NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm getting so tired of this mantra lately. "We did this to bring peace and democracy to an oppressed people." An argument that is given without basis, and which also allows them to act all morally indignant labelling those against the war as being somehow "for" the continued oppression of a people. A win-win indeed!

And such lovely revisionism!

We all remember why GW really did this right? The claimed threat to the nation and the region. The implication that Saddam was working with Osama and would be handing him WMD to use against us. The impassioned please to get him before he got us.

Or, as GW stated in his final ultimatum:

The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.

The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat, but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety.

Before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger will be removed.


Of course, the fact that it turns out that there were no WMD and no links to Osama is inconvenient, so after some casting about there is that new mantra.

"We did it to liberate an oppressed people."

Really?

BULLSH*T!

The only support for this is the fact that GW did mention that this war would also lead to the liberation of Iraqis, and so now this is extrapolated into being one of the initial reasons.

For example, to also quote from that ultimatum:

Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you.

As our coalition takes away their power, we will deliver the food and medicine you need.

We will tear down the apparatus of terror and we will help you to build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free.

In free Iraq there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms.

The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.



See? there he talked about liberation. So it MUST have been part of the reason right?

BULLSH*T!

Look at it again. "If we must begin a military campaign"

If we must?

well must we?

Under what conditions might we not "must"?

Oh - that too was spelled out.

Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing.
...
Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war and every measure will be taken to win it.


So - the liberation of Iraq was dependant on one thing. Saddam leaving. Had he done that, there would have been no war.

Oh! you say - but see! That would have liberated them from Saddam!

Yes. In a fashion. And he would have had carte blanche to hand over the reigns of power to whomsoever he chose. There was no other condition attached.

So you would have had Saddam in Libya (or similar) with one of his Ba'athist henchmen now running the country. The control would still reside within the same apparatus, and the same oppression of Kurds and Shi'ites would still have continued under a re-branded dictatorship. Same oppressive country - just a new picture on the currency.

Oh yeah - that would have provided liberation from oppression and the implementation of democracy!

:roll:

Same damn thing in Afghanistan.

Remember? The Taliban was also given an ultimatum. Hand over Osama and his leadership group or face the consequences.

So, had they done so there would still be a despotic theocracy running the show there doing lively things like executing women who's veils accidentally slipped while out shopping.


Now don't get me wrong - if those two countries do manage to build themselves into modern, peaceful, democratic states then this will indeed have been a great outcome to these wars. I hope fervently that these people do make the most of this opportunity.

I just want people to cut the BS argument that this was the intent all along. It wasn't. The welfare of the citizenship of another country rarely figures into the geopolitical strategy of a superpower, and it certainly was not a deciding factor this time. Only a side-effect.

The ultimatums given bear that out since in both cases the countries were offered options that would have denied this liberty to their citizens.

You can hope for peace, democracy and liberty for Iraqis and Afghanis. I know I do.

But don't be damn gullible and think that we went to war to provide those things for them.

Because that is bullsh*t!

-Z-

Whether there were good reasons or not for going to war, it seems abundantly clear that they're not the ones that were being used to justify them.

Who the hell wins in a war?

No one I say!

Bush used 9/11 to justify the removal of Taliban and Osama's buddies from power in Afghanistan, but Iraq was invaded without international support apart from UK and Australia ("Coalition of Willing").

Osama did have to removed from Afghanistan, but the US still hasn't caught him yet. Iraq did not need to be invaded and now Al Quaida and Saddam supporters are now friends because of the common enemy, the US.

Bush used 9/11 to justify the removal of Taliban and Osama's buddies from power in Afghanistan, but Iraq was invaded without international support apart from UK and Australia ("Coalition of Willing").

Osama did have to removed from Afghanistan, but the US still hasn't caught him yet. Iraq did not need to be invaded and now Al Quaida and Saddam supporters are now friends because of the common enemy, the US.

US, Spain (out now thanks to a terror attack and a change in government do to it), UK, Poland, the list goes on. Just because the UN didn't authorize it (Which they did if you bothered to read all RESOLUTIONS ON IRAQ) doesn't make it illegitmate. It was legitament! The reasons were mostly sound. And yes, we did go to free an Opressed people. Something we should have done in '91 when the first gulf war was being faught but no the UN stopped us.

In the end the President's aim is to, rightly, do what's best for this country. We went to war because Bush believed, as do I, that Saddam was a threat to the US. If we can bring peace and democracty to Iraq that will be a great bonus.
Think about WW2 and the Marshall Plan. When we finally went to war, was it to remove the evil Third Reich from the face of the planet? No. We were attacked and defending ourselves. When we sent tens of millions of dollars across the Atlantic to rebuild Western Europe after victory, were we just being nice? No. We saw the lack of infrastructure and utter chaos as a fertile field for Comminism that would have been a threat to us.
And read the 9/11 Commision report. It's true there was no direct Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Which Bush NEVER claimed as far as I can remember. But there were lots of other connections between Al Queda and Saddam.
Italy did not contribute in any way to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Does that mean we were wrong to invade them?

And the US have lost a lot of worldwide support they had after 9/11. The damage done both with mankind in general and diplomatic between the nations, will take years to repair. Never again will the US have the right to display itself as the beacon of freedom and justice in the western world. This phrase has been made hollow by the US themselves. Say bye bye to your American Dream.

And the US have lost a lot of worldwide support they had after 9/11. The damage done both with mankind in general and diplomatic between the nations, will take years to repair. Never again will the US have the right to display itself as the beacon of freedom and justice in the western world. This phrase has been made hollow by the US themselves. Say bye bye to your American Dream.

LMFAO!

If you believe that than you really are a bleeding heart liberal I have you pegged to be. YOu guys are so predictable its pathetic.

Just because the UN didn't authorize it (Which they did if you bothered to read all RESOLUTIONS ON IRAQ) doesn't make it illegitmate.

In the eyes of the US, of course unilaterally decided and fought wars which are done by ignoring the international community, are not "ilegitimate". The fact that the large majority of mankind hate the USA for their actions, not just in Iraq but by now generally throughout the world added to the insult of betraying all values of democracy, I cannot see how you have any right to self-legitimate your illegal, human-rights defying war against Iraq. And no excuse will ever make up for it.

