NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay...I can understand being against the war in Iraq - anti-Bush - whatever.

But today's anti-war protesters (at least in Canada) were calling for an immediate withdrawl of USA and coalition troops from Iraq.

If you hold such a belief - please explain to me how that would help anyone (except the bad guys) in Iraq?

In my mind a withdrawl now would only result in civil war and a very uncertain outcome for the nation...and bloodshed far worse than is currently taking place.

Floor's open.

I don't know what those hippies are up to.

*Goes to window*

YOUR GIVING ALL WESTCOAST HIPPIES A BAD NAME! BAD HIPPIES! BAD! SIT! STAY!

Well, if you believe that bogus Lancet study, you might believe we're actively conducting a genocide on the people there, and might believe that letting the insurgents take over would be better than killing 500 innocents a day, as they accuse the US of doing.

I believe the US should withdraw from Iraq immediately. Unfortunately, I agree with you that this will lead to civil unrest and probably civil war in Iraq. However, I believe that outcome is inevitable because the war in Iraq is already lost and could go on for ever without any progress being made. Therefore, better that there be a civil war in Iraq now and less US soldiers get killed than later and more people die trying to prevent the inevitable.

Okay...I can understand being against the war in Iraq - anti-Bush - whatever.

But today's anti-war protesters (at least in Canada) were calling for an immediate withdrawl of USA and coalition troops from Iraq.

If you hold such a belief - please explain to me how that would help anyone (except the bad guys) in Iraq?

In my mind a withdrawl now would only result in civil war and a very uncertain outcome for the nation...and bloodshed far worse than is currently taking place.

Floor's open.

Maybe because I dont see them as bad guys, just people like you and me who are pissed off that other countries are meddling around in their affairs and telling them how to live.

I believe the US should withdraw from Iraq immediately. Unfortunately, I agree with you that this will lead to civil unrest and probably civil war in Iraq. However, I believe that outcome is inevitable because the war in Iraq is already lost and could go on for ever without any progress being made. Therefore, better that there be a civil war in Iraq now and less US soldiers get killed than later and more people die trying to prevent the inevitable.

Okay...couple follow up questions then...

1. You believe civil unrest is inevitable - so the coalition should get out of the way and let it happen - do you hold this belief even though the former powers / conditions may return?

2.regarding "without any progress being made." - what about the election? Is that not progress?

Maybe because I dont see them as bad guys, just people like you and me who are pissed off that other countries are meddling around in their affairs and telling them how to live.

Wow. If that's the case, how do you feel about Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, Hitler...?

The Terrorists in 9-11 attacked us because of our foreign policies in my opinion, not because they are "evil"

And Iraq well I have no idea why we went to war with them in the first place actually.

Sorry I mixed Iraq and Afghanistan.

Okay...couple follow up questions then...

1. You believe civil unrest is inevitable - so the coalition should get out of the way and let it happen - do you hold this believe even though the former powers / conditions may return?

2.regarding "without any progress being made." - what about the election? Is that not progress?

1. Yes. I would rather have a secular party like Baath in power than the religious zealots the Iraqi people are electing.

2. the election was successful only if you consider an election that was boycotted by one of the two major groups in the nation successful. Only 2% of Sunnis voted in the election. Imagine an election in the US where the democrats and republicans cannot come to an agreement, but the election is forced on them anyway and the Republicans boycott it in protest. Would you consider such an election successful? The election was not successful and it hasnt changed anything.

My little brother could come home. Screw everybody else.

1. Yes. I would rather have a secular party like Baath in power than the religious zealots the Iraqi people are electing.

2. the election was successful only if you consider an election that was boycotted by one of the two major groups in the nation successful. Only 2% of Sunnis voted in the election. Imagine an election in the US where the democrats and republicans cannot come to an agreement, but the election is forced on them anyway and the Republicans boycott it in protest. Would you consider such an election successful? The election was not successful and it hasnt changed anything.

Interesting.

1. See - I'd rather have a party in power that the people want (which I believe is what all the hippies have been bitching about, isn't it?).

2. It was a lot more successful, and had a far greater turnout than the first few US general elections. I suspect that the Sunnis will turn out in far greater numbers once they realize that the only successful method of creating change will be through elected office.

My little brother could come home. Screw everybody else.

Best reason!

My little brother could come home. Screw everybody else.

Fair enough. That's a position I can respect.

Interesting.

1. See - I'd rather have a party in power that the people want (which I believe is what all the hippies have been bitching about, isn't it?).

I dont know what hippies want. Ive never met a hippie. I dont think there are many of them left.


2. It was a lot more successful, and had a far greater turnout than the first few US general elections. I suspect that the Sunnis will turn out in far greater numbers once they realize that the only successful method of creating change will be through elected office.

But it will be too late then. The constitution of Iraq will have been written without their cooperation. How valid will the new constitution be now that the people who are writing it do not represent one of the two major groups in the region?

I dont know what hippies want. Ive never met a hippie. I dont think there are many of them left.



But it will be too late then. The constitution of Iraq will have been written without their cooperation. How valid will the new constitution be now that the people who are writing it do not represent one of the two major groups in the region?

One would hope that the authors of the constitution would frame it in such a way that it would represent all the people, regardless of sect. Any lesser framing would doom the nation to fall into its historic troubles. Just as the Canadian, US, French constitutions continue to protect all (including groups not recognized by the authors), a successful Iraq constitution would offer everyone the same legal protections.

One would hope that the authors of the constitution would frame it in such a way that it would represent all the people, regardless of sect. Any lesser framing would doom the nation to fall into its historic troubles. Just as the Canadian, US, French constitutions continue to protect all (including groups not recognized by the authors), a successful Iraq constitution would offer everyone the same legal protections.

One would hope so, but I doubt it will happen that way. Even if it does however, a constitution is only a piece of paper if it cannot be enforced. That is where I think the real problem lies.

Let us suppose that the authors of the Iraqi constitution are true visionaries who are able to write a document that is fair to all parties and benefits all of the people in Iraq. In fact, lets take it a step further and assume that the authors of the Iraqi constitution will learn from the constitutions of other nations and will manage to piece together a constitution that is vastly superior to all constitutions found anywhere else on the planet. Let us assume that they outline a perfect system of government that would maintain peace and order in Iraq while respecting the civil and religious freedoms of all of its people. Let us suppose that the constitution they write is recognized globally as the finest legal document ever written.

Of what use is that constitution if the insurgency can never be stopped, and there is never enough peace to implement the constitution? I think thats the real problem.

I dont know what hippies want. Ive never met a hippie. I dont think there are many of them left.



But it will be too late then. The constitution of Iraq will have been written without their cooperation. How valid will the new constitution be now that the people who are writing it do not represent one of the two major groups in the region?

The Constitution of the United States was written without Black, Female, or Taoist cooperation. As long as their Constitution allows for amendment, freedom of speech and equal protection, it will change to fit the nation's evolving needs. Never will it be infallible, but a process can make it workable.

Of what use is that constitution if the insurgency can never be stopped, and there is never enough peace to implement the constitution? I think thats the real problem.

If the insurgency can never be stopped, then certain areas of the country will always be under threat of murder of innocents, much like the Reconstruction Amendments represented only de jure rights for blacks. Peace and tolerance must prevail for the Constitution to have real power. We wouldn't be there today if we didn't, as a national policy, think it will.

I do not understand the Anti-War protesters, well I understand why someone would be against war, but I don't understand how they can seem to think that Iraq under Saddam was a regular country. Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds, is this a regular country? It does not matter that Saddam committed these crimes in the 80s, what does matter is that he had to be brought to justice. When I look at the protesters I can't help but think humanity has failed, we are not willing to fight for the rights and freedoms of people from other nations. In the 21st Century the World can not afford to have ANY country run by dictators and it can not afford to have any country that does respect the rights and freedoms of all humans, regardless of race, colour, or religion. If we allow countries like that to exist, we risk repeating the 20th century over and over again. If it takes war to ensure that no country is like that, then so be it. Yes, many would be killed but in World War Two 80-100 million people died, was that too high of a price to ensure that world did not fall under the evils of facism? In 50 years will Iraqis say, that the US and the coalition of the those willing to stand up for the rights and freedoms of others, should not have invaded to ensure that Iraq could become free? Many of you will say that the war is about oil or the US trying to become the new Roman Empire, but I don't believe that. I believe that the invasion was done due to intelligence that has since proven to be in error, but lets look at the outcome of this invasion. A new free country has emerged, is that evil? Should we release Saddam from jail and let him run Iraq again because of an error in intelligence? Should we leave Iraq to the hands of the Insurgents who murder Iraqis that are just trying to make their country a better place? Over 1500 brave soldiers have given their lives for this cause. should we now pull-out and cause their deaths to be in vain? If the US and its coalition pulled out of Iraq now I would mourn not just for Iraqis and the dead soldiers who have died in vain, but also for humanity.

Of what use is that constitution if the insurgency can never be stopped, and there is never enough peace to implement the constitution? I think thats the real problem.

Never say never, except for this purpose of using it in this sentence.

If the insurgency can never be stopped, then certain areas of the country will always be under threat of murder of innocents, much like the Reconstruction Amendments represented only de jure rights for blacks. Peace and tolerance must prevail for the Constitution to have real power. We wouldn't be there today if we didn't, as a national policy, think it will.

I dont doubt that the current administration truly believes that it is possible. But the current administration also believed that Iraq was hiding stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. They also believed that the Iraqi people would welcome them as liberators and that the status of the Iraq war after the shock and awe campaign was "mission accomplished". I dont doubt the current administration and its policy is based on the beleif that peace in Iraq is possible with US interference, but I disagree with them. I believe they are wrong once again and peace in Iraq will come about only after the US has left and the Iraqis face the inevitable struggle for power.

Novoga. I believe you are right in some respects. There are valid reasons for the war and against the war. Saddam was crazy and his crimes should not have gone unpunished. I do not think we should pull our troops out now but consider a few arguments against the war initially.

1) This war may create more terrorism then it actually stops. In Osama First tape released to the public after the attacks he claimed that the reason for the attacks was because of the injustices that America had done to the arab people. If you look at the history of American intervention in the middle east he has a valid point. I'm not saying what he did was right, I'm just saying that more injustices against the arab people may cause more terrorism.

If you don't believe that consider that the CIA has released a report claiming that the Iraq has now become the breeding ground for new terrorism. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html

2)Can we bring democracy to Iraq. It took England 500 years of internal strife to finaly have a true democracy. It took about 100 years for America to have a true democracy. If you look at all the nations in the world, they all developed democracies by themselves. History shows that democracies aren't made quicky, it takes a lot of revolt and social progress in the nation for a democracy to foster. What Mr. Bush is trying to do has never been done before. Maybe it will work, Maybe it won't. We shall see.

3) The cost of the war. The war has cost us billions. I forget the actually number but our economy is in danger if the deficit keeps climbing like this. Alan Greenspan warned that the deficit is so high is devaluing our currency. That has been happening because the dollar has been plummeting on the market for the last year. This has also led to our trade deficit to increase which isn't good for the nation. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6529487/
Granted this would not be an issue if the democrats and republicans would just raise taxes and/or cut domestic spending but they are doing a poor job.

On a side note, I have a family member serving in Iraq. I worry about his safety, but with only less that 2000 Americans dead it has been somewhat successful venture on the American side. Then again it is estimated that over 150,000+ Iraqis are dead and that is not counting the wounded. All in all, the war may or may not have been a good idea. Iraq was being run by a dictator who killed his own people, but he has been contained over the last 10 years. We shall see how it all turns out. Just stay open minded and hope that this all works out.

