NationStates Jolt Archive

Its seems at long last that at least some republicans are honest enough to come clean about the fact that all of Bushs lame excuses for invading the unarmed 100% helpless and contained Iraq was based entirely on lies and manufactured intel.Now that we will be stuck in this $300 billion quagmire for at least another decade and Iraq is on the verge of civil war Bush is no doubt drawing up plans to invade yet another arab country making an already volatile situation even more hellishly destablized and chaotic. The world is goin to hell with Bush in power

Republican Walter Jones. The Congressman from North Carolina recently told a local newspaper that the US went to war "with no justification." Jones made international headlines three years ago when he lashed out at France for not supporting the war effort. In March 2003 he demanded that three Congressional cafeterias ban the word French from the menus. French fries soon became freedom fries. While the ban is still in force, Jones' current view on the war appears to be closer to France's than President Bush's. Jones said "If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong. Congress must be told the truth

Source? It better not be democracynow.org (AKA tyrannybythemajoirty.org, mobrule.org)

Its seems at long last that at least some republicans are honest enough to come clean about the fact that all of Bushs lame excuses for invading the unarmed 100% helpless and contained Iraq was based entirely on lies and manufactured intel.Now that we will be stuck in this $300 billion quagmire for at least another decade and Iraq is on the verge of civil war Bush is no doubt drawing up plans to invade yet another arab country making an already volatile situation even more hellishly destablized and chaotic. The world is goin to hell with Bush in power

and yet... Saddam is now gone, the Iraqis had a free election, and they're trying to rebuild and overcome the insurgence.

was THAT not a good reason to fight in Iraq... to free a people?

Man, you're tough to satisfy.

Source? It better not be democracynow.org (AKA tyrannybythemajoirty.org, mobrule.org)

oh, i bet it is.... lmao.

Hah. That's funny, in a sorry way, if true.

As for France, at least the French can take comfort in not only being right all along, but making American politicians bring such shame on the US. France really did go triumphant out of this.

and yet... Saddam is now gone, the Iraqis had a free election, and they're trying to rebuild and overcome the insurgence.

was THAT not a good reason to fight in Iraq... to free a people?

Man, you're tough to satisfy.
no its not.

but its a reason to stay until its accomplished

We didn't need Iraq to ban the word "French" from our menus.
We've plenty of other qualms with them.

no its not.

but its a reason to stay until its accomplished

yah, the work isn't done.

as for the French looking good, lol... they were just pissed that they won't get all the money (right?) that Saddam owed them.

they should feel lucky that the focus isn't on that in terms of why they turned sissy and didn't back the war.

Guys, this story is true.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1491463,00.html

no its not.

Yes, it is. When did the left become opposed to solidarity with oppressed peoples? We used to stand up for them, when it was the conservatives who insisted that it was "none of our business" to intervene. The US Government is full of right-wing scumbags, but I'm prepared to put up with that evil if it means defeating an even greater evil (Saddam Hussein).

The bad faith of a majority of the left is instanced by four things (apart, that is, from mass demonstrations in favor of prolonging the life of a fascist government).

First, the antiwar forces never asked the Iraqi left what it wanted, because they would have heard very clearly that their comrades wanted the overthrow of Saddam. (President Jalal Talabani's party, for example, is a member in good standing of the Socialist International.) This is a betrayal of what used to be called internationalism.

Second, the left decided to scab and blackleg on the Kurds, whose struggle is the oldest cause of the left in the Middle East.

Third, many leftists and liberals stressed the cost of the Iraq intervention as against the cost of domestic expenditure, when if they had been looking for zero-sum comparisons they might have been expected to cite waste in certain military programs, or perhaps the cost of the "war on drugs." This, then, was mere cynicism.

Fourth, and as mentioned, their humanitarian talk about the sanctions turned out to be the most inexpensive hypocrisy.

and yet... Saddam is now gone, the Iraqis had a free election, and they're trying to rebuild and overcome the insurgence.

was THAT not a good reason to fight in Iraq... to free a people?

