will not be killed" Thats absurd. You were not responsible for 300 million Americans, so it is kind of ridiculous to speculate what you might have done with Saddam after 911
tubetex 5 years ago
Sanctions killed an estimated 343,900 to 529,000 in a UNICEF report in 1999, which is more palatable, the 6,500 that were killed in an effort to stop killing half a million, or continueing to allow another 1/2 million to be killed? Not that 6,500 is acceptable, that is why we work hard to reduce that number and save more lives.
tubetex 5 years ago
When it comes to "Life and Death", protecting our country and creating hope for people in the Middle East by removing hostile regimes that harbor terrorist or WMD's or both, what gray area do you want to stand in when the next attack hits?
tubetex 5 years ago
I have made such a crystal clear argument against the fact that Iraq was a hostile regime... Iraq was not harboring terrorists and no WMDs were found. prove me wrong on any of these points and we can continue arguing but please stop giving me these "what if's" and scare tactics. All we have to do is clean up our international image and we aren't going to be a target. We really pissed off a lot of people during the cold war and we're facing the wrath of it's ghost.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
Crystal Clear? Arm chair qb'ing maybe. But our government didn't have that crystal ball to see into the future. We acted on advice, intellegence, defectors and probably the most compelling evidence that it was Saddam. On-line News Hour has a video from 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The American hostages in Kuwait, their children in fear of their lives is all rhetoric to you!
tubetex 5 years ago
read about Nayirah and tell me that you're still willing to believe all of this PR bull shit.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
Okay, hadn't read that one before. If it is true, and how can either of us prove it true or false, it is still recording actual events, but they may be exaggerated.
tubetex 5 years ago
As for "Shock and Awe" that message was not limited to the fighting force of Iraq. It was also a message to those in the world that have similar interest in agression such as Saddam.
tubetex 5 years ago
yeah we really showed Iran and North Korea didnt we? Showing off your guns to the world only escalates the thirst for weapons and power. Look at what happened when we bombed Japan... is this how we are going to live forever? we have the upper hand. the bombs and the UN veto power... we should be setting the example of peace. stop trying to rationalize the most irrational war in our history. Even Kissinger says it's hopeless, man.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
Are you arguing the Bush Doctrine of removing hostile regimes engaged in terror? Because I think Lybia got the message, it may take longer for Korea and Iran to get it. But with that said, a united front against hostile regimes is more compelling than the Dems policy of "attack the president at all cost"
tubetex 5 years ago
Libya... That was under Reagan anyways and had just as much to do with Gaddafi backing Iran in the Iran-Iraq war as it did with terrorism. They were changed through sanctions and good diplomacy btw not war and regime change. ALSO not siding with the Dems.. i know how politics works and I know the Dems aren't heros. neither are the republicans... dont kid yourself. I don't relate to either party's policies.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
Libya? Under Reagan? What Africa only has an 8 year history? After 18 years of sanctions, so from 1985 to 2003 (that would include Clinton and Bush 43) Colonel Kadafi finally vows to surrender his banned weapons. This is during a time when the coalition forces are surrounding Iraq.
tubetex 5 years ago
yes it started with Reagan... you were talking about the "bush doctrine" which was not in place during the Reagan administration. you have faith in sanctions with libya... why none in Iraq?
mattbleyle 5 years ago
Where do you get that I have faith in sanctions? I think that the forces defeating the taliban with limited resources, and surrounding Iraq forced Kadafi to give up his WMD ambitions. But with the Dems calling the policy ridiculous, why wouldn't he just do as n korea did and go ahead with the wmds? (see there is no conviction with the dems, the dems pretend to be on the other side which causes the bad guys not to have clear guidelines.)
tubetex 5 years ago
Though i think your assesment of the Dems policy is untrue. They'd been somewhat compliant up until the 04 election.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
Your right, the 04 election started in 03 (when our troops were in major combat). The propaganda against America and our policies in the Middle East were the number 1 agenda for most Libs. You want to see what I'm talking about watch my video "Americas Truth"
tubetex 5 years ago
if i remeber correctly, neither candidate was running as an anti-war candidate... Speaking out against the war doesn't put anyone in harms way. This war's supposedly about freedom but why is there all this fascist sentiment? Ater 9/11 we were told to keep shopping to show the terrorists we weren't afraid... what about our civil rights? We let them have those like they were nothing.
mattbleyle 5 years ago
Neither? How about 10 candidates, the only one that remained hawkesh was Lieberman. Kerry and Edwards both turned against the war effort after Howard Dean won the first primary. And you Really dont think "Booing" your team plays psychologically with their efforts, and doubles the efforts of the leadership to correct the course of the ship?
