im dismissing myself from these conversations, since i noticed muttonchops came back with the intent on causing chaos with politics. everyone knows that once i join in everything goes downhill.
hey Muttonchops, stop being a fucking douchebag, its just a fucking messageboard where people coem to talk about diablo, not flame people like your doing....dickwad
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
here we go again... i know mutton since last summer from this forum and what makes him go flaming mode are replies without valid points. support your points with logic and he wont come after you. He didnt come after me at least.
Alright , but still. this got way off topic. it went form the Iraq War to this, which has no real solid point to it. Lets get back on topic
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
yeah. I believe I support the war in a way, but for the most part I dont. I think Iraq was stronegr under the dictator, I think it was majorly for oil, but I think allw e did was piss them off. now, we're stuck in this war, and we cant pull out due to bush. if we did, they wouldnt attack us back, Al Queida will always attack anyonea nd everyone and if the UN would work to find them, not just america, we could eliminate most of them- however you cant fully elimaintae anyhting- look at neo-nazis. a terrorist group against jewish people who have a strong belief in nationalism and fascism. theyre still aorund after the war. al queida can never be eliminated. killing bin laden would do nothing but take away one leader- think of how many are in line. everyday they get new recruits. you cant do anything. and the fact that the US had no territory over in europe poses a porblem because we cant keep sending people across the ocean to fight. If we had territory over there, we could monitor better i believe.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
You lost it Mutton, you just plain lost it and you know you did.
Your last post is filled with more assumptions, contradictions, lies, and nonarguments than ever.
You failed to redeem yourself at all, just a quick glance at my post with chronological quotes from me and you in reference to your second last post is enough for anyone to see how wrong you are.
I bet even your family can see that, if they are a bit smarter then you.
you failed to give me any relevant replies to why your string of posts is filled with garbage and ramblings.
You failed because you try to argument the chronological quotes i gave you.
You failed because you failed to be relevant to your own quotes.
You failed at any attempt to turn anything you said or i said around, because any assumption and lie you made fell apart long ago.
You failed at succesfully lying because everyone can see them in my post with chronological quotes.
You failed at context, because i made a post with chronological full quotes so everyone can see the context, you only managed to quote single sentences ripping them completely out of context, and even then not making any sense at all.
You failed at insulting me because insults from nonintelligent people do not affect me.
You failed at pretending to think you are right.
You failed at proving me wrong that you are wrong.
There is one thing you didnt fail in and thats is letting me feel sad about you because of your last complete hopeless and desperate act of trying to sound like a intelligent person.
Your last attempt was in vein, everyone can see your very crude and simple methods.
Trying to reason with you is like trying to reason with a spambot.
Atleast you where right at one thing, i am to complicated for you too understand.
Just for the record i am not insulting you.
FingolfinGR said it best when he said that I don't flame unless you bring valid points to the table. I suppose I should stop going off topic to address the bullshit that is your argument, that you still haven't supported. Instead of even responding to my calling out of your blatant contradictions and failure to comprehend the simple mechanics of debate, that I had to spend this long just trying to tell you how it works. But you couldn't get your panties out of a wad long enough to realize that grammar was only a smaller point. My point is that you suck at being logical. And the one thing that is worse than a stupid person is a stupid stubborn person (in case you can't understand what I am saying, I'm saying you're a stupid stubborn person). Nice job taking my statement about how you don't make sense, out of context. Really goes to show how much better you are than me at reading comprehension *cough*.
And if you're complaining that I called your dumb ass on grammar, how do you look complaining that I don't put your statements in order. I'm the guy that's smarter than you, not your secretary. Just know that no one believes you.
And since you still haven't proven me wrong, since I'm not, I have no more reason to associate myself with an ignoramus like you. So, consider your stupid self ignored.
I see what you're saying diablo_owns. If the UN did actually work, the issue of terrorism would be a lot less problematic.