Man, you're tough to satisfy.

And yet you forget WHY we went to war. Let me tell you something: It had nothing to do with "freeing the Iraqi people". I remember vividly Bush stating Iraq's hidden stockpiles of WMD's. What did we find? A 15 year-old, probably buried for just as long, abandoned missile tip that more than likely fell off of a truck years ago. THAT IS IT. We found no evidence of stockpiles, no evidence of any real development, just one little thing that was from long before bush was even considering running for President.

Let's see... then it went to terrorism. A committee, which Bush created, found that there was no terrorist activity. Well... woops.

And now, finally, they decide it was Iraqi freedom. Oh well, Americans are stupid. They'll believe that our original intent was Iraqi freedom, when infact freedom had very little to do with it. Funny, I'm sensing some Orwellian processes here.

and yet... Saddam is now gone, the Iraqis had a free election, and they're trying to rebuild and overcome the insurgence.

was THAT not a good reason to fight in Iraq... to free a people?

Man, you're tough to satisfy.

So when are we going into Dafur?

Or Pyongyang?

Yes, it is. When did the left become opposed to solidarity with oppressed peoples? We used to stand up for them, when it was the conservatives who insisted that it was "none of our business" to intervene. The US Government is full of right-wing scumbags, but I'm prepared to put up with that evil if it means defeating an even greater evil (Saddam Hussein).

you know the answer to that. the easiest being that its obviously not our "national mission" since we dont go after any of the other 100 or so bad governments in the world. gee why didnt we invade vatican city? until recently they hadnt had a free election in something like 26 years!

another reason being that you cant FORCE freedom on people. sure you can (and we have with mixed results) go in to help out the side of freedom once a revolution has begun. but you cant just come in, kill 100,000 people or so (counting the military as well as civilians) and claim it was all worth it. that is THEIR job and THEIR decision to make and i bet many of the family members of those dead people think it was too high a price to pay.

And yet you forget WHY we went to war. Let me tell you something: It had nothing to do with "freeing the Iraqi people".
Correct, the Iraq war was about creating a pro-American state in a strategically important region. I'm certain oil has something to do with it too.

But the fact that it included the removal of Saddam makes it supportable.

So when are we going into Darfur?
I would hope as soon as possible. It is vital that the Janjaweed are stopped, and that the aid agencies are protected in their invaluable work there.

So when are we going into Dafur?

So it is a war against islam? cool.

And yet you forget WHY we went to war. Let me tell you something: It had nothing to do with "freeing the Iraqi people". I remember vividly Bush stating Iraq's hidden stockpiles of WMD's. What did we find? A 15 year-old, probably buried for just as long, abandoned missile tip that more than likely fell off of a truck years ago. THAT IS IT. We found no evidence of stockpiles, no evidence of any real development, just one little thing that was from long before bush was even considering running for President.

Let's see... then it went to terrorism. A committee, which Bush created, found that there was no terrorist activity. Well... woops.

And now, finally, they decide it was Iraqi freedom. Oh well, Americans are stupid. They'll believe that our original intent was Iraqi freedom, when infact freedom had very little to do with it. Funny, I'm sensing some Orwellian processes here.

can you rephrase that in newspeak please?

NO KIDDING! werent we all alive then?? dont we ALL remember what was said alllll the way back to 2002? how can they expect to float the notion that we went in the FREE THE IRAQIS?

that people buy this bullshit makes it feel very much like 1984

you know the answer to that. the easiest being that its obviously not our "national mission" since we dont go after any of the other 100 or so bad governments in the world.

This is the kind of conservative argument I would expect to hear from Roach-Busters. It is not remotely realistic to go after every bad government. The bad governments would have to be prioritised by how bad their genocide is. I wouldn't have attacked Iraq first; there are worse governments; but Iraq was a start.

another reason being that you cant FORCE freedom on people. sure you can (and we have with mixed results) go in to help out the side of freedom once a revolution has begun.
Yes, you can force freedom. I want the US to do in Iraq what they did in Japan and Germany after WW2. Those worked out very well.

