Whenever I read something like this: The people really being hurt are the Iraqis themselves. however according to the polls, they are taking it much better then some here in the states that have lost nothing in this war, it makes me wonder what the poster really means by such a statement.

Is it that unless you have personally been killed or wounded or have a loved one that was in the Iraq war, there's nothing to be concerned about? I don't have to be one of those people to know there are over 600 American families whose son will never sit with them during Thanksgiving. There are over 600 American families where the children will grow up without a father or mother or a wife will have to carry on without her husband.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but it's odd that it is always those who haven't faced the fire or come home maimed, scarred or crippled for life, that see no harm done when soldiers are sent to fight and die for the sake of a LIE.

Your statement that "one more percieved (sic) regional/world threat is no longer there to worry about" is faulty reasoning GDan204. A "perceived" threat is not the same thing as a genuine, actual and immediate threat. Iraq did not qualify as any of those. The facts don't support the invasion of Iraq, but apologists for the Bush Administration just say, "Well, the facts don't matter."

Or to expand upon your own metaphor, IF a police officer tells an individual to stop, and that person reaches into their clothing are they reaching for a weapon or for a wallet to produce their identification? The officer has every right to fire on that individual in self-defense IF he believes his life or the lives or others are at risk. Merely being authorized to carry a firearm doesn't give a police officer a license to kill whenever HE deems the situation appropriate. Pulling a gun is the LAST resort, not the FIRST. Trigger happy cops--and countries--that shoot first and expect exoneration later make me nervous, not secure.

With the power to terminate life comes the responsibility to use that terrible power with restraint and responsibility.

Yeah, the entire Middle East has seen the resolve of the British and American government. They have also seen that when the resolve of the British and American government is to force their own will upon another country, neither the opinion of the rest of the world nor the lack of supporting evidence to justify a invasion makes any difference. That's called imperialism, not democracy.

The "appeasing adjustments" you're so pleased with GDan204, are just natural reactions to when the biggest bully on the block decides he wants your lunch money. You can try to fight and possibly get your butt kicked or you can try to appease the bully in hopes he will pick on somebody else. However, this is building a relationship based on fear and resentment, not mutual respect and truth. Nobody wants to "inch towards the 21st Century" at the business end of a gun.

Your cost-to-benefit analysis GDan204 is built upon a foundation of imperialism, exploitation and an agressive antagonistic world view where every knee must bow to our righteous might or be forced to their knees.

Seems to me that what we may have here is our own American crusade against all things Islam and Muslim?

Boy, are we living in the right time for that receipe for destruction.

People die in wars. We are engaged in a war. Our government has set a course of action meant to take on and defeat evil, terrorist forces wherever they're found in the world. This is a noble, righteous and necessary cause. Therefore, this war is 'worth' it.

There's nothing new or worthy of debate in this thread.

Actually, there IS something new and worthy of debate, Passion51 as another seven U.S. soldiers were killed today in Baghdad.

That's seven more of our fellow Americans coming home in flag-draped caskets to Dover AFB (that the press won't be allowed to show) to be buried by grieving families, relatives and friends (that won't include the Commander-in-Chief who never seems to miss out on an opportunity to raise money at campaign events, but still has yet to pay his respects personally at a single fallen soldier's funeral).

I disagree with your contention Passion51 that There's nothing new or worthy of debate in this thread. You are entitled to your view, but I don't appreciate your belittling of opposing viewpoints to your own.

52 replies and 860+ views say this thread IS worthy of debate.

Passion, those soldiers didn't die fighting for a lie. They died protecting the region and the world from a madman and his regime who have NEVER played by the rules set forth by the UN. He's never bowed down to the wishes of the international community so maybe the 'business end of a gun' was exactly what he needed.

In the speech CIA Director Tenet gave, he said that the analysts never told Bush that Saddam was an immeadiate threat. But he also said that the signs were pointing to him reconstituting his WMD programs. He said he could of had a nuke in 3-5 years. Along with UAV's that were armed with Bio/Chem weapons and other items.

So were we to sit by while the UN, whose credibility is almost shot in my eyes after the Oil-for-Food scandal, kept sending in inspectors? Were we to sity by while Saddam did his 'No WMDs song and dance' rountine he's been doing for the last ten years plus? Were we to sit by and wait for the 'smoking gun' to be a crater or a quarantine zone somewhere on American soil? We'd be a fool to do so. If Saddam didn't comply in the years prior, what makes you think that he would of in 2003?



First off, for what purpose will the major news networks use such images as caskets being brought off a C-130? To honor them? I doubt it. The news networks have their own agenda, and since most of them are predominantly liberal, I wonder what that would be. I can see it now...

"... we'll return to Dover Air Force base after these messages...

*INSERT JOHN KERRY AD HERE*

..and we're back to Dover Air Force base where the caskets of seven soldiers..."

It sounds a little far fetched... but I wouldn't put it beyond them.



Now this bit. There's been a debate that included this and it came down to the fact that the president could not possibly make it to every single funeral, even if he wanted to. So, to avoid picking and choosing, he instead chooses to honor them at services on Memorial Day and the like. It avoids conflict and is an appropriate manner in which he can pay his respects.

And as far as I am concerned, I'll be damned if any member of the media except the one in charge of the obituaries in the local paper will be aiming cameras at my loved one's funeral. Funerals, to me at least, are a private event, shared by the friends, family, and all loved ones of the deceased. The media has NO BUSINESS at the funeral of a fallen soldier, marine, airman, or seaman.

And I'm gonna catch a lot of guff for this, but as far as the US being considered imperialist... so what. If we decided to take out all the POS regimes on this planet, one at a time, I wouldnt flinch. The food chain needs to be re-established and we need to assert our leadership in the international community. And if you don't believe me... would you believe John Kerry?


-from the official presidential candidate's website www.johnkerry.com

Those seven soldiers today did not doe for a lie. They died trying to keep the peace.

Actually nightimer you tell a fine story with lots of sob and tears. You seem to have a lot of sympathy for the families of our dead soldiers and I think that is fine and commendable. However, do you not see the disservice you may be doing them by not looking at the world as it is? Do you not see the evil of the men who planned the 9/11 massacres.? Evil that has now been thrust upon America. An evil we have no choice but to fight?

One can alway softstep through reality, but here and now the United States is at war. The entire world is at war. You cannot end this by writing sob stories. You cannot stop this by diplomatic measures. You cannot stop this by appealing to the good in these men who planned the wanton murders of over 3,000 Americans.
Evil must be dealt with harshly wherever and when ever if can be fought. There is no other solution.

You refuse to see the Strategic picture of our removing Saddam from power in Iraq and attempting to give the opportunity of freedom to the Iraqi people. Do you not see the difference it is already making in the Middle East?? That difference as it grows will slowly choke the life blood of recruits from the terrorist cells. While you grieve for the loved one of those those who have already died. Your country and it Armed Forces are attempting to insure that thousand more Americans do not have to die to this evil that says it will destroy us. Do you not see any of this???

Finally you say in another post


I wish you would expand on that statement. Please tell of the steps the United States has taken against American Muslims. Please tell me of the steps America has taken against the Kurds or Shia in Iraq. Please tell me why if America is in a crusade against all things Muslin we are in the Bulkins defending Muslims with the lives of our soldiers? Please tell me why you would an inflammatory remark like that?

1SG

Well, I'm just guessing here Titus, but I doubt you've ever asked, "Why do they hate us?"

Your confidence that America is always right and is never wrong in matters of the international stage is laudable, but laughable. Unfortunately, it's our troops and a lot of Iraqis who don't get the joke.

I'm sure from the relative safety of your keyboard you wouldn't flinch if the U.S. went scurrying around the world knocking over any nation that honked us off. But unless you're in the armed forces, you're not the one who's going to pay the ultimate price, are you Titus?