But I must say that I don't think Iraq was stronger under Saddam. As far as as I can tell, the country was repressed by a tyrant. After all, he did murder thousands of innocent Iraqis as well as arresting thousands more as political prisoners. But once again, I stress that I don't believe that the methods by which Bush attacked Iraq were ethical.
But staying in Iraq would not be the solution to stopping Al Qaeda, if they are to be eliminated at all. Although it would probably never happen, the best idea I can think of is to stop invading other countries and having such an imperialistic foreign policy. As a country, we have drifted away from the very ideas that our forefathers said would be best for our country. And they are still right. Because if our government isn't the imperialist that insurgents make us out to be, then they lose their very purpose.
i know mutton since last summer from this forum and what makes him go flaming mode are replies without valid points.
That's his problem, not ours. Maybe he should do some anger management courses or something. But I think he is making it up, just trying to look cool. Except he doesn't.
um, this sounds like a political debate. most of you sound no better than the politicians you criticize. after all, the debate or conversation, (or intellectual discussion) has gone from discussing the topic, to mudslinging. after all, the posts dopplehanger majorly consist of are telling others that they are inferior. muttonchops roasts idiots, but sounds a bit overwhelming when he tries to be too harsh on a good point just because he doesnt agree on it. and not to mention, the topic is posted and i enter my opinions and believes. all of a suddent i got about 5 people that are at my throat! not to mention the 3 pages i didnt bother reading.
all im saying is that you guys all claim to be superior or have superior thoughts than the next guy, however you all bicker and argue about stupid things, and try to correct every single comment you find able to discredit that the other makes. thats what i got, and i got quite a bit. henceforth i will not contribute to such conversations until everyone grows up, and starts talking like people, not attacking or trying to show why the other is wrong. (even if i have been guilty of such behavior.)
The only thing worse than someone with chronically bad grammar, is someone who criticizes people on forums for having bad grammar. It's a rather petty thing to do.
As for this topic, I've not really weighed in on it because I've been behind in the news a lot lately and am not certain of the withdrawal strategys and the left and right's official positions on them.
If the thread topic was just my opinion on the Iraq War alone, I would've gone off about how when we went to Afghanistan, we should've remained there in full force and kept things secure and worked closer with Pakistan in securing their northern borders.
the posts dopplehanger majorly consist of are telling others that they are inferior.
You know, IF that was the reason of muttonchop's behavior. Did I insult him in any way, at all? But he insulted me continously, just because I don't believe Wikipedia and I don't believe that one source alone can prove everything. And, mind you, the position "you can't prove it so you are wrong and you are a retard" reminds me of a bull. They just say the same thing over and over again and that's all they ever do. A forum discussion for me is a discussion. I don't go write a research paper on a forum discussion. If mutton wants to do that, sure, but he can't go around force other people "cite your sources" or any of that other crap.
all im saying is that you guys all claim to be superior or have superior thoughts than the next guy, however you all bicker and argue about stupid things, and try to correct every single comment you find able to discredit that the other makes.
Well, this is a controversial topic, and people are bound to have varying opinions. Add to that the fact that the situation is quite grave, and everyone will believe that their idea is the best one. If we didn't believe in our own idea, we first of all wouldn't have it, and if we did we wouldn't be sharing it.
We are also on an internet forum, where no one knows who the other person is, we will never meet, and we will never suffer any major consequences from our behaviour. Plus it's very hard to convey emotion in letters like this.
All in all, it generates a stage that is set for this kind of arguing.
PlugY for Diablo II allows you to reset skills and stats, transfer items between characters in singleplayer, obtain all ladder runewords and do all Uberquests while offline. It is the only way to do all of the above. Please use it.
Supporting big shoulderpads and flashy armor since 2004.
