That I concede (sort of, because the Brits are involved too), but if the US does any obvious manipulation of the CPA or IGC, the UN would not be afraid to take them on. So, in a way, the CPA/Coalition powers have to answer to the UN.

But isn't removing/adding IGC members to affect our policies and wishes as we see fit already manipulating the IGC- not to mention the obvious threat on thier lives if we don't provide ample security? That is already one of the IGC's main complaint about the US as well, isn't it?

We literally have life or death control over the IGC, and that alone is enough of a reason to make them "play ball"- right?

It seems that your mind is closed, so although I will continue to oppose your views, there really isn't much reason to continue this dialog.

I will continue to oppose your views because I believe today's anti-war movement is giving aid and comfort to the very enemies American Soldiers and Marines are fighting. Just as the American anti-war movement of the Viet Nam War did. Thus extending that war for years while the North Viet Namese waited to get what they wanted, knowing the American anti-war movement was doing their work for them.

I can no longer fight for my country on the field of battle, but I can fight for and support my country's troops by defending them and the government against attacks by the anti-war movement. Led by the likes of John kerry, Teddy Kennedy and Tom Daschle, I have come to believe the American Left, of the which the anti war movement is a part, is a greater threat to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constuitution then any other movement foreign or domestic.

1SG

It's odd that the same people who say the situation in Iraq isn't comparable to the quagmire that was Vietnam turn around and say "the Left" is giving aid and comfort to the enemy---which was the same rap the warhawks on the Right used during---Vietnam?

But I understand your logic. Because I feel the same way about those who blindly support this corrupt war and corrupt President which are doing more to bolster terrorists who will turn their anger and hatred of the United States against innocent people. It's the right-wingers who delude themselves that 100,000 troops can restore order to a country of 25 million, that are putting our country's security at risk.

Going after my patriotism will my get you nowhere GDan204, but if it makes you feel better, go for it. Neither you or anybody else on this board is remotely qualified to question my committment to America or the troops.

You go right ahead and align yourself with the chickenhawks, profiteers and neo-conservative cabals that exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to go off on a imperialistic occupation of a country that was not involved in that act of terrorism. You go right ahead and put your trust in the Sock Puppet of a President currently chilling on his ranch (as he was for the entire month prior to September 11, 2001). I will put mine with those who oppose the unnecessary spilling of blood and loss of life.

46 American troops and hundreds of Iraqis were killed this week--and there's still today to get through. While our Supreme Leader cools out on his ranch the real heroes fight and die to make stock footage for Bush's reelection campaign commericals.

Enjoy your Easter vacation Mr. President. I'm not sure the troops can do the same.

http://photomatt.net/archives/2004/04/07/mosaic/

It's odd that the same people who say the situation in Iraq isn't comparable to the quagmire that was Vietnam turn around and say "the Left" is giving aid and comfort to the enemy---which was the same rap the warhawks on the Right used during---Vietnam?



You don't find it disturbing that those who are the enemy(and I'm not talking about people here in the US who are anti-war)are using quote and words from those here that are Anti-war. No one is trying to deny those who are anit-war to have a voice, but one should use a little common sense when doing so. When a US senator, any senator is questioning the actions of his government in a world forum, it give credence to those we are fighting. My biggest "beef" with the anti-war movement is this: The time for debate is over, we are there, now, you either support the troops and if you can't support the effort of those willing to lay their life on the line, do your protesting by letters, radio talk shows, etc. But not in the world arena.


Going after my patriotism will my get you nowhere GDan204, but if it makes you feel better, go for it. Neither you or anybody else on this board is remotely qualified to question my commitment to America or the troops.



As I know Gdan204 he is just stating his opinion, the same as you are doing? Are you qualified to question anyone on the rights commitment to America or the troops? All of us are voicing our opinions, and that is just what they are, OUR OPINIONS. Nothing more, nothing less.


You go right ahead and align yourself with the chickenhawks, profiteers and neo-conservative cabals that exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to go off on a imperialistic occupation of a country that was not involved in that act of terrorism. You go right ahead and put your trust in the Sock Puppet of a President currently chilling on his ranch (as he was for the entire month prior to September 11, 2001). I will put mine with those who oppose the unnecessary spilling of blood and loss of life.


And just who are you accusing of profiting from 9-11? Do you honestly believe in your heart, that any one here, on this board, wasn't horrified by 9-11? And honestly grieved for those who lost family? Do you honestly believe that because a person is a Republican they have no heart?


I don't seem to have done this right, but hopefully you will get the gist of what I was trying to convey.

You know I've heard this rap that by being vocal in opposition to the war it is giving the enemy something to point to and say, "See, the Americans aren't united."

Well, Lethalletha, it does democracy no favors to muzzle dissent. I was opposed to this war before Bush dragged America into in and I see no reason to change my stance now. To my way of thinking opposing the war and trying to force Bush to put a exit strategy on the table is supporting the troops.

Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly. (Mohandas K. Gandhi)

There may be times when we powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest. (Elie Wiesel)

The day we see the truth and cease to speak is the day we begin to die.

We shall have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people.

(Martin Luther King, Jr.)

I will not co-sign Bush's blank check to wage war for less than legitmate reason and I wlll not be silent because it discomforts those who think patriotism means quiet acceptance of whatever foolish, criminal and stupid actions that politicians and bureaucrats undertake. To do otherwise would be to become the accomplice of those fools. I will have no part of that.

As regards your question as to whether or not to be a Republican means you must be heartless, the short answer is NO. However, most of the people running this fiasco in Iraq ARE Republicans and they do seem to be extremely heartless.

Not to mention brainless.

There comes a point in when dissent is no longer productive in adding texture to the decision making process. At that point the dissenters must decide for themselves whether their continued actions do indeed give aid to the forces arranged against their own soldiers. If dissenters decide to continue their protests, they must know that they will have to bare the consequences of their actions. Be the consequenses mere ostracizing by their countrymen or legal action by their government.

Also dissenters must realize their actions will be seen be many as nothing more then their attempt to advance their own political agenda at the expense of the lives of their own soldiers. Viet Nam, which many protesters like to compare Iraq to, is an ideal example of protest prolonging a war and causing the deaths of tens of thousands many of which were the protester's own countrymen. Protest does not shorten wars as protesters would like to believe.

Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly. (Mohandas K. Gandhi)

When you can speak the whole truth based on fact, not inuendo, conjecture and surmised evidence, you will be upholding the Mahatma's dictum. Until then your protests do more for the enemies your countrymen are fighting then they do to right any imagined wrong doing on the part of your government.

1SG

I could care less if by speaking out against the war that I am "ostracized" by a small group of closed minds and mouths. I would rather be a man and speak out against what I see as wrong than to be a cowardly ostrich and stick my head in the sand hoping everything will just work out on its own.

On the wall of my dining room hang two portraits. One of Martin Luther King and the other of Malcolm X. Two men I admire and who never backed down from the courage of their convictions out of fear of what the government or a rabble might do in reaction to those convictions. If it were left up to those like you who say, "Don't rock the boat. Don't challenge the status quo," 2004 would look a lot like 1954 with the segregated water fountains to prove it.

That is something conservatives fail to grasp. All change comes from agitation and speaking out. Governments never do anything out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it because the voice of the people gets louder and louder until they can no longer ignore it.