"So what" to imperialism, huh? That is exactly how monsters like Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are created. One day you're Don Rumsfeld toasting with Saddam and the next day you're trying to knock him off. One day you're Dick Cheney running Haliburton and trying to get the sanctions on Iraq lifted so you can do business and the next day you're calling him a nutcase.

America can reassert its place in the world through flexing its military might and crushing its enemies, or it can try to be a good citizen of the world and lead through its positive influence and commitment to principles of democracy, liberty
and humanity. Intimidation can be a effective short-term fix, but it's no way to make friends and build coalitions.

Oh, and it's now ten troops killed this weekend trying to "keep the peace" in Iraq.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=540&ncid=716

Some peace. The peace of the grave.

Would you like to provide some examples of American Imperialism, Nighttimer?
Are you suggesting countries like France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, Cuba, the Balkan States? Have we expanded our national boundaries or established rule over the people of these countries through our military actions of the last Century?

Ok Nighttimer, I'm gonna avoid getting baited into unconstructive debate here, and state my opinions on your rather insane remarks.



First off, I never said America is infallible in it's ideology or actions.

Second, I take offense to you implying that I would not have the courage to stand side by side with my friends and fellow patriots who go where the metal hits the meat in Iraq. I signed up for the military BEFORE 9-11, and was instilled with even more resolve after the attacks.

I made a mistake when I went AWOL (reasons being my own, I'll freely share them privately with anyone in this fourm when asked) and a lot of my friends and fellow soldiers left for assignments including the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I had a friend who was stationed with V Corps in Baghdad and there wasn't a day that went by that I didn't think of all our troops there and how I wished I was there, fighting with them. They know the business they're in. They know the risks. So do I. So don't assume that because I support them through this medium, that I wouldn't for a second trade places.



You know what, in hindsight, I'm sure everyone smacks themselves in the head and says 'what was the Reagan administration thinkin' supporting Saddam against Iran and OBL against the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980's. But that's life. Nations makes deals like this all the time. And funny, I don't hear you or any other anti-war folks, especially on the left decrying the fact that Iraq's military was being supported, illegally, by France, Russia, and China. Where's the condemnation for them? I guarantee you during the 1980's you would of supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and considered the Soviet invasion illegal.



You see, that's the thing. With Iraq, we did do all that. We liberated Kuwait from the regime, and then, we let the UN run things. We had weapons inspectors and the like in there for over a decade, and for over a decade, Saddam continued to break the rules. You would be blind to not see that Saddam was abusing the UN and habitually crossing the line.

The Shi'ite purge where hundreds of thousands died.

Saddam's disrespect of the No-Fly Zones.

The abusal of the Oil-for-Food program.

I mean, when is the time when one says 'enough'? We went to the UN, got 1441, and when Saddam screwed that pooch and we went to get another one, who was in the way? France. Russia. China. Nations who invested billions into the regime and wanted to ensure that they still made returns. So don't argue that diplomacy was still an option. It wasn't.

Now is the time to lead by example. To rebuild Iraq and nuture this fragile chance for a democracy, or at the very least, a nation that is not a major threat to it's neighbors and the world.

I'm not going to get diverted into a lengthy debate about American imperialism, offwind. At least not in this thread. You're welcome to start another one on the topic if you wish.

I will provide one brief example of this unfortunate tendency to meddling and manipulating the affairs of other countries:

Between the end of the Spanish-American War and the dawn of the Great Depression, the United States sent troops to Latin American countries thirty-two times. It used the Roosevelt Corollary, or addition, to the Monroe Doctrine to justify intervention. In the corollary, Teddy Roosevelt proclaimed that the United States, because it was a "civilized nation," had the right to stop "chronic wrongdoing" throughout the Western Hemisphere.

"Any country whose people conduct themselves well can count upon our hearty friendship," he said. "Chronic wrongdoing, however, . . . may force the United States to exercise an international police power." Teddy didn't hesitate to use this "police power" to strengthen his country, but he was always careful not to upset the balance of world power.

http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/teddy.html

I would also highly recommend a book I read recently, All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. You can read the first chapter here:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNN/DailyNews/shah030715.html

Back to our regularly scheduled debate.

To your point GDan204 about my "sob and tears" and sympathy for the families of the fallen soldiers, I'd answer, "Yeah, I do. A lot more sympathy than I have for the bought and paid for old men that sent those men off to die for nothing."

The entire world is NOT at war. Nor does the entire world share the view of belligerent conservatives that it SHOULD be in a permanent state of war. What we're talking about is terrorism and the way to fight terrorism is to go after nations and organizations that perpetuate it. By that measure, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. You fight terrorism like a weed and that's by pulling it out by the roots and changing the conditions in which it flourishes.

That's hard and prolonged work with no immediate payoff. That's exactly the kind of task a man of George Bush's temperament is ill-suited for.

I don't share your fear and loathing for the world outside America GDan204. While evil must be fought, the world is not drawn in simple colors of black and white as George Bush sees it. There are shades of gray, and those future members of Al Qaida that are drawing inspiration from the murderous attacks on our troops in Iraq, see us as the evil ones that must be eliminated from the Earth.

Iraq was an opportunity for Bush to take care of his daddy's unfinished business and he took it. He needed a pretext to sell the idea and 9/11 provided one. No matter that Saddam wasn't involved in the acts of terrorism that day. No matter that no weapons of mass destruction have been found. No matter that Saddam was caged in his box by the U.N. sanctions and the spy satellites in the sky. No matter that the reasons for this war keep changing.

Bush needed a whipping boy and in a unlikable scumbag like Saddam he found the perfect one. Nobody liked Saddam so who would care if he got kicked to the curb. Ah, but the devil IS in the details and despite the relative ease in winning the war, providing a semblance of peace has proven to be a knotty dilemma.

You can accept whatever bogeyman excuse Bush barfs up, GDan204. That's your prerogative. However, from my perspective the emperor has no clothes on. Not a shred of credibility or a stitch of believability.

I cannot for the life of me fathom how the President who presided over the worse security failure in the history of the United States now is the only person capable of protecting the nation. Nor do I understand why I should place my trust in a President who enters his term obsessing over Saddam Hussein, should now be expected to tell the truth about the reasons he sent this country off to this ill-conceived war.

Titus, I did not intend to suggest you lacked personal courage. However, there are a lot of armchair generals, summertime soldiers and conservative chickenhawks who do and I am pleased you are not counted among those individuals.

Quote: You know what, in hindsight, I'm sure everyone smacks themselves in the head and says 'what was the Reagan administration thinkin' supporting Saddam against Iran and OBL against the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980's. But that's life. Nations makes deals like this all the time. And funny, I don't hear you or any other anti-war folks, especially on the left decrying the fact that Iraq's military was being supported, illegally, by France, Russia, and China. Where's the condemnation for them? I guarantee you during the 1980's you would of supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and considered the Soviet invasion illegal.

I'm not a Frenchman or a Russian or a resident of China. I'm an American and I reserve the right to criticize this country when it makes deals with the devil and then turns around and claims that it is on the side of the angels. This "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mindset has a nasty tendency to come back and bite us in the buns later. Yes, you can't always deal with saints and people of the highest moral character, but who didn't know Saddam was a maggot even then?

I am sure there were a few lonely voices even during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that counseled America to keep its hands off. But the chance to stick it to the Russians was too irresistable. That's what happens when cowboys and not diplomats make foreign policy. You get short-term gratification and long term headaches.

http://www.geocities.com/dcjarviks/Idler/vIIIn165.html

That link says otherwise. Those who are alllied with us are in fact enemies of these terrorists, and if it weren't the case, Spain and the rest of Europe would of found itself under attack.