But I must say that I don't think Iraq was stronger under Saddam. As far as as I can tell, the country was repressed by a tyrant. After all, he did murder thousands of innocent Iraqis as well as arresting thousands more as political prisoners. But once again, I stress that I don't believe that the methods by which Bush attacked Iraq were ethical.
on this i have to agree completely. What the US didnt think about when they took control over Iraq was how different people in these countries think. They arent used in Democracy the way it is in Europe, or the US. That cant be "forced". And the fact there are 2 hostile factions in Iraq makes it even worse. Now without a "lash" over their heads they started killing each other. And the numbers dying are way more than those Saddam killed (again i dont support him, i just mention the fact that he managed to avoid a civil war since he took over). From things i read and watched on tv (not bringing any links to support it cause i'm too bored to look it up atm) there was a plan to divide Iraq into 3 different countries. That didnt sound like practicing democracy and justice anyway.
Quote from "Muttonchops" »
But staying in Iraq would not be the solution to stopping Al Qaeda, if they are to be eliminated at all. Although it would probably never happen, the best idea I can think of is to stop invading other countries and having such an imperialistic foreign policy.
amen.
Quote from "Carloseus" »
um, this sounds like a political debate. most of you sound no better than the politicians you criticize. after all, the debate or conversation, (or intellectual discussion) has gone from discussing the topic, to mudslinging.
agreed. those 3 pages u said u didnt bother reading, i dont think anyone but the 3 people that posted on them read anyway
but on the debate part (wasnt that long, i know) i think there are some good opinions on the matter supported with logic and valid points (mostly).
Well, what I'd have to say about this is you can consider Bush to be trustworthy or not. Alot of people did extensive research to bring to public what his intentions were, and the behind the scenes puppetry, but alot of people are ignoarant and defiant, and wont listen to word anyone says, instead putting true belief in someone they dont know personally, and have done no research to get to know personally. I'd say overall farenheit 9/11 proved to be a truth, it was about oil, and money, and invasion. Now, whether or not Bus wants the land, he has it. Iraq is now basically a part of America whether we like it or not, we cant retreat and people are ebign forced to stay there- these "radicals" and "terrorists" just want theyre country back after a giant capitalist country came and destroyed it, tearing it limb from limb. The Bush Admininstartions plans to cover up theyre true intentuons were poor- thinking they were helping iraq. and the only reason saddam was truly pulled form office was because he was a threat to the ablility for us to get oil, which our country, a fast-paced, here and there lifestyled country, was running quickly out of. And did you notice- as soon as we entered Iraq, we "guarded" the oil? The oil was shipped over here to the United States and taken. WE invaded that country- thouhg it be a fascist dictatorship, it was ALOT better off under saddam Hussein, who basically told the Sunni's and Shiites, you fight under me, you die under me. Sure, he wasnta good man at all, but he kenw how to rule his country. As for Al Queida, The Bush family's close relations leave the mind to wander, What if Bush did pay off Al Quieda to detroy the twin Towers? It would make sense wouldnt it? It was a perfect excuse- a pathway over to the Middle east by first invading Afghanistan, then after months of sitting getting a "lead" that "terrorsits" were in Iraq. He used this excuse to invade and BOMB Iraq. Saddam Hussein fled, probably planning to return once the US left- they found him in a hole, they hung him- the secured HIS oil, and used it in OUR country. The US kills civilians and the "radicals" who just want us gone so they can have their country back. I dont want peace, or anyhting, and I realize there are some terror groups, and Al Queida is a terror group- but thats no reaosn for us to invade two countries. NO one knows what really went on behind the scenes- but hers what needs to happen-
Osama Bin Laden needs to be killed. WE need to withdrawal form Iraq, because the people keep joining with Al Queida in a common purpose to get rid of us form the Middle East. We need to station oursleves SECRETLY in a country like Germany, France, or Britian, where we will SECRETLY disperse qualified, trained invidivuals to go out in UNITS to search and kill enemies of Iraq and the US- basically Al Quieda. And, I think whats stupid, is there are no good ideas in that administration- why not TRAIN normal Iraqi's to protect themsleves? he US could withdrawal and stationa nd wiat for Al Queida to flood Iraq- in which case we would then invade again and kill all of the terrorists- theyd become more public if we backed off- and if we did what i said and hid in Europe- then we could strike them when they reveakl themlseves- and meanwhile- we could search the deserts and whatnot for Osama Bin Laden- who I believe is in Korea.