Bush used 9/11 to justify the removal of Taliban and Osama's buddies from power in Afghanistan, but Iraq was invaded without international support apart from UK and Australia ("Coalition of Willing").Thats not true. We also had Micronesia (Motto: I can't belive its a real country) on our side.

And the US have lost a lot of worldwide support they had after 9/11. The damage done both with mankind in general and diplomatic between the nations, will take years to repair. Never again will the US have the right to display itself as the beacon of freedom and justice in the western world. This phrase has been made hollow by the US themselves. Say bye bye to your American Dream.

LMFAO!

If you believe that than you really are a bleeding heart liberal I have you pegged to be. YOu guys are so predictable its pathetic.
If you are trying to insult my non-existant political belief, then you are failing. I am neither conservative nor liberal. I have no political belief, but I believe what my sense for justice tells me. And I sense that Bush is slipping on his own slime and hastily trying to find a reason to once again justify the war. Wars are justified before the fact, not the other way around. That the war was first based on lies, was insult enough, adding to this is now the refusal to accept the consequences of betraying the entire world and your own ideals.

Just because the UN didn't authorize it (Which they did if you bothered to read all RESOLUTIONS ON IRAQ) doesn't make it illegitmate.

In the eyes of the US, of course unilaterally decided and fought wars which are done by ignoring the international community, are not "ilegitimate". The fact that the large majority of mankind hate the USA for their actions, not just in Iraq but by now generally throughout the world added to the insult of betraying all values of democracy, I cannot see how you have any right to self-legitimate your illegal, human-rights defying war against Iraq. And no excuse will ever make up for it.

Wasn't self legitmate if we have numerous allies, Eastern Europe among them, Assisting us in Iraq. Just because the world doesn't like what we did and I couldn't care less since they never liked America even though we gave most of them freedom. The world may be against us, but the bridges are being rebuilt. We stood on principles and Morality. Something the UN doesn't have.

Just because the UN didn't authorize it (Which they did if you bothered to read all RESOLUTIONS ON IRAQ) doesn't make it illegitmate.

In the eyes of the US, of course unilaterally decided and fought wars which are done by ignoring the international community, are not "ilegitimate". The fact that the large majority of mankind hate the USA for their actions, not just in Iraq but by now generally throughout the world added to the insult of betraying all values of democracy, I cannot see how you have any right to self-legitimate your illegal, human-rights defying war against Iraq. And no excuse will ever make up for it.

Wasn't self legitmate if we have numerous allies, Eastern Europe among them, Assisting us in Iraq. Just because the world doesn't like what we did and I couldn't care less since they never liked America even though we gave most of them freedom. The world may be against us, but the bridges are being rebuilt. We stood on principles and Morality. Something the UN doesn't have.
I shit on your principles and morality. May you grow old with them and die ignorant of actual world happenings. You have annoyed your strongest allies, you have made the dangerous decision to play superpower in the world, which is not liked by Russia nor China. You have forced your will on the "East European Countries" by threatening to reduce military spending or development spending on these countries. Your war slogan "You are either with us or against us" did not work with the countries who do not fear your arrogance. As a result of the ruthless foreign policy of the USA and the laughable attempts at trying to justify the war long after it has happened, with more atrocities showing up daily in world-wide media, the USA is hated among the majority of mankind. Aside from the few allies you have left, you'll notice that nobody wil voluntarily help you, because nothing will make this war legal, no matter how hard you try.

Just because the UN didn't authorize it (Which they did if you bothered to read all RESOLUTIONS ON IRAQ) doesn't make it illegitmate.

In the eyes of the US, of course unilaterally decided and fought wars which are done by ignoring the international community, are not "ilegitimate". The fact that the large majority of mankind hate the USA for their actions, not just in Iraq but by now generally throughout the world added to the insult of betraying all values of democracy, I cannot see how you have any right to self-legitimate your illegal, human-rights defying war against Iraq. And no excuse will ever make up for it.

Actually Gigatron and Spoffin..there were 28 UN members that were thoroughly behind us..that's about a fifth of all UN members...seems the size Spoffin of that member is irrevelent now isn't it? Even France was behind us at one point..but the cowards would only go along in private, no courage of their convictions.

Bush used 9/11 to justify the removal of Taliban and Osama's buddies from power in Afghanistan, but Iraq was invaded without international support apart from UK and Australia ("Coalition of Willing").Thats not true. We also had Micronesia (Motto: I can't belive its a real country) on our side.

Most supporters of the invasion cheered from the sidelines while only 3 sent troops. In comparison, Gulf War I had far more contributing nations.

Who the hell wins in a war?

No one I say!
The people not having their hands amputated for dissent. The people not being fed into industrial shredders. The people not being dressed up as Superman and thrown off buildings. The people not being selected for rape by Uday and Qusay Hussein. The people who don't have to stare at Saddam Hussein's portrait everywhere they go.

Who the hell wins in a war?

No one I say!
The people not having their hands amputated for dissent. The people not being fed into industrial shredders. The people not being dressed up as Superman and thrown off buildings. The people not being selected for rape by Uday and Qusay Hussein. The people who don't have to stare at Saddam Hussein's portrait everywhere they go.

Ty Stirner, couldn't have said it better myself.

The people not having their hands amputated for dissent. The people not being fed into industrial shredders. The people not being dressed up as Superman and thrown off buildings. The people not being selected for rape by Uday and Qusay Hussein. The people who don't have to stare at Saddam Hussein's portrait everywhere they go.

In comparison to that the US are of course angelic and do not commit similar atrocities. Your bias is so obvious.

The people not having their hands amputated for dissent. The people not being fed into industrial shredders. The people not being dressed up as Superman and thrown off buildings. The people not being selected for rape by Uday and Qusay Hussein. The people who don't have to stare at Saddam Hussein's portrait everywhere they go.

In comparison to that the US are of course angelic and do not commit similar atrocities. Your bias is so obvious.