You know what's funny, I removed a comment in my last post about 'American imperialism' about regrouping and going after Syria next fearing that I would attract unwanted attention. Yet, by stating this, are you not advocating the same? Believe me, all in due time. But battles a chosen carefully and within strategy. Although, in other threads I have claimed it unlikely, wouldn't Iraq be a good strategic post to go after SA?

In a way Nighttimer, the world IS at war. The enemies of Islamic Fundamentalism are not relegated to just the United States. It is a war that involves everyone whether they see it or not.

You were apparebtly noty paying attention.

Iraq is not free at the moment. Your answer "Ah, but after we leave (if we leave) there may (or may not) be a democratic process which may (or may not) work.

My response: Iraq is currently rules by appointees of an appointee from the United States, they are not free,nor anything like it. Period.

IF the US leaves and manages to set up a functional state that lasts more than 5 weeks in which functional elections are held, then we can rediscuss this issue, but that outcome is FAR from assurred, and until it happens, the people of Iraq have exactly the same say in their governing process as they did under Hussein, but at least then their leader was an Iraqi.

So don't tell me how Iraq is now free.

Excellent point.

Except of course, that Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11, and had no links to the organisation that killed 3000 Americans. They do NOW mind you, thansk to the US invasion Al Quaida is working and recruiting in Iraq where they could not before...

I agree completely, you have no choice but to fight the planners and perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. That is, however, completely and utterly irrelevant to this thread, as those people and the state of Iraq hd no connections UNTIL the US invaded, making the presence of Al Quaida in Iraq entirely the fault of the US.

In short, please try and stay on topic...

Compared to life under Saddam, you bet they're free. And yes, I guess I must of missed that class where you instructed everyone here on the parameters of freedom, Vermillion. IMO, Iraq is better off now than 10 years ago, but is less better than what it will be once we leave.

Oh, and btw. Zarqawi was in Iraq long before 9-11. Ansar al-Islam was in Iraq long before 9-11. Saddam had to of been aware of both of these parties, who are tied with Al-Qaeda, in Iraq. So the non connection argument with Al-Qaeda isn't really looking good.

Assert, assert, assert...

I have bad news, the fact that you SAY Iraq will be a democratic paradise after the US leaves does not make it reality. Sorry.

And since that is the case, Iraq is not free, it is ruled by appointees from another country. I do not need to give a lesson on what is considered free, you just need to find one definition and stick to it.

Under any definition I care to mention, having a government appointed by a hostile power does not equal freedom: having no say in your government does not equal freedom. If you care to argue those points, feel free, but try and use evidence instaed of hypothetical assertions of what might just possibly be in 10 years from now.

Is Iraq now better off than it was 10 years ago? Debatable. Considering the chaos of the last few weeks, considering the constant toll of death and injuries, of violence and crime, one has to wonder. Yeah, in the end it probably is maginally better RIGHT NOW than it was, but not enough to justify the toll of deaths, and certainly not enought to go around calling this occupied state Free.

Funny, I don't ever remember claiming that my word was prophetic and infallable. I did mention something about an opinion though.



Ok, you want to know one of my parameters for freedom?

How about the ability to walk down the street and not be kidnapped by thugs of the regime?

Freedom from fear.

How about the ability to speak your mind wihout fear of intimitadion or reprisal?

Freedom of the press and, again, freedom from fear.

The ability to make your country a better place to live.

The freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Iraqi's have all these right now. Those appointees are either Iraqi natives or expatriots. They are Kurdish, Sunni, Shi'ite, Christians, Men, Women. They have been selected by us to fashion a state in which no one will ever have to fear tyranny, oppression, and speaking their mind. God willing, they will create a constitution with rights guaranteed to all Iraqis.

Iraqis have the chance to do things that they would not have been able to under Saddam. I've said it before, Iraqis will determine their own destiny, for better or worse. After we leave, if they want our cooperation, our friendship, great. If they don't, I won't lose any sleep. But in the end, Iraqis will determine their future. We aren't setting bombs by the Iraqi roadside killing innocent Iraqis. We aren't opressing them. Those that wish to see the regime return are. We have to work around them, not the other way around. The sooner that Mohammed Q. Iraqi takes a stand against these monsters, the sooner he will get what he deserves. A free Iraq, devoid of foreign troops on its own soil. He has the ability to now. And God willing we can help.

I'm sorry if you do not share my optimism Vermillion, but do not mock it.

This has nothing to do with optimism, if you are optimistic about the future of Iraq, then write posts saying you "believe that in the future Iraq will be a good place to live for Iraqis", then we can debate that. Instead you repeat how Iraq has been freed, and these people are Free NOW, which is simply not the case.



Now that has been replaced by simply being attacked by thugs: crime is up enormously across Iraq as law and order are very hard to come by. ASIDE from that, there is still the threat of death from the terrorists and insurgents who have found their way into the country because of the US invasion: there may be only just over 600 US citizens dead, but there are a lot more Iraqis, who have been targeted for such things as trying to join the new administration, shopping at new western stores, ect...



Do they? They have no say in their system of government, they have no vote or voice. They do not have liberty, and a lot of them, more every week, do not have life either as the death toll of Iraqis mounts. That is, of course, over and above the 10,000 to 15,000 dead from the invasion itself.



Again the groundless optimism again. Although at least in this case, you present it as optimism for the future, rather than as if it were established fact. Better.


Iraq is a mess, in the last week it has deteriorated further, I dont mean just because some US contractors were killed, or 8 servicemen were shot in another attack, I mean because the attackers were Shi'ite led by a popular Shi'ite Cleric: until now most of the resistance has been from the Sunni minority... If you want to be optimistic, you might want to base it on fact rather then on dogma.

Like razors to my wounded heart! Well, if I can manage it, how about this...

(Thanks to GDan for the stats from his previous post on this thread.)

An ABCNEWS poll conducted among a random, representative sample of 2,737 Iraqis in face-to-face interviews across the country from Feb. 9-28-04.

US Led Invasion:

Was Right -- -- All 48%...Arabs 40%...Kurds 87%

Was Wrong -- -- All 39%...Arabs 46%...Kurds 9%

Attacks on Coalition Forces:

Acceptable -- -- All 17%...Arabs 21%...Kurds 2%

Unacceptable -- -- All 78%...Arabs 74%... Kurd 96%

How Iraqis See Their Lives Overall:

How are things going today:

Good -- All 70%...North 85%...South 65%...Central 70%...Baghdad 67%

Bad -- All 29%$...North 14%...South 34%...Central 28%...Baghdad 32%


Compared to the year before the war:

Better -- All 56%...North 70%...South 63%...Central 54%...Baghdad 46%

Same -- All 23%...North 15%...South 21%...Central 22%...Baghdad 31%

Worse -- All 19%...North 13%...South 13%...Central 23%...Baghdad 23%


How They'll be a year from now:

Better -- All 71%...North 83%...South 74%...Central 70%...Baghdad 63%

Same -- All 9%...North 4%... South 6%... Central 10%...Baghdad 16%

Worse -- All 7%...North 1%...South 4%...Central 9%...Baghdad 10%

You didn't even respond to these stats posted by GDan, Vermillion. When I say that I believe that Iraqis are free, I'm not pulling numbers that look good out of my boxers.



And can they not seek help from our troops stationed there? There would be nothing more satisfying for our troops than to nail these scumbags who intimidate and harm fellow Iraqis who want a life devoid of such crime. Oh, and wouldn't you know it? Thats how we killed Uday and Qusay. Because ordinary Iraqis took action.