This isn't about what is most popular position to take. Or the most comfortable. The comfortable thing would be to sit back, shut up and say "all is well." Let someone else take the responsibility of holding our government accountable for the awful things they do in our name. This is about what is right and opposing this illegitimate war is the right thing to do.

The scorn by people like you neither frightens nor intimidates me GDan204. This war will not end if left up to the dubious management skills of George W. Bush. But as the polls and his popularity continue to drop, the angry sentiments against this war will make a difference and that is what people who think as you fear the most.

The protests against the war in Vietnam shortened that war and forced Nixon to pursue a withdrawal strategy instead of expanding the war to Cambodia and Laos.
You're welcome to your interpretation GDan204, but that's mine, and it works for me. When Dr. King turned his attention from civil rights to opposing the war he was lambasted by timid and cowardly men who preferred to remain silent about a great moral issue as not to discomfort their patrons in the government. King however, had the fortitude to speak truth to power and if that was true in 1968, it's even more so now.

I understand there will always be those who buy the official story, swallow the line and the lie that protest is dangerous and risks the lives of the troops, and don't question the motivations of those that put them in harm's way. It's just my opinion GDan204, that it takes a lot more courage to follow your convictions and speak out than it is to be silent and become a collaborator with those in power who wage war for reasons that have nothing to do with democracy, liberation or freedom.

I find it most ironic that at a time when Americans should be finding their courage, a noisy and timid minority claiming to speak for the majority, cries the security of the nation and the lives of our soldiers can only be preserved by meekly bending the knee and genuflecting toward our betters in Washington.

To restrict the right to speak out against what a man considers to be an injustice brings us one day closer to our own version of Saddam Hussein here in America.

"I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence."

--- Frederick Douglas

Protest leads to warfare like saying 'No' leads to rape.

nighttimer is right.

Speaking one's mind, especially in public is a right of the free world. At no point can that right be claimed to cause the deaths of soldiers in a war that needs to be protested against.

I personally believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do but in no way do I subscribe to the notion that demonstrations against the war endangers the troops. If the leadership of a nation, as may have been the case in the Vietnam war, chooses belligerence over respect for the right to speak freely, then the fight is taking place in the wrong country.

If after 9/11, we had done nothing, would those who are pro-war have stayed silent for the "good image" of America to remain solid?

No. I think the PATRIOT Act as well as many other acts passed show that unilateral decisions are very dangerous.

And in the time when we have criticized countries abroad for not "thinking" the same thing we thought about the war in Iraq, and also at the time when we have a UN that now just seems almost defunct and powerless to the United States, I don't want anyone to think we are still thinking we were right through all of this.

You voice your disapproval because speaking changes things. Silence has been the largest killer in history. And right now, I am tired of the killing I keep seeing in Iraq. I am angry that over 1000 Americans have died "by accident". And it is time that 255 million other Americans stopped playing partisan politics and start getting angry too.

Screw Anti-Patriotism.

How do you consolidate supporting troops and supporting the overthrow of the man who deployed them? You can't have it both ways. You either passively back the president up as long as the conflict lasts and hope you can amass enough support/funds to make up for lost time before the election, or take your chances with a balancing act. I also give our armed forces more credit than assuming they are incapable of distinctions.

With a presidential election that left a bad taste in many mouths and higher stakes no one will back down. Protests/government criticism won't bring the boys home or derail an aggressive foreign policy as long as neocons are at the diplomatic helm. Bush's poll numbers slipped due to images from Iraq, not homefront damage from Kennedy. Suggesting Democrats/"dissenters" give aid to forces set out to kill our soldiers is as ludicrous as suggesting neocons let 9-11 happen. Anything encourages people with a blind agenda.

Let's see, U.S. soldiers die in Iraq. People protesting don't want the U.S. soldier to keep dying there. If protesting will make our government leave that giant litterbox sooner, less U.S. soldiers are going to die for a country that doesn't concern us. Is that so complicated a concept?

And if someone wanted to ostracize me for my political views, I'd consider lack of their company to be a lucky turn of events. May be there are some of us who simply don't care about public opinion, who choose to neither lead nor follow, is that possible?

Legal action from the government is not possible in this case, for the simple fact that NO action from the government against a non-violent protester is legal under our Constitution.

Indeed, dissent is a dangerous path to tread. If you dissent then you will face being ostracized by your countrymen or legal action by your government. In spite of this threat (and certain death) Washington, Jefferson and a few others persisteed in dissenting against their government. They were in the minority and very lucky that their dissent was picked up (and agreed with) by one third of Americans.

An avalanche begins as a snowball.

It is good to know that you have the courage of your convictions. Or at least the convictions of the people whose quotes you cut and paste. That however has nothing to do with the fact that your conviction may be undermining the efforts of the United States to bring freedom to 22 million Iraqis.



Good people to look up to. However, this is not the 1960s and this is not the Civil Rights Movement. There is a world of difference in being pro-Civil Rights, protesting so as to change laws of the nation to better reflect the Constitution and being an anti-war protester because you do not happen to like war or the current administration.



So you are saying that prolonging the war and causing the deaths of perhaps thousands more people is alright as long as you get your way? If stopping the war is your goal, why are you not rallying all the support for our military that you can muster? Why are you not speaking out against the Iraqis of the old regime that are killing their own countrymen everyday in their attempt to retake control and re-install their oppressive regime? What are you not riling against the Religious fanatics that are attempting to impose their will on the Iraqi people, ala Iran?

All too many on the Left are very selective in their protests. It appears politics is the over riding factor, not the common good.



However, in reality, the legality of the war is not in dispute. Except in the minds of those who would use any excuse to tear this administration down so as to regain the control over the nation they were moving towards during the Clinton years.



It is not my intention to attempt to frighten or intimidate. It was my intention to spell out the possible personal ramifications of protesting the war at this time and the ramifications on the American Forces facing an enemy that thinks he has your support.

As for polls, according to Newsweek GWB's Job Rating has gone up a point since this time in February, and his Favorability Rating down 3 points. This isn't the dramtic drop your wishful thinking forcasts. The war in Iraq will end, though the WOT may go on for years. At least until the Mid East is transformed into a society that denies the furtile breeding ground for terrorists.



The protests against the Viet Nam War prolonged that war. The North Vietnamese knowing they could not win militarily played the American peace Movement like a violin. All the time, American troops were fighting and dying, the "Peace Movement" was taking pride in its action to stop the war. Nixon was elected on an "End the War" platform. He was not forced to that strategy by protesters.



And so you revert back to the inflammatory rhetoric that has served the left so well, even if it is without merit or back by facts.

1SG

Between your previous post and my response GDan204 there were five responses from Moif, UGA Boy, Lesley, Looms and Confused and by my interpretation all five were supportive of the right to dissent.

Is that what you mean by a majority?

Like most right-wingers you have a better grasp of your rhetoric than reality.

It is good to know that you have the courage of your convictions. Or at least the convictions of the people whose quotes you cut and paste. That however has nothing to do with the fact that your conviction may be undermining the efforts of the United States to bring freedom to 22 million Iraqis.

"May be undermining," GDan204? Aren't you sure? Rhetoric, not reality.

However, this is not the 1960s and this is not the Civil Rights Movement. There is a world of difference in being pro-Civil Rights, protesting so as to change laws of the nation to better reflect the Constitution and being an anti-war protester because you do not happen to like war or the current administration.