Maybe because I dont see them as bad guys, just people like you and me who are pissed off that other countries are meddling around in their affairs and telling them how to live.

can this comment be considered understanding of the current situation ? the insurgency dosn't even target americans anymore.. they target Iraqis ? so who are they mad with again ?? In fact, every study shows a large portion of the insurgency isn't even iraqi.. and those who are have taken up the cause simply to regain the bathist power they lost.. trying to bring 20% of the population back to supremecy ... This is who the people you talk about are ? non iraqis targeting Iraqis becuase america is there ...?? Funny cause if the Iraqis came and took over the US.. i wouldn't be running out killing americans.. to try to get the Iraqis out >.> i dunno if they are like you.. but they are certainly not like me!

1. Yes. I would rather have a secular party like Baath in power than the religious zealots the Iraqi people are electing.

2. the election was successful only if you consider an election that was boycotted by one of the two major groups in the nation successful. Only 2% of Sunnis voted in the election. Imagine an election in the US where the democrats and republicans cannot come to an agreement, but the election is forced on them anyway and the Republicans boycott it in protest. Would you consider such an election successful? The election was not successful and it hasnt changed anything.

um..a ctually the Sunnis make up the same portion of the population as the Kurds... 20% while the Shites are 60%... sooooooo 80% of the population was represented.. not bad if you ask me. However, im not concerned if the Sunnis weren't so involved. Firstly the newly elected government seems very open to accepting t hem reguardless, and besides, they've ruled for the last 2 decades un matched brutualized the other 80% of Iraq.

And you would rather see the Batthists who comit genoicde and oppression over those more religiously inclined ?? even religious groups in Iraq are far from fundamental like Iran (many of whom 1 practice different versions of the same belif, and 2 hold great distrust toward Iranian religoius leaders who waged war on t hem during the Iraq Iran War). Secularism does not (always) a good government make (Nazi's, Soviets) !!

If i had to accept a more non secular government to see some respect of human rights.. thats CERTIANLY something im ready to embrase whole heartedly

Your initial points have some merit.. however these I have several questions and comments on...

2)Can we bring democracy to Iraq. It took England 500 years of internal strife to finaly have a true democracy. It took about 100 years for America to have a true democracy. If you look at all the nations in the world, they all developed democracies by themselves. History shows that democracies aren't made quicky, it takes a lot of revolt and social progress in the nation for a democracy to foster. What Mr. Bush is trying to do has never been done before. Maybe it will work, Maybe it won't. We shall see.

England is the only country in the world to have achieved Democracy in the manner it has, and even today technically it is still far from the demcracy America enjoys (no technical freedoms of speech)... As for America, what exactly is a "true" democracy.. it may have taken 100 years for everyone to achieve an equal vote... but just the simple fact people COULD vote (for who they want) says we were on the right track...

Yes America deveolped its own democracy... but it did not acheive the possiblity of the democracy on its own.. in fact had it not been for France we may all have been speaking Germany now. We are not developing Iraqs democracy for it... this election shows that.. they chose the people they wanted, not the US choosing for them or crafting their constitution for them. They have their soverinty now and will use it as they see fit.


3) The cost of the war. The war has cost us billions. I forget the actually number but our economy is in danger if the deficit keeps climbing like this. Alan Greenspan warned that the deficit is so high is devaluing our currency. That has been happening because the dollar has been plummeting on the market for the last year. This has also led to our trade deficit to increase which isn't good for the nation. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6529487/
Granted this would not be an issue if the democrats and republicans would just raise taxes and/or cut domestic spending but they are doing a poor job.

I would just like to note.. the Trade deficit has nothing to do with Iraq, and the devaltuation of our currency (which was largely over valued from the late 90's tech bubble) again does not INCREASE our trade deficit.. if anything it reduces it (all be it minimal). These are simple economics .. And can anyone truely say Iraqi freedom isn't worth 1500 AMerican lives and 82 billion dollars ? What is the worth of one free man is the essential question.. he is not cheap, but surely worth every penny!

On a side note, I have a family member serving in Iraq. I worry about his safety, but with only less that 2000 Americans dead it has been somewhat successful venture on the American side. Then again it is estimated that over 150,000+ Iraqis are dead and that is not counting the wounded. All in all, the war may or may not have been a good idea. Iraq was being run by a dictator who killed his own people, but he has been contained over the last 10 years. We shall see how it all turns out. Just stay open minded and hope that this all works out.

How many more Iraqi lives were lost by that containment (by the way each of whome were blamed on the US no less) ... How many Iraqi lives were lost simply by having Saddam in power.. AGain is not 150,000 lives not worth freedom for the other milliions ?

I would just like to note.. the Trade deficit has nothing to do with Iraq, and the devaltuation of our currency (which was largely over valued from the late 90's tech bubble) again does not INCREASE our trade deficit.. if anything it reduces it (all be it minimal). These are simple economics .. And can anyone truely say Iraqi freedom isn't worth 1500 AMerican lives and 82 billion dollars ? What is the worth of one free man is the essential question.. he is not cheap, but surely worth every penny!

Actually I think it's more like 182 billion.

...

And you would rather see the Batthists who comit genoicde and oppression over those more religiously inclined ?? even religious groups in Iraq are far from fundamental like Iran (many of whom 1 practice different versions of the same belif, and 2 hold great distrust toward Iranian religoius leaders who waged war on t hem during the Iraq Iran War). Secularism does not (always) a good government make (Nazi's, Soviets) !!

If i had to accept a more non secular government to see some respect of human rights.. thats CERTIANLY something im ready to embrase whole heartedly

I have to admit, that is a very good point. However, the fact remains that my main reason for wanting the US out of Iraq is because I dont believe they can win against the insurgency. If I believed they could, I wouldnt want them to leave. But I believe that the insurgents are ready to spend the rest of their lives fighting the US, and their children will continue the job for as long as is necessary.

I do not understand the Anti-War protesters, well I understand why someone would be against war, but I don't understand how they can seem to think that Iraq under Saddam was a regular country.

That's exactly the kind of reasoning I am confronted with everyday. 'Oh, you're against war, so you are in favor of evil corrupt dictatorship then?' More often than not, I don't dignify stupid questions like that with an answer. But hey, let us do so for once, for the sake of argument.

Generally speaking, when you're against war, you're against using (physical) violence as a means to solve conflict. ANY conflict. A dictator who is forcefully opressing certain peoples in his country because they do not agree with him is using violence. On the other hand, a "democratically elected" president (in parentheses, because I believe we all know the Florida-effect) who decides to invade a nation without the consent of the United Nations in order to solve an economic and political conflict (NOT a humanitarian one, let's face it) is also using violence. We, the "paficist pigs" as we are so often labeled, do not agree with said policies - most of us would rather see more dialogue and tolerance, and less kicking ass and taking names. That's all there is to it, really. And for considering all involved parties, for talking and thinking, we are often labeled as naive idiots who actually condone opression. Thus, try to remember that most pacifists will, by nature, readily agree to explain their intentions. Don't presume to know them beforehand.

But it will be too late then. The constitution of Iraq will have been written without their cooperation. How valid will the new constitution be now that the people who are writing it do not represent one of the two major groups in the region?

Sorry to jump in here but this statement is wrong. The Sunnis are participating. They also can VETO any constitution because they have control of the three provinces. Since three provinces is all that is needed to Veto the Constitution, they ARE PARTICIPATING in the construction of the Constitution.

BTW: There are 3 major groups in Iraq, not 2.

Note: I am breaking Novoga's post up into sections and answering each section because it's easier.

1)I do not understand the Anti-War protesters, well I understand why someone would be against war, but I don't understand how they can seem to think that Iraq under Saddam was a regular country. Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds, is this a regular country? It does not matter that Saddam committed these crimes in the 80s, what does matter is that he had to be brought to justice.

2) When I look at the protesters I can't help but think humanity has failed, we are not willing to fight for the rights and freedoms of people from other nations. In the 21st Century the World can not afford to have ANY country run by dictators and it can not afford to have any country that does respect the rights and freedoms of all humans, regardless of race, colour, or religion. If we allow countries like that to exist, we risk repeating the 20th century over and over again.

3)Many of you will say that the war is about oil or the US trying to become the new Roman Empire, but I don't believe that. I believe that the invasion was done due to intelligence that has since proven to be in error, but lets look at the outcome of this invasion. A new free country has emerged, is that evil?

4)Should we release Saddam from jail and let him run Iraq again because of an error in intelligence? Should we leave Iraq to the hands of the Insurgents who murder Iraqis that are just trying to make their country a better place? Over 1500 brave soldiers have given their lives for this cause. should we now pull-out and cause their deaths to be in vain? If the US and its coalition pulled out of Iraq now I would mourn not just for Iraqis and the dead soldiers who have died in vain, but also for humanity.
1) Yes, Saddam should be brought to justice for his gassing of the Kurds. However, at the time, he was at war with Iran, with U.S. support. U.S. support for Saddam increased after he gassed the Kurds. I'm not saying that it increased because he did it (although considering subsequent U.S. campaigns against the Kurds I wouldn't be surprised) perhaps support increased in spite of it. But nonetheless the U.S. wasn't interesting in bringing Saddam to justice then.

2) I agree that a country shouldn't be run by dictators. While Saddam was a dictator, he wasn't the worst one. It doesn't make sense to go to war to overthrow a dictator unless you get rid of the worst one first. (It also helps if you have groups within the country who would be ready to take power afterwards...Iraq didn't have said groups before the invasion.)

3) I don't believe that the war was about oil, oil is a simplistic way to say what it was about. It was about Dubya paying his campaign contributors back for giving him money to win his election. Note the fact that the biggest benefactors of the war are Dubya's campaign contributors. (Dubya isn't the first to do this, the Pentagon system of paying back campaign contributors has been done since at least the '80s.)

4) The 1,500 American soldiers who died in Iraq wouldn't be dying in vain if we withdrew. Withdrawing so that the dogma of "regime change" could never be used again as justification for war would not be dying in vain.

In my mind a withdrawl now would only result in civil war and a very uncertain outcome for the nation...and bloodshed far worse than is currently taking place.

Floor's open.
I agree. I would describe myself as "anti-war" but I don't agree with pulling out US troops. The Yanquis must clean up their own mess.

Wow. If that's the case, how do you feel about Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, Hitler...?

They didn't meddle in Iraq :rolleyes: and whats wrong with Castro? He gave Cuba one of the best health care in North America! Ok, he kills some of his people, or throw them in jail, but you Americans are good in that too.

1) Yes, Saddam should be brought to justice for his gassing of the Kurds. However, at the time, he was at war with Iran, with U.S. support. U.S. support for Saddam increased after he gassed the Kurds. I'm not saying that it increased because he did it (although considering subsequent U.S. campaigns against the Kurds I wouldn't be surprised) perhaps support increased in spite of it. But nonetheless the U.S. wasn't interesting in bringing Saddam to justice then.

What other campaigns against the Kurds are you refering too? Didn't we establish a No-Fly Zone to protect them? Can you elaborate on what other campaigns against them are you talking about?

4) The 1,500 American soldiers who died in Iraq wouldn't be dying in vain if we withdrew. Withdrawing so that the dogma of "regime change" could never be used again as justification for war would not be dying in vain.