So you do not think that those on the Iraq Governing Council will not take into account all the voices (that you say do not exist and yet we hear them every day from people like Sistani and Sadr on one side and from some 2000+ Iraqis on another) of the many different sides of Iraq? I mean, any Iraqi can contact which ever one on the council he or she feels best represents them and speak their mind to them.

That, Vermillion, that is freedom at one of it's best moments. To be able to voice your concerns, gripes, accolades to those who are there to represent you. I mean why bother having all of these people on the council if that wasn't the case? Why not just continue to have L. Paul Bremer as a viceroy?

Again, you claim my optimism is based on wishful thinking and 'dogma'. Again I say, freedom is alive in many aspects in Iraq. Although a tough road lies before the Iraqi people, it is their road to take. That, Vermillion, is freedom.

Yes, I saw the stats in the other thread, but if you wish to repost them here I will deal with them here.

1) 46% of Arabs polled felt the invasion was wrong, as opposed to 40% who agreed with it. Among all Iraqis, only 48% thought the invasion was a good idea.

2) 17% of Iraqis thought attacks on US forces were accaptable

3) 42% of Iraqis thought the situation was either no better or worse now than it was before the US invasion.


These are some of the numbers you are using to prove your case? These numbers do not look good in any context. Out of 2700 polled, a very slim majority agree with the invasion of the US, while a full 17% of them support attacks on US forces. Those are not numbers I would be proud of.


Oh, and by the way? They are also COMPLETELY irrelevant. You label Iraqis as free, yet the best you can do to support that claim is to say that a tiny majority are ok with the invasion of Iraq.



Thats your answer? After having dealt with the massive increase in the crime rate, injured Iraqi citizens can always go to the US occupying forces who, you assert, would like NOTHING MORE than to track down the perpetrators of the common crimes they have been unable to prevent. Nice theory, but on what do you base that wild speculation? How many US forces are now allocated to hunt down those suspected of common crime against Iraqi citizens? Why has the crime rate spiked so much, if this fierce devotion to law and order is so omnipresent?



This is of course my favourite of your options, you arguing that an undemocratic, unrepresentative series of appointees put into power by an enemy nation is somehow 'freedom at one of its best moments'. Funny, I seem to recall that the Americans had the ability to contact the British governors and voice their concerns to their offices too. Funny how that 'freedom' was not good enough for the American colonies.

I mean this line is just classic:



That is what freedom means to you? That is freedom at its best? I have news for you, people in the USSR had every right and total recourse to write their local Soviet and express their concerns, opinions or frustrations, they could rant all they wanted in those letters, and often did without reprisal (as long as they kept it between themselves and the Soviet) So I guess the USSR was 'freedom at its best' to you? No, freedom is when there is some accountability to the people. As long as the representatives can burn all those complaining letters without ANY accountability to the people, calling this 'freedom' is insane.

This is an appointed, unprepresentative government, put into place by a foreign power. Dress it up how you like, but it is JUST as undemocratic as Hussein was. The people have no voice at all in how their government works, how their money is spent, how their taxes are expended. I am surprised to now hear you hold up 'taxation without representation' as 'freedom at one of it's best moments'.

The road ahead is NOT their road to take, they have no say at all in how their country is steered. Until the US actually leaves (if they do) and manages to set up a genuinely democratic state (if they do) then perhaps we can talk about how the Iraqi people are more free. Until then it is just so much hypocracy.


The fact that, at the moment, a tiny majority approve of the invasion, while 42% of those polled remain neutral or pessimistic about the future does little to support your argument.

Unfortunately, your example of American "Imperialism" in Latin America falls short of the Imperialistic mark. How do you compare these incidents of American miliary intervention in Latin America with the 300 years of European Colonialism around the world. Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, even little Belgium physically took over countries and kept them under the yoke of oppression into the 1950s and in some cases the 1960's. How do you compare American intervention in the 1920's and 1930s, with the oppression of people and rape of resources under the real Imperialism of the European nations?



This type of comment does nothing to enhance the dialog. Anti-war types have been talking of "old men" sending the young off to fight ever since man banded together for mutual protection. This argument assumes the "old men" do not care about those sent off, and these "old men" have personal not national interests at heart. Unfounded accusations like these are second only to the "men sent off to die for nothing" in specious rhetoric. Rhetoric one can only surmise is designed to promote and anti-war, anti-administration feeling in this election year.



I am afraid the entire world, or at least the vast majority of it is at war. Most of it caused by Islamic factions under the umbrella of the al-Qaeda Network. China, Pakistan, Uzbecistan, Georgia, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, Spain, the United States, and others have been attacked. Most of western Europe have been threatened with attacks. They may not have believed these threats, but maybe the Spanish didn't either.



Which is exactly what the United States has done. Your own argument is a case for the Bush administration's handling of the WOT and the strategic reasons for the Invasion of Iraq. Already we are seeing Mid Eastern countries begin to change their attitude towards their citizens that support Islamic Terrorism. We are seeing these same countries, however slightly, loosen up on human rights. We are seeing the beginnings of woman's right in countries where women are traditionally valued lower the cattle. We are seeing the changes that will evenutally lead to the dying out of international Islamic Terrorism.



You fail to grasp the fact that al-Qaeda's main reason for initially declaring war against America was our presence in Saudi Arabia. To attack that country would do nothing but prove ObL's claims. However in attacking Saddam's regime in Iraq, we rid the world of a terrorist nation and at the same time hopefully bring a secular democracy or republic into the heart of the Arab nations. The attack on Iraq has shown our resolve to the rest of the Arab world and regardless of what the "arab street" says, the governments of those nations know now that change is coming. If these governments make the changes it will 1- be more acceptable to the people. 2-Insure these governments will stay in power. You speak of the root of the problem. This is the root and the war in Iraq is the first step in resolving entire ME problem which is the breeding ground of Islamic Terrorism. Also, just what is GW Bushed temperment that maskes him ill-suited for the task of fighting the WOT? This sounds like more empty rhetoric to me.

1SG

Except, of course, that none of this is true.

Anti-American feeling in Saudi is at an all time high, Iraq has now been opened to the world of Islamic rule and terorism, whereas it was not before. Iran is getting more and more belligerant faced with US pressure.

Lybia has backed off its Chemical weapon program and made an attempt to normalise relations in the west, that is true but:
-That has not been accompanied by any liberalisation of regime in the country,
-That has been under negotiations for 5 years, long before the Invasion of Iraq or 9/11, and
-The jury is still out as to wheither he is trying to normalise relations with the west because of the US show of power, or becayuse he has been targeted for assassination by Al Quaeda numerous times.

Outside Lybia, the Middle East is just as it was before (or worse), except now there ARE Al Quaida in Iraq, whereas there were none before...

In the meantime, outside the Middle east, Islamic terrorism is on the massive upswing in Russia and former Soviet states, and (unconfirmed) stories are coming out of a serious upsurge in China as well. Since the war in Iraq we have seen the first major Islamic terrorist action in Europe (Spain) and dozens of arrests of potentially similar groups in the UK, France, Germany...

Certainly sounds to ME like Islamic terrorism is on its last legs...


EDIT



Really? Firstly, remind me again how Iraq was a terrorist nation?

Secondly, it seems all the US has done is CREATE a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism where there was none before. Call me crazy, but if you are trying to srike a blow against Islamic terrorism, why destroy the ONLY state in the Middle east which is NOT run by an Islamic government? Why create in its place a state rife with Islamic tension, now infiltrated by Al Quaeda? Oh, and in the process kill 15,000 Iraqis and 600 (and Counting) Americans...

We should forget the idea of democracy in Iraq, totalitarianist governments rarely suffer from this kind of internal insurgence. If we weren't so afraid of hurting or killing these thugs, we'd be much safer...