This is a struggle for justice and peace and its being waged right here in a country where right-wingers say they want to bring democracy and freedom of speech in Iraq while they oppose democracy and freedom of speech in America. How exactly does that work? And here I thought the motto of New Hampshire was "Live Free or Die."

I freely admit to not liking war or the current administration. So?


So you are saying that prolonging the war and causing the deaths of perhaps thousands more people is alright as long as you get your way? If stopping the war is your goal, why are you not rallying all the support for our military that you can muster? Why are you not speaking out against the Iraqis of the old regime that are killing their own countrymen everyday in their attempt to retake control and re-install their oppressive regime? What are you not riling against the Religious fanatics that are attempting to impose their will on the Iraqi people, ala Iran?

All too many on the Left are very selective in their protests. It appears politics is the over riding factor, not the common good.

No, no, no. You've got it exactly backwards GDan204. It's YOU who prolongs this war with your blind support for Bush's Middle East quagmire. It's YOUR job as a blind supporter of Bush to regurgitate the talking points about how bad the old regime was and how it's the bad Iraqis that are the problem and how our occupation isn't exactly being greeted any longer with the flowers and cheers that Tricky Dick Cheney predicted. Every day that this misbegotten misadventure drags on is YOUR fault and those like you who put a vague principle ahead of human life.

All too many on the Right are equally selective in their support. Funny how we aren't hearing all that bushwah about weapons of mass destruction and Al Qaeda connections. It appears politics is your overriding factor---the further political career of George W. Bush and that supersedes the common good.

However, in reality, the legality of the war is not in dispute. Except in the minds of those who would use any excuse to tear this administration down so as to regain the control over the nation they were moving towards during the Clinton years.

Huh? Okay, you got me there. I guess any war that leaves 677 Americans dead (so far) and 3510 wounded and untold thousands of Iraqis in the same state is worth fighting for.

But what EXACTLY was the reason again?

Oh, yeah. Gotta get the guy who tried to whack my Dad. Don't want a one term and done like my Dad. Gotta show how my guns are bigger than my mouth. Gotta stand tall. Saddam is a bad man. This a battle between good and evil. The New World Order. Whoops. That was George H.W. Bush's riff. My bad.

It is not my intention to attempt to frighten or intimidate. It was my intention to spell out the possible personal ramifications of protesting the war at this time and the ramifications on the American Forces facing an enemy that thinks he has your support.

As for polls, according to Newsweek GWB's Job Rating has gone up a point since this time in February, and his Favorability Rating down 3 points. This isn't the dramtic drop your wishful thinking forcasts. The war in Iraq will end, though the WOT may go on for years. At least until the Mid East is transformed into a society that denies the furtile breeding ground for terrorists.

Thanks for your concern about my "personal ramifications" GDan204, but save the sympathy for someone who needs it. This crap about supporting the enemy was the same drivel we heard in the run-up to the war only then the right-wing was calling it being "Anti-American." More rhetoric and less reality. Once again, you don't know enough about me to make an informed or intelligent opinion on my patriotism. I'll just consider the source and move on.

Anytime John Ashcroft wants to arrest me for treason he can bring it on. Or was that Dubya's line to the insurgents in Iraq? They sure took him up on that offer. Maybe you should be a little irked at Dubya for putting our troops in harm's way?

Nah. Didn't think so.

As for your grandiose plans for the Middle East, don't hold your breath waiting for that day to come.

The protests against the Viet Nam War prolonged that war. The North Vietnamese knowing they could not win militarily played the American peace Movement like a violin. All the time, American troops were fighting and dying, the "Peace Movement" was taking pride in its action to stop the war. Nixon was elected on an "End the War" platform. He was not forced to that strategy by protesters.

What did Dubya call this skewed version of the facts? Oh yeah. "Revisionist history." Well, I can understand it. When the facts don't fit the agenda, the hell with the facts. Isn't that how we got into the mess we're in now?

And so you revert back to the inflammatory rhetoric that has served the left so well, even if it is without merit or back by facts.

For a right-winger to complain about "inflammatory rhetoric" is like an arsonist complaining about the high price of the gasoline he uses to start a fire. Once again your rhetoric is far more finely honed than your presentation of the facts.

Not that you've provided any to back your assertions that it's the Left (or more specifically, me) that are placing the troops in harm's way, prolonging the war and giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

But hey, you've got your rhetoric down if not your command of the facts GDan204. And just like George W. Bush's performance as President, isn't almost good enough?

You know, if this is quote week on this thread, I feel obliged to throw a few out there.

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

- John Stuart Mill

Is it not proof of how noble we can be as a world power when we fight for those who can not?

I said 'can' because I know as a nation, we are not as noble as we should be. There are conflicts in lesser publisized areas of the world and I believe it is our duty as a world power to see that mass murder and oppression is stopped. And in Iraq, we have done that. Those people of whom Mill spoke of in that second quote could not be better personified than by the Iraq people of the last twenty years.

They have been fed so many lies, they have been abused so much, they have been deprived of freedom for so long, that over time they just accepted this monster and his regime as a part of their lives. They lost any will they had to speak out, let alone fight. Now, they are free. Now I could care less if in the next ten or twenty years Iraq is an ally of ours or not. But at least they can decide for themselves where they go.

The price of inaction is greater than the price of making a mistake.

- Meister Eckhart , Dominican Theologian

What would of happend if we were to not go after Saddam? The continuing game of regime vs. inspectors. The flaunting of UN rules being borken. The prolonged suffering of millions.

And to those who said we didn't work with the UN, what were we doing for those tweleve years? Were we not following the mandates of the UN, while France and Russia and China ignored those mandates? Did we not act in diplomatic fashion until the UN refused to and we were left to say 'enough was enough'.

I encourage protest. Smart protest. This means vocaly opposing the war in such a fashion that those who are serving are able to come back and enjoy the peace. To vocally oppose something that most of these soldiers are doing is harmful to them. Many of them believe, as I do, that this was a war that liberated millions from the clutches of a madman. They believe that what they did was just and right. And yet...



So the prolonged misery of the Iraqi people is my fault? So GDan and all of those that support the war share my guilt? You know who puts whatever 'vague principle' ahead of human life, and many times it's their own? Soldiers. Sailors. Airmen. Marines. That 'vague principle' you speak of... what is it? One of the Seven Army Values I remember was 'selfless service'. Is that something close to your remark? The belief that the greater good is worth giving one's life for. That there are causes and beliefs that are bigger than you, that are worthy of dying for.

De Oppresso Liber... the Special Forces motto.

It means 'to liberate the oppressed'. And there are men and women who give their blood, their bones, and their lives to see to it that the oppressed are liberated. I don't expect you to understand. Especially when you dismiss those values as 'vague principles'. These soldiers are ready to fight and die, wherever they are sent, in order to give others a taste of freedom. And that's what many of them believe.

And as you so bravely pointed out the New Hampshire state motto "Live free or die", I want you also to remember that in many times throughout history, we have fought for others so that they could 'live free' instead of the opposite choice given. I want you to remember that men and women have bled and died so you can voice your opposition.

And as in Iraq, where both opposition and praise are heard throughout it's streets, it's coffee shops, it's metting halls, and the home of every Iraqi, they have the same privilage as you. Because both Iraqis, Americans, British, Italians and many other before and after them will do what it takes and God forbid, give their lives to see that it stays that way.

Saying you support the troops while you protest the war...their mission... is like patting them on the back while slapping them in the face.