It is a long term and expensive investment but it can be done. In Iraq, it will be necessary to set up an education system to foster pro-democratic thought in the younger generation.

I don't have total faith in the US to do these things, but I think they should do it.

but you cant just come in, kill 100,000 people or so (counting the military as well as civilians) and claim it was all worth it. that is THEIR job and THEIR decision to make and i bet many of the family members of those dead people think it was too high a price to pay.
Yes, you can. Hundreds of thousands more were killed by the Allies in the liberation of Europe in 1943-45, but they did not die in vain.

and yet... Saddam is now gone, the Iraqis had a free election, and they're trying to rebuild and overcome the insurgence.

was THAT not a good reason to fight in Iraq... to free a people?

Man, you're tough to satisfy.
Gotta tickle in JUST the right spot, teehee! ;)

This is the kind of conservative argument I would expect to hear from Roach-Busters. It is not remotely realistic to go after every bad government. The bad governments would have to be prioritised by how bad their genocide is. I wouldn't have attacked Iraq first; there are worse governments; but Iraq was a start.
so you AS A LIBERAL would like us to invade all the countries of the world with bad governments? damn i hate it when i miss the newsletter. so war=peace eh?

Yes, you can force freedom. I want the US to do in Iraq what they did in Japan and Germany after WW2. Those worked out very well.
we did not go into world war 2 to free the japanese or the germans. we MAY be able to leave the iraqis better off than they were under hussein, only time will tell.



It is a long term and expensive investment but it can be done. In Iraq, it will be necessary to set up an education system to foster pro-democratic thought in the younger generation.

I don't have total faith in the US to do these things, but I think they should do it. i think that, since we are there, we should do it too. it would be a good thing to bring them freedom. but that wasnt our purpose, its not our mission, and its not the public will, so its a bit of a long shot.


Yes, you can. Hundreds of thousands more were killed by the Allies in the liberation of Europe in 1943-45, but they did not die in vain.
we went in to support those who were already fighting the axis. it WAS their choice and their decision. we supported them in their fight. big difference from invading a country that is at peace and has never done anything to us.

A. The german government was a democratic republic. This lead to the rise of hitler. The same thing could happen in the US, so its hardly viable to say that we were freeing the germans. As for japan, the people supported the emporer with a huge majority. Freeing them from who they wanted in power?

B. Rather than invade Iraq, why not spend those billions of dollars on the problems inside america? Its nice to help other people, but I would much rather see the money spent on america.

C. Even if you want to free people, Iraq is a horrible first choice. As many people have stated, Sudan would have been a much better choice. So that pretty much takes out the invaded to free people argument.

D. Pyongyang stated they have WMD, and we chose to invade Iraq. There goes the WMD argument.

E. Saddam denounced OBL. Saddam's Iraq was a very secular nation, and no links have been found linking Al-queda and Saddam. There goes the terrorism argument.

F. The only ones that have no real proof against them are the oil arguments, and warmonger arguments. Yes, our oil prices are up, but thats not proof. It just means the oil companies will keep their prices up, as long as profit is up. What a surprise, companies working for a profit?

And yet you forget WHY we went to war. Let me tell you something: It had nothing to do with "freeing the Iraqi people". I remember vividly Bush stating Iraq's hidden stockpiles of WMD's. What did we find? A 15 year-old, probably buried for just as long, abandoned missile tip that more than likely fell off of a truck years ago. THAT IS IT. We found no evidence of stockpiles, no evidence of any real development, just one little thing that was from long before bush was even considering running for President.

Let's see... then it went to terrorism. A committee, which Bush created, found that there was no terrorist activity. Well... woops.