Fledgling democracies are fraught with dangers, as every whacko group tries to exert its influence on the new state. Iraq is no different.

Saying that Iraq's government under Saddam was better than the Islamo-fascist governments of the countries surrounding it is just....just....uninformed. The guy was the worst type of dictator, who didn't even appeal to Allah to derive his power. His power was delivered at the end of a gun or a trip to a torture chamber or rape room.

Well- today, 8 soldiers dead in a shi'ite uprising. It looks like we will have a full scale Shi'ite uprising soon- as many have predicted, all precipated by the closing of the clerics newspaper by Bremner. To gain control, we will have to become more oppressive, no way around it. Looks like Nightimer is more right all the time, if not a little optimistic.

Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die.
--- Herbert Hoover

Oh heck and darnation, GDan204. You done found me out. Yes, I am guilty, guilty, GUILTY.

Guilty of prefering peace to war. Guilty of preferring bona fide reasons for a war rather than a cheap politician's lies and trying to resolve his daddy issues with the blood of American soldiers. Guilty of resenting the old scumbags that run this country and start wars for other people who have no vested interest at stake to fight. Guilty as hell for trying to promote "anti-war, anti-administration feeling in this election year."

What you dismiss as specious, empty rhetoric is like the gospel truth when compared to the mulitiple lies that Dubya has told to justify his occupation. Disregard and disdain my words as you please, GDan204. At least they haven't killed anyone.

Or have you forgotten, "Bring 'em on?" They've been bringing it all right and we've got the caskets coming home to prove it.

You think that's why we haven't seen a commercial from Dubya yet in his Top Gun drag get up on the aircraft carrier strutting around and declaring, "mission accomplished?"

Just wondering.

Men like war: they do not hold much sway over birth, so they make up for it with death. Unlike women, men menstruate by shedding other people's blood.

--- Lucy Ellman

Great reasoning Titus, so we invaded a country that *might* have developed nuclear and/or biological/chemical weapons in 3 to 5 years.

Meanwhile, there are several countries that have those things NOW, have the capability to use them and hate the US much more than Iraq does (North Korea comes to mind).

Logic would dictate that we would go after the greater threat which could have been a country like North Korea or a country that actually sponsors terrorism like Syria or Libya. Instead we go after a country that might be a threat at some unspecified period in the future. Not only that but our leaders lied about or at the very least greatly exaggerated (if you are a Bush apologist) the threat.

That begs the question: WHY? Is it possibly because of the huge amount of oil sitting in that country and the great potential for infrastructure work (where N. Korea is virtually worthless) or is it maybe an old grudge that a son was settling for his father?

None of us may ever know, but what I can say is the end does NOT justify the means in this case and 600+ lives and counting plus nearing 100 billion in tax payer money is far too great a cost.

It's hard to strip the 'gloat' out of these kinds of comments. Which is one reason I tend to question the motive of those who post them.

Now that we see another thread deteriorate into a rehash of the same old things found in about 6,000 other threads, I will ask this question. Specifically of you nighttimer, for starters.

What would you do, specifically, for the next 30 days, if you were the president? You can't just keep saying we should find out why they dont like us. The handwringing and self-abuse solves nothing. What woould you do, starting today? Show us your plan of action. Something. Anything. Who knows, maybe Kerry will read it and get a clue himself, 'cause he sure doesn't have one now.

And a note to Titus, the words you've been quoting were not mine, they were nighttimer's. God, I almost hurled when I read my name attached to that drivel.

Not all the Shiites are rioting. Just the ones that are loyal to Sadr and who are in his "private militia"

Sadr is the troublemaker and should be put in jail for inciting violence.

It may seem like American troops are losing control, but they aren't. Not all of the Shiites in Iraq want this. They want peace. Sadr is just inciting his loyal followers, which are actually in the minority of all the Shiites in Iraq


As for the topic question: IS it all worth it? Yes. It is all worth the loss. We are trying to improve the way of life of a people ravaged by wars and a dictator

That's a completely bogus response.

Maybe somebody could answer your question if they were FOR invading and occupying another country in the first place. You're asking someone how to fix a mess they never created.

While many of you are equating some of our opposition to invading an impotent country to an opposition to a war on terror, we continue to voice our objections to Americans getting killed for Muslims who don't care two you-know-whats for us.

When we liberated ourselves from the British, we fought and died for that freedom. When we went to war against each other to eliminate slavery, we fought and died for our beliefs.

The average person in Iraqi is sitting on their rifles and staying out of it.

Almost everyone in Iraq before the invasion owned a weapon. If they truly wanted freedom, they would fight and die for it. After all, everybody else in the world does.

We have over 600 dead to show as our investment for a people that would just as soon take a nap than do something to help us.

I hope you sleep better at night.

From what i am gathering from Fox News, there is another fight in Ramadi, which is just outside of Fallujah where a US compound has come under attack and US troops are fighting it out there in an intense battle

It seems like we should really face reality that this month might be a deadly month in Iraq because there is a whining Cleric who is grubbing for power using his militia to do his dirty work

I know of no one who does not prefer peace to war. I am especially dissapointed that you have been unable to answer any of the questions I have raised or neither have you seen fit to speak to any of my comments on the actual struggle in the Mid East and the changing of age old paradigms of life there that must be accomplished in order get to the root (as you stated) of the problem of terrorism.

What I've mostly read in your replies are anti war slogans, that contain no substance as to why America should not be defending itself after being attacked. I made several points about the attack on Iraq being part of the WOT. Why do you not address that? Instead you post some rehetoric from the woman's lib movement.
You do speak to "the mulitiple lies that Dubya has told to justify his occupation" but you never post any facts to prove that GWB or his administration lied about Iraq.

As many others have done here and on other boards you continue to call the using of the available intelligence to make the decision to invade Iraq a lie. And, like the rest you have been unable to prove your assertion. Do you know that most of America disagrees with you?

Lastly when you post "declaring, "mission accomplished?", are you actually talking about the GWB's statement that the main fighting in Iraq was over? The Mission Accomplished was on a banner. And as far as taking Iraq and ending the main organized fighting, that banner was absolutely correct.

On the other hand, I wish I could write nearly as well as you.

1SG

Faulty intelligence leads to msitakes.

There is not one - not even ONE - claim that Bush made to invade Iraq that has turned out to be true.

But you can't mistakenly get it ALL wrong.

The pro-invadingandoccupyingcountriesthathavenothingtodowithterrorism folks get hung up on proving negatives.

Well, Bush didn't get one thing right. Prove he didn't lie.

I believe you are laying the blame on the wrong person. How about our President who mislead us and sent our military forces to invade a country and have over 600 killed and over 3,000 wounded. Bush is also grubbing for power(to be elected again) and using his military to do his dirty work.



I disagree with that statement. I tried to find some polls to state this and the closest poll I could find was from Feb 2004 using the term exaggerated(to overstate).

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US...oll_040212.html



I was incorrect. The poll does show 21% thought he lied,but exaggerated was 54%. I interpret that to say the adminstration overstated the wmd evidence to benefit their agenda. To me that is damaging enough. Especially when someone is using evidence to benefit their own agenda. And that agenda definitely was not a agenda to benefit the American people.

If anyone had hard facts then I'm fairly sure that they would have been turned over to the government by now. Clearly none of us are privvy to private conversations and meetings held by the Bush administration.

However, common sense would dictate that given the current situation and the repeated backpeddling by the administration that there is a very strong possibility they lied about multiple things in the past 4 years.



Actually that is an incorrect statement. GW's approval rating has been up and down over the past weeks, but at times it was less than 50%. Additionally the support for the Iraq war was lackluster at best when it started and has declined ever since.

California isn't a barometer for the entire United States or anything, but check out this recent poll.

