NationStates Jolt Archive

But, of course, the conservative sharks swimming around in our conspiracy theories, to the ever growing belief (almost as good as "Freedom" Fries) that the United Nations is in fact more totalitarian than the Bush administration, always leaves open the idea that anything the UN says (whether or not our cowboys in Washington did break International Law) is nonsense or not worthy of looking into.

This isn't good. How is it that some worthless marijuana smoker has to pay a fine, spend two days in prison (or more), go through all kinds of hell during probation and
visit a court while our fearless leaders get away with just about everything?

You know, I'm fairly confident we won't hear much about this on CNN or FOX, either. Damn that liberal media.

Also, it seems a little odd to me that we're told America is safer yet, we are not safe at the same time. And they use this type of double-speak blatantly; to post-pone the election, to the infamous Cheney speech that should have been titled, "Vote for Bush or Die!". And what sickens me the most is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has made us less safe. Besides the obvious fact that we're vehemently hated around the globe, we're also hated by those who we are supposedly worried about the most.

I mean, how do you think the people in Saudi Arabia feel about their royal family and us doing business with them, anyways? We're playing with fire. For all practical purposes Saudi Arabia attacked us on 9/11. Further more, in Saudi Arabia most people's income has gone down two thirds in the last few years while the five thousand people that make up the Saudi royal family are making off with all the oil money. Many people would like to get rid of them. Same with Egypt and the rest we sell to the teeth in arms.

We should also think about Pakistan and our first target Afghanistan. When 9/11 happened I wonder what the dictator of Pakistan, Musharraf, was thinking. He now has guns on both sides of his head; One on one side saying, "You are either with us or with the terrorists!" "Don't mess with Texas!". While, on the other side are his own people who are estimated by the European media to be fifteen percent pro-Taliban, and not just the Afghan Taliban but a movement just like them right in Pakistan, who really want to run that country in a fanatical, religious manner. Moreover, its also estimated to include sympathies of thirty percent of the armed forces including many top generals and the recently fired head of the ISI intelligence agency (who must have some very interesting friends). And Musharraf has already said he can't control his own army -- the same troops who are shooting people in parts of Kashmir that India claims is theirs. India says, "you control them or we're going to bomb you". What happens if these same generals (who got rid of another dictator only three years ago and put Musharraf in power) decide they can just as easily knock him off? Then do we have to aim our "war on terrorism" against a country of a hundred and forty million people who has the atomic bomb?

Of course, up above Afghanistan we have these countries that are former Soviet republics that have barely figured out how to run themselves, and they're all in the hands of corrupt dictators who are being opposed by armed, violent Islamic fundamentalists. We've lit a damn bon-fire in these countries by invading Iraq. What's going to happen to our friends in Saudi Arabia or even in Egypt and Israel? One columnist from the BBC predicted that in the next five years (the opposition is already so
intense) the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and The Palestinian Authority were all going to fall to Islamic fanatics.

And, of course, the rest of the people we trained in that ol' Jihad went back to their old countries and brought their new fighting skills and radical, religious fervor with them. So what do we have now? Violent Islamic uprising's stretching from Algeria, where it has been going on for years, and a hundred thousand people have died since the military moved to prevent a Democratically elected Islamic fundamentalist government taking power (yes, people voted them in, if this is sounding familiar). Anyways, it stretches all the way from Algeria, to Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, to Pakistan, to two different flash points in Indonesia, another in the Philippians (where we already sent in troops who couldn't even rescue one American hostage right, and even killed one of the two of them). This is the amount of fire we are helping to build.

Now, since the invasion of Iraq (and Ariel Sharon up to his dirty little games) I wonder how much longer Osama bin Laden has to wait before he gets his wet-dream of the billion new warriors for his Jihad so he can finally get his greatest wet-dream -- a world war between Islam and the west. It's started with Iraq. This isn't going to end. Needless to say, we are going to be dealing with more hate and more bombing's and more deaths on a scale we can't even imagine today for years and years and years to come.

All thanks to George W.

Worst President Ever.

Now you see why the only hope we have is electing Kerry.
It might not be MUCH better, but he couldnt be any worse.

And the worst thing is, it looks at the moment that Bush is going to be in office for another 4 years, and with thing heating up between US - China relations over Taiwan, to which China has already threatened the US with military action (which you just KNOW is going to be Nuclear), it looks like it's the beginning of a truly Global War, a Third Great War, bloody perfect...

"International law" doesn't exist. The UN does not maintain any set of "international laws". "International law" is nothing more than a leftist propaganda tool used to condemn anything they disagree with.