If we pull out of Iraq, 1500 soldiers WOULD have died invain. Especially if a Civil War erupts and a dictator comes to power.

The war was illegal, the coup was illegal and holding an election in an occupied country is illegal.

What other campaigns against the Kurds are you refering too? Didn't we establish a No-Fly Zone to protect them? Can you elaborate on what other campaigns against them are you talking about?



If we pull out of Iraq, 1500 soldiers WOULD have died invain. Especially if a Civil War erupts and a dictator comes to power.
There was a campaign against the Kurds shortly after Gulf War I ended that involved having Iraqi Kurds help us kill Turkish Kurds. Speaking of Turkish Kurds, during the '90s until '97, Turkey was the 3rd largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (behind Egypt and Israel) The years that Turkey received the most U.S. money coincide with the most Turkish Kurds killed by Turkey. So, in answer to your question, yes, we protected the Iraqi Kurds with the No-Fly Zone. The Turkish Kurds were a different matter.

You think dying so that a mistake couldn't be repeated is dying in vain?

The war was illegal, the coup was illegal and holding an election in an occupied country is illegal.
But the US say they aren't occupiers? They say the Iraqis WANT them there? :confused: :eek:

Families' lives measure pace of progress in Iraq (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=23&u=/usatoday/20050317/ts_usatoday/familieslivesmeasurepaceofprogressiniraq)

The war was illegal, the coup was illegal and holding an election in an occupied country is illegal.

Go make me more movies.

I'm sort of anti-war but I'm a republican.

Figure that one out.

"Anti-War Protesters...explain yourselves"

They just don't want to see people die, how hard is that to understand?

There was a campaign against the Kurds shortly after Gulf War I ended that involved having Iraqi Kurds help us kill Turkish Kurds. Speaking of Turkish Kurds, during the '90s until '97, Turkey was the 3rd largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid (behind Egypt and Israel) The years that Turkey received the most U.S. money coincide with the most Turkish Kurds killed by Turkey. So, in answer to your question, yes, we protected the Iraqi Kurds with the No-Fly Zone. The Turkish Kurds were a different matter.

News to me. I do know that we planned to help the Shi'ites take out Saddam and back out at the last minute. However, I don't know about Iraqi Kurds helping us kill Turkish Kurds and I didn't know that we were killing Turkish Kurds. I'm going to have to ask my father on this one. Maybe he'll know more. As for Turkey killing Turkish Kurds. The Turkish Kurds want there own state and have been in somewhat of a rebellion against the Turkish Government. I like to know how we got on Turkish Kurds when we are talking about Iraq.

You think dying so that a mistake couldn't be repeated is dying in vain?

If we pull out of Iraq and a dictator rises to power then 1500 people would've died invain.

Go make me more movies.

I'm sort of anti-war but I'm a republican.

Figure that one out.

Anyone that loves war is a fool.

Anyone that loves war is a fool.

Touche.

Maybe because I dont see them as bad guys, just people like you and me who are pissed off that other countries are meddling around in their affairs and telling them how to live.
Then you are indeed a phoole and beyond hope.

Anyone that loves war is a fool.
True. And anyone who opposes the use of force when it's obvious that force is the only viable option is an even bigger phoole.

News to me. I do know that we planned to help the Shi'ites take out Saddam and back out at the last minute. However, I don't know about Iraqi Kurds helping us kill Turkish Kurds and I didn't know that we were killing Turkish Kurds. I'm going to have to ask my father on this one. Maybe he'll know more. As for Turkey killing Turkish Kurds. The Turkish Kurds want there own state and have been in somewhat of a rebellion against the Turkish Government. I like to know how we got on Turkish Kurds when we are talking about Iraq.



If we pull out of Iraq and a dictator rises to power then 1500 people would've died invain.
As far as sources go, you can try Noam Chomsky's spoken word album "Case Studies in Hypocrisy: U.S. Human Rights Policy.

What happens if the Iraqis elect a dictator? How would you feel then?

True. And anyone who opposes the use of force when it's obvious that force is the only viable option is an even bigger phoole.

I'll Drink to that Eutrusca.

As far as sources go, you can try Noam Chomsky's spoken word album "Case Studies in Hypocrisy: U.S. Human Rights Policy.

I don't read Chomsky. Besides that, the Turkish Kurds group is on the terrorist list.

What happens if the Iraqis elect a dictator? How would you feel then?

I won't have to because I know that they won't. The people have freedom now and they'll do what it takes to maintain it.

please explain to me how that would help anyone (except the bad guys) in Iraq?

LOL did he say "the bad guys"?

hahaha...hehe

what a moron.

I'll Drink to that Eutrusca.
You will, eh? Hell, man! You'll drink to anything! LOL! :D

I don't read Chomsky. Besides that, the Turkish Kurds group is on the terrorist list.



I won't have to because I know that they won't. The people have freedom now and they'll do what it takes to maintain it.
Being that the law has a vague definition of terrorism, that's not saying much. Not to mention that terrorist groups, such as the Army of God, aren't on the list.

If you say so. I would say that it's unlikely that they'd elect a dictator, but not impossible.

You will, eh? Hell, man! You'll drink to anything! LOL! :D

And the funny part is, I don't even drink :D

Ah, Iraq. First it was about Saddam. We got Saddam.

Then it became about terrorists. We occupied the nation.

Then it became about democracy. We sponsored their elections.

Now it's apparently about preventing a similar power from rising? About preventing future dictators in Iraq from coming to power? Oh, for how long? How long will it take for us to have a nice little guarantee that NO ONE like Saddam will ever come to power in Iraq again?

Let's see.... oh yeah. The answer? FOREVER.

That's right, you can't prevent Saddam. You can only hope not to actively sponsor him, like the US DID THE FIRST TIME AROUND. Honestly, we put him in power, now we take him out, and both times were justified by the same kinds of people - people who think fucking around in other countries is more important than tending our own.

It isn't.

I'm against the US being in Iraq right now. We did what we wanted - we got Saddam - that should be it. But no. Now we're just like in Vietnam - terrified of PULLING OUT. We don't want to PULL OUT, then it's all for nothing. We have to stay in there and keep FUCKING THEM again and again, until we're positive that our paranoid fear of Saddam #2 (and 3, 4, n) is utterly vanquished.

Ah, Iraq. First it was about Saddam. We got Saddam.

Then it became about terrorists. We occupied the nation.

Then it became about democracy. We sponsored their elections.

Now it's apparently about preventing a similar power from rising? About preventing future dictators in Iraq from coming to power? Oh, for how long? How long will it take for us to have a nice little guarantee that NO ONE like Saddam will ever come to power in Iraq again?

Let's see.... oh yeah. The answer? FOREVER.

That's right, you can't prevent Saddam. You can only hope not to actively sponsor him, like the US DID THE FIRST TIME AROUND. Honestly, we put him in power, now we take him out, and both times were justified by the same kinds of people - people who think fucking around in other countries is more important than tending our own.

It isn't.

I'm against the US being in Iraq right now. We did what we wanted - we got Saddam - that should be it. But no. Now we're just like in Vietnam - terrified of PULLING OUT. We don't want to PULL OUT, then it's all for nothing. We have to stay in there and keep FUCKING THEM again and again, until we're positive that our paranoid fear of Saddam #2 (and 3, 4, n) is utterly vanquished.
Well said. I'll mark it on the calendar "the first time I agree with Santa Barbara." :D

LOL did he say "the bad guys"?

hahaha...hehe

what a moron.
Thats so.......Holywood.

If the troops withdraw a lot of the insurgents will pack up and go home, a lot of them are issed off young men fed up with the U$.

If the troops withdraw a lot of the insurgents will pack up and go home, a lot of them are issed off young men fed up with the U$.

And most of them are from other countries and are not Iraqi.

I do not understand the Anti-War protesters, well I understand why someone would be against war, but I don't understand how they can seem to think that Iraq under Saddam was a regular country. Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds, is this a regular country? It does not matter that Saddam committed these crimes in the 80s, what does matter is that he had to be brought to justice. When I look at the protesters I can't help but think humanity has failed, we are not willing to fight for the rights and freedoms of people from other nations. In the 21st Century the World can not afford to have ANY country run by dictators and it can not afford to have any country that does respect the rights and freedoms of all humans, regardless of race, colour, or religion. If we allow countries like that to exist, we risk repeating the 20th century over and over again. If it takes war to ensure that no country is like that, then so be it. Yes, many would be killed but in World War Two 80-100 million people died, was that too high of a price to ensure that world did not fall under the evils of facism? In 50 years will Iraqis say, that the US and the coalition of the those willing to stand up for the rights and freedoms of others, should not have invaded to ensure that Iraq could become free? Many of you will say that the war is about oil or the US trying to become the new Roman Empire, but I don't believe that. I believe that the invasion was done due to intelligence that has since proven to be in error, but lets look at the outcome of this invasion. A new free country has emerged, is that evil? Should we release Saddam from jail and let him run Iraq again because of an error in intelligence? Should we leave Iraq to the hands of the Insurgents who murder Iraqis that are just trying to make their country a better place? Over 1500 brave soldiers have given their lives for this cause. should we now pull-out and cause their deaths to be in vain? If the US and its coalition pulled out of Iraq now I would mourn not just for Iraqis and the dead soldiers who have died in vain, but also for humanity.

I agree with you 100%.

1) The US supported Saddam Hussein's rise to power because he was "anti-communist" even though Stalin was his role model. To prevent a communist government we supported a fascist dictatorship, just like we've done in Nicaragua and El Salvador and many other countries since World War II. In each case, US companies made sweet deals with the ruling government and reaped tremendous profits. Considering our current business dealings with Saudi Arabia and China, don't tell me our government (US) has a moral issue with oppressive governments.

2) Genocidal dictators in Africa have been left alone by US military forces. We haven't invaded them although they have killed far more of their own people than Saddam Hussein ever did. Don't tell me we were obligated to stop a genocidal maniac in Iraq, because we ignored far worse in Africa. That's a double standard.

3) After the US discovered oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1920s, and our dominant victory in WWII, we were able to get our finger in the Middle East pie. Since then, we have done everything in our power, including regime change (Iran, Iraq) to gain control or install favorable govenrments in the oil rich regions. US foreign policy in the region is driven by economic gain. The only people who don't understand that are US citizens.

4) European countries exploited the people of the Middle East in the 19th and 20th centuries - read your history and tell me "exploited" isn't the proper word. The US jumped on the bandwagon in the 1920s and has continued the tradition. Maybe the Middle East is just plain tired of foreign powers meddling with their lives.

5) Sure, our culture and ideals influenced alot of people and nations to strive for freedom and democracy. But our government's continued support of oppressive regimes in the region (Saudi Arabia, Israel), combined with a Pentagon that's hell bent on bombing everybody into submission and a President that obviously believes "We're better than you so do it our way," our symbolic status as champions of freedom and democracy has been eroded.

6) Hypocrisy is obvious to those being screwed and invisible to those who benefit from it. You can't destroy people's lives while your contractors make a fortune and expect people to accept that as fair play. You can't invade a country because it's an oppressive regime while doing $250billion a year in business with another one. And don't bring up any "violation of UN resolution" arguements either because Israel, our best ally in the region, is in violation of over 40 of them.