Another gripe I have with the anti-war clique. But before I go on, here's another quote.

There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.

- Nichollo Machiavelli

http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/IraqiRegimeBeneficiaries.pdf

For years, the US was blamed for the deaths of thousands of Iraqis under the UN sanctions we pushed for. We've been blamed for prolonging suffering and misery. And yet, when the French and Russians break rule after rule that they help set down...

http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/10/03/20257-1.html

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/...in_iraq?mode=PF

... and when the truth comes out, that it was not the sanctions we pushed for and that the UN enforced, but the greed of men that prolonged the misery and suffering of tens of thosands of Iraqis, men who chose to skim one billion
dollars and replaced it with rotted food, inadequate clothing, and diluted medicines...

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/research_to...m?doc_id=218977

...when the very ones that oppose the war with one breath are with the next breath saying yes to graft and death... where are the ones protesting this? Where are the quip remarks and sharp condemnations of their policies?

They're nowhere to be found.

The administration has been accused of playing the role of Gordon Gekko from the movie Wall Street and that our war in Iraq was a 'hostile takover'. And yet when all the 'oil war' motives have been debunked, and all the 'profiteering schemes' have been reduced to nothing, when there are real profiteers that hypocritically defy intenational law, where are the cries for jutice then?

They're busy continuing to assert their rights to free speech and subtlely slapping servicemen and servicewomen while claiming to carry a banner that says 'Support our Troops'.

As to the other posts you mentioned, they do not form a majority of anything. That would be like believing on-line polls are scientific. I answered your's specifically as your opinion includes what the others say, plus your own brand of virulent rhetoric.



Please try to keep this from getting personal. As to the right to dissent, you have not see anything in my posts to suggest you and others do not have this right. What I am suggesting is that you be aware of the ramifications of your dissent. I have also suggested that you and others may not be the selfless anti-war, peace on earth types you would have us believe. IMO your cut and paste quotes of peace leaders of the past are just your way of hiding the political agenda you are attempting to advance through your dissent. I believe you and others in today's "Peace Movement" care less about peace then you do about regaining the 50 years of American movement towards the left that you lost in 15 minutes on a sunny Sept 11th morning.



WOW! Turnspeak at full volumn. By the way here in New Hampshire the state motto "LIVE FREE OR DIE" is lived not just mouthed.



You and the rest of the left may delude yourselves into believing that, but most of America has turned their backs on your empty platitudes. Oh, how quagmire rolls off of your tongues. As if uttering that word will put fear in the hearts of Americans and bring them to your side.



You cannot argue the legality of the war so you fall back on your sob sister act.



It is no wonder America pays so little attention to the "new" peace movement. Talk about not facing reality. You have stated nothing but blind leftwing, slanderous pap.




Again with the standard far left rant about we can't do this. It won't Work. These people are too..ignorant....backward....fanatical.... whatever... to ever live in a democracy. Maybe this is why America no longer pays mmuch attention to the left. It is so negative that America realizes it would be paralyzed into inaction should the far left regain power.



Re-read your own posts and see that you are actually talking about yourself. But then, you probably can't see that.

Titus Posted on Apr 13 2004, 07:30 AM I wish I has said that.

1SG

Yes it is worth it especially in this part of the world that could become a powder keg. We have very vital interests in this part of the world. The health of our economy depends on oil and this region supplies over 1/3 of all the worlds oil.


IMO history will show this was the right thing to do at the right time.

PS

The actual combat death count is closer to 450. The other death were accidents or other non combat related.

It is clear that there will be no agreement about what is to come in Iraq. Many on the right have an absurdly optimistic, sunshine and lollypops view of the future of Iraq involving a democratic paradise full of repentant, peaceful pro-West Iraqis who have 'come to their senses'. many on the left have an overly pessimistic view of the future of Iraq involving descent into total war in the Middle East, explosions in the anti-US feeling in the world and eventual global pandemonium.

As there is no way to agree on what will come, let us look instead as what exists NOW, in order to deal with the question: From the results so far, was the war worth it?


At the moment, resistance to the US is on the rise, and for the first time both Shi'ite and Sunni elements are calling for expulsion of US forces. Many analysts have referred to this uprising from both religious groups as being 'the worst nightmare of the US'. While that might be overstating, it certainly is cause for concern.

70 Americans and about 600 Insurgents have been killed in just the last 30 days. Not only does that make this the bloodiest month for US forces yet, but it is also a significant reduction in the kill:death ratio for US troops, who in open conflict used to be able to count on a 20:1 ratio of Iraqi to their own dead.

At the moment, the country is rules by a council of appointees, appointed by Brenner, answerable only to Brenner. The people of Iraq have no more voice in their political government then they did under Hussein.

At the moment, the US is being forced to extend tours and rotate troops to Iraq from other foreign postings due to the upsurge in recent resistance. This is taking troops away from other postings and if it continues will weaken US commitment to other issues, such as the ongoing war on terror. This extension and rotation is a temporary measure, meant to cover the next few months, and is reseistance subsides, then no worries. If resistance continues or even expands, then the US will have serious manpower issues within 3-4 months.

Inside Iraq this recent attack is playing very poorly for the Americans, and is further reinforcing anti-US sentiment. According to the CBC, More than 600 Iraqi civilians have been killed in Fallujah since the siege began on April 5, said the head of the city hospital, Rafie al-Issawi. Most of the dead registered at hospitals and clinics were women, children and elderly. Though this does not reach western media, is is getting heavy play inside Iraq. The impact of this propaganda campaign is as of yet unknown.

Al Quaida is actively present in Iraq, and involved in training and assisting local insurgents against the US. Al Quaida, which had no significant presence in Iraq before the US invasion, is gaining recruits and supplies from the war zone, as well as popular response for its cause. How much this will affect Al Quaida's regrowth is as of yet unknown.

Given these facts, it is very difficult for me to understand how anyone could say the war in Iraq has been worth it so far. Pointless optimism or pessimism about the future aside, TO DATE the war in Iraq has cost almost 700 US and an estimated 15,000 Iraqi lives, and has succeded only in causing the facts listed above.

Yes but is “worth it so far” even a legitimate question. Or should we ask if the objectives and expected results worth the effort. Was there another way? What would be the long term results and risks of doing nothing?

IMO we had little choice. Clinton ran out on Iraq in 1998 and after 3 days of bombing had no plan on resolving the situation of a government that had fulfilled NO UN resolutions and didn’t intend to. A government with WMD and dozens of programs to create more.

What is even worse is he did not even bother going to the UN and demanding enforcement of the Resolutions. Thus Iraq was essentially off the hook. France started in 1999 to move for the removal of all sanctions so they could rake in the oil contracts.

So what was the long term solution if we did not take action? IMO an aggressive Iraq with WMD and a nutty despot as a ruler could only lead to a future disaster in the region.

I know revisionist history is all the rage on these boards, but allow me to remind you that when the US was pressing for war in Iraq, the rest of the UN (France included) was NOT pressing for peace, they were pressing for evidence. France and Germany were willing to go to war, they said as much, but they wanted to give the new round of inspectors more time. The head of the Inspectors concurred with them, and asked for more time.

You asset (once again, and in defiance of ALL evidence) that Iraq was a regime with WMD and dozens of programs to create more. That was also the assertion used by the US to justify its immediate invasion. Turns out reality is quite different from assertion.