You acquit yourself quite well with your writing abilities GDan204. Certainly better than some who contribute nothing to the discussion except taunts and snide remarks.

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."

Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).

"But the risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman with weapons of mass destruction far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."

Source: President Meets with National Economic Council, White House (2/25/2003).

On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."

Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

Source: Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, White House (5/29/2003).

"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

You can persuse numerous other misstatements, distortions, exagerrations, misreadings, slanted interpretations and lies by Bush and his chief lieutenants at the website started by Representative Henry Waxman.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

I have NO problem providing facts to back my belief the Bush Administration lied about the reasons they took America to war. We can debate the semantics of what "Mission Accomplished" meant GDan204, but I understand how words and truth can be mutually exclusive when the evidence doesn't fit the rhetoric.

Do you know that most of America disagrees with you? No, I didn't and you haven't provided any evidence to make me think differently. But even if were so, I wouldn't care. I don't place much stock in what most people think because most people don't and would rather be told what to think by others. As long as there's cold beer, hot pizza and Fear Factor to veg out with too many people abdicate their responsibility to be fully vested stockholders in their government. This is why so many people seem to treat the President as if he's blessed with second sight instead of just being a politician hired to do a job for a few years.

Most substantial changes in this country never begin as mass movements. A small committed group gets the ball rolling and as they gather momentum they gain supporters. Even in the heyday of the Civil Rights Movement, most blacks sat on the sidelines while Dr. King and company were catching hell.

What I think and speak to may be only the thoughts of a crank or of a free thinker ahead of the crowd. I prefer to think I am the latter and not the former, but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Maybe I'm just a cranky free thinker.

GDan204, I am sure you'd prefer to see this country at peace rather than war and I agree there are times when this country must go to war and good men and women must die. But the fact of the matter is Iraq did not attack America on September 11, 2001 and no credible evidence has been produced to link Iraq with Al Qaeda or that Iraq was poised to attack the United States.

20 American soldiers have died since this weekend. I have to keep updating my signature line on a almost daily basis. This is a sick and useless waste of the most precious resouce on the planet: the lives of human beings.

As for Passion51's sneering taunt that I provide my strategy for Iraq, I'd just remind him that I'm not running for the presidency and I doubt he'd like my proposal anyway. Why not instead demand a exit strategy from the putz that got us in this mess in the first place, his hero George W. Bush?

I hate it when they say, ‘He gave his life for his country.’ They don’t die for the honor and glory of their country. We kill them.
---– Rear Admiral Gene R. LaRocque

I would respectfully submit that more than one pretext for the war has been *questionable* at best. The chemical weapons trailer, unmanned drones spraying chemical weapons, and the meeting of an Al-Qaeda agent with a member of Iraq's government have yet to materialize in any way, shape, or form. I will grant you that it wasn't just the Bush folks who fell for the info, lots of Clinton people did as well. You can't dismiss any and all criticism of this president and his reasons for going to war. Not every WMD claim of his holds water, even Powell has admitted that his report to the U.N. was flawed and mostly based on conjecture.

Yes, a majority of Americans do not agree with those who are not in favor of this war with Iraq. Then again, most Americans weren't against slavery, the Vietnam war, or Nixon's handling of Watergate at first. With that kind of company, I will be more than happy to belong to the minority of citizens until the rest of the citizenry comes around.

[quote]Titus
Passion, those soldiers didn't die fighting for a lie. They died protecting the region and the world from a madman...[/quote]

First off let me make a correction. Nightimer had make the remark I was responding to above, not Passion.

Ok. Now, to business.


[quote]Vermillion
These are some of the numbers you are using to prove your case? These numbers do not look good in any context. Out of 2700 polled, a very slim majority agree with the invasion of the US, while a full 17% of them support attacks on US forces. Those are not numbers I would be proud of.

Oh, and by the way? They are also COMPLETELY irrelevant. You label Iraqis as free, yet the best you can do to support that claim is to say that a tiny majority are ok with the invasion of Iraq.[/quote]

What better way to ignore facts than to dismiss them is irrelevant. I mean, what to 87% of Kurds polled know anyway about tyranny, right? I mean they're just an anomaly, huh. I bet the entire poll is a fluke. Is it not possible that these numbers reflect a larger base of support? I mean, if these numbers reflected oppositely, you'd tout them as hard facts. So, obviously these polls say something good.


[quote]Vermillion

QUOTE 
And can they not seek help from our troops stationed there? There would be nothing more satisfying for our troops than to nail these scumbags who intimidate and harm fellow Iraqis who want a life devoid of such crime.

Thats your answer? After having dealt with the massive increase in the crime rate, injured Iraqi citizens can always go to the US occupying forces who, you assert, would like NOTHING MORE than to track down the perpetrators of the common crimes they have been unable to prevent. Nice theory, but on what do you base that wild speculation? How many US forces are now allocated to hunt down those suspected of common crime against Iraqi citizens? Why has the crime rate spiked so much, if this fierce devotion to law and order is so omnipresent?[/quote]


O ye of little faith! Well, believe it or not I actually managed to conjure up support for my wild speculation.

http://nyjtimes.com/cover/08-18-03/FightingTerrorinIraq.htm

[quote]

Tipsters Help Fight Terror and Stop Counterfeit Money Operation

Despite all the criminal acts against Iraqis and terror attacks against the Coalition, the Iraqi citizens continue to cooperate with the Coalition forces to help prevent attacks of various types. With the help of Iraqi citizens a counterfeit operation was disrupted. Several million dollars in currency has been discovered to be counterfeit that was under the control of Saddam’s regime.

Local Iraqi citizens also prevented two possible deadly attacks by informing 1st Armored Division soldiers of the location of explosive devices. In the first incident, a taxi driver reported the location of a possible explosive devices to soldiers on patrol. An explosive ordnance team determined the IED was a 155 mm shell with a circuit board and wires. The EOD team disabled the device. The other IED location tip came from a walk-in Iraqi citizen. Upon arrival at the reported location, soldiers found everything the Iraqi walk-in source had given to be completely accurate. They found a 105 mm round with wiring set to detonate in a white bag with two rocket-propelled grenade rounds beside it.

In another counterfeit money bust, the 1st AD, acting on a tip from an Iraqi local source about a possible counterfeit money operation, raided a house in Baghdad. And, in the raid, the 1st AD confiscated millions of uncut counterfeit Dinar. Also found were copy machines, pictures of Saddam, computers and many different dangerous weapons. In another house search, 1st AD seized more than 4 million counterfeit Iraqi Dinar; a large assortment of weapons and more than 500 hundred rounds of small arms ammunition.

In the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force area of operation, Iraqi police turned in two SA-7 missiles, six anti-tank rockets, four 82 mm mortar tubes and two cans of .50 caliber ammunition they discovered in a warehouse in Al Hillah. In another weapons find, a local source turned in more than 50 rocket-propelled grenade launchers. [/quote]

They go on to detail how soldiers fight crime through other raids and counter crime ops that obviously prove how wild my 'speculations' are.

[quote]Vermillion
QUOTE 
So you do not think that those on the Iraq Governing Council will not take into account all the voices (that you say do not exist and yet we hear them every day from people like Sistani and Sadr on one side and from some 2000+ Iraqis on another) of the many different sides of Iraq? I mean, any Iraqi can contact which ever one on the council he or she feels best represents them and speak their mind to them. 

This is of course my favourite of your options, you arguing that an undemocratic, unrepresentative series of appointees put into power by an enemy nation is somehow 'freedom at one of its best moments'. Funny, I seem to recall that the Americans had the ability to contact the British governors and voice their concerns to their offices too. Funny how that 'freedom' was not good enough for the American colonies.[/quote]

First off, the Iraqi Governing council was not put in by an 'enemy state'. The CPA is a UN designate.