Anyone who thinks the confrontation between Western civilization and Islamic fundamentalists started with the Iraq war is a fool.

too long of a post for me to read....... liberal propoganda sucks... so does conservative propoganda.... ill offer anybody who will vote for Bush one 20 ounce mountain dew.

...how we Americans love to disregard international law.

We quickly blame politicians for this mess, but where were the millions of Americans noisily protesting the Afghani war? When the coalition invaded Iraq, most of Americans were cheering it on, with only a proverbial handful really protesting it. Now that we have all seen the results, more people are laxidasically 'opposing' the war, yet still wonder why they are disliked in the international community.

The President can only do what the majority wish him to, thats what democracy is. Don't blame Bush, he only did what he was told by America.

The UN resolution which basically was the ceasefire after Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait, set down definite requirements for the losing side(Iraq) to meet..failure to meet these requirements negated the ceasefire.
It was not even questioned , by ANY UN members, that they had failed in this regard..the only question was how much time to give them to comply.
If there was an "international law" then the US side has several resolutions behind them, allowing for the assault. The anti-attack side, for want of a better term, has ZERO resolutions behind them, there were ZERO resolutions passed denying the right to go to war..quite obvious since the US would have veto power over any such resolution anyway.

We quickly blame politicians for this mess, but where were the millions of Americans noisily protesting the Afghani war? When the coalition invaded Iraq, most of Americans were cheering it on, with only a proverbial handful really protesting it. Now that we have all seen the results, more people are laxidasically 'opposing' the war, yet still wonder why they are disliked in the international community.

The President can only do what the majority wish him to, thats what democracy is. Don't blame Bush, he only did what he was told by America.

So you're saying Bush is a weathervane, shifting positions to whatever is popular at the moment?

Why does that sound familiar?

Also the story "on the ground" in Iraq is not nearly as dismal as it is made out to be on a daily basis..how do I know? I have just returned from a yearlong deployment. I saw countless(in the thousands) of people happy to be free..very small groups of protestors,usually trying to put on a show for western media at the behest of clerics.

While we're on the issue... would you trust enforcement of international laws to an organization than ran the incredibly corrupt Oil for Food program, a scam that diverted billions of dollars to Baathist apologists worldwide and enriched Saddam Hussein even more?

So you're saying Bush is a weathervane, shifting positions to whatever is popular at the moment?

Why does that sound familiar?

Every president is a puppet, a puppet of the people. If he is not, then you are not living in a democracy.

Every president is a puppet, a puppet of the people. If he is not, then you are not living in a democracy.

WELL, then what's the problem with Kerry being a flip-flopper if he was just following what his constituents wanted?

..... And Musharraf has already said he can't control his own army -- the same troops who are shooting people in parts of Kashmir that India claims is theirs. India says, "you control them or we're going to bomb you". What happens if these same generals (who got rid of another dictator only three years ago and put Musharraf in power) decide they can just as easily knock him off? Then do we have to aim our "war on terrorism" against a country of a hundred and forty million people who has the atomic bomb?

.........And, of course, the rest of the people we trained in that ol' Jihad went back to their old countries and brought their new fighting skills and radical, religious fervor with them. So what do we have now? Violent Islamic uprising's stretching from Algeria, where it has been going on for years, and a hundred thousand people have died since the military moved to prevent a Democratically elected Islamic fundamentalist government taking power (yes, people voted them in, if this is sounding familiar). Anyways, it stretches all the way from Algeria, to Egypt, to Saudi Arabia, to Pakistan, to two different flash points in Indonesia, another in the Philippians (where we already sent in troops who couldn't even rescue one American hostage right, and even killed one of the two of them). This is the amount of fire we are helping to build.

.
Just a few quick points...Musharref has NEVER admitted to not being in control of his military..while it may be the case he isn't.
Setting the record straight, it was NOT US troops in Algeria, and the only help US troops provided to Philippine troops was IMINT of the target area, US troops did not partake in the rescue you mention. Also without the rescue by PHILLIPINE troops, both hostages would have been killed.
As a final note, this war you are predicting has been brewing for a very long time, and will only go away with being confronted, not with running and hiding.

While we're on the issue... would you trust enforcement of international laws to an organization than ran the incredibly corrupt Oil for Food program, a scam that diverted billions of dollars to Baathist apologists worldwide and enriched Saddam Hussein even more?
Excellent point..

The President can only do what the majority wish him to, thats what democracy is. Don't blame Bush, he only did what he was told by America.