I agree, Clinton may have mishandled Iraq, I am not arguing along partisan lines, I am arguing along factual lines. Bush made the choice (and it WAS a choice, not a necessity) to invade, and SO FAR, it has clearly not been worth it.


You do make the reasonable point that "Are the results SO FAR worth it" may not be a reasonable question. Fair enough, maybe it is unfair to try and justify an action in mid-stream. But since we cannot predict the results of actions taken in the future, we CAN assess the plans in place for this future.

Bush refused to allow any extensive post-war planning prior to the war. James Fallows is very clear about that in his Atlantic article. I know it is common among the Right wing to dismiss any criticism as coming from 'left wing media', but you can hardly include the conservative magasine 'The Economist' as left wing.

Yet last week the Economist crucified Bush for many of the decisions he has taken regarding the war on Iraq, the mistakes he made even when told repeatedly that these actions would be mistakes: "It was foolish to exaggerate Saddam's weaponry, downright misleading to imply a link between the Iraqi leader and Al-Qaeda, and hubristic to do so little to prepare for post-war reconstruction. (...) Mistakes soon piled up: handing the running of the country to the pentagon; letting looters rip out the infrastructure; disbanding the Iraqi army; and dismissing outside offers to help"
Economist - April 3rd.

So it is on the basis of Bush's mistakes and their results, and the current state of affairs in Iraq as I listed in my previous post that one can and must come to the determination that Iraq, SO FAR, has not been worth it.



Constantly repeating mistaken assertions does not make them so.

Iraq was not aggressive, he had done more to normalise relations and build bridges with his neighbours in the last 10 years than ever before, relations between Iraq and nations such as Saudi, Kuwait and Iran were at an all-time high. NO state in the region considered Iraq to be aggressive, and that INCLUDES Kuwait, the subject of its last aggressive act.

Iraq apparently did not have WMD, and certainly did not have them in any quantity. Constantly asserting that it did does not change reality.

While Hussein was an evil man who persecuted the Kurds and was ruthless towards other minorities, if you want to speak about 'stabilising the region' he was a far more stabilising influence than the US has been, with its unconditional support to Israel and its invasion of a soverign state that was no threat to it. I am not seeking to defend Hussein, obviously a very bad man. But not one of the insults in your line above has any real basis in reality.

I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out this statement, perhaps you can help me. In the last fifty years, starting with Eisenhower, it seems to me that Republicans have been in the White House for 32 of those years, a clear majority. Of the Democratic presidents, well, none of them have represented the far left at all. Most definitely, none have represented the peace movement. I'm just not sure where you get the idea (well, except that it is an oft repeated bit of rhetoric from the right) that America has been involved in some great movement to the left for the last fifty years.

Since you are obviously (as shown clearly by your posts) not a part of any "peace movement" in this country, since you obviously know so little about it, shame on you for claiming that we care less about peace then regaining something that, frankly, has never existed. There have always been, and there will always be, people who speak out against war. I am one of them, and I come from a Mennonite family who has been speaking out against war for centuries. Indeed, many in the peace movement believe in it because of their religious convictions. You are completely off base to conclude that we are somehow more interested in Communism, or in political machinations, than in actual peace.



It may not have occurred to you, but not everyone in the peace movement shares Nighttimer's thoughts. Indeed, according to him, he is not a pacifist anyway. To take his statement as a means of conclusively castigating the peace movement is illogical in the extreme.



Well gee, I am a pacifist and a promoter of peace, and I think that anyone, anywhere can live in a democracy. I do think it is difficult to achieve democracy through the barrell of a third party gun. I think we should encourage and aid people struggling for freedom around the world. I don't think we should (or can) do it by dropping 40,000 bombs and killing tens of thousands of people.

But one sentence of yours I really find troubling. "Maybe this is why America no longer pays mmuch attention to the left." Let's look back to the 2000 election. 49,820,000 people voted for George Bush. This amounts to a little over 17% of the US population. Slightly over 17% of the people voted for Al Gore, who represents the center more than the left. How do you conclude that no one pays much attention to the left? Michael Moore and Al Franken are sure outselling Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity.

And not to beat a dead horse, but, gee, Dan (ha ha), the far left has never held power in this country, and it probably never will, so how exactly could they "regain" power?
.........
To condemn this war is not the same thing as saying that no good has come out of it at all for the Iraqis. There are people whose main concerns are the ends; there are others whose main concerns are the means. I find the means here to be unacceptable, so my answer to the debate question remains "no." It has not been worth it.

I have no doubt that there are many supporters of this war for whom the end is peace and democracy in Iraq. I do not condemn them their view. I do not claim that in reality they are merely masking some Machiavellian effort to consolidate right-wing power. I can truly see and understand their convictions. However, I simply cannot respect those who condemn, by categorizing and dismissing, those whose priorities and principles are centered around peace, compassion, goodwill, and love. I once read a pretty good book, in which a pretty cool guy said we should love our enemies. He also said that to live by the sword is to die by the sword. To treat others as we would have them treat us. Pretty strong words, and pretty radically far left, by the accounts of some posters here. At my side in this belief is every great person I admire from history: Martin Luther King, Jr; Mohandus K. Gandhi; Jiddhu Krishnamurti; The Dalai Lama; Gautama Buddha; Phillip and Daniel Berrigan; Mother Theresa; Jesus Christ; George Fox; Martin Buber; Albert Einstein; Immanuel Kant; George Orwell; it's a long list...

John Haynes Holmes, minister, said in April 1917:



An excellent article about pacifism from the National Catholic Reporter

Out of curiosity, what on earth did you expect to gain with this absurd, blatantly sterotypical assertion, based on (apparently) nothing but your own personal beliefs and paranoia?

Yes, everything you say is true. It IS possible the left wing actually cares about nothing but political power and is just using all this 'morality' crap as a ruse.

it is EQUALLY possible that you and pro-war people like you may not be the honourable pro-liberty, equality for all types you would have us believe. IMO your cut and paste quotes of war leaders of the past are just your ways of hiding the political agenda you are attempting to advance through violence. I could claim you and others in today's far right wing care less about justice and order as you do about assuring the next 50 years of movement towards the right that was made easier for you to justify following 15 minutes on a sunny Sept. 11th morning.


If all you have to contribute to this thread is an unsubstantiated and borderline crackpot conspiracy theory about how 'all the left is a fraud just out to get power, thats the only reason they DARE to oppose the actions of the president', then perhaps you should just relegate yourself with people like you to a militia compound somewhere in Michigan and wait for the ZOG to come and get you...


You have made strong and capable arguments in the past GDAN, and I am sure you will again. This last post is beneath you.

I am glad someone pointed this out. It seems that everyone pro-"Iraqi freedom" have forgotten that this war was not started because BIG BAD SADDAM, was poking us and the teacher wouldn't do anything.

During the months leading up to the war, America watched intently as the UN send investigators all throughout that country. And I don't know about the others here, but what I saw was Saddam adhering every time the UN threatened. The only time he wouldn't adhere is when WE threatened. The United Nations said they could find no regulations currently being broken, and we just end up saying, "Well, you just don't know how to look".

THIS is why we are here. In this place. "Slouching towards 600".

In the beginning of this war one soldier who died was quoted as saying, "My father died protecting his country (in reference to WWII)." Then, looking at a picture of his wife and son he continued "And I will fight to the death to do the same".