Oh brother! We have never cut off hands or limbs for sport! We never tossed people into shredders. We never pushed people off buildings.

If your talking about that prison, yea it was awful but they are getting punished for it as they deserve. A few people do something and now the world is saying the US should be brought up on charges. Not going to happen. These people that committed the acts against the prisoners are being punished by our military courts with lawyers and judges.

And the US have lost a lot of worldwide support they had after 9/11. The damage done both with mankind in general and diplomatic between the nations, will take years to repair. Never again will the US have the right to display itself as the beacon of freedom and justice in the western world. This phrase has been made hollow by the US themselves. Say bye bye to your American Dream.

LMFAO!

If you believe that than you really are a bleeding heart liberal I have you pegged to be. YOu guys are so predictable its pathetic.

Ok and what part of what he said isnt true? diplomatic relations between the USA and a lot of countires have chiled past freezing point, of course this is hardly the worst side affect of the war but is has stopped a LOT of people veiwing america as the land of justice and freedom.

Won't say your wrong but won't say your right either. Yes relations may have chilled but many are thawing too.

The fact of the matter is this "war" was started under faulty beliefs and half truths. There was a bad government in control of a major resource so like with any smart four year old you punch the kid with the cookie and take it from h them. But of course your not going to share that cookie with anyone till they punch you. So let be said this whole thing could have been handled better but it wasn't, so lets hope as many people as possible don't die out there before everything is well somewhat fixed.

Italy did not contribute in any way to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Does that mean we were wrong to invade them?

No, both Italy and Germany DECLARED WAR on the United States after Pearl Harbor. They did it to honour the Tripartite pact. Had they not honoured the agreement, then America would have only fought the Japanese.

You have trampled human rights instead of upholding them - the most sacred laws mankind has to distinguish itself from animals. You continue to break international and US law by harboring a US government that orders the illegal abduction of people from all over the world into law-free "concentration camps". The torturing was ordered by your administration - you support and keep defending it, and thus legitimate the use of torture against helpless people. You are no better than Saddam Hussein under the disguise of democracy. You have destroyed all you claim to defend. You have no right to tell other countries what to do. You are not moral and have no principles. I wish the USA would cease to exist.

I hate the instability of this server.. hmph

Now read this on the homepage of the International Red Cross:
http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList322/D39D153777925BD3C1256E990035E727

so refute what Zepp has originally said then.

You have trampled human rights instead of upholding them - the most sacred laws mankind has to distinguish itself from animals. You continue to break international and US law by harboring a US government that orders the illegal abduction of people from all over the world into law-free "concentration camps". The torturing was ordered by your administration - you support and keep defending it, and thus legitimate the use of torture against helpless people. You are no better than Saddam Hussein under the disguise of democracy. You have destroyed all you claim to defend. You have no right to tell other countries what to do. You are not moral and have no principles. I wish the USA would cease to exist.

Trampled??...tell that to the 35 dead that showed up to enlist in the new Iraqi Army that are now dead due to a terrorist bomb..and were it not for the fact that the other 100 or so was already inside the compound the car bomb might have killed more...the terrorists have begun a campaign now to disrupt and sabotage the oil facilities..the only resource Iraq has with which to rebuild itself..they know it will further destabilize the area, they also are targeting any member of the Iraqi government..a government mind you that has been given it's approval by the very UN who didn't want anything to do with this war.

We have given them back the freedom that is inherent in every human being..the right to be free of oppression...we may have indeed fallen short of the image that some of us express...but that doesn't mean we have not tried to do the best with what we have. They have elected their government...they will have an Army answerable to civilian authority, they will have a Constitution guaranteeing rights to religion and women.

The Kurds can rest easy knowing they won't be oppresed by Saddam anymore.

If our actions bring in terrorists..so much the better..come out of your holes..where we will promptly shoot you.

You have trampled human rights instead of upholding them - the most sacred laws mankind has to distinguish itself from animals. You continue to break international and US law by harboring a US government that orders the illegal abduction of people from all over the world into law-free "concentration camps". The torturing was ordered by your administration - you support and keep defending it, and thus legitimate the use of torture against helpless people. You are no better than Saddam Hussein under the disguise of democracy. You have destroyed all you claim to defend. You have no right to tell other countries what to do. You are not moral and have no principles. I wish the USA would cease to exist.

IF they are terrorists, I do say torture them! LOL!!! No I don't actually. As for "concentration camps" name one. Gitmo isn't one because they have a reward system in place. Many of the detanees there get rewarded for good behavior. Did you see that in concentration camps? NO you DON'T!

No US Law has been broken. If they were broken, it'll be blasted over every news network from Fox News to NBC. Just because its in a couple of papers doesn't make it so. Papers do lie you know and some people will lie just to get headlines and to make the otherside look bad. Remember that.

You have trampled human rights instead of upholding them - the most sacred laws mankind has to distinguish itself from animals. You continue to break international and US law by harboring a US government that orders the illegal abduction of people from all over the world into law-free "concentration camps". The torturing was ordered by your administration - you support and keep defending it, and thus legitimate the use of torture against helpless people. You are no better than Saddam Hussein under the disguise of democracy. You have destroyed all you claim to defend. You have no right to tell other countries what to do. You are not moral and have no principles. I wish the USA would cease to exist.

Trampled??...tell that to the 35 dead that showed up to enlist in the new Iraqi Army that are now dead due to a terrorist bomb..and were it not for the fact that the other 100 or so was already inside the compound the car bomb might have killed more...the terrorists have begun a campaign now to disrupt and sabotage the oil facilities..the only resource Iraq has with which to rebuild itself..they know it will further destabilize the area, they also are targeting any member of the Iraqi government..a government mind you that has been given it's approval by the very UN who didn't want anything to do with this war.

We have given them back the freedom that is inherent in every human being..the right to be free of oppression...we may have indeed fallen short of the image that some of us express...but that doesn't mean we have not tried to do the best with what we have. They have elected their government...they will have an Army answerable to civilian authority, they will have a Constitution guaranteeing rights to religion and women.