I agree that in a democratic governements a President should and usually does listen to the will of the population in major decisions, and before the US unjustly invaded Iraq there were MANY who were in support. However, what about the GLOBAL community. There was fierce opposition about the war from all over the globe, far more than the number of supporters in the United States, much much more, and did Bush listen, ooooh no. While you may argue that the opinion of the country's opinion should count more than that of other countries' opinion, the sheer amount of opposition should have at the very least thought about what he was about to begin by Invading Iraq. You should also notice that ironically you stated that many Americans are opposed to the war, has Bush suddenly bowed to the will of the people as your reasoning so boldly states, has he pulled forces out of Iraq or at least plan to after a government has been set up, well, has he...?

I agree that in a democratic governements a President should and usually does listen to the will of the population in major decisions, and before the US unjustly invaded Iraq there were MANY who were in support. However, what about the GLOBAL community. There was fierce opposition about the war from all over the globe, far more than the number of supporters in the United States, much much more, and did Bush listen, ooooh no. While you may argue that the opinion of the country's opinion should count more than that of other countries' opinion, the sheer amount of opposition should have at the very least thought about what he was about to begin by Invading Iraq. You should also notice that ironically you stated that many Americans are opposed to the war, has Bush suddenly bowed to the will of the people as your reasoning so boldly states, has he pulled forces out of Iraq or at least plan to after a government has been set up, well, has he...?
Perhaps you should plan a trip to visit Iraq...make sure not to miss the mass graves where thousands of Iraqis were executed for even hinting of disagreeing with Saddam Hussein..Visit the Kurds in the north, who still remember the morning when their mothers,fathers,brothers,sisters died in gas attacks(read:WMD..yes, gas is a WMD also) for the crime of being different.
As far as opposition to the war, it would create a massive disaster pulling troops out. Of course, the liberals don't really care about that..they SAY they care about the troops, but it infuriates these troops to hear all the BS of how our buddies died in an illegal war...they died giving people freedom, whether the cause was just or not, the result is. Is there any wonder then that the vast majority of Americans with the most to lose from this war, support Bush? I think not. He gives respect, which earns the same.

Perhaps you should plan a trip to visit Iraq...make sure not to miss the mass graves where thousands of Iraqis were executed for even hinting of disagreeing with Saddam Hussein..Visit the Kurds in the north, who still remember the morning when their mothers,fathers,brothers,sisters died in gas attacks(read:WMD..yes, gas is a WMD also) for the crime of being different.
As far as opposition to the war, it would create a massive disaster pulling troops out. Of course, the liberals don't really care about that..they SAY they care about the troops, but it infuriates these troops to hear all the BS of how our buddies died in an illegal war...they died giving people freedom, whether the cause was just or not, the result is. Is there any wonder then that the vast majority of Americans with the most to lose from this war, support Bush? I think not. He gives respect, which earns the same.

You seem to be missing something.

The troops are respected, the war is not.

Big difference.

I can respect a person, and at the same time hate what they are doing.

Well, if i go to Iraq to check out the thousands of graves containing Iraqis killed by the Hussein Regime, perhaps you could come too, and check out the thousands of graves containing Iraqis killed by US Forces. It may be interesting to note that US and Coalition Forces have killed more Iraqis than Sadaam Hussein ever did, i'm mainly reffering to the thousands upon thousands of innocent Men, Women and Children killed by US forces either through direct fire or Economic Sanctions imposed against the country.

In addition, i in way was trying to offend or flame US troops. While they may indeed be fighting in an Illegal War as you put it, i consider the men and women who have fought and died to topple the Hussein Regime and free Iraq from his tyranny (even if his tyranny was greatly exaggerated by the West) to be the bravest most honourable people on this Earth.

You seem to be missing something.

The troops are respected, the war is not.

Big difference.

I can respect a person, and at the same time hate what they are doing.

It is not respect hearing ad nauseum about the war being illegal, which it most definitely was not. I respect your right to be against the war, and at least in your post, you did not trudge up the "illegal" point.

Well, if i go to Iraq to check out the thousands of graves containing Iraqis killed by the Hussein Regime, perhaps you could come too, and check out the thousands of graves containing Iraqis killed by US Forces. It may be interesting to note that US and Coalition Forces have killed more Iraqis than Sadaam Hussein ever did, i'm mainly reffering to the thousands upon thousands of innocent Men, Women and Children killed by US forces either through direct fire or Economic Sanctions imposed against the country.
As I believe I mentioned a couple of posts ago, I just returned from a year there. This is more absolutely false propaganda. There were people there who showed proof of children,dead, being "stored" to use, over and over, just to show people had died..as for sanctions, there was a food for oil program,run by the UN, that now has been shown to have fattened up Saddam and several European businesses, while never delivering the food part.