I wonder what a surprise it was to find out that the only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq was us.

Your fine words about avoiding personal attacks might deserve being seriously considered if it weren't for the fact that in the same paragraph you accuse those on the Left of seeing the events of 9/11 as a opportunity to be exploited for political gain. If that isn't a insult I don't know what is. Then again, that is such a bizarre statement that I don't know if you mean it seriously or are just tossing it out there for shock value.

Perhaps you will recall a remark you made that got this cold war started: I will continue to oppose your views because I believe today's anti-war movement is giving aid and comfort to the very enemies American Soldiers and Marines are fighting. Just as the American anti-war movement of the Viet Nam War did. Thus extending that war for years while the North Viet Namese waited to get what they wanted, knowing the American anti-war movement was doing their work for them.

I can no longer fight for my country on the field of battle, but I can fight for and support my country's troops by defending them and the government against attacks by the anti-war movement. Led by the likes of John kerry, Teddy Kennedy and Tom Daschle, I have come to believe the American Left, of the which the anti war movement is a part, is a greater threat to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constuitution then any other movement foreign or domestic.

A greater threat that North Korea? A greater threat than the Taliban? A greater threat than the growing economic and military might of China? A greater threat than a unstable Russia and its missing nuclear technology? A greater threat than Al Qaeda? Are you serious? John Kerry is a greater threat than Osama bin Laden?

What America do you live in GDan204, where other Americans who don't think as you are greater threats than sworn enemies of this nation? Whatever America it is, it's a paranoid America divided into camps of "us versus them." I'm just certain I don't want any part of any America where what they fear most are other Americans.

You seem to think it's all about me and you. You shoot at me and I return fire from the comfort of our armchairs and computers. It is not. It's about the soldiers and the civilians getting ground up like cheap greasy hamburger in Iraq. You have confused supporting a politician with supporting the troops. It's shallow and inaccurate, but it saves the Right from questioning the reasons for this war or thinking critically about what justifies the loss of life when there is no clearly defined objective.

Believe what you want GDan204. You're welcome to your conspiracy theories, half-baked half truths, revisionist history and regurgitated talking points from right-wing radio hacks and chickenhawks. I never asked for your understanding and I certainly don't need your permission to stand up against a war that I believe is illegitimate and a Administration that is equally so.

You pursue your course and I'll pursue mine, okay? Time will tell whose approach brought the boys home and whose approach put them in harm's way. What you fail to understand that when I quote Gandhi, King, X and Douglass is that I'm not just paying lip service to them, but I am attempting to emulate their courage to challenge what they believed was morally abhorrent. Apparently, that's a concept you can't quite grasp.

Now excuse me if I edit my signature to add the latest number of dead American soldiers. That should give you an opportunity to find a little more rhetoric to interject into the discussion.

[quote]Vermillion
  I know revisionist history is all the rage on these boards, but allow me to remind you that when the US was pressing for war in Iraq, the rest of the UN (France included) was NOT pressing for peace, they were pressing for evidence. France and Germany were willing to go to war, they said as much... [/quote]

You know, just because some European nations (*ahem France and Germany ahem*) decide to ride the fence for as long as possible, that doesn't mean that they were not presing for peace.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/franc...ting/index.html

[quote]
When Chirac met last month with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who has insisted that Germany will have nothing to do with any attack on Saddam, the French leader said his country's view on Iraq was "identical" with Germany's. [/quote]

And as far as evidence goes, a sad excuse for disclosure came, and what was Hans Blix's response after reviewing the report? Inconsistencies. And lots of them.

Almost a month later, Blix said this at the UN:

[quote]"Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace...

One of three important questions before us today is how much might remain undeclared and intact from before 1991; and, possibly, thereafter; the second question is what, if anything, was illegally produced or procured after 1998, when the inspectors left; and the third question is how it can be prevented that any weapons of mass destruction be produced or procured in the future..."[/quote]

On one of the inconsistencies...

[quote] "As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kilogrammes [1430 lb], of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February, 1999...

As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included...

The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered...

In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's foreign minister stated that 'all imported quantities of growth media were declared...

This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax..." [/quote]


Blix also said that more time was needed. He also said a lot more on how inspections were going... he also claimed harrasment and Iraqi attempts to fly helicopters through the 'no-fly zone' to accompany UN helicopters into Baghdad, which the UN considered a security risk.

[quote]
Vermillion
You asset (once again, and in defiance of ALL evidence) that Iraq was a regime with WMD and dozens of programs to create more. That was also the assertion used by the US to justify its immediate invasion. Turns out reality is quite different from assertion.

Iraq apparently did not have WMD, and certainly did not have them in any quantity. Constantly asserting that it did does not change reality.
[/quote]

When every single inch of Iraq has been searched Vermillion, then we'll make that comment. Until then, leave that in the speculation collumn. If Saddam can hide 300,000 dead bodies, then he can hide WMD stockpiles. Constantly asserting he doesn't does not make them disappear. If we find them great. If not, you can say 'I told you so' while the rest of the world moves on.

[quote]Vermillion
Iraq was not aggressive, he had done more to normalise relations and build bridges with his neighbours in the last 10 years than ever before, relations between Iraq and nations such as Saudi, Kuwait and Iran were at an all-time high. NO state in the region considered Iraq to be aggressive, and that INCLUDES Kuwait, the subject of its last aggressive act.[/quote]

That so?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/crisis_i...news/279561.stm

[quote] Feb. 15, 1999

On Sunday Iraq warned Saudi Arabia and Kuwait that it had the ability to target their military bases. Saudi officials have previously denied that their bases have been used for air strikes against Iraq.

A statement issued after a meeting of top Iraqi officials led by Saddam Hussein said: "We warn the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and tell them 'you are now involved in an aggressive war which the peoples of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have no interest in, but America and Zionism do'.

We are able to target sources and means of aggression, from anywhere it is launched, after relying on God and the support of our Arab nation," the statement warned. [/quote]

All time high, I'm sure.

[quote]Quarkhead
Of the Democratic presidents, well, none of them have represented the far left at all. Most definitely, none have represented the peace movement.[/quote]


That is certainly not true. Although they weren't waving signs and marching, every single Democrat that served as commander in chief, with the exception of Johnson, made strides in that direction.

Kennedy:

NSA Memorandum 263

http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/images/nsam263.jpg

This memorandum called for the withdrawl of 1,000 military personell from Vietnam. This appears to be JFK's attempts to end the Vietnam conflict a full decade before Saigon would eventually fall to the communists.

Carter:

The 1978 Camp David Peace Accords

http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/cdavid.htm

A plan for Mid East Peace and most recently a Nobel Peace Prize. Not part of the peace movement?

Clinton:

For as much action Clinton saw during his two terms, he tried to bring as much peace.

http://usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/pea...98/102398b.html

The Wye River Accords of 1998 are a good ecample.

Now by no means am I turnin into a liberal, but I just refute those claims Quark.

[quote]Quarkhead
I simply cannot respect those who condemn, by categorizing and dismissing, those whose priorities and principles are centered around peace, compassion, goodwill, and love.[/quote]

For the record, I'm not one of those folks. What I condemn though is when those who share your views dismiss the beliefs of those who share mine, many of whom are fighting this war, as 'vague principles'. I condemn those who accuse our support of this war as prolonging the misery of the Iraqi people.