tubetex 5 years ago
Kerry didn't run as the anti-war candidate. He wanted to end it faster but he was not calling for withdrawal.. I wouldnt be surprised if Kerry would have caused an escelation. Fortunately in America we're not all on the same "team." This is not a sports event where there is your team and your opponents... there are many different "teams" if you want to call them that.
mattbleyle 4 years ago
There are two teams, one is trying to kill the other. Our team has and always will try to "kill the enemies will to fight" out of strength and resolution. The other team tries to win by prolonging a victory until we get tired and go home. If that happens, nobody wins
tubetex 4 years ago
You argue that we're fighting in the name of freedom yet you're quick to denounce those with different opinions from the Bush administration who take advantage of it. Its not like dissidents are giving away classified infromation... they're just disagreeing. Your logic puts our countries ideals in harms way.
mattbleyle 4 years ago
I'm not sure I understand your philosophy. My video response to m3xc4ln was because he was labeling America as the terrorist. I dont work with terrorist, I didnt serve in the Marines with terrorist and I dont think your a terrorist. Why should I have agreed with m3xlc4n? Do all dissedents think alike?
tubetex 4 years ago
not all dissidents think a like but there is one thing they have in common... their opinions are contrary to the leading ideology. All I'm saying is.. calling a US soldier is a terrorist does not put a soldier in harms way and should not be considered treasonous. We have the first amendment... supposedly thats what soldiers are fighting for.
acloudynotion 4 years ago
Let me see if your theory holds water? A small group of muslims hi-jacked 4 planes and crashed each one of them. They were part of a continueing act of terrorism accros the globe. Do you think their actions have put other muslims at risk?
tubetex 4 years ago
acloudynotion: I gave a poor analogy. M3XLC4N has the freedom to say what ever he wants. We as the people have the duty to determine if what he says crosses the line. With Senator Reed saying "the war is lost" while our troops are in harms way. Does that increase or decrease their risk? It should be obivous that any statement that bolsters the enemy, is bad.
tubetex 4 years ago
Calling an american soldier a terrorist is the worst thing someone can do?
You obviously don't get the idea of a person having their family killed, house burned down, wife and daughter raped by horny US soldiers... oh sorry, you call that "Hope"
Giru 5 years ago
No, what I call hope is the Iraqi people working with the coalition forces to isolate and destroy the enemy. No where, no way do I condone our military performing in any fashion other than honorable and the VAST Majority are! Everything you just said increases the risk of our soldiers from performing their duties, just like m3xlc4n increases their risk.
tubetex 5 years ago
Just remember America, Love it or Leave it, we must blindly follow our leaders, because only through blind obedience can we succeed. We must Never question authoritym, for if we do, obviously such a person is a traitor to thier country.
Grimli 5 years ago
You have to be kidding me, dissention is a patriotic act. However calling the President "The Greatest Facilitator of War Crimes", and telling you that you fear the wrong terrorist. Implying that we are the terrorist. There is a difference, and I will be glad to point out the differences.
tubetex 5 years ago
The terrorists have killed many journalists and have tortured and killed many of our soldiers. The terrorists are not eligible to be treated under the Geneva Convention, and should have no rights. Perhaps many of you have forgotten what we are up against.
xaviernj 5 years ago
I had to turn this off not even half way through because it was so painful.
lejaders 5 years ago
she blames all muslims for terror. read her bio and you realize that she has haq a close encouter with terrorim and she now blames ALL muslims for it. Last time I heard that was called prejudism.
Again Think your own thoughts - and shayatan - if you have something intelligent to say than I will respond. You and tubetex have cornered the market in paranoya not me. AND your an idiot...
callis2005 5 years ago
History is already deciding and US will do nothing in Korea, who by the way really do have WMDs unlike Iraq. What they are afraid of is Japan having to arm themselves with Nuclear weapons because of the Korean threat which would force China to ally itself with Korea. Do some thinking dude. don't be a meat puppet. Have an opinion which different than my own if needed but based on your morality and real perception instead of one based on American Goverment Propaganda.
callis2005 5 years ago
What government propaganda do I need to be the puppet of? Have you seen the "Non-Government" Al-Jazera interview of Wafa Sultan? Check it out and then tell me who is speaking with Passion, M3XLC4N or Wafa?
tubetex 5 years ago
your clueless
callis2005 5 years ago
There is another clip for you to criticize now
tubetex 5 years ago
I don't need to watch another one of your clips thank you.
callis2005 5 years ago
To go after the terrorist involved in 9/11 and eradicate them is one thing, but to invade a country kill over 40,000 people with no proof of involvement is another. You don't see us invading Iran, Syria, North Korea, or any of the other countries accused of harboring terrorists or having WMDs. How many friends and family of the Iraqi fallen will now want revenge on the US because of this and become TERRORISTS?