Sorry to come off as gruff anyone. Just letting off steam.

Propaganda eh? Well, in the future i'll have to watch out for the slanderous propaganda being spoiuted by War Experts and Historians...

But hey, can we just end this damn arguement over the Iraqi Invasion and get back to the overt ineptness of Bush...? Just to add fuel to that fire, what's your opinion on Bush's response to a question on the war on terrorism as it being "totally unwinnable"

international law is a joke, the UN is a joke (a bad one) and your original post is a joke. Grow up!!

Propaganda eh? Well, in the future i'll have to watch out for the slanderous propaganda being spoiuted by War Experts and Historians...
I mean no offence. There are quite a few "war experts and historians" who would agree with me as well though. As for me, I do not believe anyone can become a "war expert" at least by reading and sitting in an office however, or in the case of most , by teaching a class.
On a side note, I see you are from Australia. I had the honor of meeting many of your country's fine soldiers there as well. I do know and understand the war did not receive the public support there that it did here. Personally, though it was wonderful working with Australian and British troops, I would have preferred their absence in this case. I mean no disrespect, on the contrary, I simply feel a nation must be behind their war effort in a democracy, and your country never was.

Propaganda eh? Well, in the future i'll have to watch out for the slanderous propaganda being spoiuted by War Experts and Historians...

But hey, can we just end this damn arguement over the Iraqi Invasion and get back to the overt ineptness of Bush...? Just to add fuel to that fire, what's your opinion on Bush's response to a question on the war on terrorism as it being "totally unwinnable"


:) Ok, you asked for my opinion..my opinion is the only way it is unwinnable is if Kerry is elected.

On a side note, I see you are from Australia. I had the honor of meeting many of your country's fine soldiers there as well. I do know and understand the war did not receive the public support there that it did here. Personally, though it was wonderful working with Australian and British troops, I would have preferred their absence in this case

Hmm, what pretel were you doing in Iraq may i ask? Where you a Soldier or just travelling, or something else?

To be honest, if the politicians let us do our jobs, it is winnable to some extent...I do not believe however that military force, alone, can win the war on terrorism..if it could, Israel would be much safer today.

:) Ok, you asked for my opinion..my opinion is the only way it is unwinnable is if Kerry is elected.


Then it sounds like your opinion is one made on very poor information.

[QUOTE=Takrai]
On a side note, I see you are from Australia. I had the honor of meeting many of your country's fine soldiers there as well. I do know and understand the war did not receive the public support there that it did here. Personally, though it was wonderful working with Australian and British troops, I would have preferred their absence in this case.QUOTE]

Hmm, what pretel were you doing in Iraq may i ask?
I am a captain with the US 4th ID (mech)

Then it sounds like your opinion is one made on very poor information.
My opinion, while being just that, opinion, is based on much better information than I am sure you have. It is also shared by 90%+ of other military professionals in Iraq.

I am a captain with the US 4th ID (mech)

Ah, well i refer to my earlier statements about the forces in Iraq and apologise for any conclusions i may have draw that have offended or pissed you off in any way. As you were in Iraq and therefore have first hand information on the area, i would assume you possess uniqe insight into the goings on there, and as such you know a shitload more than I, so i'm just going to cede my arguement to everything you just said if that's okay, just to make sure i don't make myself look like an ass anymore than i already have :p

Ah, well i refer to my earlier statements about the forces in Iraq and apologise for any conclusions i may have draw that have offended or pissed you off in any way. As you were in Iraq and therefore have first hand information on the area, i would assume you possess uniqe insight into the goings on there, and as such you know a shitload more than I, so i'm just going to cede my arguement to everything you just said if that's okay, just to make sure i don't make myself look like an ass anymore than i already have :p

Lol, not a problem. It is an interesting discussion nevertheless. As I mentioned earlier, I do know that it (war)was very heavily opposed in Australia..personally I would be pissed if we went into a war where 70%+ of the people here were opposed as well...just understand that when we went in, it was roughly 70% in favor here. Anyhow, I enjoyed the chat:)

The thoughts of a libertarian:

It isn't good in any case to break the law - while I was fine with the UN's actions on Iraq, they are terribly disappointing me over Sudan. All they've done is issue a resolution? C'mon, the country is screaming (per se) for int'l intervention!