The Kurds can rest easy knowing they won't be oppresed by Saddam anymore.

If our actions bring in terrorists..so much the better..come out of your holes..where we will promptly shoot you.

Gives a big round of applaudes to Salishe!

You tell him dear sir.

You have trampled human rights instead of upholding them - the most sacred laws mankind has to distinguish itself from animals. You continue to break international and US law by harboring a US government that orders the illegal abduction of people from all over the world into law-free "concentration camps". The torturing was ordered by your administration - you support and keep defending it, and thus legitimate the use of torture against helpless people. You are no better than Saddam Hussein under the disguise of democracy. You have destroyed all you claim to defend. You have no right to tell other countries what to do. You are not moral and have no principles. I wish the USA would cease to exist.

IF they are terrorists, I do say torture them! LOL!!! No I don't actually. As for "concentration camps" name one. Gitmo isn't one because they have a reward system in place. Many of the detanees there get rewarded for good behavior. Did you see that in concentration camps? NO you DON'T!

No US Law has been broken. If they were broken, it'll be blasted over every news network from Fox News to NBC. Just because its in a couple of papers doesn't make it so. Papers do lie you know and some people will lie just to get headlines and to make the otherside look bad. Remember that.
You support whats going on with any of your posts. You disgust me. Instead of prosecuting your administration for now trying to cover up the major clusterfuc kit created, you are so blinded and malpatriotic that you accept the rape of your country for illegal wars in the world. Where is your honor? Where is your moral and where are the so-called principles you claim to have? I see none of that. Comparing the US actions to terrorists does not make them any more legal. If you lower yourself to what yo uclaim to be fighting, then your credibility is nonexistant. Thanks for proving my point once again.

DP

US, Spain (out now thanks to a terror attack and a change in government do to it), UK, Poland, the list goes on.


Ah, the 'Coalition of the Billing'. BTW, if you paid attention it's pretty obvious that the former Spanish government lost power because they lied, not because there was a terror attack. Aznar was so desperate to avoid being blamed for the attack that Spain lied to German cops about ETA's past incidents, just so blaming them would look more probable. It only came to light because the Spanish investigators had too much integrity to let it slide, and tipped off the opposition party.

The current 'coalition' is composed of people whose arms we twisted or whose leaders we bribed. Unlike the last gulf war, we're missing local countries like Turkey, Egypt, Syria, etc. We're also paying for everything ourselves - at least $1 billion a month is vanishing into the ether, and the total bill for this war is half the current deficit. During the first gulf war, thanks to an actual coalition, we made a profit.

Do you now see the difference between a coalition and "You go, girl!"?

Just because the UN didn't authorize it (Which they did if you bothered to read all RESOLUTIONS ON IRAQ) doesn't make it illegitmate. It was legitament!

The UN decides what punishment is appropriate for countries that violate UN resolutions. There are a lot of other countries in "material breach" of UN resolutions that the US doesn't invade. (Obligatory Flip Flop - remember when Bush said he would call for a vote, "no matter what the whip count'/)

You are right, though, lack of UN authorization is not the same thing as an illegitmate war. However, a war based on lies is not legitimate. And a war of choice -- a war of aggression -- based on a country no threat to the US or its neighbors is certainly not legitimate.

The reasons were mostly sound. And yes, we did go to free an Opressed people.

The reasons have not held up in the slighest. I challenge you to provide a government source citing a rationale for the invasion that has held up to the present day. If the US invaded to free an oppressed people, why are we shooting the same people - like the Marsh Arabs - we came to free?

Something we should have done in '91 when the first gulf war was being faught but no the UN stopped us.

Okay, this is what set me off. That is complete and 100% total fantasy. The UN had absolutely nothing to do with the end of the first Gulf War, and had absolutely nothing to do with the cowardly and short-sighted decision by the US to abandon the Shi'ite revolution in the south, after it had been specifically encouraged by Bush I. I challenge you to find any reference for this revisionist history outside of your diseased imagination.

(Why did the first gulf war stop after 100 hours? Well, this time around we found out that tank divisions run with 100 hours of supplies before needing resupply... really, it was some well done PR last time around.)

Okay, this is what set me off. That is complete and 100% total fantasy. The UN had absolutely nothing to do with the end of the first Gulf War, and had absolutely nothing to do with the cowardly and short-sighted decision by the US to abandon the Shi'ite revolution in the south, after it had been specifically encouraged by Bush I. I challenge you to find any reference for this revisionist history outside of your diseased imagination.

(Why did the first gulf war stop after 100 hours? Well, this time around we found out that tank divisions run with 100 hours of supplies before needing resupply... really, it was some well done PR last time around.)

WE never twisted any arms. They WILLING SUPPORTED US! The UN did have something to do with the end of the war. They also gave permission to engage in it too. We wanted to kick out hussein then but we were told no by the UN. I have to agree with your comment on that rebellion. My dad wasn't happy about that.

As for the 1000 hr ground war! My dad fought in that campaign. He had no use for a stupid general that disobeyed orders to, as my dad put it, "Hall Ass and cut them off" It lasted a 1000 hours because of our ground and air power. They couldn't stop us just like they couldn't stop us in our drive to Baghdad. May God keep Dad safe.

Bush used 9/11 to justify the removal of Taliban and Osama's buddies from power in Afghanistan, but Iraq was invaded without international support apart from UK and Australia ("Coalition of Willing").

Osama did have to removed from Afghanistan, but the US still hasn't caught him yet. Iraq did not need to be invaded and now Al Quaida and Saddam supporters are now friends because of the common enemy, the US.

US, Spain (out now thanks to a terror attack and a change in government do to it), UK, Poland, the list goes on. Just because the UN didn't authorize it (Which they did if you bothered to read all RESOLUTIONS ON IRAQ) doesn't make it illegitmate. It was legitament! The reasons were mostly sound. And yes, we did go to free an Opressed people. Something we should have done in '91 when the first gulf war was being faught but no the UN stopped us.

Actually, if you read the inital post you would realize that it is very clear that the US did NOT go to free an oppressed people. The point of that post being that this is a BS argument. And yet you manage to repeat it in such a juvenile, condescending tone.