Just something to think about- Im not picking for flamings- and Im not gonan cite any sources- This is my own kowledge form everyhting I see and hear- form BOTH sides based on everything.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
And some people might say- theyres more terrorists! but dpeending on what time we withdrew form iraq and how public we made it- when the terrorists returned to Iraq, there would be few who would stay out of iraq- on the outskirts moswt liekly as to launch an attack if we came back to kill them- then thyed launhc an attack-in whicn case in turn we ca,me form europe around the middle east to slaughter them all.AND, the trained units would scout searching for Al Quidea officaials- instead of wating time istting and trying to "restore a dstable democracy", why dont we get the job dont and lsaughter anyone we can, and put a dictator back in power? Its the only way irai poeple can live- all of them were born that way- Two religous groups tyring to gain power- and it isnt like Democrats and republicans- this country was FOUNDED on aspects of freedom and equality. Iraq had al;wyas been HIGHLY religoud, whereas America is a multi-cultural country where EVERYONE wins. In Iraq there are no religions but Muslim Sunni and Muslim Shiite. They continure to kill eachother off, and the US in in the Middle of Theyre war- this pisses both sides off- and its the fault of the US that civil war is happing. If we put a strong ATHEIST dictator in (im christian by the way) then he would have no relgious belif- which would make the country angry- he would then use a policitical secret police to eliminate his radicals- much like a totalitarian government would do. he would keep the balance and peace of the contry, and do as Stalin did and industrialize Iraq. Without a strong leadership- which happens to be a dictatorship- Iraq cant last- the democratic leadership is weak- and has no real force to back it up- and the middle east religon gets in the way of society and makes people fight. Atheism is the only way to go ina modern society- until its Sunday, then you can worhsip, you can pray but you cant go out and kill.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stars aligning fragments of the memories
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
i agree with pretty much everything diablO_Owns said in the last couple posts.
would also like to add a few more facts:
1. the way Bush asked people to join him in his war against "terror" was the definition of fascism (sorry if i spelled it wrong). "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists".
2. Osama Bin Laden and his "troops" were trained by the US to cause trouble to the USSR while it existed. Afterwards they work as excuses for the US to invade other countries. There was no single Al Queida camp found in Iraq. And there were very few of the actual members that were killed in Afghanistan. I dont think it suits the US foreign politics to remove Al Queida off the board when they give them excuses to bomb and invade every time by simply sending a threatening message. Last known attack of them was over 5 years ago. And the "war against terror" didnt have them as targets. After Iraq was occupied they simply stopped looking.
3. The oil of Iraq is barely being used atm. But thats all the same to the US. Its more like "if we dont use it, then its better if none uses it." And Europe that was about to strike a deal with Saddam about this oil didnt get it (btw, how much is gas in the US? cause here its over 1 euro/lt - thats around 1.2 $/lt).
Anyway, besides those proven facts, the rest is completely up to everyone's judgement. Some think that its completely right to attack a country to use up their ressources for themselves. I cant disagree with that, as long as they dont try to play "we're the good guys".
on this i have to agree completely. What the US didnt think about when they took control over Iraq was how different people in these countries think. They arent used in Democracy the way it is in Europe, or the US. That cant be "forced". And the fact there are 2 hostile factions in Iraq makes it even worse. Now without a "lash" over their heads they started killing each other. And the numbers dying are way more than those Saddam killed (again i dont support him, i just mention the fact that he managed to avoid a civil war since he took over). From things i read and watched on tv (not bringing any links to support it cause i'm too bored to look it up atm) there was a plan to divide Iraq into 3 different countries. That didnt sound like practicing democracy and justice anyway.