Well first of all the UN is just a bunch of pansys that hate the USA because its successful and military strong so they make up these hilarious moronic laws and say oooooo you did bad you broke international law. Well I wish Bush could say GET OUT KOFI ANNIAN but he cant and he probaly wouldn't if he could but it would great if he could. I want to see a full withdraw from the UN and these so called international laws.

Well first of all the UN is just a bunch of pansys that hate the USA because its successful and military strong so they make up these hilarious moronic laws and say oooooo you did bad you broke international law. Well I wish Bush could say GET OUT KOFI ANNIAN but he cant and he probaly wouldn't if he could but it would great if he could. I want to see a full withdraw from the UN and these so called international laws.

While as I stated above, there is no UN resolution condemning the war in Iraq,therefore it cannot be by anyone's definition, against international law..
I do believe the UN serves a purpose. I do not believe it is a perfect system however. Any system where a dictatorship of a few million people,possess
the same voice and vote as a democracy of 275 million, is in need of some work. It is however the best we have at this time, but its only real use, is as a sort of sounding board, to give diplomacy and dialogue at least a headstart before a rush to war.

Lol, not a problem. It is an interesting discussion nevertheless. As I mentioned earlier, I do know that it (war)was very heavily opposed in Australia..personally I would be pissed if we went into a war where 70%+ of the people here were opposed as well...just understand that when we went in, it was roughly 70% in favor here. Anyhow, I enjoyed the chat:)

I don't know if this was brought up earlier, but some of the main reasons for going into Iraq were weapons of mass destruction, connections to al-queda and somehow that they could be an iminent threat to the United States. All BULLSHIT! We went in there for oil plain and simple. No oil in Iraq; No war in Iraq. I am mad because we were lied to to go to war. I am glad Suddam is out of power, but I am not willing to trade blood for oil. Sacrificing to stop evil is one thing, but not for oil which really just equals greed.

I don't know if this was brought up earlier, but some of the main reasons for going into Iraq were weapons of mass destruction, connections to al-queda and somehow that they could be an iminent threat to the United States. All BULLSHIT! We went in there for oil plain and simple. No oil in Iraq; No war in Iraq. I am mad because we were lied to to go to war. I am glad Suddam is out of power, but I am not willing to trade blood for oil. Sacrificing to stop evil is one thing, but not for oil which really just equals greed.
I understand..the people doing the sacrifice see things more clearly however. We did not fight for oil..the US does not import anywhere near as much oil from the Persian Gulf as many people believe. Regardless of why our leaders went in however, the people on the ground do know we did a great work, freeing an oppressed people. As for WMD, Saddam had many chances, but continued kicking out inspectors he was by UN mandate required to allow to confirm he had no more, I say no more, because he DID have it, he used WMD on his own people already.

I understand..the people doing the sacrifice see things more clearly however. We did not fight for oil..the US does not import anywhere near as much oil from the Persian Gulf as many people believe. Regardless of why our leaders went in however, the people on the ground do know we did a great work, freeing an oppressed people. As for WMD, Saddam had many chances, but continued kicking out inspectors he was by UN mandate required to allow to confirm he had no more, I say no more, because he DID have it, he used WMD on his own people already.

I am not arguing about the WMD, I am sure he has/had some or many. His threat to the US was overblown. His threat to his neighbors; incredibly high. But I know many (though percentage wise the minority I must admit) people in the military that do believe we are only there for oil, and things are not going well. Plus there are more oppressed people in the world that we do nothing about. Hell our government supports some of them (ex: Saudi Arabia), but I guess when you invest enough money into the US oppression really doesn't matter anymore.

Let me start off by saying that I have the utmost respect for members of the armed forces. They are the ones putting their lives on the line in order to ensure our continued freedom (I'm Canadian by the way).

That being said however, I do not believe that the war against Iraq was justified in any way. First off, the 9/11 commission has stated that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks in NYC and at the Pentagon so that was not an excuse to attack them. The WMD that were used as another reason to go to war have been shown not to exist. The UN weapons inspectors could find no trace and the Coalition has not had any luck either. Iraqi scientists have also stated that they didn't have the resources (thanks to the UN embargo) and that they were lying to Saddam in order to save themselves.

The only real excuse that has any validity is the "He's a bad guy" one. That really can't be used as a reason to go to war. How many other "bad guys" are in charge in various countries around the world? And are the Iraqis better off now than they were before?

I feel bad that so many soldiers (over a thousand now I think, and what about the number of injured...) have lost their lives in a needless war. And how has your country been affected? Hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured into the war effort, Iraq has had extremely limited reconstruction leading to increased resentment of coalition troops, millions of US jobs have been lost due to the downturn in the economy, and the US is really no safer now than it was before September 11th.