If your contention is correct, why did the GW make offers that would have left both the Taliban and Ba'ath regimes in power to continue their oppression?

Please explain that.

You are answering a post that outlines my contention that the "we went to war to free oppressed people" is bullsh*t with the statement that "we went to war to free oppressed people".

I made a foundation for why that is bullsh*t.


Your repeating it does not improve it's odour.



And if the UN mandates are so damn important to you, then also please explain why the US refused to discuss phased reductions in sanctions over the course of the disarmament process as was mandated in the intial ceasefire agreement with IRaq (I believe that was codified in Resolution 687, but am not positive. I WILL however, look it up for you if you need it).

Now given that it seems that Iraq HAD destroyed all of it's weapons, did that not make the US equally in material breech of their obligations?

Or, as some like to say: "Hi Kettle? Pot here. You're BLACK!"



-Z-

]IF they are terrorists, I do say torture them! LOL!!!

I'm glad you find it amusing; the Red Cross estimates that 70-90% of the inmates at Abu Gharib were innocent. At least one former inmate, who identified himself as one of the nude prisoners in a photograph, was picked up for hitchhiking, because he was rirding in a car with a driver who didn't have proper papers.
The whole point of this is that non-terrorists are being tortured and imprisoned indefinitely without trial.
As for "concentration camps" name one. Gitmo isn't one because they have a reward system in place. Many of the detanees there get rewarded for good behavior. Did you see that in concentration camps? NO you DON'T!
You should be ashamed of yourself. Reward systems have been used in concentration camps (http://www.holocaustechoes.com/ryn2.html) as part of a dehumanizing process. Whether or not prisoners are required to 'earn' items they are entitled to under Geneva conventions has nothing to do with whether a camp is a 'concentration camp'. (http://www.candles-museum.com/camps.htm).

No US Law has been broken. If they were broken, it'll be blasted over every news network from Fox News to NBC.
Thanks for playing (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TOR406A.html). So if no US laws were broken, why was the death of two prisoners in Afghanistan ruled a homicide by the medical examiner? Why was a CIA contractor - with a history of violence - just arrested for assaulting a prisoner who died? (He couldn't be charged with murder because no autopsy had been done, which also violates the Geneva Conventions.)
Most importantly, if no US laws were violated, why was so much effort put into finding ways of getting around US laws on torture by declaring the President a de facto king?
Just because its in a couple of papers doesn't make it so.
I sentence you to read the Taguba report (http://www.agonist.org/annex/taguba.htm), written by a major general whose father was a Filipino irregular who escaped from the Bataan Death March.
I would like to commend you on skepticism, but it seems clear from your crack-monkey concentration camp definition that you're just making up things you want to believe.

Okay, this is what set me off. That is complete and 100% total fantasy. The UN had absolutely nothing to do with the end of the first Gulf War, and had absolutely nothing to do with the cowardly and short-sighted decision by the US to abandon the Shi'ite revolution in the south, after it had been specifically encouraged by Bush I. I challenge you to find any reference for this revisionist history outside of your diseased imagination.

(Why did the first gulf war stop after 100 hours? Well, this time around we found out that tank divisions run with 100 hours of supplies before needing resupply... really, it was some well done PR last time around.)

WE never twisted any arms. They WILLING SUPPORTED US! The UN did have something to do with the end of the war. They also gave permission to engage in it too. We wanted to kick out hussein then but we were told no by the UN. I have to agree with your comment on that rebellion. My dad wasn't happy about that.



More Bullsh*t

The US administration did not want to invade Iraq. They never even asked about it because it was not their objective.

To guote Bush Senior on the subject, when asked "Why did you end the war when you did, instead of going on to Baghdad to get Saddam Hussein? "



President Bush

It was never part of our mission to take Baghdad. We stopped the war when we achieved our objectives -- to liberate Kuwait and destroy Iraq's offensive military capability, its ability to threaten its neighbors. That was the mission agreed to by Congress, the United Nations, and our coalition partners, and supported overwhelmingly by the American people.

We ended the war when the enemy was defeated. It was a unanimous recommendation of Secretary Cheney, General Powell, and General Schwarzkopf.

To then ask American troops to continue their combat operations, to continue the killing and the destruction, was not something we were eager to do. There is a basic decency to our men and women in uniform. They quickly made the transition from being warriors to being angels of mercy, taking care of the thousands of surrendering Iraqi prisoners. The pictures of those young Americans caring for the Iraqi soldiers were some of the most poignant images of the war.

If we had kept going, we would have gone beyond what we said we intended to do, beyond what our coalition partners agreed to, beyond what the UN Security Council signed up to, and beyond what the Congress and the American people approved. We entered the war with clear-cut military objectives.

We certainly had the military capability to go on to Baghdad, but for what purpose? To get Saddam Hussein? I doubt that he would have waited at his palace for us to drive up and get him. So we would have needed to send a very large force and might well have faced intensive combat inside the city. The artillery, tanks, and air power that performed so well for us in the open desert would not have been very useful inside a major city. That would have cost us dearly in terms of additional casualties. And I'm not sure what we would have done with Baghdad, once we had it.

But once we had prevailed and had toppled Saddam Hussein's government, we presumably would have had to stay there and put another government in place. And what would that have been: a Suni government, a Shia government, a Kurdish government, or another Bathist regime? How long would US forces have been required to say in to prop the government up? And how effective could it have been if the government we put in had been perceived as a puppet of the US military?

My guess is that if we had gone to Baghdad, we'd still have US forces there today. And to involve American forces in a civil war inside Iraq would have been a quagmire, because we would have gone in there with no clear-cut military objective. It's just as important to know when not to use force as it is to know when to use it. And we got it right both times.


Sounds like Daddy had a way better clue about what invading Iraq was going to entail than Junior did. At least Senior thought it through. Junior went in with seemingly NO plans for what would happen after acheiving the initial military objectives.