Well, you could at least state whose plan it was to divide the country. To be honest, I don't think partitioning the country is really that bad an idea. I mean, the country was formed without any regard why people already existed where they did. So Sunnis and Shias who have always hated each other anyway, now at the end of World War I and like most British mandates at that time, they are now citizens of a single country.
For the Kurds, they've never truly had a country of their own, and why wouldn't they wish to leave behind a country that under its previous ruler, authorized the al-Anfal campaign where over 200,000 Kurds were killed, mostly by nerve gas. They also sit atop large amounts of oil wealth. This is largely why Iraq's parliament wishes the northern region of Iraq to remain part of the country. But consider the countries way smaller than what a Kurdish one would be (Qatar, Kuwait), who have built rich economies on oil alone and erect skyscrapers at an astonishing rate. Plus, since there are tons of illegal Kurds in Turkey who live miserable lives there, that's all the more reason to have a country of their own. I believe Turkey would benefit from it. The Kurds would benefit from it. Iraq however, probably wouldn't.
The regions where Shias dominate also have considerable amounts of oil wealth. And now that they are largely in power after years of repression under the once Sunni dominated government, you can imagine they have ideas of their own that don't include the overall benefit of Sunnis as well.
See, this is the problem. A country was clumsily thrown together at the end of WWI, not really founded on any solid principle of unity or consensus, and now the the lawlessness that is so prevelant now, different factions are taking advantage of this time to seize what they can, exact revenge for past grievances, and work only what's best for their own people. This isn't necassarily true of all Iraqis but it is largely still the case.
The ones who have the most to lose would be the Sunnis. Their areas don't have much in the way of any natural resources. They have a small population in relation to the Shias. And they only did well as Sunnis when Saddam was in power cause that's precisely what he was.
So in the vaguest of sense, I think for a lot of Iraqis that would be their sense of justice. The once heavily oppressed Shias and Kurds wanting their opportunity now to make what they think would be an ideal country. However, I do not believe the Sunnis should have to pay for the atrocities committed by the Baathist regime, but the rift between these people go back further than just Saddam. They go back as far as the time of Islam when the Shiites broke off from the mainstream of Islam and went their own way. Well, one might point out that there are several countries where Sunnis and Shias live together. Yes, this is true, in a lawful and orderly country. But in all of those countries there is always the majority and the minority. And it's those things (law and order) that keep the sectarian violence down. Without those things in place, people are merely taking up arms all over again. If I was a Kurd watching those two other hatreds killing each other. (don't be mistaken, however, Kurds are involved in sectarian violence as well, just not to the extent of the other two factions) I would also feel compelled to not want to be a part of their fight and wish to build my own nation.
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
FingolfinGR said it best when he said that I don't flame unless you bring valid points to the table. I suppose I should stop going off topic to address the bullshit that is your argument, that you still haven't supported. Instead of even responding to my calling out of your blatant contradictions and failure to comprehend the simple mechanics of debate, that I had to spend this long just trying to tell you how it works. But you couldn't get your panties out of a wad long enough to realize that grammar was only a smaller point. My point is that you suck at being logical. And the one thing that is worse than a stupid person is a stupid stubborn person (in case you can't understand what I am saying, I'm saying you're a stupid stubborn person). Nice job taking my statement about how you don't make sense, out of context. Really goes to show how much better you are than me at reading comprehension *cough*.
And if you're complaining that I called your dumb ass on grammar, how do you look complaining that I don't put your statements in order. I'm the guy that's smarter than you, not your secretary. Just know that no one believes you.
And since you still haven't proven me wrong, since I'm not, I have no more reason to associate myself with an ignoramus like you. So, consider your stupid self ignored.
I see what you're saying diablo_owns. If the UN did actually work, the issue of terrorism would be a lot less problematic.