I think that Bush needs to pay the consequences for this colosal mistake. What would have happened if the money wasted in Iraq had gone towards finding bin Laden? And how many lives would have been spared? I don't know if Kerry will be a good president for you guys, but I do think he deserves a chance to try and make things better than they are now.

Let me start off by saying that I have the utmost respect for members of the armed forces. They are the ones putting their lives on the line in order to ensure our continued freedom (I'm Canadian by the way).

That being said however, I do not believe that the war against Iraq was justified in any way. First off, the 9/11 commission has stated that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks in NYC and at the Pentagon so that was not an excuse to attack them. The WMD that were used as another reason to go to war have been shown not to exist. The UN weapons inspectors could find no trace and the Coalition has not had any luck either. Iraqi scientists have also stated that they didn't have the resources (thanks to the UN embargo) and that they were lying to Saddam in order to save themselves.

The only real excuse that has any validity is the "He's a bad guy" one. That really can't be used as a reason to go to war. How many other "bad guys" are in charge in various countries around the world? And are the Iraqis better off now than they were before?

I feel bad that so many soldiers (over a thousand now I think, and what about the number of injured...) have lost their lives in a needless war. And how has your country been affected? Hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured into the war effort, Iraq has had extremely limited reconstruction leading to increased resentment of coalition troops, millions of US jobs have been lost due to the downturn in the economy, and the US is really no safer now than it was before September 11th.

I think that Bush needs to pay the consequences for this colosal mistake. What would have happened if the money wasted in Iraq had gone towards finding bin Laden? And how many lives would have been spared? I don't know if Kerry will be a good president for you guys, but I do think he deserves a chance to try and make things better than they are now.

I agree full-heartedly with what you said. You are also part of the reason I am going to vote for Kerry. When numerous members of many other countries tell us the same thing over and over again. I think we should listen. They are outside sources with little to gain politically, and I believe they are for the most part very objective. I believe too many of my fellow Americans are blinded because they want America to always do the right thing, and to always to be on the right path. But we must be able to admit when we are wrong, instead of telling everyone else that they are. I love America and don't want to see it fall because we are too stupid to accept being wrong once and a while.

I am not arguing about the WMD, I am sure he has/had some or many. His threat to the US was overblown. His threat to his neighbors; incredibly high. But I know many (though percentage wise the minority I must admit) people in the military that do believe we are only there for oil, and things are not going well. Plus there are more oppressed people in the world that we do nothing about. Hell our government supports some of them (ex: Saudi Arabia), but I guess when you invest enough money into the US oppression really doesn't matter anymore.
Actually I do agree with you as far as it is about time to do something about some other govts as well..perhaps when this war is finished.

I respect the rights of anyone to believe what they will,it goes with being a free country. I do however consider my own view from the ground in Iraq, along with an overwhelming majority of others in my position, as generally more based on fact than the views of many who from thousands of miles away believe themselves to be experts..I refer to none of you posters, I do refer to Sen. Kerry with this. While if he won the election, he would become my commander in chief, and I would dutifully obey him of course, I do have my own preferences. As far as opinions of the military members who may be opposed to the war, in general the overwhelming majority of us who have been in it have seen more than enough vindication for it.

Actually I do agree with you as far as it is about time to do something about some other govts as well..perhaps when this war is finished.

Well then, I admire your commitment to the oppressed of the world. I really do. I am more apathetic, because there are so many causes, and so many people that could use help. I still don't think we as the United States can do it alone, and I don't know if we even have the right to do these things. However, I do respect what you are doing, because from what you are saying, I sincerely believe you and the rest of our troops are fighting oppression. Even if that is not the real reasons our government got us into this war. I guess only time will tell now. We are in Iraq and can not just pull out. Hopefully democracy will work in Iraq and maybe the whole world will thank us later.

Well then, I admire your commitment to the oppressed of the world. I really do. I am more apathetic, because there are so many causes, and so many people that could use help. I still don't think we as the United States can do it alone, and I don't know if we even have the right to do these things. However, I do respect what you are doing, because from what you are saying, I sincerely believe you and the rest of our troops are fighting oppression. Even if that is not the real reasons our government got us into this war. I guess only time will tell now. We are in Iraq and can not just pull out. Hopefully democracy will work in Iraq and maybe the whole world will thank us later.
Thank you..one note I think I posted here earlier was that military methods alone cannot solve many of these problems..it does annoy me as well, to see what at times seems to be wasted opportunities brought by military effort, just die a slow death...there must be something that comes after the military effort, in the worst case, or preferably something that comes instead of it..that part is out of our hands. I think that Israel is a prime example though..if military force alone could solve terrorism, they would be very safe indeed. I do believe it is a piece of the terrorism puzzle, but there are more pieces which are better controlled by civilians.