7) The peace activists (protesters, hippies, whatever) believe violence is the wrong way to solve preoblems. Most of the time they are right. Violence rarely solves problems and more often than not creates new ones. There have been exceptions - no doubt Hitler is a perfect example. But in Iraq, this is simply a case of one of our puppets getting out of hand and outliving his usefulness (remind anybody of Noriega?). Don't get high and mighty about our liberating the Iraqis - we don't have the moral legs to stand on.

8) Our exit from the region is the only thing that will allow stabilization. However, now that we're in it, now is not the time to leave. The Iraqi government has to establish itself, learn to cooperate among its different factions and agree on a direction forward. Once the major powers get a game plan and show the Iraqi people the light at the end of the tunnel, the Iraqi people will turn against the insurgents, foreign and domestic. Then it's time for us to leave. Until then, we take it on the chin.

I'm against the US being in Iraq right now. We did what we wanted - we got Saddam - that should be it. But no. Now we're just like in Vietnam - terrified of PULLING OUT.
You are so far wrong that you're no longer even on my radar! Iraq in no way resembles Vietnam! You obviously didn't live through those times, so I'm really not too surprised that you make such specious comparisons. Besides, you live in the land of fruits and nuts where people are famous for being famous. :D

And the funny part is, I don't even drink :D
You should start ... immediately! It should help your disposition. :D

You should start ... immediately! It should help your disposition. :D

"Its a vile habit when abused" Colonel Bin Zane, Babylon 5 Episode Eyes of Season 1.

"Its a vile habit when abused" Colonel Bin Zane, Babylon 5 Episode Eyes of Season 1.
Then don't abuse it! :p

He really said this??? Originally Posted by Urantia II
That just because we have an Amendment in the Constitution doesn't make that Amendment Constitutional.

Then don't abuse it! :p

Meh, I have a drink here and there.

He really said this??? Originally Posted by Urantia II
That just because we have an Amendment in the Constitution doesn't make that Amendment Constitutional.

Oh yes he did in the Constitution-UnConstitutional? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406218) thread.

1) The US supported Saddam Hussein's rise to power because he was "anti-communist" even though Stalin was his role model. To prevent a communist government we supported a fascist dictatorship, just like we've done in Nicaragua and El Salvador and many other countries since World War II. In each case, US companies made sweet deals with the ruling government and reaped tremendous profits. Considering our current business dealings with Saudi Arabia and China, don't tell me our government (US) has a moral issue with oppressive governments.

Really? Did we force General al-Bakr to name Saddam as his #2, years before the 3rd coup? Did we force Saddam(still working as the #2 man) in '72 to make deals with the USSR?

2) Genocidal dictators in Africa have been left alone by US military forces. We haven't invaded them although they have killed far more of their own people than Saddam Hussein ever did. Don't tell me we were obligated to stop a genocidal maniac in Iraq, because we ignored far worse in Africa. That's a double standard.

France/Rwanda 1996? UK/Kenya....should I continue? How about occupation by European troops since 1945? Want a list?

3) After the US discovered oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1920s, and our dominant victory in WWII, we were able to get our finger in the Middle East pie. Since then, we have done everything in our power, including regime change (Iran, Iraq) to gain control or install favorable govenrments in the oil rich regions. US foreign policy in the region is driven by economic gain. The only people who don't understand that are US citizens.

Just like what Russia is/has done to Chechnya?

4) European countries exploited the people of the Middle East in the 19th and 20th centuries - read your history and tell me "exploited" isn't the proper word. The US jumped on the bandwagon in the 1920s and has continued the tradition. Maybe the Middle East is just plain tired of foreign powers meddling with their lives.

Actually, the European powers have been meddling in Arab affairs just as much if not more than the US has since 1945! Example: The "coincidence" that shortly after the coup that brought Qaddafi to power, France sold him 100 Mirages(Jan 21, 1970).....just a coincidence isn't it.....:rolleyes:

5) Sure, our culture and ideals influenced alot of people and nations to strive for freedom and democracy. But our government's continued support of oppressive regimes in the region (Saudi Arabia, Israel), combined with a Pentagon that's hell bent on bombing everybody into submission and a President that obviously believes "We're better than you so do it our way," our symbolic status as champions of freedom and democracy has been eroded.

Yes, the US isn't as adept at silencing the media, like France is in Cote d'Ivorie.

6) Hypocrisy is obvious to those being screwed and invisible to those who benefit from it. You can't destroy people's lives while your contractors make a fortune and expect people to accept that as fair play. You can't invade a country because it's an oppressive regime while doing $250billion a year in business with another one. And don't bring up any "violation of UN resolution" arguements either because Israel, our best ally in the region, is in violation of over 40 of them.

And just exactly is going on now? Want to talk about UN violations, just how long has Syria been living in Lebanon?

In no way am I saying the US is alone in exploiting the have nots. Europe and Russia are just as guilty (limiting the arguement to western powers). As far as Saddam's rise to power, we were opportunistic. One of the things that I believe turned the tides for Saddam was his $1.2billion deal with Russia to build an oil pipeline. Rumsfled couldn't turn him to the US side in '83 and once he lost the war with Iran he was done as far as the US was concerned.

My problem is with the people who think we (US) are righteous in what we've done to liberate the Iraqis. The arguements I hear in the media and regurgitated by my fellow Americans are hollow at best. The fact of the matter is that US, European and Russian foreign policies are all based on profit, and each is willing to kill for it. Lately, however, the US has taken the spotlight and the current regime embraces the Pax Americana and a religious "holier than thou" attitude. Pure arrogance.

Russia is able to press forward on its submission of Chechnya, without worldwide critique, because the US is pursuing similar policies in Israel/Palistine, Iraq and Afghansitan. Europe is in the process of establishing itself, via the EU, as a superpower and will succeed on an econimc level. China is setting the stage to establish itself as an economic and military superpower and will also succeed. Throughout the Cold War, the US was able to achieve idealistic superiority because its image was of fairness, tolerance and commitment to do the "right thing." That is gone.

Our actions in the Middle East, policy regarding prisoners of war (forget the lawyers - they don't matter in public opinion), and the high volume of civilian casualties have cost the US everything we fought for over the last 50 years. It doesn't matter what we think here - the rest of the world thinks we are out of control.

Over the next 50 years we will be challenged in the Middle East and Asia. In the Middle East, we have already lost because we have humiliated the culture, killed vast numbers of civilians, supported Israel, and the average American believes "nuke 'em, turn it into a glass parking lot." In Asia, we have no chance of dominating China in a conventional war unless we strike now, and our economy is so hooked on their cheap labor that tariffs and boycots of Chinese products would bankrupt us.

I despise the "we're better than you" arguement. Once again, it is pure arrogance. Our (US) sugar-coated media has killed democracy in our country, along with the "pay to play" Congress we elect. At best, the Iraq war will open Americans' eyes to the faults of our government and its foreign policies. At worst, it will inspire generations of nationalistic sentiment that will ensure our eventual destruction.

The war was illegal
Actually, given the resolutions that were in place it wasn't actually illegal. It was just an extreme stretching of authority, not actual breaking. Now, if we claimed the country for ourselves it would have been illegal.

If you hold such a belief - please explain to me how that would help anyone (except the bad guys) in Iraq?

Who are the bad guys, and why?

Okay...I can understand being against the war in Iraq - anti-Bush - whatever.

But today's anti-war protesters (at least in Canada) were calling for an immediate withdrawl of USA and coalition troops from Iraq.

If you hold such a belief - please explain to me how that would help anyone (except the bad guys) in Iraq?

In my mind a withdrawl now would only result in civil war and a very uncertain outcome for the nation...and bloodshed far worse than is currently taking place.

Floor's open.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, the U.S. has gotten into a situation where pullout is not possible or reasonable at the moment, but I really feel that this was all of Bush's plan to begin with; to get us embroiled in a never ending war that will encompass the entire middle east at some point and will breath constant life into the military industrial complex that is really the defacto ruler of this country. Eisenhower rolls in his grave as we speak.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, the U.S. has gotten into a situation where pullout is not possible or reasonable at the moment, but I really feel that this was all of Bush's plan to begin with; to get us embroiled in a never ending war that will encompass the entire middle east at some point and will breath constant life into the military industrial complex that is really the defacto ruler of this country. Eisenhower rolls in his grave as we speak.

Holy Cow Batman! Someone finally put their finger on it!

Actually, given the resolutions that were in place it wasn't actually illegal. It was just an extreme stretching of authority, not actual breaking. Now, if we claimed the country for ourselves it would have been illegal.

We pretty much did actually. Bremer, the now defunct head of the CPA hydra that reinvented it's self with the puppet Allawi, set forth a whole screed of various orders during his time as CPA head, most of which openly break Hague and international law:

On September 19, Bremer enacted the now infamous Order 39. It announced that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised; decreed that foreign firms can retain 100% ownership of Iraqi banks, mines and factories; and allowed these firms to move 100% of their profits out of Iraq. The Economist declared the new rules a "capitalist dream".

Read more about that here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1079603,00.html

You wouldn't coddle a person who broke into your house and robbed it, even if they were destitute, so why coddle an Administration that is clearly guilty of some very fishy, backroom, underhanded dealings that have, not surprisingly, all worked out in their favor?

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you, the U.S. has gotten into a situation where pullout is not possible or reasonable at the moment, but I really feel that this was all of Bush's plan to begin with; to get us embroiled in a never ending war that will encompass the entire middle east at some point and will breath constant life into the military industrial complex that is really the defacto ruler of this country. Eisenhower rolls in his grave as we speak.

This is so wrong it ain't even funny. 1) It wasn't Bush's plan to begin with. We will be there for as long as necessary till they are stable and on their feet then we'll pull out. 2) The war is already over. The war ended in April when Baghdad fell and the statue came down. This is a different phase we are in now. 3) The Middle East is in the mist of reforms as we speak. Alright, they are limited in nature but reforms are happening as we speak. Syria is pulling out of Lebanon and to quote Assad, "I am not Saddam." Libya is getting rid of its WMD. Elections took place in Iraq AND in Afghanistan. 4) I think the opposite.

We pretty much did actually. Bremer, the now defunct head of the CPA hydra that reinvented it's self with the puppet Allawi, set forth a whole screed of various orders during his time as CPA head, most of which openly break Hague and international law:



Read more about that here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1079603,00.html

You wouldn't coddle a person who broke into your house and robbed it, even if they were destitute, so why coddle an Administration that is clearly guilty of some very fishy, backroom, underhanded dealings that have, not surprisingly, all worked out in their favor?

1) Allawi was never a puppet. He was actually the one the Iraqis wanted to be the Interim PM, not the Coalition. Ironic eh? We had to accept someone that we didn't want in there.

2) Iraq is now a soveriegn country with a new government thanks to the Iraqi Elections. However, it is mostly designed to form a Constitution of Iraq. Since the Old Regime and the CPA are gone, any deals done with either of them can be continued by the new government or not. That is called Soveriegnty.

3) The Administration did it on the up and up. So the intel on WMD was false. That means EVERYONE was dealing with bad intellegience from the UN on down. There was no backroom or underhanded dealings done by the Bush Administration.