But I must say that I don't think Iraq was stronger under Saddam. As far as as I can tell, the country was repressed by a tyrant. After all, he did murder thousands of innocent Iraqis as well as arresting thousands more as political prisoners. But once again, I stress that I don't believe that the methods by which Bush attacked Iraq were ethical.
But staying in Iraq would not be the solution to stopping Al Qaeda, if they are to be eliminated at all. Although it would probably never happen, the best idea I can think of is to stop invading other countries and having such an imperialistic foreign policy. As a country, we have drifted away from the very ideas that our forefathers said would be best for our country. And they are still right. Because if our government isn't the imperialist that insurgents make us out to be, then they lose their very purpose.
all im saying is that you guys all claim to be superior or have superior thoughts than the next guy, however you all bicker and argue about stupid things, and try to correct every single comment you find able to discredit that the other makes. thats what i got, and i got quite a bit. henceforth i will not contribute to such conversations until everyone grows up, and starts talking like people, not attacking or trying to show why the other is wrong. (even if i have been guilty of such behavior.)
As for this topic, I've not really weighed in on it because I've been behind in the news a lot lately and am not certain of the withdrawal strategys and the left and right's official positions on them.
If the thread topic was just my opinion on the Iraq War alone, I would've gone off about how when we went to Afghanistan, we should've remained there in full force and kept things secure and worked closer with Pakistan in securing their northern borders.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs
Well, this is a controversial topic, and people are bound to have varying opinions. Add to that the fact that the situation is quite grave, and everyone will believe that their idea is the best one. If we didn't believe in our own idea, we first of all wouldn't have it, and if we did we wouldn't be sharing it.
We are also on an internet forum, where no one knows who the other person is, we will never meet, and we will never suffer any major consequences from our behaviour. Plus it's very hard to convey emotion in letters like this.
All in all, it generates a stage that is set for this kind of arguing.
on this i have to agree completely. What the US didnt think about when they took control over Iraq was how different people in these countries think. They arent used in Democracy the way it is in Europe, or the US. That cant be "forced". And the fact there are 2 hostile factions in Iraq makes it even worse. Now without a "lash" over their heads they started killing each other. And the numbers dying are way more than those Saddam killed (again i dont support him, i just mention the fact that he managed to avoid a civil war since he took over). From things i read and watched on tv (not bringing any links to support it cause i'm too bored to look it up atm) there was a plan to divide Iraq into 3 different countries. That didnt sound like practicing democracy and justice anyway.
amen.
agreed. those 3 pages u said u didnt bother reading, i dont think anyone but the 3 people that posted on them read anyway
but on the debate part (wasnt that long, i know) i think there are some good opinions on the matter supported with logic and valid points (mostly).
Osama Bin Laden needs to be killed.
WE need to withdrawal form Iraq, because the people keep joining with Al Queida in a common purpose to get rid of us form the Middle East.
We need to station oursleves SECRETLY in a country like Germany, France, or Britian, where we will SECRETLY disperse qualified, trained invidivuals to go out in UNITS to search and kill enemies of Iraq and the US- basically Al Quieda. And, I think whats stupid, is there are no good ideas in that administration- why not TRAIN normal Iraqi's to protect themsleves? he US could withdrawal and stationa nd wiat for Al Queida to flood Iraq- in which case we would then invade again and kill all of the terrorists- theyd become more public if we backed off- and if we did what i said and hid in Europe- then we could strike them when they reveakl themlseves- and meanwhile- we could search the deserts and whatnot for Osama Bin Laden- who I believe is in Korea.
Just something to think about- Im not picking for flamings- and Im not gonan cite any sources- This is my own kowledge form everyhting I see and hear- form BOTH sides based on everything.
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
Parallel truth, awaken in translucence
Sealed by this deadened song
Sinking in toneless comatose
Come and tear my skin, fear what's within
Its massive darkness filling my world
Submerged rage writing unspoken words
would also like to add a few more facts:
1. the way Bush asked people to join him in his war against "terror" was the definition of fascism (sorry if i spelled it wrong). "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists".