I am also upset at the fact that no anti-war protestor has focused any attention or outrage at the hypocrites in Europe and the UN for being guilty of what many in the anti-war movement accuse the administration and its supporters of being guilty for.

[quote]Quarkhead
I once read a pretty good book, in which a pretty cool guy said we should love our enemies. He also said that to live by the sword is to die by the sword. To treat others as we would have them treat us. Pretty strong words, and pretty radically far left, by the accounts of some posters here. At my side in this belief is every great person I admire from history...it's a long list.[/quote]

I don't consider the actions of Jesus to be far left, radical... maybe, but not far left. But remember, even Jesus acted in aggression. I can quote Italian scholars, theologians, literary masters, and even a saint that think the way I do, but I won't bother. But all those champions of peace would decry the oppression of Iraq by the regime of Saddam Hussein and the hypocrites who oppose war and at the same time make money off of Iraqi lives.

[quote]Vermillion
IMO your cut and paste quotes of war leaders of the past are just your ways of hiding the political agenda you are attempting to advance through violence.[/quote]

Funny, didn't know John Stuart Mill, Machiavelli, and a theologian of the Dominican Order were 'war leaders'. I could always quote Saint Augustine if that would help. Unfortunately my conspiracy theories don't include the left-wing power grab, although I do think former president Johnson had a hand in JFK's assassination. But that's another story for another thread. What I do think is that all the anti-war folks are ignorant of the beliefs and values of those fighting the war and its supporters. I think that they, for whatever reason, refuse to acknowledge that there are those that use the belief of peace as a smokescreen to profit from misery. The same misery that they're trying to end.

I just wanna see some 'fair and balanced' griping at someone other than Bush, the pro-war base, and the administration. How about starting with the UN?

[quote]UGABoy
During the months leading up to the war, America watched intently as the UN send investigators all throughout that country. And I don't know about the others here, but what I saw was Saddam adhering every time the UN threatened.[/quote]

I sure as hell didn't see that. I saw Saddam continuing the WMD song and dance routine, appeasing the UN a little at a time, all the while xeroxing weapon declarations from 1991, intimidating UN inspectors, and non-cooperation. But to quote Dennis Miller...

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

As for Nighttimer, your scathing quips aren't going to turn us all into 'prodigal sons', as much as you wish that to happen. Our 'vague principles', principles you refuse to, at the very least, attempt to understand, won't falter as you continue to attack them and us.

I just wanna see two things:

Productive dissent and tha those that do protest look at some of the real enemies.

Well, we'll never really know, will we. Kennedy, who served in the navy during World War Two, sent 18,000 "military advisors" to Vietnam in November of 1961. He directed the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. In his first year, he launched a fairly major military buildup.



Today Carter often seems like a peace movement guy. But while he was president, in spite of the way the right has painted him, there is plenty for a pacifist to critique:

After Indonesia invaded the island nation of East Timor, Carter increased military aid to the Indonesian dictatorship by 80%.

Under Carter, the US vetoed several UN Security Council resolutions calling for sanctions against the government of South Africa.

When Zairians rebelled against brutal dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, Carter ordered the US Air Force to transport Moroccan troops to aid the regime in putting down the rebellion.

It was Carter, not Reagan, who started funding the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan.

In May 1980, pro-democracy protestors took control of part of the South Korean city Kwangju, rebelling against the US-backed dictator Chun Doo Hwan. Carter OKed South Korean troops, who were under US command, to retake the city at the request of Hwan. Thousands were killed.

Carter also increased military spending during his term.

As for the Camp David Accords, when Begin violated the treaty by resuming the construction of settlements in the West Bank, Carter refused to act to enforce the treaty.

Not to mention his long service in the US Navy.



And this really serves to counter the fact that Clinton committed troops with an almost unprecedented frequency? I don't think so. One could find peace treaties and the like in any presidency; it's pure spin to say these men in any way represented my principles, or the principles of most of the people on my list.



But the thing is, this is the US, and we are on America's Debate. I think we would be hard pressed to find any nation on this earth, and certainly any powerful nation, that does not share this hypocricy. However, I am a citizen of this country. It is certainly not very useful for me to devote my time and effort to dissent against the policies of France. There are plenty of French citizens doing that ably enough. In an appropriate discussion, I would be glad to discuss such things, but I'm not going to organize a march to protest the policies of the German government. Of course, by that I do not mean that I don't care about such things - just that I can be most useful posing questions and criticisms to our own representatives.



I probably should not have brought Jesus into the mix, as this is not a religious discussion site. Suffice it to say that I have yet to parse any Republican platforms that incorporate the principles I borrowed from Christ.

Aggression is not violence, in any case - at least it doesn't have to be.

And you are absolutely right - those champions of peace would decry Hussein's regime, and the hypocricy of those who profit from war - as do I, and everyone I've ever met in the peace movement.

Young men don't naturally want to go to war. Civilians don't want 40,000 bombs dropped on their country. They don't want over 9,000 of their fellow civilians to die. No one likes or wants war - and yet someone like myself, who is strongly principled about pacifism and peace, is constantly forced to defend my position. What a mixed up world!

This war was not worth it, because war itself is not worth it. There is always another way. That other way may be harder, but oh, the victory is so much sweeter!

Amlord,

America never declared war on Germany during WW2. It is Hitler who declared war on the US.

And this is in some kind of mixed up world view, wrong?



Do you call this positive in an argument on the part of continuing war? how absurd. I cannot read the memmorandum in your link, but I think we saw that extended conflict in Vietnam was not in our ultimate interests. A decade later had changed little except more death.

Since when is advocating for peace such a bad thing as in your extensive post? Do you prefer the suicide bombers of Palestine, were Carter and Clinton wrong to attempt peace or do you now want to go in there too, guns ablazing? Can we make war on everybody?



Titus, I see all too often a support for the UN when it comes to some things and total denial of the UN when it suits. YOU do this all the time. You cant say, the US needed to support UN resolutions, then declare the US needed to invade Iraq against UN vote. Then dispose of UN resolutions on Israel, or claim we should act independantly at the same time, its just hypocrisy.



All of the above is unsubstantiated, please explain how the anti-war are profiteering from Iraq or making money off Iraqi lives?
Are you speaking of France and Germany? They are not anti-war.
Some people are anti-war, governments ar generally not, which makes a case for the UN's reluctance on our Iraq war stance.
I would remind that the US voted against the lifting of sanctions on Iraq time and time again, as far as peoples misery goes, a good part because Iraq had converted its oil sale to the Euro instead of the dollar. Europe wanted to lift the 'misery' and profit from it, however so did WE and were not about to let the Europeans have control of Iraqs oil. We voted against and invaded in OUR OWN SELF INTEREST. We have never done a single thing in the interests of Iraqi people. Not now, not ever, despite the propaganda.

Its most naiive to buy the 'Iraqi Freedom' reason for war. This is trickle down theory. First WMD, and only you Titus seem to hold onto that which the Admin has left far behind, then Saddam was a bad guy, and now freedom for Iraqis. It just goes on to a New and Improved Iraq theory. each time.

It is not .
I think you may need some education in Iraq profiteering by US companies before you go pointing fingers at the peace movement. I can say 100% of Haliburton and Beschtel, Carlyle, other military manufacturers and suppliers are not among the anti-war crowd, but cronies, friends, family and others adjunctly supportive of this Administration.