I do not understand the Anti-War protesters, well I understand why someone would be against war, but I don't understand how they can seem to think that Iraq under Saddam was a regular country. Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds, is this a regular country? It does not matter that Saddam committed these crimes in the 80s, what does matter is that he had to be brought to justice. When I look at the protesters I can't help but think humanity has failed, we are not willing to fight for the rights and freedoms of people from other nations. In the 21st Century the World can not afford to have ANY country run by dictators and it can not afford to have any country that does respect the rights and freedoms of all humans, regardless of race, colour, or religion. If we allow countries like that to exist, we risk repeating the 20th century over and over again. If it takes war to ensure that no country is like that, then so be it. Yes, many would be killed but in World War Two 80-100 million people died, was that too high of a price to ensure that world did not fall under the evils of facism? In 50 years will Iraqis say, that the US and the coalition of the those willing to stand up for the rights and freedoms of others, should not have invaded to ensure that Iraq could become free? Many of you will say that the war is about oil or the US trying to become the new Roman Empire, but I don't believe that. I believe that the invasion was done due to intelligence that has since proven to be in error, but lets look at the outcome of this invasion. A new free country has emerged, is that evil? Should we release Saddam from jail and let him run Iraq again because of an error in intelligence? Should we leave Iraq to the hands of the Insurgents who murder Iraqis that are just trying to make their country a better place? Over 1500 brave soldiers have given their lives for this cause. should we now pull-out and cause their deaths to be in vain? If the US and its coalition pulled out of Iraq now I would mourn not just for Iraqis and the dead soldiers who have died in vain, but also for humanity.

Great post. Possibly one of the best justifications for the war I've seen yet.

This is so wrong it ain't even funny. 1) It wasn't Bush's plan to begin with. We will be there for as long as necessary till they are stable and on their feet then we'll pull out. 2) The war is already over. The war ended in April when Baghdad fell and the statue came down. This is a different phase we are in now. 3) The Middle East is in the mist of reforms as we speak. Alright, they are limited in nature but reforms are happening as we speak. Syria is pulling out of Lebanon and to quote Assad, "I am not Saddam." Libya is getting rid of its WMD. Elections took place in Iraq AND in Afghanistan. 4) I think the opposite.

LOL, give me yell when you stop bouncing around the rightwing echo chamber hon.

First of all, not only was this Iraqi invasion Bush's plan, but it was also laid out in great detail in a document called "Project for the New American Century", a rightwing, hawk, imperialist agenda that was made public in 2000 way before 9/11. It can be viewed at:

www.newamericancentury.org

Don't forget to view the page of supporters, you'll find some familiar names there. This idea for an Iraqi invasion was sent by the hawks at PNAC in the early 90's to the then President, Clinton, in the form of a memo, he soundly refused.

From the horse's mouth:


Quote:
"The process of [military] transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
- Rebuilding America’s Defenses, September 2000, Project for a New American Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org
Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, et al.



These are your caring leaders. Forgive me if I'm far from trusting of them.

A PNAC primer:

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/PNAC-Primer.htm

The war is already over?? HAHA then why are there still people dying EVERYDAY on both sides? Why are there car bombs going off while leaders are trying to make speaches just feet away? Why are we still finding headless bodies in the street? I dunno about you hon, but I for one call that WAR! Different phase? oh yeah, like how Diareahha can't really be classified as stool but it still has the same effect on your nostrils? That kind of different phase? Spare me.

Yes, reforms are happening as we speak! They're called Sharia law, and most women are scared to death of what might become. Brilliant! Let's all pat ourselves on the back now, shall we?

And the farce elections that were nothing more than a replay of Florida 2000, Iraqi style? Yeah, sure, if you call that Democracy.

Sorry, but no amount of rightwing drivel can ever make me blind to the truth, but hey, ignorance is bliss, so they say.....

When you stop believing what the press is feeding you, let me know. I have had family members that were in the area and they are saying the opposite of what the press is saying. I think I'll believe them over the press anyday.

1) Allawi was never a puppet. He was actually the one the Iraqis wanted to be the Interim PM, not the Coalition. Ironic eh? We had to accept someone that we didn't want in there.

2) Iraq is now a soveriegn country with a new government thanks to the Iraqi Elections. However, it is mostly designed to form a Constitution of Iraq. Since the Old Regime and the CPA are gone, any deals done with either of them can be continued by the new government or not. That is called Soveriegnty.

3) The Administration did it on the up and up. So the intel on WMD was false. That means EVERYONE was dealing with bad intellegience from the UN on down. There was no backroom or underhanded dealings done by the Bush Administration.

The only part of this quote that I feel carries any weight is this:

So the intel on WMD was false.

These are the same type of equivocations that the German people of the WW2 era made to themselves and others to justifiy the fact that the genocide of millions of people went on right under their noses while they did nothing about it. I really pity you. You wouldn't let a family member or a friend lie to you, so why are you letting your government lie to you? I really thank God (in whatever his true form really is) everyday that I have enough intelligence and critical thinking skills to never become a tool, a rube, or a dupe.

Do you really think that it's OK that your govenment made such a monumental mistake as to start a war based on faulty intelligence, some of which, like the yellowcake case, known to be flawed, or at the very least suspect, by men like Cheney who worked feverishly to keep it quiet?

If a Democrat made such an error, would you not be calling for his head with the rest of the rightwing thug squad?

Why does Bush get a free pass? Is it just because he's "your guy"? I think it is. You know, in certain circles, they call that hypocrisy.

Oh yes he did in the Constitution-UnConstitutional? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406218) thread.
ROFLMAO!!! Whew! That one makes my head hurt! An unconstitutional amendment to the Constitution! Wow.

ROFLMAO!!! Whew! That one makes my head hurt! An unconstitutional amendment to the Constitution! Wow.

Yea now he is focusing on one subject which makes it easier to respond too. BTW: How's the leg?

When you stop believing what the press is feeding you, let me know. I have had family members that were in the area and they are saying the opposite of what the press is saying. I think I'll believe them over the press anyday.

The press? Oh, you mean the "liberal media" like Fox News? Oh, that press eh? HAHAHAHA too funny.

Yup, that ol' liberal media, populated by such up an ups like Jeff Gannon. And such honest types like Armstrong Williams. And such non biased individuals like Ann Coulter....that press??

The only part of this quote that I feel carries any weight is this:



These are the same type of equivocations that the German people of the WW2 era made to themselves and others to justifiy the fact that the genocide of millions of people went on right under their noses while they did nothing about it. I really pity you. You wouldn't let a family member or a friend lie to you, so why are you letting your government lie to you? I really thank God (in whatever his true form really is) everyday that I have enough intelligence and critical thinking skills to never become a tool, a rube, or a dupe.

Do you really think that it's OK that your govenment made such a monumental mistake as to start a war based on faulty intelligence, some of which, like the yellowcake case, known to be flawed, or at the very least suspect, by men like Cheney who worked feverishly to keep it quiet?

If a Democrat made such an error, would you not be calling for his head with the rest of the rightwing thug squad?

Why does Bush get a free pass? Is it just because he's "your guy"? I think it is. You know, in certain circles, they call that hypocrisy.

I think you're forgetting that Clinton bombed Iraq as well. I'm not calling for his head. That's Lewinski's job. :p

The press? Oh, you mean the "liberal media" like Fox News? Oh, that press eh? HAHAHAHA too funny.

Yup, that ol' liberal media, populated by such up an ups like Jeff Gannon. And such honest types like Armstrong Williams. And such non biased individuals like Ann Coulter....that press??

I don't think he said "liberal media", I think he just said "the press". Don't put words in people's mouths.

The press? Oh, you mean the "liberal media" like Fox News? Oh, that press eh? HAHAHAHA too funny.

Yup, that ol' liberal media, populated by such up an ups like Jeff Gannon. And such honest types like Armstrong Williams. And such non biased individuals like Ann Coulter....that press??

Funny thing is I never said the word liberal press. I don't get all my news from Fox News. I get it some from there yes but also from the Lancaster Intelligencer (local Paper) Lancaster New Era (local paper), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (hometown paper, read online right now), Pittsburgh Tribune Review (hometown paper, read online right now), Washington Post (online), and The National Review (online).

Ok...before i take sides on anything...I'd like for one person (at least ) to justify how the war in Iraq is or could be right and then I want someone to tell me how Iraq would be better ff without the US there.
Please

Im all for these protesters protesting here in the US.
Not their point of view, mind you, but that
they're practicing the very freedoms they say that they dont have anymore.

can this comment be considered understanding of the current situation ? the insurgency dosn't even target americans anymore.. they target Iraqis ? so who are they mad with again ?? In fact, every study shows a large portion of the insurgency isn't even iraqi.. and those who are have taken up the cause simply to regain the bathist power they lost.. trying to bring 20% of the population back to supremecy ... This is who the people you talk about are ? non iraqis targeting Iraqis becuase america is there ...?? Funny cause if the Iraqis came and took over the US.. i wouldn't be running out killing americans.. to try to get the Iraqis out >.> i dunno if they are like you.. but they are certainly not like me!

I was talking about 9-11 when I made that post sorry I mixed Iraq and 9-11 Afghanistan.

Im all for these protesters protesting here in the US.
Not their point of view, mind you, but that
they're practicing the very freedoms they say that they dont have anymore.

Which is something that I find funny.

Which is something that I find funny.

I always found it fucking hilarious. The best had to be the big protest in New York some time ago when they where protesting in the name of fallen friends and family in the military and at the exact same time demanding the unabridged right to slaughter their sons and daughters.

Hahah and now when you ask people to stick to the important issues...they cant say anything constructive. I think people in general are suckers. TV and their govt willl tell them anything and they will believe it. In fact, you all still believe that Bin Laden attacked the WTC with terrorists and that ur president considers him an enemy, but i mean come on, how much BS does it take. You all do know that the wars in Iraq AND Afghanistan were over oil interests (be it a pipeline or the raw materials) and if you deny it, you're as full of BS as Bush and his clique since we all knew from the start that there were no WMDs and that the reports Powell showed at the UN were just ridiculous. Then I'd like some of you stubborn folks to tell me why Bush did not attack China or North Korea or Saudi Arabia or why they did not intervene in Chechnya or in Rwanda if the idea of freeing an oppressed people is so noble and they real excuse behind the Iraq war. My best friend is iraqi and her mums went recently and she still believes that having saddam out is a good thing but now everything is out of control and not only are tens of thousands of civilians dying but your own GIs are dying and are depressed to sh1t and still u defend this war.. When was the last time any of you took a decision that was not influenced by outside opinions...when was the last time u had ur own real opinion not based on michael moore ann coulthard george bush noam chomsky and so on?

Generally speaking, when you're against war, you're against using (physical) violence as a means to solve conflict. ANY conflict.

Now I dont know how to use the quote thingy so I would apprciate it if someone would tell me. One of the others on this forum left this post. I disagree completly with this statement. Now dont take this as a threat, but I have a very simple argument to counter this peace mindset. I will punch you in your face. After you wipe off the blood, you can punch back or you can tell me why punching you wont solve anything.
I will calmly listen until you are done speaking, and then punch you in the face. eventually you will be knocked out, or fight back, at which point I have a couple of advantages.
1.) you have already been punch a few times therefore you will already be hurting and,
2.) the fact that I am willing to regularly use violence to solve problems means I am probably more skilled and able in its use.

Either way, I win my argument. You will either be uncouncious and beaten-which shows that while you are noble, you are also dumb or you will try to use violence to stop me in which case I win my point.
BTW I am currently in Iraq using violence to solve a problem, while I would guess most of you are at home talking about solutions to this problem

Generally speaking, when you're against war, you're against using (physical) violence as a means to solve conflict. ANY conflict.