jwilks75 5 years ago
History will decide. But dont think that Syria, Iran and North Korea will take into consideration the resolve and military strength of the US.
tubetex 5 years ago
tubetex your an idiot because you dont see that part of loving your country is making sure that it is the best country it can be. To shut your eyes to stupid behaviour is to do the same as the some people did in Germany when the Nazis took over. Your blind devotion to the flag is actually a weakness in your part, but I think you are too dumb to know that. To say that someone must be prosecuted for their views is so 1942 Germany,
callis2005 5 years ago
So everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and weak?
ShaytanBozorg 5 years ago
your clueless tubetex (who's changed their name)
callis2005 5 years ago
Dude I stumbled across this guys video because of it's name. And stayed up over 26 hours figuring out how to setup the camera and upload the video to you-tube. Before last week I was just casual visitor to youtube
tubetex 5 years ago
Are you confusing me with TUBETUX?
tubetex 5 years ago
And you're paranoid accusing me of being tubetex. I doubt he'd go to that much trouble just to respond to you.
People are always going to have different opinions than you. Making up things is not an intelligent response.
ShaytanBozorg 5 years ago
No not everyone just you and Tubetex
callis2005 5 years ago
See, now weve gone from Nazis to Terrorists. Do you have any idea what the Nazi regime was doing? What I see is a country that restrained from turning the middle east into glass (thank God) and instead took on the burden for the world to try and remove oppression that breeds terrorism
tubetex 5 years ago
how and why where did the terrorist start?
Boodro1 5 years ago
Who created the terrorist? What was the reason for their creation? What do they want? Why are they Terrorists?
Boodro1 5 years ago
No, commiting the war crimes is an embarassment. A country of this calubur should be able to act with a slight bit of sophistication, and maybe act to set an example rather than spark more hatred.
AlexmcBob 5 years ago
I tell you what, you go start a company that employees well over 3 million people and lets see if you can run it without a legal team, security and HR, with 2-3 people in charge!
tubetex 5 years ago
Yes, it torture...
Don't blame the soldiers... They are just following orders. But when the pictures come out. The polticals gotta feign shock and disbelief and submit the soldiers to trial for what they were instructed to do...
digithedd 5 years ago
If your Speaking on Abu Graib, Donald Rumsfield took full responsibilty. Dont blame the soldiers? Now who drank the Kool-aide? In every organization there is that 2%- you see it here in You-Tube
tubetex 5 years ago
Sleep deprival is not standing a long time at attention... It is days and days and days on end. The light cycle is distorted to instill extreme jet lag.
If you want an impression try staying awake longer then 5 days... The longest I have done is 3 days (work requirements) before uh, sensory distortions kick in...
Oh by the way, they also use drugs to heighten the effect in "sleep dep"...
Dude, get the manuals if you want confirmation.
digithedd 5 years ago
It is a war crime to go to Iraq to remove a dictator and kill 60000 iraquies in the process and every day more and more. You are a chicken hawk you are no soldier.
bajalocom 5 years ago
Bravo, well said.
mth71 5 years ago
That will be kind of an act of treason to your brothers I mean maybe I'm wrong just wanted to share my opinion .and I haven't meet a single American not proud of his army respect to you.
strunz21 5 years ago
You didnt watch the video did you? thats not even what it was about...
Wilkeshatesyou 5 years ago
free of speech? a military guy wish him death because his opinion goes against his government i feel that you are angry because sounds like hi is not appreciating the huge sacrifice you guys doing for your country , That is incorrect , you have no idea how much people appreciates you guys but critics are for the government not the army or is it discipline, honor respect that doesn't aloud you to even question your self .
strunz21 5 years ago
The guy said he should be arrested as a treasonous person not that he wishes the guy dead. You need to get your facts straight.
Nytetears 5 years ago
My tour ended in 1991. Hopefully congress will clarify "Free Speech", because it is obviously open to interpretation. You can label the President a "War Criminal" for carrying out the UN Charter.
tubetex 5 years ago
Without the agreement of the UN by the way.
diurd87 5 years ago
I can name at least 2 members of the UN that realized that if the UN didn't act and follow it's own charter then the UN had lost its purpose and usefulness
tubetex 5 years ago
Thanks Nytetears, Tokyo Rose lived a long life.
tubetex 5 years ago
i applaud this video. thanks for speaking out against scum like the 26th of JUly thanks man.
weirdalfreack 5 years ago
I agree.
ShaytanBozorg 5 years ago