There were three UN resolutions that allowed us to go into Iraq and take out Hussein. 678, 687, and 1441. These documents REQUIRED Hussein to PROVE he had destroyed all the WMD that we and the entire global community KNEW that the had.

12 years went by and Hussein did not comply with any of these resolutions. That's over a decade for you folks that were educated in a government school.

So tell me again how we rushed into war with Iraq?

We found Sarin gas there. Enough to kill close to a half million people. Tell me again how he didn't have WMD?

Have we found stockpiles yet? Not that I'm aware of. After the US went into Afganistan, there was much talk about going into Iraq. We went to the Un Security Council and tried to get a new resolution (even though the three mentioned above ALREADY gave us "authorization") to go into Iraq. If I remember correctly this went on for close to a month. Do you honestly think that Hussein didn't realize that his time was up and we were going to send in the military. Doesn't logic dictate that he then jumped fast and high to get his stockpiles of WMD out of the country, probably into Syria, or bury them deep in the desert. Are you really surprised that we haven't found them....YET?

The weapons are there...all of our politicians have said so as well as all of the other nations.

We knew that Hussein could not directly attack the United States. But we also knew that he had many terrorist friends who could. We knew he had WMD. You do the math.

As far as a Hussein/Al Queada (sic) link, check this out from Fox News concerning the Oil For Food Program: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132682,00.html

Folks, Afganistan and Iraq are just the proverbial tip of that ole iceberg known as terrorism. We will deal with the real bad boys like Saudi Arabia and Syria and the Sudan. But first let's get the little stuff out of the way so it doesn't come back to bite us. Then we will be free to deal with the Bad Asses as we see fit.

I am a captain with the US 4th ID (mech)

Thank you Sir, for your service! I am formerly of G Co. 123rd AVN REG. out of Ft. Richardson, Alaska.

Quick question for you Cpt. how many terrorist training bases did we destroy in Iraq, and how many terrorists do you think were trained there before we destroyed them?

Again a Thanks to you and your men for defending our country in this time of war.

Thank you..one note I think I posted here earlier was that military methods alone cannot solve many of these problems..it does annoy me as well, to see what at times seems to be wasted opportunities brought by military effort, just die a slow death...there must be something that comes after the military effort, in the worst case, or preferably something that comes instead of it..that part is out of our hands. I think that Israel is a prime example though..if military force alone could solve terrorism, they would be very safe indeed. I do believe it is a piece of the terrorism puzzle, but there are more pieces which are better controlled by civilians.

I agree, and I think one thing us civilians can do, is not let fear run our lives and affect our decisions. Fear is what makes a terrorist a terrorist. Anywho, thanks for the conversation and keep up the good fight. I need to grab some grub.

Thank you Sir, for your service! I am formerly of G Co. 123rd AVN REG. out of Ft. Richardson, Alaska.

Quick question for you Cpt. how many terrorist training bases did we destroy in Iraq, and how many terrorists do you think were trained there before we destroyed them?

Again a Thanks to you and your men for defending our country in this time of war.
I had noticed that the bases we did take down do not seem to be mentioned in the media. Just to my knowledge alone we took out 3 training facilities..and beyond that would start to require what exactly a "base" definition is..I do also know, that many of the insurgents we have captured or killed, were not Iraqi, and a good portion of these have been al Q. Now it is possible they just saw a chance, and took it, but it is also possible that they were already there.

There were three UN resolutions that allowed us to go into Iraq and take out Hussein. 678, 687, and 1441. These documents REQUIRED Hussein to PROVE he had destroyed all the WMD that we and the entire global community KNEW that the had.

12 years went by and Hussein did not comply with any of these resolutions. That's over a decade for you folks that were educated in a government school.

So tell me again how we rushed into war with Iraq?

We found Sarin gas there. Enough to kill close to a half million people. Tell me again how he didn't have WMD?

Have we found stockpiles yet? Not that I'm aware of. After the US went into Afganistan, there was much talk about going into Iraq. We went to the Un Security Council and tried to get a new resolution (even though the three mentioned above ALREADY gave us "authorization") to go into Iraq. If I remember correctly this went on for close to a month. Do you honestly think that Hussein didn't realize that his time was up and we were going to send in the military. Doesn't logic dictate that he then jumped fast and high to get his stockpiles of WMD out of the country, probably into Syria, or bury them deep in the desert. Are you really surprised that we haven't found them....YET?