And now, finally, they decide it was Iraqi freedom. Oh well, Americans are stupid. They'll believe that our original intent was Iraqi freedom, when infact freedom had very little to do with it. Funny, I'm sensing some Orwellian processes here.

You are fighting to free the Iraqi people. You have always been fighting to free the Iraqi people.

-- sorry, couldn't resist.

The problem with 'freedom' is that it's a transient property. You can't say 'Here, Iraq, we've taken your dictator, have some freedom, bye!'. All that'll happen is that they'll take it, wave you off, and then either elect a dictator to sort out their problems -- hello again, Mr. Hitler -- or get taken over by one.

Freedom takes /work/. Unfortunately, you can't do that work for someone else. Especially not by becoming the agressor. Seriously, if someone invaded your country, pushed you to the brink of civil war, and then suggested a political system, would /you/ take it up? Maybe long enough to make them go away, but...

Basically, invasion never works to sort things out. We invaded Germany. That resulted in a split country and the Cold War, and we /stayed/ there. Blowing things up and leaving is even worse -- goodbye, economy, hello, depression and the rise of Fascism/Socialism, depending on which they were last scared by. Now, /I/ wouldn't mind Iraq going Socialist, but the United States tends to disagree with me on that.

The best course of action would probably have been -- wait for it -- terrorism. Assassinate the Iraqi officials, put agitators in amongst the people to force an election, and then offer aid to the legally elected -- if horribly weak -- government in keeping their country intact. /That/ might have worked. This? Nah-uh. It's all going to pot.

and yet... Saddam is now gone, the Iraqis had a free election, and they're trying to rebuild and overcome the insurgence.

was THAT not a good reason to fight in Iraq... to free a people?

Man, you're tough to satisfy.

Thats a bunch of BULL SHIT. IF we are so stuck on liberating a people than why in the hell are we such close allies to places such as saudi arabia where women are second class citizens, if your gay your beaten or sent to prison, etc. Stop with the whole "we liberated a people" BS. :rolleyes:

100% unarmed and helpless? Are you kidding me? Ever heard of Salmon Pack? Ansar Al-Islam? Al-Zarqawi's prime treatment at Saddam's son's private hospital? The development (not possession) of WMDs?

so you AS A LIBERAL would like us to invade all the countries of the world with bad governments? damn i hate it when i miss the newsletter. so war=peace eh?
All of them? No. Only the ones that are committing genocide. War is not peace, but it can lead to eventual peace. See Europe since 1945.

Yes, I want this as a liberal. I want all peoples of the world to have liberty, or failing that, at the least be free from genocide.

we did not go into world war 2 to free the japanese or the germans. we MAY be able to leave the iraqis better off than they were under hussein, only time will tell.

The US went into WW2 for its own economic interests (countries always act in their own interests, never in altruism). The democracies in Japan and Germany were positive bonuses that made that involvement justified.

i think that, since we are there, we should do it too. it would be a good thing to bring them freedom. but that wasnt our purpose, its not our mission, and its not the public will, so its a bit of a long shot.

American entry into WW1 and WW2 was not the public will either. The majority is not always right.

we went in to support those who were already fighting the axis. it WAS their choice and their decision. we supported them in their fight. big difference from invading a country that is at peace and has never done anything to us.
Most countries liberated by the Allies in WW2 had, at best, resistance movments. None of them were fighting full wars against Nazi Germany. We know that significant portions of Iraq wanted to fight Saddam. The US should have supported the rebellion against him in 1991, and we all know that the Kurds have always wanted him gone.

A. As for japan, the people supported the emporer with a huge majority. Freeing them from who they wanted in power?

B. Rather than invade Iraq, why not spend those billions of dollars on the problems inside america? Its nice to help other people, but I would much rather see the money spent on america.

C. Even if you want to free people, Iraq is a horrible first choice. As many people have stated, Sudan would have been a much better choice. So that pretty much takes out the invaded to free people argument.