-Z-

With your first part, you didn't quote me properly. only what you wanted to quote.

with your second part, at gitmo, they are given everything they are required to give under the Geneva Convention. Beds, Food, water, the Koran complete with arrows pointing to mecca, and a prayer mat. They can pray all they want, they can communicate with other prisoners, and their reward system is based on GOOD BEHAVIOR. nothing degrading there. Abu Graib is a different animal all together. The people responsible for the crimes committed there are being punished in courts with judges and lawyers.

As for what is going in afghanistan.. where they terrorists or Taliban fighters. makes a difference to me. And which president are you talking about? If your talking Bush, then your in fantasy land. Bush hasn't violated the Constitution or any American Law. Nor has he violated international law.

Oh by the way, the terrorists just killed Paul Johnson and possibly beheaded him. My thoughts and prayers go to his family :cry: :cry: :cry:

THEY DID BEHEAD HIM!

WE never twisted any arms. They WILLING SUPPORTED US!
Um, yeah, right. In fantasy land. In the rest of the world, there was a statement you may remember: "You're either with us or against us". Plus a decision to cut countries out of reconstruction if they didn't support the war enough - even though they may have provided the original equipment and could fix it more easily.
You should really read up about the so-called Coalition of the Willing (http://www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf) (PDF File, www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf]Google (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:wwdRKYbJ0Y4J:[url) HTML cache here[/url])
The UN did have something to do with the end of the war. They also gave permission to engage in it too. We wanted to kick out hussein then but we were told no by the UN.

The UN did endorse the war; they didn't tell us to stop. (And, if they had tried, the US could have vetoed it - hello, do you know how the UN works?)

I challenge you to find any reference to the US government wanting to kick out Hussein. I offer this statement as rebuttal (http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/cheney.htm):

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.


As for the 1000 hr ground war! My dad fought in that campaign. He had no use for a stupid general that disobeyed orders to, as my dad put it, "Hall Ass and cut them off"

Um, are you talking about Schwartzkopf? Are you seriously alleging that the commanding general in GWI disobeyed orders? Are you on crack?

If your dad is still in theatre, I wish him luck and safety.

Yes I do know how the UN works. Under the charter, they failed in their mission and as such the Nations of France, Germany and Russia could have been thrown out of the UN under the charter.

Thanks for your concern about my dad! He is still in theater and I hope he comes home soon.

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family of Paul Johnson!

Terrorists Beheaded him

May God Welcome him and CURSE THE TERRORISTS

In the end the President's aim is to, rightly, do what's best for this country. We went to war because Bush believed, as do I, that Saddam was a threat to the US. If we can bring peace and democracty to Iraq that will be a great bonus.
Think about WW2 and the Marshall Plan. When we finally went to war, was it to remove the evil Third Reich from the face of the planet? No. We were attacked and defending ourselves. When we sent tens of millions of dollars across the Atlantic to rebuild Western Europe after victory, were we just being nice? No. We saw the lack of infrastructure and utter chaos as a fertile field for Comminism that would have been a threat to us.
And read the 9/11 Commision report. It's true there was no direct Iraqi involvement in 9/11. Which Bush NEVER claimed as far as I can remember. But there were lots of other connections between Al Queda and Saddam.
Italy did not contribute in any way to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Does that mean we were wrong to invade them?

Number 1: Saddam has not been proven to have been a threat to the United States. He has not been proven to have been a threat to our allies. At this point, he's not been proven to have been a threat to a puppy dog.

Number 2: The comparison between the Iraq invasion and World War II are baseless. The United States was attacked by the Empire of Japan. We declared war upon Japan, prompting Germany to declare war upon us. Germany did not contribute to the bombing of Pearl Harbor either. In fact, if you ever read Nazi war plans you would see that Germany desired to keep the United States out of war until at least between 1946-1948. We weren't wrong to invade Italy because we were in a state of declared war with the Axis. A war with was thrust upon us. The situation with Iraq is not remotely the same. Iraq was not an imminent threat and the reasons that were presented to the United Nations for attacking Iraq have been proven baseless.

Number 3: The Marshall Plan had a lot to do with stymying Communism from spreading through devastated countries of Europe. However, it also had a lot to do with a few other things as well. The rebuilding of infrastructure benefitted American companies. A rebuilt European economy becomes a strong trading partner. A rebuilt Europe provides substantial allies for the next 50 years. There are a multitude of reasons for the Marshall Plan. Again, there is no comparison between the Marshall Plan and Iraq. Take a good look at how much money is going to contractors and how much is actually going to Iraq. Not to mention the fact that nationbuilding is one thing Bush campaigned against in 2000. Why not allow Iraqis, suffering massive unemployment, to rebuild the country? The cost would be significantly less, even if we were still funding the entire project. We wouldn't have to pay private contractors the gross amounts we're paying right now and we would also be endearing ourselves to the Iraqi people. No, this is a giveaway to the administration's allies and benefactors. Have you seen the latest news regarding how Halliburton received its no-bid contracts?

Number 4: Connections between Iraq and al-Qaeda? Which report are you reading? I've heard that al-Qaeda tried to establish a connection with Iraq and never received any responses. I've heard that al-Qaeda was rebuffed, even when other countries, such as Sudan, tried to establish a connection with Iraq. That's some damned weak connections. If I came to your house one night and knocked on your door and you slammed it shut in my face without saying a word, do I now have the right to say you're my friend? Because that's essentially the "relationship" between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

Number 5: You haven't heard Bush try to tie the two together? Ok, then how's this:

"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive." ~~Bush, 9/25/2002

"So, yes, there are contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism in general. And there are some al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad...There clearly are contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented." ~~Rice, 9/26/2002

"Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal nonaggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities" ~~Rumsfeld, 9/27/2002

"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." ~~Bush, 10/7/2002

"we need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind." ~~Bush, 10/14/2002

"This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda" ~~Bush, 10/28/2002

"We know he's got ties with al Qaeda." ~~Bush, 11/1/2002

"in terms of its [Iraq's] support for terrorism, we have established that Iraq has permitted Al-Qaeda to operate within its territory. As the President said recently, 'The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are Al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq.' The President has made his position on Iraq eminently clear, and in the coming weeks and months we shall see what we shall see." ~~John Bolton, 11/1/2002

"We know that he has had contacts with terrorist networks like al Qaeda." ~~Bush, 11/2/2002

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda." ~~Bush, 1/28/2003 State of the Union

Bush never DIRECTLY said Iraq was involved in 9/11. But when you continue to tie two completely unrelated groups together over and over again you foster what is called a lie of omission. How many times did Bush, Cheney, or Rice talk about Iraq being dangerous and then in the next sentence bring up either 9/11 or bin Laden? Bush did it during the State of the Union. And when you do this over and over again you get what we had when 70% of the American public believed that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Do you remember what prompted Bush to say "we've had no evidence to say that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11?" Do you remember what happened the day before he said that? Why, it would be Dick Cheney making the exact opposite statement, tying Hussein to 9/11.