Now I dont know how to use the quote thingy so I would apprciate it if someone would tell me. One of the others on this forum left this post. I disagree completly with this statement. Now dont take this as a threat, but I have a very simple argument to counter this peace mindset. I will punch you in your face. After you wipe off the blood, you can punch back or you can tell me why punching you wont solve anything.
I will calmly listen until you are done speaking, and then punch you in the face. eventually you will be knocked out, or fight back, at which point I have a couple of advantages.
1.) you have already been punch a few times therefore you will already be hurting and,
2.) the fact that I am willing to regularly use violence to solve problems means I am probably more skilled and able in its use.

Either way, I win my argument. You will either be uncouncious and beaten-which shows that while you are noble, you are also dumb or you will try to use violence to stop me in which case I win my point.
BTW I am currently in Iraq using violence to solve a problem, while I would guess most of you are at home talking about solutions to this problem

Just click the quote button on the post you want to quote or use [quote] to start it then put a / infront of quote but inside the brackets to quote a section.

As for the post, I thoroughly enjoyed it. You are right in what you say. As for being in Iraq, thanks my friend. My father just got back from the area on Tuesday. The only solution is to make sure that the Iraqis are able to govern and to defend themselves. Your effort is going along way towards those goals. Thanks.

Which reminds me...anyone know wat happened to that guy who shot the Italian special agent that saved the reporter? you know the moron who shot 40 people in 48hrs and finally got relieved when he shot an the italian dude?

Ok...before i take sides on anything...I'd like for one person (at least ) to justify how the war in Iraq is or could be right and then I want someone to tell me how Iraq would be better ff without the US there.
Please


Alright, my last quote on this thread, (I have to get back to work doing medical billing >< lol)

How would Iraq be better off without the U.S. there right now? It probably wouldn't......but lets travel back in time to an era where a certain choice in American foreign policy might have made all the difference in the world......

I give you exhibit A.:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg

Here we see Donald Rumsfeld, while under the employment of the Reagan Administration, shaking the hand of the then "our boy" Saddam Hussein. So why did we support Saddam, a known dictator who gassed his own people?

Exhibit B.:

The Iran-Iraq war..

If Iraq should fall, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states would be in danger. Saudi Arabia in untested militarily......Khomeini could conceivably, bring the fabulous oil-fields of the Gulf under his control. If so, the West and Japan would be subjected to excruciating blackmail.

Khomeini had no interest in a negotiated peace. Instead, he seeks to overthrow the secular government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and replace it with a puppet regime modeled after his own fanatical Islamic one. Iraq had called repeatedly for a ceasefire.......

While Khomeini is shrilly anti-American, Saddam Hussein is only a little less so....

http://www.themodernreligion.com/ugly/unholy.html


Seemed like the right thing to do at the time eh? America needed access to those oilfields, Saddam needed his regime backed up against a real threat. An agreement of mutual assistance was reached....

But the far reaching implications are: Saddam quickly stopped being "our boy", and the U.S. was left to the realization that it had bolstered the regime of an insane dictator who felt himself the modern day Saladin.

Who can really say if we should or should not have gotten involved. The implications of not getting involved and letting fanatical Iran run rampant over the middle east might have been worse than those brought by supporting Saddam's regime. Hindsight is always 20/20.

But the truth is this: thats how we got to this point, and the U.S. was a center stage player in this drama, not some shy, untrained actor waiting in the wings as subsequent Administrations and skewed historians would have you believe.

Is Iraq better off now? That all depends on what Iraq would have become if we had never gotten involved in supporting Saddam's regime back in the 80's...

Okay...I can understand being against the war in Iraq - anti-Bush - whatever.

But today's anti-war protesters (at least in Canada) were calling for an immediate withdrawl of USA and coalition troops from Iraq.

If you hold such a belief - please explain to me how that would help anyone (except the bad guys) in Iraq?

In my mind a withdrawl now would only result in civil war and a very uncertain outcome for the nation...and bloodshed far worse than is currently taking place.

Floor's open.Immediate withdrawl would put an end to causualties taken by and caused by US forces. Your question implies that the presence of foreign troops in Iraq is a stabilizing factor. That isn't necessarily the case. Generally, the situation in Iraq is the responsibility of the people who live there. Of course, that responsibility is shared by those who are responsible for the invasion, but those people are pretty much incapable of doing anything positive about it.

Which reminds me...anyone know wat happened to that guy who shot the Italian special agent that saved the reporter? you know the moron who shot 40 people in 48hrs and finally got relieved when he shot an the italian dude?

Still under investigation but odds are nothing will happen since it was the Italians fault that it occured in the first place. But that is a different topic for a different thread.

Go make me more movies.

I'm sort of anti-war but I'm a Republican.

Figure that one out.
How can you be anti-war yet Republican? Isn't the Iraq war sort of THE central Republican issue?

Still under investigation but odds are nothing will happen since it was the Italians fault that it occured in the first place. But that is a different topic for a different thread.


waaiit waiit waiitt how was it the italian's fault
Im sorry.. i didnt follow it completely

How can you be anti-war yet Republican? Isn't the Iraq war sort of THE central Republican issue?

He who loves war is an fool

He who loves war is an fool

I agree but, let's face it - it's necessary.

waaiit waiit waiitt how was it the italian's fault
Im sorry.. i didnt follow it completely

The Italians never fully communicated with the US that they were coming. Probably had something to do with the fact that the Italians paid a ransom to get her which violates US Policy so the Italians didn't communicate with their American counterparts.

I agree but, let's face it - it's necessary.

Yes it is necessary regrettably.

*Useless spew from a PIIAS suffferer*

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)


Country Jan-05 Dec-04 YTD 2005 Jan-04 Jan - Dec 2004
CANADA 2,123 2,143 2,123 2,185 2,118
SAUDI ARABIA 1,632 1,502 1,632 1,477 1,556
VENEZUELA 1,573 1,581 1,573 1,535 1,521
MEXICO 1,501 1,605 1,501 1,615 1,642
NIGERIA 929 1,027 929 982 1,119
IRAQ 477 626 477 578 652
ANGOLA 421 306 421 277 316
ALGERIA 368 464 368 345 439
RUSSIA 316 365 316 128 281
ECUADOR 315 255 315 197 240
VIRGIN ISLANDS 302 344 302 295 324
UNITED KINGDOM 283 464 283 200 369
NORWAY 259 157 259 241 238
KUWAIT 203 219 203 244 250
COLOMBIA 150 165 150 287 168


Somehow I think that the White House has economic advisors that would at some point have told someone that by God it just wasn't worth it. Besides, we can pump more of our own now.

I suspect that the Sunnis will turn out in far greater numbers once they realize that the only successful method of creating change will be through elected office.That'll never happen. You're thinking like a westerner. Middle easterners do not have the irrational faith in democracy that is so prevelant in the west, and in the US specificially. Sunnis will likely continue with the notion that they're best hope lies in major acts of violence.

"Anti-War Protesters...explain yourselves"

They just don't want to see people die, how hard is that to understand?
So then why protest the people who are the only ones with a chance of stopping Zarkawi from killing everyone trying to rebuild Iraq?

Generally speaking, when you're against war, you're against using (physical) violence as a means to solve conflict. ANY conflict.

Now I dont know how to use the quote thingy so I would apprciate it if someone would tell me. One of the others on this forum left this post. I disagree completly with this statement. Now dont take this as a threat, but I have a very simple argument to counter this peace mindset. I will punch you in your face. After you wipe off the blood, you can punch back or you can tell me why punching you wont solve anything.
I will calmly listen until you are done speaking, and then punch you in the face. eventually you will be knocked out, or fight back, at which point I have a couple of advantages.
1.) you have already been punch a few times therefore you will already be hurting and,
2.) the fact that I am willing to regularly use violence to solve problems means I am probably more skilled and able in its use.

Either way, I win my argument. You will either be uncouncious and beaten-which shows that while you are noble, you are also dumb or you will try to use violence to stop me in which case I win my point.
BTW I am currently in Iraq using violence to solve a problem, while I would guess most of you are at home talking about solutions to this problem


2.) the fact that I am willing to regularly use violence to solve problems means I am probably more skilled and able in its use.

BTW I am currently in Iraq using violence to solve a problem

So how's it going over at Abu Ghraib?

Generally speaking, when you're against war, you're against using (physical) violence as a means to solve conflict. ANY conflict.

I disagree completly with this statement. Now dont take this as a threat, but I have a very simple argument to counter this peace mindset. I will punch you in your face.
Not at all. There's nothing wrong with violence for self-defence.

PS, you're an idiot if your idea of "winning" an argument is to punch someone in the face. I'm not surprised that the US has the likes of you fighting in Iraq.

So how's it going over at Abu Ghraib?

Are you going to address any of his points?

Not at all. There's nothing wrong with violence for self-defence.

PS, you're an idiot if your idea of "winning" an argument is to punch someone in the face. I'm not surprised that the US has the likes of you fighting in Iraq.

I think you misunderstood what he was saying. Not surprising really.

Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)
(Thousand Barrels per Day)


Country Jan-05 Dec-04 YTD 2005 Jan-04 Jan - Dec 2004
CANADA 2,123 2,143 2,123 2,185 2,118
SAUDI ARABIA 1,632 1,502 1,632 1,477 1,556
VENEZUELA 1,573 1,581 1,573 1,535 1,521
MEXICO 1,501 1,605 1,501 1,615 1,642
NIGERIA 929 1,027 929 982 1,119
IRAQ 477 626 477 578 652
ANGOLA 421 306 421 277 316
ALGERIA 368 464 368 345 439
RUSSIA 316 365 316 128 281
ECUADOR 315 255 315 197 240
VIRGIN ISLANDS 302 344 302 295 324
UNITED KINGDOM 283 464 283 200 369
NORWAY 259 157 259 241 238
KUWAIT 203 219 203 244 250
COLOMBIA 150 165 150 287 168


Somehow I think that the White House has economic advisors that would at some point have told someone that by God it just wasn't worth it. Besides, we can pump more of our own now.

Well thank u for makin it so easy. Mexico has Fox in as a puppet. Canada is a staunch ally. Venezuela you tried to take almost 3 years ago (april 11th..CIA bacing and training etc..)... but failed miserably....saudi arabia are ur bitches too (Prince Bandar)..nigeria..well come on how hard is that?...and whos next oh yes! IRAQ!

and no u will not pump out most of ur own...i mean why do that when u can suck the middle east dry? let the rest of the earth starve die and suffer...after all ur the ones wove contracted SUV dependency

He who loves war is an fool
I agree, and this is why many Republicans are fools. Sure, there are some who sensibly see it as a "necessary evil" (like say... taxes) bu there are a few idiots who are gung-ho for war... any war as long as they "kick ass" for hteir national ego boost.

I think you misunderstood what he was saying. Not surprising really.
I understood his point perfectly - that an anti-war protestor using violence in self-defence would be hypocritical. Which is completely wrong.

That'll never happen. You're thinking like a westerner. Middle easterners do not have the irrational faith in democracy that is so prevelant in the west, and in the US specificially. Sunnis will likely continue with the notion that they're best hope lies in major acts of violence.

Faith in democracy is irrational?

I agree, and this is why many Republicans are fools. Sure, there are some who sensibly see it as a "necessary evil" (like say... taxes) bu there are a few idiots who are gung-ho for war... any war as long as they "kick ass" for hteir national ego boost.

Finally, a liberal admits taxes are evil.