D. Pyongyang stated they have WMD, and we chose to invade Iraq. There goes the WMD argument.

E. Saddam denounced OBL. Saddam's Iraq was a very secular nation, and no links have been found linking Al-queda and Saddam. There goes the terrorism argument.

F. The only ones that have no real proof against them are the oil arguments, and warmonger arguments. Yes, our oil prices are up, but thats not proof. It just means the oil companies will keep their prices up, as long as profit is up. What a surprise, companies working for a profit?
A. The US was right to free Japan in order to free the oppressed minorities within and in the Japanese Empire. The support for fascism in Japan was tyranny by majority.

B. I agree, cutting taxes was sheer stupidity on Bush's part.

C&D. I agree, NK or Sudan would have been better choices.

The fact also remains that despite what Bush says, the Iraq war was not waged to free the Iraqis. It was waged purely in the US interest. But I support it because it removed Saddam.

E. I don't think the terrorism argument is very valid, but Saddam did financially support Palestinian suicide bombers. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

So it is a war against islam? cool.


Yes, it's the duty of every patriotic american to kill the sand niggers. [/sarcasm]

Source? It better not be democracynow.org (AKA tyrannybythemajoirty.org, mobrule.org)
exactly what are the roots of your visceral hatred for the truth may I ask?

and yet... Saddam is now gone, the Iraqis had a free election, and they're trying to rebuild and overcome the insurgence.

was THAT not a good reason to fight in Iraq... to free a people?

Man, you're tough to satisfy.
are they free?
why does Bush empower the religious extremist types yet totally disenfranchises Iraqi secularists who can bring TRUE Democracy? I know the answer to this but I wanna see if you do

yah, the work isn't done.

as for the French looking good, lol... they were just pissed that they won't get all the money (right?) that Saddam owed them.

they should feel lucky that the focus isn't on that in terms of why they turned sissy and didn't back the war.
there were plenty of American companies that benefitted from the overhyped oil for food scandal too--but no ones talking about the billions of dollars mysteriously missing in Iraq since this unnecessary war based on nation building (that Bush claimed he wasnt into) started

Yes, it is. When did the left become opposed to solidarity with oppressed peoples? We used to stand up for them, when it was the conservatives who insisted that it was "none of our business" to intervene. The US Government is full of right-wing scumbags, but I'm prepared to put up with that evil if it means defeating an even greater evil (Saddam Hussein).
sorry but in this case the far greater international evil is Bush

100% unarmed and helpless? Are you kidding me? Ever heard of Salmon Pack? Ansar Al-Islam? Al-Zarqawi's prime treatment at Saddam's son's private hospital? The development (not possession) of WMDs?
America has no right to preemptively attack a country that didnt present any realistic kind of threat

The US should have supported the rebellion against him in 1991, and we all know that the Kurds have always wanted him gone.


Wellllll. It's not that simple. The Kurds may have wanted him gone but supporting the Kurds and possible allowing the to setup say Kurdistan; would have meant a probably invasion by the Turks. They kind of don't like the Kurds as well.


A. The US was right to free Japan in order to free the oppressed minorities within and in the Japanese Empire. The support for fascism in Japan was tyranny by majority.


Oppressed?? Wellllll sorta but not really. They had a mindset and many were willing to die for the Emperor so were they really oppressed? Don't forget the emperor remained. ;)


The fact also remains that despite what Bush says, the Iraq war was not waged to free the Iraqis. It was waged purely in the US interest. But I support it because it removed Saddam.


Well that's kind of not right as well. Freeing the Iraqi people was a part of the value. Not the driving force by any means but I am sure it listed on the reasons chart. Freeing the Iraqis also allows for a US friendly goverment which also is in the interest of the the US.


E. I don't think the terrorism argument is very valid, but Saddam did financially support Palestinian suicide bombers. The war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Just a nitpick but it's the families.

It indirectly supports terrorism. Yet if he handed money to the groups, the families probably would not have seen much of it.

can you rephrase that in newspeak please?