Uh, If you had bothered to read the post by Quarkhead, I was refuting his claim that the past Democrat presidents over the last 50 years were not members of the 'peace movement'. I was quoted along the lines of saying that they may not of been waving signs and marching, they did make bold srtides that fit non-hawk presidents. Natl' Security Memo 263 was a bold attempt on his part to end the conflict a full decade before it eventually did. But as you'll soon find out, Qurakhead may of sold me.



When did I say it was a bad thing, Artemise? I know I never wrote words that implied that. Again, I was refuting Quarks' claim.



Well first off, I believe we should of pulled out of the UN awhile back. Second, I do say we should support UN resolutions. Show me the resolution that said 'under no circumstances is the United States to militarily act on the Iraqi regime'. We are the backbone of the UN. We are one of it's largest financial backers and one of it's largest, if not the largest piece, in it's military force.

So I say yes. We should support UN resolutions. I mean, hell, we help make them. But when the UN fails to enforce rules that we help set down, when the UN refuses to act, yes, we must take action into our own hands. Hypocracy is condemning us for breaking the rules while you break them at the same time. And if you want evidence of that, look at my links regarding Russia and France violating sanctions while we were sittiing tight. Also eye the links regarding the Oil for Food scandal. That is hypocracy.





And although the French appeard to not be opposed to a UN approved action, in the first war against Saddam, they came at the last minute. It was like pulling teeth.



Well as I do that... , read this. BNP Paribas is French and Cotenca is Suiss. I can look further for Russians that were involved in this particular instance.

In others...

http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/IraqiRegimeBeneficiaries.pdf

http://www.intellnet.org/news/2003/10/03/20257-1.html
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/...in_iraq?mode=PF

And there's also reports of France brokering weapons materials deals between the regime and China. I put that in a thread around here, I'll try to find it.

Ok, as for Kennedy. He did have roughly 11K troops over there by end of '62, but many believe that memo would of began the troop withdrawal with everyone out by '65. As for the Bay of Pigs, I suppose I could give you that, but it wasn't his plan. It was an Eisenhower/Nixon collaboration which he greenlighted and in some eyes was suckered in to. But ah well.

As for Carter, call it lack of sleep, but I guess you sold me. And to be honest, I didn't think I was gonna sell you on Clinton anyway. Not like I believed it.

Ahhh, eeee, ugh. I think I'm dyin Tex!

Not without one last parting shot.



Thats the thing Quark, where are the French protesting against their government for allowing these ne'rdowells to profit from misery? Ive never seen one. Not in Germany. Neither Russia. And if you decry them great, that makes two of us, but from what I've seen, you're the only anti-war to do so.



Quark, I'd like to thank you for providing an excellent example to your fellow anti-war protesters. Instead of brandishing signs with the number of US dead in front of the Pentagon, instead of holding up signs with a guy stickin a gas pump to his head, mocking suicide, WRITE YOUR LOCAL CONGRESSMAN! Omg, what's so hard about that? Write scathing letters to them! They're the ones who voted for it. Doing this will avoid moral trouble on the front and will sure as hell get your boys and girls home quicker than just hoping that they'll hear you in Washington.

Ugh, Quarkhead... ya got me.... *dies*.

Another day, another lesson.

So you are telling me that Saddam Hussein did not abide with every threat the UN made? Days before the war, UN inspectors were all throughout the country, in his palace, in private bunkers... everywhere.

Pretty much. When the subject of going to war against an entire world was a question, the UN said jump and Saddam said how far?

This is why the UN did not approve the war. The reason why we claimed Saddam was breaking UN resolutions was because of one thing only: He would not tell us where he was hiding the WMDs he didn't have! And THAT is why we are over there now.



That sound like selective C and P to me Titus. Let me show you some more PREVALENT quotes from your article.







Maybe you should rethink that idea that France would not go to war, period. It seems maybe they were thinking - quite logically - that if UN inspectors found no weapons in Iraq, then maybe....there WERE no weapons in Iraq.

I guess we just went over there to make sure. And I guess you can tell those unpatriotic Frenchies it turned out they were right.

My apologies to all, this is going to be long.


Titus: I do love how you will instantly accept any condemnation or insult printed about people you do not like, no matter how feeble or unsubstantiated, while rejecting far more telling evidence condemning things you do like. That is called a double standard, and you demonstrate it in spades, as I intend to show. If you applied the same level of credulity across the board, perhaps your views would change somewhat. In the meantime, you take an unverified, un-evidenced document found in Iraqi archives referencing an attempt to bribe unnamed French officials as PROOF of French duplicity, while rejecting Clarke, Blix and the criticisms of important people in the Bush administration as being lies, or self serving fabrications.

Now you feel justified (in your own way) in condemning all those who would dare oppose your war as (and I quote you) " ignorant of the beliefs and values of those fighting the war and its supporters". Then, in the SAME post, you attack the left wing for stereotyping all pro war people and dismissing their views.

So the double standard you are so proud of continued unabated.



I know it suits your world view to have the French being in the Iraqi pocket and doing everything to avoid war, but its simply not the reality. France numerous times said they would back military action that was sanctioned by the UN.

Yes, it is true that France was probably more reluctant to go to war because of its many oil contracts with Iraq. I assume you are then going to say that the US has never made any decisions in part based on Oil in its diplomatic history? That the reason for excellent relations with Saudi, despite its despotic, tyrannical, terrorist supporting government has nothing to do with oil?

Again, you condemn other for what you support yourself, that’s the third example of your double standards in the same post.

Yet even DISPITE these oil contracts, France was still willing to go to war, and did not oppose the US. They did not VETO the US resolution on Iraq, though they easily could have. Instead, they simply proposed a counter resolution:

"France, Germany, and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution to the UN Security Council that states that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis," and that "the military option should only be a last resort."

As for your quote, I was forced to laugh. I note you quoted a paragraph from that article, yet conveniently left out both the preceding and following paragraphs, which ENTIRELY change the meaning: Allow me to cite them here:

"French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has constantly declared that if the U.S. acts on Iraq without U.N. approval "we could not associate ourselves with such an action."

When Chirac met last month with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who has insisted that Germany will have nothing to do with any attack on Saddam, the French leader said his country's view on Iraq was "identical" with Germany's

But he has never actually ruled out French participation in military action approved by the U.N."

If anyone else did that kind of sloppy editing job to make a reference meet their political view, you would be all over them like a fat kid on a smartie. This would be the fourth example of your double standards in the same post.


Next: Inconsistencies in Iraq's report on WMD: Indeed you are correct there were serious inconsistencies, and Blix demanded more time to conduct searches. I repeat, in face of these inconsistencies, he did NOT call for invasion, in fact he spoke out against it, he asked for more time to find out the truth. He also expressed a great deal of frustration with the US, since they kept claiming they knew where the weapons were, and yet were unwilling or unable to provide any kind of direction to the inspectors as to where to look.

These were inconsistencies, NOT a smoking Gun as even Bush Jr. acknowledged. Iraq stated several times that there were some WMD sources they could not provide proof of having destroyed, because they were destroyed by Arial bombardment in the first Gulf war. Since the US specifically targeted WMD production and storage facilities in the first gulf war, it is fairly reasonable to assume they might have actually succeeded a couple times…

"Mr Blix, who retires at the end of the month, told the BBC: "We went to a great many sites that were given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find anything - and they did not relate to weapons of mass destruction. That shook me a bit, I must say."

He added: "I thought 'My G