Well thank u for makin it so easy. Mexico has Fox in as a puppet. Canada is a staunch ally. Venezuela you tried to take almost 3 years ago (april 11th..CIA bacing and training etc..)... but failed miserably....saudi arabia are ur bitches too (Prince Bandar)..nigeria..well come on how hard is that?...and whos next oh yes! IRAQ!

and no u will not pump out most of ur own...i mean why do that when u can suck the middle east dry? let the rest of the earth starve die and suffer...after all ur the ones wove contracted SUV dependency

...

...

These numbers are from January.

Finally, a liberal admits taxes are evil.

man what is it with people and taxes? In ANY basic economy class you learn the principle of offer and demand. generally, taxes are meant to be paid in order to ensure good gov't activities and services. If you're not getting your money's worth then changing governments wouldnt be a bad idea. But the taxes are not the problem in themselves its how that money is spent and invested for your social benefit (and not wasted and diverted in favor of your presidential cabinet). if ure gettin nothing from ur money...then perhaps youre right u shouldnt pay them!!!

...

...

These numbers are from January.

point being? those are the main exporters of oil whether now or a month ago or 5 years ago, the list has not changed very much. my point was that ur govt has been lookin to take control over these countries' oil supplies and has been successful too...well most of the time. iraq is just another country on the list theyre working down..

Finally, a liberal admits taxes are evil.
I don't consider myself "liberal" in the way you think of the word. I'm an economic centrist and an extreme social libertarian.

As for taxes, they are undoubtedly government robbery from your wallet, but in truly centrist style I think that some social welfare is necessary. Morally, it's not as bad to steal from our wallets as it is to let the poor die on the streets. In libertarian style, I think militarism is BS and that most (not all) military is unneccesary and a waste of tax money.

Wow. If that's the case, how do you feel about Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro, Hitler...?

Wait a minute...what the hell was wrong with good ol' Castro? He is a bad man for toppling the pro-American Batista regime! Damn him! Hitler, quite a clever man, I'd almsost respect him if he didn't kill millions of Jews. Stalin, well he repelled a German invasion and then some, but he was Communist so we can't possibly respect him!

I apologize for the delay in a response, Internet connectivity isnt all that great here. I saw the replies to my post. Thank you for showing me how to post quotes. In response you you Great Beer and Food, about the prisoners-Well they are alive so I guess they are better off the the Kurds and Iranians of the 1980's and 90's under Saddam. One of the sad fact of modern America is that we have become unwilling to stick it out. Somalia proved that very well.
We kicked alot of ass in that country and did some good getting food to people under the guidance of the UN. We made one mistake in trying to get out that warlord and lost a score of American Spec-force guys. We saw their bodies on national TV and we got all panicked and begged Clinton to send them home. He did sending a great mesasge to everyone-once we get bloody, we will quit. Every call to send us home early by an American protester adds to that.
I feel the loss of every American both as a loss of a brother or sister in arms and as a reminder of my own mortality( though I will never feel the same pain as their family members). But let me finish my damn job. I want to come home and marry my fiance and raise our child I had to leave before it even came into this world. I want to live my life as tribute to those who wont come home and wont be able to live out their lives. After the job is done. If you dont want to fight, dont-but shut the hell up, let me do my job and stop making me feel like my own country hates me.
My Father after he retired from the Army said this to me when I entered the Marines:
Son, I dont agree with this war, but there comes a time when you gotta do something greater then youself. So go out, kick some ass as come home.

I apologize for the delay in a response, Internet connectivity isnt all that great here. I saw the replies to my post. Thank you for showing me how to post quotes. In response you you Great Beer and Food, about the prisoners-Well they are alive so I guess they are better off the the Kurds and Iranians of the 1980's and 90's under Saddam. One of the sad fact of modern America is that we have become unwilling to stick it out. Somalia proved that very well.
We kicked alot of ass in that country and did some good getting food to people under the guidance of the UN. We made one mistake in trying to get out that warlord and lost a score of American Spec-force guys. We saw their bodies on national TV and we got all panicked and begged Clinton to send them home. He did sending a great mesasge to everyone-once we get bloody, we will quit. Every call to send us home early by an American protester adds to that.
I feel the loss of every American both as a loss of a brother or sister in arms and as a reminder of my own mortality( though I will never feel the same pain as their family members). But let me finish my damn job. I want to come home and marry my fiance and raise our child I had to leave before it even came into this world. I want to live my life as tribute to those who wont come home and wont be able to live out their lives. After the job is done. If you dont want to fight, dont-but shut the hell up, let me do my job and stop making me feel like my own country hates me.
My Father after he retired from the Army said this to me when I entered the Marines:
Son, I dont agree with this war, but there comes a time when you gotta do something greater then youself. So go out, kick some ass as come home.

Here here!

As a son of a military Officer, I agree with you 100%

Are you going to address any of his points?
His points about punching people? Hon, I'm 30. Somewhere between the years of ditching grade school, and learning how to have successful relationships with people one learns not to pay any mind to loudmouth testosterone junkies who's first words out the gate are "I can beat you up, hahaha...haha"

Points? What points?

His points about punching people? Hon, I'm 30. Somewhere between the years of ditching grade school, and learning how to have successful relationships with people one learns not to pay any mind to loudmouth testosterone junkies who's first words out the gate are "I can beat you up, hahaha...haha"

Points? What points?

Thanks for showing your immaturity. I'm 22 and I act more mature than this post shows.

Faith in democracy is irrational?

Maybe for liberals :D

I am not saying that violence is the only option-I am just saying that it is a valid option. I believe talking can be a very good thing. I always belive you should negotiate before you start swinging. However, there comes a time when talking is empty and you need a more permanent solution, history proves this with Hitler.
Every move Hitler made was challenged by the other European nations-by talking. When he would increase his military in violation of the treaty made at the end of WW1, they told him they would not tolerate it. When he didnt stop, but instead became more aggressive in actions, the French again said they would not stand for it-but did nothing to stop it.
As we all know, Hitler invaded France and attacked England after given plenty of "warnings" not to. And guess who kicked him out of France and helped the Brits out? The Americans and their violence! This was after they helped those same countries beat the Germans back before 20 years ago. during WW1. So no, I dont believe violence is the only answer, but it is one that solves things

I am not saying that violence is the only option-I am just saying that it is a valid option. I believe talking can be a very good thing. I always belive you should negotiate before you start swinging. However, there comes a time when talking is empty and you need a more permanent solution, history proves this with Hitler.
Every move Hitler made was challenged by the other European nations-by talking. When he would increase his military in violation of the treaty made at the end of WW1, they told him they would not tolerate it. When he didnt stop, but instead became more aggressive in actions, the French again said they would not stand for it-but did nothing to stop it.
As we all know, Hitler invaded France and attacked England after given plenty of "warnings" not to. And guess whi kicked him out of France and helped the Brits out? The Americans and their violence! This was after we they helped those same countries beat the Germans back before 20 years ago. during WW1. So no, I dont believe violence is the only answer, but it is one that solves things

Very true, but this is a far cry from socking a random person in the jaw.

Very true, but this is a far cry from socking a random person in the jaw.

That wasn't his point with that analogy. I even saw where his point was going with the "Socking a random person in the jaw" analogy.

Generally speaking, when you're against war, you're against using (physical) violence as a means to solve conflict. ANY conflict.

Now I dont know how to use the quote thingy so I would apprciate it if someone would tell me. One of the others on this forum left this post. I disagree completly with this statement. Now dont take this as a threat, but I have a very simple argument to counter this peace mindset. I will punch you in your face. After you wipe off the blood, you can punch back or you can tell me why punching you wont solve anything.
I will calmly listen until you are done speaking, and then punch you in the face. eventually you will be knocked out, or fight back, at which point I have a couple of advantages.
1.) you have already been punch a few times therefore you will already be hurting and,
2.) the fact that I am willing to regularly use violence to solve problems means I am probably more skilled and able in its use.

Either way, I win my argument. You will either be uncouncious and beaten-which shows that while you are noble, you are also dumb or you will try to use violence to stop me in which case I win my point.
BTW I am currently in Iraq using violence to solve a problem, while I would guess most of you are at home talking about solutions to this problem

Are you telling us that the knowledgeable and effective use of violence is the best means of winning a dispute? Are you saying that dialogue and negotiation are useless? Are you saying that might is right? If so, why do you think people are afraid of America? If so, then you have no concept of the ideals America was founded upon, and you are nothing more than a thug.

Read the Federalist Papers, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Your entire arguement is exactly the kind of thinking our forefathers opposed. That's why we have the Bill of Rights - so thugs don't take over our country.

Find in any of my posts where random unfocused violence is okay in my book. I never stated that punching some random person was okay. I am stating that in the event of a conflict of interest between two or more people, talking is fine, but in the event of resolution not being met by peace there comes a time when one of those people will see their point met by using force. The Japanese have a saying:
The nail that sticks out will get hit.
The Japanese underground has a counter for that:
It is better to be the hammer

Are you telling us that the knowledgeable and effective use of violence is the best means of winning a dispute? Are you saying that dialogue and negotiation are useless? Are you saying that might is right? If so, why do you think people are afraid of America? If so, then you have no concept of the ideals America was founded upon, and you are nothing more than a thug.

Read the Federalist Papers, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Your entire arguement is exactly the kind of thinking our forefathers opposed. That's why we have the Bill of Rights - so thugs don't take over our country.

I dont want to be a post hog but I gotta respond to this one. Our country was founded at the barrle of a gun. We sent requests to the English to give us freedom. When it didnt happen we declared independence. When we did that, our founding fathers knew war would happen. Our first president was our greatest general-a warrior. We fought both the Revolution and the war of 1812 to gain freedom. We met our end with violence. As to the Bill of rights-ummm RIGHT TO BARE ARMS ring a bell? That right is right there in big bold print-as a testament to the need of force. In the event of a foriegn invader or (god forbid) our own government's complete corruption, the American people have a right to use violence to keep their freedom.

I dont want to be a post hog but I gotta respond to this one. Our country was founded at the barrle of a gun. We sent requests to the English to give us freedom. When it didnt happen we declared independence. When we did that, our founding fathers knew war would happen. Our first president was our greatest general-a warrior. We fought both the Revolution and the war of 1812 to gain freedom. We met our end with violence. As to the Bill of rights-ummm RIGHT TO BARE ARMS ring a bell? That right is right there in big bold print-as a testament to the need of force. In the event of a foriegn invader or (god forbid) our own government's complete corruption, the American people have a right to use violence to keep their freedom.

And isn't it something that some are trying to change the amendment - The right to bear arms. Asinine!!

And isn't it something that some are trying to change the amendment - The right to bear arms. Asinine!!

The left wing of the Democratic party wants to change it but it'll never fly.

I dont want to be a post hog but I gotta respond to this one. Our country was founded at the barrle of a gun. We sent requests to the English to give us freedom. When it didnt happen we declared independence. When we did that, our founding fathers knew war would happen. Our first president was our greatest general-a warrior. We fought both the Revolution and the war of 1812 to gain freedom. We met our end with violence. As to the Bill of rights-ummm RIGHT TO BARE ARMS ring a bell? That right is right there in big bold print-as a testament to the need of force. In the event of a foriegn invader or (god forbid) our own government's complete corruption, the American people have a right to use violence to keep their freedom.

Amen to that. Couldn't have said it better. BTW, God Bless you and your work for what you're doing in Iraq.

Neocon Revolution!