Who the hell wins in a war?

No one I say!
The people not having their hands amputated for dissent. The people not being fed into industrial shredders. The people not being dressed up as Superman and thrown off buildings. The people not being selected for rape by Uday and Qusay Hussein. The people who don't have to stare at Saddam Hussein's portrait everywhere they go.
It is interesting that you are coming to the defense of the Iraqi people and I question your motives.

Do you remember making the following statement?

As for Iraq being a part of the "war on terror," I'm going to tell you right now that the prison torcure scandals are going to do a LOT more then just make us look bad. Our popularity in the arab world just got shot to hell.
What are they going to do, fly airplanes into buildings? Oops, it's been done.

Like we should give a damn about our popularity in the arab (male) world.

Now you would come across like you do give a "damn"? I call that hypocrisy sir.

With your first part, you didn't quote me properly. only what you wanted to quote.

Poor baby. Either re-state your point - with non-fantasy evidence - or concede defeat.


with your second part, at gitmo, they are given everything they are required to give under the Geneva Convention.


First of all, there are four Geneva conventions - referring to them as singular is a pretty clear sign you don't know what you're talking about. Second of all, not (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us011102.htm) everyone (http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/01/us012802-ltr.htm) agrees (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,921192,00.html) with (http://www.amnesty.org.il/11sep/afgh10.html) that (http://www.globeandmail.com/backgrounder/iraqcrisis/pages/c_geneva.html).

If you pay even the slightest amount of attention, it's clear that the Geneva conventions have been violated. A hearing is requried before any captured person can be considered outside Geneva; a spy, terrorist, etc. Until a hearing, the captured person must be treated as a POW. No such hearing have happened for anyone held at Gitmo.

Gitmo is also a clear example of why those rules happened; quite a few people there are also completely innocent; in some cases, they were aid workers sold by Northern Alliance tribes to the US for the reward money.

The people responsible for the crimes committed there are being punished in courts with judges and lawyers.

It's rapidly becoming clear that the people responsible are at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

As for what is going in afghanistan.. where they terrorists or Taliban fighters. makes a difference to me.

I'm talking about Iraq. Abu Ghrahib. Baghdad Central Correctional Facility. As in, the US is torturing completely innocent people.

Oh by the way, the terrorists just killed Paul Johnson and possibly beheaded him. My thoughts and prayers go to his family :cry: :cry: :cry:

I, also, have great sympethy for Mr. Johnson and his family. But note that he was kidnapped in Saudi Arabia by Al Qaeda - this highlights just how reckless and irresponsible Bush's invasion of Iraq was.

The actions of the US have engendered sympathy in the region for dangerous nutbars who are no more good Muslims than Bush is a good methodist. Wahabi muslims consider Sunni muslims to be idolators, because Sunni muslims pray to the prophets as intercessors and not always directly to Allah. Mohammed forbids violence against civilians, suicide, and mutilation of the dead.

I, also, have great sympethy for Mr. Johnson and his family. But note that he was kidnapped in Saudi Arabia by Al Qaeda - this highlights just how reckless and irresponsible Bush's invasion of Iraq was.

Hun, they wanted us out since 1991 if what my dad told me was right and I believe it is. This isn't due to Iraq, its do to terror. Al Qada was behind this. They would've done this even without a war in Iraq.

I, also, have great sympethy for Mr. Johnson and his family. But note that he was kidnapped in Saudi Arabia by Al Qaeda - this highlights just how reckless and irresponsible Bush's invasion of Iraq was.

Hun, they wanted us out since 1991 if what my dad told me was right and I believe it is. This isn't due to Iraq, its do to terror. Al Qada was behind this. They would've done this even without a war in Iraq.

You just killed your argument. You are saying that Iraq had no effect on the war on terror.

Hun, they wanted us out since 1991 if what my dad told me was right and I believe it is. This isn't due to Iraq, its do to terror. Al Qada was behind this. They would've done this even without a war in Iraq.

I definitely agree with your dad; the Saudis in general and Al Q in specific have wanted us out since 1991.

So why is Saudi Arabia so unstable now? (The US has told Americans to leave, and the UK has even pulled out non-essential embassy staff.) Why is there so much violence against westerners - and why do the perpetrators of violence sometimes escape, even when ringed by Saudi security forces?

If they wanted us out for more than a decade, why is everything happening now?

I, also, have great sympethy for Mr. Johnson and his family. But note that he was kidnapped in Saudi Arabia by Al Qaeda - this highlights just how reckless and irresponsible Bush's invasion of Iraq was.

Hun, they wanted us out since 1991 if what my dad told me was right and I believe it is. This isn't due to Iraq, its do to terror. Al Qada was behind this. They would've done this even without a war in Iraq.

You just killed your argument. You are saying that Iraq had no effect on the war on terror.

Actually I didn't. Never said that Iraq wasn't a war on terror, Which it is. I'm just saying that the Invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Paul Johnson's death.

I, also, have great sympethy for Mr. Johnson and his family. But note that he was kidnapped in Saudi Arabia by Al Qaeda - this highlights just how reckless and irresponsible Bush's invasion of Iraq was.

Hun, they wanted us out since 1991 if what my dad told me was right and I believe it is. This isn't due to Iraq, its do to terror. Al Qada was behind this. They would've done this even without a war in Iraq.