[quote]The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is the name of the temporary governing body which has been designated by the United Nations as the lawful government of Iraq until such time as Iraq is politically and socially stable enough to assume its sovereignty.[/quote] from the CPA website.

Second, no offense, but do not lecture an American on American history. I do not lecture you on Canadian History.

The American colonists' scenario you point out, and the one in Iraq today are very different.

In colonial America, the colonists were separated by thousands of miles of ocean, thereby rendering any concerns they voiced, irrelevant. By the time they reached Parliament, months had gone by.

Also, a few of the reasons what we had wasn't 'good enough'. How about the crown raising taxes on everything Americans used in their daily lives in order to recoup the economic losses suffered from the wars with France. Also, the taxation was without any representation on our behalf in Parliament. Those are just a few reasons why it wasn't 'good enough'.

So tell me Vermillion, where do these scenarios share common ground? Is the IGC or the CPA levying unfair taxes or placing unfair ordinances on the Iraqi people? Are they ignoring them? Is the CPA or IGC kidnapping Iraqis to serve in the Iraqi Police or Army?

Do not lecture me on my history, you obviously haven't studied any of it.

[quote]Vermillion
QUOTE 
That, Vermillion, that is freedom at one of it's best moments. To be able to voice your concerns, gripes, accolades to those who are there to represent you.
That is what freedom means to you? That is freedom at its best? I have news for you, people in the USSR had every right and total recourse to write their local Soviet and express their concerns, opinions or frustrations, they could rant all they wanted in those letters, and often did without reprisal (as long as they kept it between themselves and the Soviet) So I guess the USSR was 'freedom at its best' to you? No, freedom is when there is some accountability to the people. As long as the representatives can burn all those complaining letters without ANY accountability to the people, calling this 'freedom' is insane.[/quote]

Haha, nice try. "Was the USSR freedom to you?" Oh yeah, sure it was! Show me where members of the IGC are burning letters or ignoring the people, and Ill rethink that position. Until then, it is obvious that the IGC can not ignore and will not ignore their own countrymen. If you can't hear hundreds of people in the streets, if you cant read the newspapers, you shouldn't be runnin the nation.

[quote]Vermillion
This is an appointed, unprepresentative government, put into place by a foreign power. Dress it up how you like, but it is JUST as undemocratic as Hussein was. The people have no voice at all in how their government works, how their money is spent, how their taxes are expended. I am surprised to now hear you hold up 'taxation without representation' as 'freedom at one of it's best moments'.[/quote]

That would be a grave concern of mine Vermillion, if Iraqis paid taxes.

http://www.iraqpress.org/english.asp?fname...4-02-02%5C0.htm

[quote]Baghdad, Iraq Press, February 2, 2004 - For about nine months, Iraqis have paid no fees for water or power supplies, no duties on the goods they import or export and no taxes on their earnings.

The failure to collect fees in return for the public services has given the Iraqis the chance to pay no attention to how much electricity or water they consume, when they are made available.

And many Iraqis have been cashing in on the free-for-all economy leading to the emergence of a new breed of multimillionaires.

No one has collected anything for the government since the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s rule last April.[/quote]

So where is a lot of the money coming from? Hmmm.

[quote]Amb. Bremer promised that the US would continue to aid this work promising that, "in the months ahead, the United States will spend over $3,600 million on potable water, water conservation, sewerage and solid waste management."[/quote]
- From an article today on Amb. Bremer commending the Minister of Municipalities and Public Works, Nasreen Barwari.
On the CPA website www.cpa-iraq.org

And were spending way more that 3.6 Billion on Iraqi infrastructure. The only tax here is now an import tax, which is at 5%.

http://www.iraqpress.org/english.asp?fname...04\000.htm

I guess since they are not being taxed, you can't make the claim that their suffering 'taxation without representation'.

It's obvious that you don't share in my optimism for the future of Iraq. That's fine, but pointing out that 17% of Iraqis that say attacks on Coalition troops is ok, doesn't help your argument. But I think that when...

48% of Iraqis and 87% of Kurds supported the Invasion...

78% of Iraqis and 96% of Kurds think attacks on troops are unacceptable...

65% to 85% of Iraqis nation wide believe that things are good today...

and 63% to 83% of Iraqis see a better 2005...

...I think that this backs my 'wild speculation'.

Then, as soon as I thought you were done...

[quote]Vermillion
Anti-American feeling in Saudi is at an all time high, Iraq has now been opened to the world of Islamic rule and terorism, whereas it was not before. Iran is getting more and more belligerant faced with US pressure.[/quote]

The sentiment coming from Saudi Arabia is nothing new. Iran's actions should be monitored closely to ensure its positive progress. That said, if halting work on uranium enrichment plants and cooperating with UN inspectors is belligerent, I'd wonder what they would do in a good mood.

As far as Iraq goes, terrorism did not just suddenly appear after the invasion.

Saddam Hussein rewarded the families of suicide bombers in Palestine with roughly the equivalent of $25,000 US, encouraging others to blow themselves up, along with countless innocent people.

Ansar al-Islam is a terror group with ties to Al-Qaeda based in the Kurdish dominated north of Iraq.

Musab al-Zarqawi is a well known Al-Qaeda agent who has spent much time in Iraq.

Abu Abbas, mastermind of the Achile Lauro cruiseliner hijacking in 1985, in which a wheelchair bound American named Leon Klinghoffer was murdered, was found taking refuge in Iraq. He was found months after the war ended. But I guess you'll just dismiss all this too.

Libya and the US have talked for years, but there's nothing like a kick in someone elses butt to speed up the progress.

[quote]Vermillion
In the meantime, outside the Middle east, Islamic terrorism is on the massive upswing in Russia and former Soviet states, and (unconfirmed) stories are coming out of a serious upsurge in China as well. [/quote]

First off, our war in Iraq didn't start anything that wasn't already there. Chechnya has always been a thorn in the Russians' side. And although it has been reported that some Chechens were possibly in Afghanistan in 2001, their focus is on a state of their own. Not wiping out Americans. As for China, I haven't heard any stories of attacks in China. I am aware of a small minority in the north that, along with anyone overtly or covertly practicing any faith, are persecuted by the Chinese government. Their persecution would be more than enough reason to attack Chinese targets.

[quote]Vermilion
Since the war in Iraq we have seen the first major Islamic terrorist action in Europe (Spain) and dozens of arrests of potentially similar groups in the UK, France, Germany...[/quote]

This, I can say for a fact, is utterly false. All I need utter is...

Munich, 1972.

A hijacking of a flight from Rome to Tel Aviv in 1968. The Achile Lauro in 1985.

And there's plenty more where that came from. Islamic based terror has been established in Europe for a while now.

[quote]Vermillion
QUOTE 
However in attacking Saddam's regime in Iraq, we rid the world of a terrorist nation...

...You speak of the root of the problem. This is the root and the war in Iraq is the first step in resolving entire ME problem which is the breeding ground of Islamic Terrorism. 


Really? Firstly, remind me again how Iraq was a terrorist nation?[/quote]

Musab al-Zarqawi
Abu Abbas
Ansar-al Islam
Rewarding suicide bomber's families.

Now on to other things.

[quote]Cube Jockey
Great reasoning Titus, so we invaded a country that *might* have developed nuclear and/or biological/chemical weapons in 3 to 5 years.[/quote]

Would you support stopping Hitler if you suspected him of planning to or actually carrying out the murder of 13 million people?

[quote]Cube Jockey
Meanwhile, there are several countries that have those things NOW, have the capability to use them and hate the US much more than Iraq does (North Korea comes to mind).

Logic would dictate that we would go after the greater threat which could have been a country like North Korea...