I don't envy your position in Iraq - I would much prefer you guys to all be home. But equating Saddam Hussein to Hitler is like equating Tupac to Beethoven - it's not even close.

Our government put you in harms way for an invalid reason. WMD was made up, connections to Al Qaida were lies, Saddam's imminent threat to the world was political grandstanding. GWB opened a war on two fronts in the belief that everybody in the region would embrace us with open arms as liberators. How much bullshit can you eat before you puke?

Bush started building up the military in the region a full year before the invasion of Iraq - negotiations were not in his gameplan. Exclusive no-bid contracts to political contributors should be a good indicator of GWB's motivation. Hussein was contained and interested in his self preservation far more than any idealistic crusades against the West. He knew he couldn't beat us.

Once again I say that tyrrany is not an excuse for invasion and regime change. We do hundreds of billions of dollars in business with countries far more powerful and tyrranical than Iraq was under Hussein. If we invaded Iraq to stop terrorism, then why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia, China, Ireland and North Korea? Don't buy the party line - think for yourself.

I don't envy your position in Iraq - I would much prefer you guys to all be home. But equating Saddam Hussein to Hitler is like equating Tupac to Beethoven - it's not even close.

Our government put you in harms way for an invalid reason. WMD was made up, connections to Al Qaida were lies, Saddam's imminent threat to the world was political grandstanding. GWB opened a war on two fronts in the belief that everybody in the region would embrace us with open arms as liberators. How much bullshit can you eat before you puke?

Bush started building up the military in the region a full year before the invasion of Iraq - negotiations were not in his gameplan. Exclusive no-bid contracts to political contributors should be a good indicator of GWB's motivation. Hussein was contained and interested in his self preservation far more than any idealistic crusades against the West. He knew he couldn't beat us.

Once again I say that tyrrany is not an excuse for invasion and regime change. We do hundreds of billions of dollars in business with countries far more powerful and tyrranical than Iraq was under Hussein. If we invaded Iraq to stop terrorism, then why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia, China, Ireland and North Korea? Don't buy the party line - think for yourself.

AMEN!!!

And interesting sidenote....

The number of U.S. soldiers actively engaged in the hunt for Bin Laden pales in comparison to those stationed in Iraq at the moment....

HELLOOOOOOOO wasn't the whole point of this exercise in futility apprehending public enemy #1, Osama Bin Laden??!!

I don't envy your position in Iraq - I would much prefer you guys to all be home. But equating Saddam Hussein to Hitler is like equating Tupac to Beethoven - it's not even close.

Our government put you in harms way for an invalid reason. WMD was made up, connections to Al Qaida were lies, Saddam's imminent threat to the world was political grandstanding. GWB opened a war on two fronts in the belief that everybody in the region would embrace us with open arms as liberators. How much bullshit can you eat before you puke?

Bush started building up the military in the region a full year before the invasion of Iraq - negotiations were not in his gameplan. Exclusive no-bid contracts to political contributors should be a good indicator of GWB's motivation. Hussein was contained and interested in his self preservation far more than any idealistic crusades against the West. He knew he couldn't beat us.

Once again I say that tyrrany is not an excuse for invasion and regime change. We do hundreds of billions of dollars in business with countries far more powerful and tyrranical than Iraq was under Hussein. If we invaded Iraq to stop terrorism, then why haven't we invaded Saudi Arabia, China, Ireland and North Korea? Don't buy the party line - think for yourself.

I thank you for saying you would like us to get back to the U.S. I agree, I want to come home after this job is done. I do see some of the argument you are making and it does have it's merrit. I like to point out some ideas to you though. Is it better to responed to a threat or to prevent it? Yes at the time of the invasion Saddam did not have WMD. But I dont think that was because he had a change of conscience about them. The moment we let up the pressure, do you really think he wouldnt have gotten them? Lets look at this. Where there was two countries(Iraq and Afganistan) that housed or atleast turned a blind eye towards terrorism and were very non-friendly towards the US, there are now two countries going through the painful birth of democracy and possibly two American allies in a hostile part of the world. there will always be interest in the middlde east as long as there is oil, so is it not better to have an ace in the sleeve when it comes to this region? That may not be the kind hearted soft speach of "lets help out the Iraqis cause its nice", but it is practical. Yes violence and death are happening, but if we stick to it, we can build something out of this-and its not like Saddam was that great of a guy to begin with to his own people. Kurds and Non-Batthist Iraqis could be equated to Jews or Poles of WW2. As for China, Iran ect, Jesus! How many wars do you want me to fight at one time? Let me kick the ass in front of me before askin why I am not kicking another one as well

Of course we have the right to use force to keep our freedom. How was Saddam Hussein threatening our freedom? We already kicked the shit out of him in '91 and constantly degraded his defenses since then. His cronies were stealing all the money while trying to keep from getting executed. It was all he could do to keep power in his own country. Saudi Arabia is the Al Qaida breeding ground, not Iraq. And there is more of an imminent threat from China than from Iraq.

I fully support our right to bear arms - that ammendment was put in place to protect us from foreign invasion and our own government. I understand that violence is a necessity when there are no other alternatives. My point is that invasion of Iraq wasn't a necessity. The threat from Hussein did not justify the expenditure of lives and resources. We have far worse problems to worry about than a pissant dictator like Saddam Hussein.

I'm not bashing the military and the men and women who serve - I served during Desert Storm and know the sacrifices you guys are making. But don't think the Pentagon and the Bushies support you the way the American people do. Cutting veterans benefits every year should be a clue. And I don't even want to get into all the hell my buddies have been through regarding Gulf War Syndrome. Our leaders think of you as a tool, and they have immoral reasons for using you. I think you are doing the best job you can given the fucked up circumstances you've been handed.

Honestly ......

Iraq will never have freedom like Americans are led to believe..

Why Americans are losing freedoms left and right....

A hopeless cause based on freedom which was only a ploy for control of an oil nation with corporate payoff's and huge saleries for corporate leaders..

You must remember we didn't free Iraq because Saddam was a BAD man..

We freed Iraq because Saddam was no longer freindly to the U.S. Policies..

Shit when he gassed people - We didn't care back at that time, because he WAS friendly to U.S. needs..

Please remember there is several things that happened when we booted Saddam out..

Did you know oil is the number # 1 traded commodity in the world?

Did you know that most trade is based on the U.S.s dollar due to consumerism ?

Did you realize that Iraq sold it's oill in Euro's.. Making the american dollar weaker on the world market?

When you get into politics you must not only look at was seems obvious - BUT remember ...

It is only looking obvious because it is hiding something bigger...

Welcome to the real world of gov't and corporations..

Troy* :p

I dont feel like a pawn in this war(then again I guess a pawn isnt supposed to know he is a pawn). I have heard the lines Bush uses to justify the war and I dont agree with all of them. Hell there is alot about the president I dont care for-some of the actions he's taking to free up the border for example peeve me to no end but that isnt what this fourm thread is all about. I am here for my own reasons. Heck, my family has fought wars for the last 50+ years, my uncle died in Vietnam during Christmas of '65, after reenlisting. Now that was a messed up war and we can all agree on that. I am of an age to serve, and I would be ashamed of myself if I didn't. I grew up on the governemt paycheck being an Army brat, I still make my wage off of the government today. I know some of the bum deals I may get because of budget cuts or other such issues, but I dont care. My nation calls, I go.
As for China, that scares the hell out of me! I dont want to fight them on their own ground, their numbers would counter our technology. I hope we can fight them on nuteral ground (like Korea) or not at all.

We wouldn't fight China..

Because we couldn't win...

I dont feel like a pawn in this war(then again I guess a pawn isnt supposed to know he is a pawn). I have heard the lines Bush uses to justify the war and I dont agree with all of them. Hell there is alot about the president I dont care for-some of the actions he's taking to free up the border for example peeve me to no end but that isnt what this fourm thread is all about. I am here for my own reasons. Heck, my family has fought wars for the last 50+ years, my uncle died in Vietnam during Christmas of '65, after reenlisting. Now that was a messed up war and we can all agree on that. I am of an age to serve, and I would be ashamed of myself if I didn't. I grew up on the governemt paycheck being an Army brat, I still make my wage off of the government today. I know some of the bum deals I may get because of budget cuts or other such issues, but I dont care. My nation calls, I go.
As for China, that scares the hell out of me! I dont want to fight them on their own ground, their numbers would counter our technology. I hope we can fight them on nuteral ground (like Korea) or not at all.

I hope we don't have to fight China at all. But given our current political stance on Taiwan, I don't know. We do so much business with China...They manufacture almost everything we use. They are very good strategists and are playing to our weakness (money). With the non-secession law they just passed they are drawing the line in the sand. And they have their pit bull, North Korea, ready to start the trouble while they stay politically "neutral." I guess th war there will depend on what we consider to be our national interests.

I understand your desire to serve - I did the same at your age, and believed in what I was doing. Frankly, I didn't know who the hell Saddam was when I enlisted, and only knew that some maniac had invaded a friendly country and needed his ass kicked. I pay more attention now.

I don't think the people that serve in the military are bad people. However, there are some seriously immoral bastards running the show and bullshit like Abu Ghraib happens. What kills me is that only the poor bastards at the bottom of the food chain get convicted, while the policy makers and commanders that caused the situation get off free and clear. Anybody in the military knows that if something like that was going on regularly then it had the blessings of the guys in charge, especially in a combat zone. Sorry for going off topic.

Good luck and keep your ass in one piece.

Okay...I can understand being against the war in Iraq - anti-Bush - whatever.

But today's anti-war protesters (at least in Canada) were calling for an immediate withdrawl of USA and coalition troops from Iraq.

If you hold such a belief - please explain to me how that would help anyone (except the bad guys) in Iraq?

In my mind a withdrawl now would only result in civil war and a very uncertain outcome for the nation...and bloodshed far worse than is currently taking place.

Floor's open.

It appears (not just from the above but from your statements in the thread) that you do not really understand why some oppose the war in Iraq. I think you just said that for rhetorical benefit. And few, if any, are "anti-war" because they are "anti-Bush." It goes the other way around.

Perhaps you should ask the Iraqis. Practically every major Iraqi leader supports a swift end to US occupation. The election (which, despite its flaws, I do see as a good thing) emphasized this point. You've heard a lot less about the election results than the election itself, because the US view of things didn't do so well.

Some of us would like to support our troops by bringing them home safely.

Some of us are outraged by the occupation's continuing mismanagement.

Some of us are outraged by the occupations continuing cost to our nation (in dollars, human lives, and international respect).

Some of us are outraged by the continuing slaughter of Iraqis.

Some of us recognize that the occupation continues to inflame Arab opinion against the US and strengthens terrorists. We are becoming less, not more, safe.

Some of us are outraged by the oppression carried out by the US occupation.

Some of us are outraged by the exploitation carried out by the US occupation.

Some of us recognize that continuing US occupation is not the only alternative.

Some of us consider the possibility that both Iraq and the US would be better off if the US withdrew

... I can go on, but I think I've made my point. You need not agree with the above, but you should recognize that those who are opposed to the occupation are not as easily dismissed as you may like to think.

You might consider reading this article on the logic of US withdrawal (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050101faessay84103/edward-n-luttwak/iraq-the-logic-of-disengagement.html).

Well said. I'll mark it on the calendar "the first time I agree with Santa Barbara." :D

Uh oh, now I have to re-read my post and reconsider my positions.:p