You just killed your argument. You are saying that Iraq had no effect on the war on terror.

Actually I didn't. Never said that Iraq wasn't a war on terror, Which it is. I'm just saying that the Invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Paul Johnson's death.

Iraq has had a lot to do with the war on terror. It has worsened our prospects of ever being remotely successful in containing terrorism. It has deterred our interests in removing al-Qaeda from being a danger to the world. It has fostered terrorism in an area that was once not considered a haven for terrorists. It has provided a breeding ground for millions of potential terrorists. It has strengthened the claim that America is the "common enemy of all Arabs."

I, also, have great sympethy for Mr. Johnson and his family. But note that he was kidnapped in Saudi Arabia by Al Qaeda - this highlights just how reckless and irresponsible Bush's invasion of Iraq was.

Hun, they wanted us out since 1991 if what my dad told me was right and I believe it is. This isn't due to Iraq, its do to terror. Al Qada was behind this. They would've done this even without a war in Iraq.

You just killed your argument. You are saying that Iraq had no effect on the war on terror.

Actually I didn't. Never said that Iraq wasn't a war on terror, Which it is. I'm just saying that the Invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with Paul Johnson's death.

Iraq has had a lot to do with the war on terror. It has worsened our prospects of ever being remotely successful in containing terrorism. It has deterred our interests in removing al-Qaeda from being a danger to the world. It has fostered terrorism in an area that was once not considered a haven for terrorists. It has provided a breeding ground for millions of potential terrorists. It has strengthened the claim that America is the "common enemy of all Arabs."
Excellent post Thunder.

You can well imagine, what would have happened (post 911), if the US and coalition forces had totally concentrated their efforts, solely to operations in Afghanistan and the capture of Bin Laden and company?

1. The likelihood of capturing key factions of Al-Queda would have greatly increased.

2. Bush wouldn't have given an illogical ultimatum to his allies.

3. Thousands of innocent Iraqis would be alive today.

4. There would be LESS US casualties (in reference to those killed and injured in Iraq)

5. Iraq would not have become, as so aptly described by Thunder, "a breeding ground for millions of potential terrorists".

6. The US would not have violated the UN Charter.

7. The 'goodwill" that was expressed worldwide in the aftermath of 911, would linger on (it has long since faded....peace marches and worldwide condemnation).

8. There would more than likely been a decrease in terrorist attacks, instead of an increase.

9. We probably would not have heard of any prisoner abuse, although there may have been some in Afghanistan?

10. Bush wouldn't have to have lied about WMD and Al-Queda links.

11. Bush wouldn't have to blame the CIA and FBI for faulty information.

12. The US would have probably saved a minimum of $200 Billion.

13. The US wouldn't be faced with a long term committment to troops in Iraq.

12. Bush would probably be heading to a huge win the 04 election.

Lets keep perspective here.. My husband (Zeppistan) and I are in favour of the war on terrorism. We believe that Al Qaeda is a threat to all of our national interests and security. Lets not lose sight of the real enemy.

This is what we accuse GW.Bush of doing.. losing sight. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. They posed no threat to any one. Certainly not our interests.

Perhaps had Bush not waged his unjust war on Iraq, we'd have caught OBL by now. Maybe if Bush had went after the countries that breed this sick and twisted ideology.. (Saudi/Pakistan) we might be further ahead in this war. But no.. Bush dropped the ball.. and now many Americans are paying for it with their lives.. It didn't have to be this way. Bush f*cked it up and for that, he not only doesn't have a right to our respect, he no longer has a right to lead the free world!

3. Thousands of innocent Iraqis would be alive today.
And thousands more would be dead thanks to Saddam Hussein. And they'd continue dying at that rate for a long while.

It is America's duty and any other country which wishes to not defend brutal dictators to liberate places like Iraq, Haiti, Liberia, Afghanistan - four places in the past four years where brutal dictators have been taken our. Just because we don't take out Hu Jintao in China dosen't mean that we can't take our anyone. That dosen't make sense.

Lets keep perspective here.. My husband (Zeppistan) and I are in favour of the war on terrorism. We believe that Al Qaeda is a threat to all of our national interests and security. Lets not lose sight of the real enemy.

This is what we accuse GW.Bush of doing.. losing sight. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. They posed no threat to any one. Certainly not our interests.

Perhaps had Bush not waged his unjust war on Iraq, we'd have caught OBL by now. Maybe if Bush had went after the countries that breed this sick and twisted ideology.. (Saudi/Pakistan) we might be further ahead in this war. But no.. Bush dropped the ball.. and now many Americans are paying for it with their lives.. It didn't have to be this way. Bush f*cked it up and for that, he not only doesn't have a right to our respect, he no longer has a right to lead the free world!

Sweetie, UBL or OBL or whatever his abbreviation is since i've seen both, wouldn't be caught even if we concentrated in Afghanistan. He's in the BORDER REGIONS WITH PAKISTAN! We need Pakistan and they are helping, we will get Bin Laden sooner or later.

As for an unjust war, how many more civilians would've died under Hussein? How many limbs would be lost under Hussein? How many unjustified arrests would be made? How many more would disappear under Hussein? More than what is happening now and that I know is the fact!

Lets keep perspective here.. My husband (Zeppistan) and I are in favour of the war on terrorism. We believe that Al Qaeda is a threat to all of our national interests and security. Lets not lose sight of the real enemy.

This is what we accuse GW.Bush of doing.. losing sight. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. They posed no threat to any one. Certainly not our interests.

Perhaps had Bush not waged his unjust war on Iraq, we'd have caught OBL by now. Maybe if Bush had went after the countries that breed this sick and twisted ideology.. (Saudi/Pakistan) we might be further ahead in this war. But no.. Bush dropped the ball.. and now many Americans are paying for it with their lives.. It didn't have to be this way. Bush f*cked it up and for that, he not only doesn't have a right to our respect, he no longer has a right to lead the free world!

Sweetie,

I'm old enough to be your mother.. please don't call me "sweetie".. lol