That begs the question: WHY? [/quote]

I would love to wipe Kim Jong-Il off the face of the earth, but there are some ideas that come to mind as to not just invade N. Korea.

First one would bethe fact that we have 38K US troops on our side of the peninsula compared to the one million active and reserve troops they have. That, plus their ballistic missile capabilities would make our guys sitting ducks by the time we started to assemble in the Sea of Japan.

Second, and it bothers me no one puts this into consideration when people make these comments, is the involvement of the Chinese.

Not to come to the aid of their Korean counterparts, per say, but to ensure its own survival, as any act against the N. Koreans could be construed as a threat to the Chinese. A war with China and North Korea would make Iraq look like a day at the beach.

[quote]DaytonRocker

QUOTE (Passion51 @ Apr 6 2004, 06:29 AM)
What would you do, specifically, for the next 30 days, if you were the president? You can't just keep saying we should find out why they dont like us. The handwringing and self-abuse solves nothing. What woould you do, starting today? Show us your plan of action. Something. Anything. Who knows, maybe Kerry will read it and get a clue himself, 'cause he sure doesn't have one now. 


That's a completely bogus response.

Maybe somebody could answer your question if they were FOR invading and occupying another country in the first place. You're asking someone how to fix a mess they never created.[/quote]

That's not a bogus response. In fact it brings to light some interesting issues.

Those who attack the war often have no solution to the problem. All blame, no answers. Kerry doesn't have much of an answer. Unless you think adding 40K more troops to the armed forces, most of which will most likely go to Iraq, is a solution. Where is he gonna come up with 40,000 people?

I mean, Wesley Clark was the only one who had anything resembling a sound solution, involving troop rotation and the like. And I would of crossed party lines if the solution was better than what we have now. And that is what Kerry will have to deal with if elected. A mess that (he voted for) but wasn't his doing.

[quote]DaytonRocker
Almost everyone in Iraq before the invasion owned a weapon. If they truly wanted freedom, they would fight and die for it. After all, everybody else in the world does.[/quote]

Unfortunately Dayton, not everyone possesses the same resolve we do. Especially after being brutally stomped on for over twenty years. Some, actually did die for their freedom. Along with the countless murders of clerics and other activists, were the countless number of Kurds who rose up against Saddam. And were crushed.

http://lists.nu.ac.za/pipermail/ccs-l/2003/001111.html

Some excerpts from the link...

[quote]
This country was hell.
We were the only Europeans in a city called Amara in the Shi'ite area of
southern Iraq near Basra, and we arrived just a few weeks after the uprising
had been crushed. There was a belt of tanks around the city. The majority of
buildings were burned out. There was no food in the market. There was also a
terrible degree of malnourishment there.

"People in Iraq won't talk freely, because they are terrified that their
friends are working for one of Saddam's nine horrible security services.
Because of this atmosphere, it took us three or four months to learn some
details about the uprising. The Iraqis made people lie down in the streets
and then buried them alive under asphalt. They killed everyone who looked a
little religious, because this was a Shi'ite area. It was forbidden to take
the corpses from the street. All in all, 60,000 or 70,000 people were killed
in this area in 1991.[/quote]

Could you imagine how hard it was just to stage that uprising? When those oppressed do not have the will to fight, it is our obligation to help them. The saddest part was, in '91, we really didn't.

[quote]DaytonRocker
We have over 600 dead to show as our investment for a people that would just as soon take a nap than do something to help us.

I hope you sleep better at night.[/quote]

Before you continue to attack our consciouses, I ask you to look at the stories I posted where Iraqis are fighting crime and terror.

What problem would that be? The current problem which invading Iraq caused, or the previous problem (terrorism) which has been exacerbated by the uneccessary invasion and over extention of our troops in Iraq ?



Well, we all know where it is coming from, WHY is the question.



Do you mean like the hundreds of thousands IN The Streets that opposed the Iraq invasion, like the President himself saying HE DOESNT READ NEWSPAPERS? I agree, someone like that shouldnt be running the nation.



Wait, you said 87% of Kurds supported the invasion. Most of us realize thats because the Kurds were opressed, both by Saddam AND US forces who have always supported Turkey, unless it was minimally to our advantage, and we turned our backs on them (Kurds) after 1991 and allowed them to be subsequently slaughtered for their support. Oh wait,.... we also did nothing whe they were chemically murdered, wasnt the time of the Rumsfeld handshake, and smiling photo-op? How you HATE to remember that incidence, or consider it a non-issue. But now, well, they are FOR US and supporting Al Quaeda also in their region? What is it? US or anybody that will give them a Kurdish territory? Do you know the first thing about The Kurdish Nation or their objectives? Americans will never give them what they want, they are being used. , besides being the most extreme minority.





You have NOT studied Islamic terrorism, and obviously not your own history to enough extent, so please do not make claims upon those who have. Small groupings of terrorists have been active for decades which have dedicated themselves to particular grievances. Europe has dealt with this long before America EVER was interested in the least in 'their problem', as per your siteings. Please dont try to co-opt a sudden concern for past events upon which the US had little care, including the IRA or ETA. Terrorism only became a concern when it affected US soil, and late in the view of 911.

Titus, your argument is flagrant with unsubstantiated opinions which are based upon lack of knowledge of events and history. The example of the Kurds is the most ignorantly presented. Read about Kurds and Turkey and US involvement. Its really sad to be loudmouthed about things which you have no backround education.

All this talk about the "poor Iraqi's suffering under Hussein" is, of course, bringing crocodile tears to my eyes, but I do need to ask... HOW IS THIS OUR PROBLEM?!?!

Even if Iraq turns into a blissful utopia tomorrow, all our troops will have still died in vain. Completely. It's not our country. Our troops are dying for the benefit of another nation. When someone joins the U.S. military, they sign up to defend THEIR country, not some Middle Eastern septic tank. It is a sham and a disgrace to send them to die for any country but their own.

Saddam kills 300,000 of his people? Can someone tell me how this affects me? I could care less if all the Iraqis live forever, or grow mushrooms. All this "internationalist" cowdung is what caused most of our problems to begin with. Had we not gotten involved in the first Gulf War, Al Qaeda would be fighting Saddam's regime now.



What can I say, life sucks, wear a helmet. Their lack of testicular fortitude is nobody's business but their own.



Why? Why can't our country and our government exist for the good of its people? This fall, will we be voting for President of the USA, or President of Earth?

Yeah, let's give billions upon billions of dollars to Iraq, while there are homeless people in our own country.

First off, Bush did not ignore the anti-war crowd. It's, as I said, impossible not to hear the voices of protest. Just because he didn't choose your prefered path doesn't mean you were ignored. And what of the hundreds of thousands of people that voiced their SUPPORT of the war? Should he have ignored them? All the people that spent time out on busy thouroghfares with signs that read "Support Our Troops" or signs that support president Bush? Sounds like sour grapes to me. Vote against Bush in November, but don't claim that your voice wasn't heard.

Second, I said CANT, not doesn't. If you wanna manipulate my quotes, do a better job. Obviously Bush can read, and I'm sure he gets better information through his daily briefs anyway.

(I applaud Bill Mahr's attempt to get him to read the paper every week on his show, )




For someone who attacks one's reading comprehension...tisk tisk, I never said that the Kurds supported Ansar al-Islam, I meerly stated that that was where the group was based. Does this mean that there are Kurds that support them, yes. Does that mean an overwhelming majority do, no. So again, if you're gonna manipulate my words, do a better job.

As for the US opressing them, show me where we hid the bodies and I'll concede that fact to you. Until then...

As for the '91 uprising, yes, we did not help them and I believe we should of. It was a tragic mistake to look the other way when thousands of Kurds were dying to topple Saddam.