2. Osama Bin Laden and his "troops" were trained by the US to cause trouble to the USSR while it existed. Afterwards they work as excuses for the US to invade other countries. There was no single Al Queida camp found in Iraq. And there were very few of the actual members that were killed in Afghanistan. I dont think it suits the US foreign politics to remove Al Queida off the board when they give them excuses to bomb and invade every time by simply sending a threatening message. Last known attack of them was over 5 years ago. And the "war against terror" didnt have them as targets. After Iraq was occupied they simply stopped looking.
3. The oil of Iraq is barely being used atm. But thats all the same to the US. Its more like "if we dont use it, then its better if none uses it." And Europe that was about to strike a deal with Saddam about this oil didnt get it (btw, how much is gas in the US? cause here its over 1 euro/lt - thats around 1.2 $/lt).
Anyway, besides those proven facts, the rest is completely up to everyone's judgement. Some think that its completely right to attack a country to use up their ressources for themselves. I cant disagree with that, as long as they dont try to play "we're the good guys".
But I think gas prices differ from where you go.
I think I stated my opinions in this thread already.
Well, you could at least state whose plan it was to divide the country. To be honest, I don't think partitioning the country is really that bad an idea. I mean, the country was formed without any regard why people already existed where they did. So Sunnis and Shias who have always hated each other anyway, now at the end of World War I and like most British mandates at that time, they are now citizens of a single country.
For the Kurds, they've never truly had a country of their own, and why wouldn't they wish to leave behind a country that under its previous ruler, authorized the al-Anfal campaign where over 200,000 Kurds were killed, mostly by nerve gas. They also sit atop large amounts of oil wealth. This is largely why Iraq's parliament wishes the northern region of Iraq to remain part of the country. But consider the countries way smaller than what a Kurdish one would be (Qatar, Kuwait), who have built rich economies on oil alone and erect skyscrapers at an astonishing rate. Plus, since there are tons of illegal Kurds in Turkey who live miserable lives there, that's all the more reason to have a country of their own. I believe Turkey would benefit from it. The Kurds would benefit from it. Iraq however, probably wouldn't.
The regions where Shias dominate also have considerable amounts of oil wealth. And now that they are largely in power after years of repression under the once Sunni dominated government, you can imagine they have ideas of their own that don't include the overall benefit of Sunnis as well.
See, this is the problem. A country was clumsily thrown together at the end of WWI, not really founded on any solid principle of unity or consensus, and now the the lawlessness that is so prevelant now, different factions are taking advantage of this time to seize what they can, exact revenge for past grievances, and work only what's best for their own people. This isn't necassarily true of all Iraqis but it is largely still the case.
The ones who have the most to lose would be the Sunnis. Their areas don't have much in the way of any natural resources. They have a small population in relation to the Shias. And they only did well as Sunnis when Saddam was in power cause that's precisely what he was.
So in the vaguest of sense, I think for a lot of Iraqis that would be their sense of justice. The once heavily oppressed Shias and Kurds wanting their opportunity now to make what they think would be an ideal country. However, I do not believe the Sunnis should have to pay for the atrocities committed by the Baathist regime, but the rift between these people go back further than just Saddam. They go back as far as the time of Islam when the Shiites broke off from the mainstream of Islam and went their own way. Well, one might point out that there are several countries where Sunnis and Shias live together. Yes, this is true, in a lawful and orderly country. But in all of those countries there is always the majority and the minority. And it's those things (law and order) that keep the sectarian violence down. Without those things in place, people are merely taking up arms all over again. If I was a Kurd watching those two other hatreds killing each other. (don't be mistaken, however, Kurds are involved in sectarian violence as well, just not to the extent of the other two factions) I would also feel compelled to not want to be a part of their fight and wish to build my own nation.
Siaynoq's Playthroughs