It is good to see someone remembers the prior UN resolutions authorizing force. :)

Thank you Sir, for your service! I am formerly of G Co. 123rd AVN REG. out of Ft. Richardson, Alaska.


Thank you for your service as well sir!

I had noticed that the bases we did take down do not seem to be mentioned in the media. Just to my knowledge alone we took out 3 training facilities..and beyond that would start to require what exactly a "base" definition is..I do also know, that many of the insurgents we have captured or killed, were not Iraqi, and a good portion of these have been al Q. Now it is possible they just saw a chance, and took it, but it is also possible that they were already there.

They were mentioned in the beginning of the op but not since then. Three bases could train (this is my personal estimation) 10000 terrorists per year?

Just to put our ducks in a row...

A) We took down a dictator who has killed thousands of his own citizens not to mention the rape and torture that he ordered. And put his WMD out of use for the time being.

B) Destroyed a minimum of three terrorists training bases.

C) Put the assets of the country (oil) back into the hands of a leadership that will not use it as a weapon against us.

D) By doing the above, revealed a UN scandal that is will hopefully take down the characters who have no love for the U.S.

Aren't we just evil?

Sounds eerily familiar to the liberal rhetoric during the Reagan presidency.
American missiles in Turkey? Walked away from the Russians at Reykjavík?
Unprecedented military spending? He's a cowboy! He's gonna cause a war!
He's a dolt who doesn't know what he's doing!

Trickle-down economics? That'll never work! It's voodoo economics! It's too pro-business! Think of the people!


Effect?
Within a few years, the Soviet regime had crumbled. America won the cold war and becomes the last superpower standing. Unprecedented economic power benefits rich & poor alike. (yeah, OK. the people who actually invested their time & money and took the risks benefited more, Duh!) The longest period of peacetime prosperity ensues.

Everyone who's actually thinking knows that the idea of democratizing Iraq is exactly because our "friends" in Saudi Arabia DID attack us. A few years ago, Saddam sent missiles into Israel and threatened to attack Saudi Arabia. Sure, we're protecting the oil supply upon which this country depends. All commerce in America would grind to a halt without it. Like it or not (and I don't) without that oil, America's economy grinds to a halt. Widespread joblessness and poverty sets in. It would have been better to leave our security and economy in the hands of the inestimable UN? I think not.
It's better to take the inevitable (IMO) war against fanatical Wahabbism onto their turf with our soldiers than have them free to attack at will in the US itself.

The US fought for arab self-determination as far back as Wilson's Fourteen Points during WWI, and it was quashed by the European allies in favor of their expansionist empires. Nevertheless, America was attacked. Most likely for it's support of Israel. So be it. The War between the west and Islamic fundimentalism began even before 9/11. America didn't start the War, rather it is finally respondingto the enemy's battle flag being raised. History will once again record how America finished the War that was actually begun by others.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject." Winston Churchill

Yes because international laws and treaties really stop Hitler...
The fake coalition here is the UN which has failed to resolve anything in the world. They couldnt stop the Killing Fields, they failed with Yugoslavia...they are just a joke. Also, funny how a democracy was the first to break the Nuclear Test Ban treat (India). The UN is a joke, it is weaker than the League of Nations. Cantwait for the day it is abolished.

Kerry will cause even more diplomatic problems because he knows nothing of diplomacy. He will also sack the US economy, but I am not going to arguing politics. I just know the UN has been an utter failure in everything it has done and it is a waste of American taxpayer dollars. Will you get over this international law crap. There is no such thing. Notice how condemning Sudan really stops genocide.

Also, America has a great standing with politics. Ever heard of realpolitik? That is all America and China do with each other. It is strickly a show for people. Look back at Nixon and Mao and you will understand how this is true. Also, notice how Bush condemns Sharon for military action but Sharon praises Bush. Its called realpolitik. Just a show for the masses.

Just stop believing in Neville Chamberlain tactics. Learn a lesson from Bismarck. A peace treaty is nothing but a piece of paper you can tear up. And looking at the past, there is no consequences to tearing up this paper. How many times does the PLO break it? Saddam? Iran? India? America? no one follows it. The UN is a joke mainly because Chamberlains run the damn thing.

Glad to see the concurrence of opinion ..certainly not what the starter of this thread expected I presume.
I do think the UN has a place, as I mentioned earlier...it is a chance for a sounding board, to raise international issues to awareness..beyond this, it is not suitable for lawmaking certainly.