Let's see... it's been a few months since I read the book, but I'll try a memo to the Minitrue to rectify the error

052505 11:22
ungood malquotation of Big Bush 2002-2003. rectify ungood malquote involve superplus good situation of freedom in superplus good iraq. rectify ungood malquote of ungood situations involving superplus good situations in iraq. malquotation "We are at war with Iraq". rectify malreport "rebels". rectify with superplus good word "insurgents". rectify superungood oldthink with newthink. superstrength goodthinkers.

Or the Minilove...

052505 11:22
increase superplus good thinkpol doublely. use of rectifying doubleunplusgood crimethink superplusgood. use of bellyfeel superplus good with proles. rectify superfew use doublethink by Big Bush. rectify ungood number of oldthinkers. use of thinkpol superplusgoodthink.

Good luck deciphering what these mean.

A. The US was right to free Japan in order to free the oppressed minorities within and in the Japanese Empire. The support for fascism in Japan was tyranny by majority.

Erm. So, the support for democracy in America is tyranny by the majority also, there are oppressed minorities there as well. America should therefore be "freed" from it's own democracy? This is the oddest sort of circular argument I have seen in awhile. It makes my mind ache.

It sort of seems to imply that the democratically expressed will of the majority is only valid if it happens to favour market capitalism, otherwise the people must be "freed" from themselves. Or something equally indefensible.

and yet... Saddam is now gone, the Iraqis had a free election, and they're trying to rebuild and overcome the insurgence.
was THAT not a good reason to fight in Iraq... to free a people?

Only if you give objective evidence that the morality that lead the US leaders to make this decision is superior to that of the country they invaded. Or to rephrase: that you can show Bush has any right to decide who is naughty and who is nice.

This is also why NATO does not like to invade countries that are not busy invaiding others themselves.

and yet... Saddam is now gone, the Iraqis had a free election, and they're trying to rebuild and overcome the insurgence.
Since no one else has mentioned this, I'll clue you in. Read carefully now.

The Iraqis are the insurgents.

Just in case you missed it, I'll repeat it.

The Iraqis are the insurgents.

The vast majority of the anti-US fighters over there are not al-Qaeda, and they're not Syrians or Iranians or Saudis. They're Iraqis who are in the early stages of a full-blown civil war, the natural result of taking a brutal dictator out of power and not having the resources to maintain order in place. It doesn't matter if we leave now or if we leave in ten years--there will be a civil war when we leave, and it will be bloody, anad that will be our greatest gift to Iraq.

When you boycott something, you stop using it. You don't just change the name. So those morons that wanted to call French Fries 'Freedom Fries' are too fucking stupid to realize that
A.) We don't import potatoes from France, so it is not going to hurt the French, and
B.) Everyone laughs at you for being so ignorant.

When Martin Luther King Jr. called for the Bus boycott, he didn't say "Lets bycott the buses. We will call them long vans for the next week!" Get real. Boycotting involves sacrifice, it shows that you believe in something enough to stop using a system or product that supports something that is not right.

And for all Americans that have a beef with the French- we Americans would not be here if France had not intervened on our behalf in the final years of the 18th century. French armies fought bravely and well in WWI and even in WWII, even though they faced an new style of warfare that they were wholly unfamiliar with. The Germans drove the British out of France, too. We don't laugh at that. We don't laugh at the Poles for being beaten, we don't laugh at the losses inflicted on the Russians while the Germans drove them back, so why do we always pick on the French? Especially when they refused to support a war against Iraq without concrete evidence of WMDs, which still has not surfaced? Looks like they were right and fully justified in thier reasoning. If you want to depend on Rush 'I had a bad knee and was 4F for Vietnam' Limbaugh as he sits on his fat ass popping pills preaching death to drug users for your feelings about war and international politics, be my guest. I would prefer you excersized your own minds.

Since no one else has mentioned this, I'll clue you in. Read carefully now.

The Iraqis are the insurgents.

Just in case you missed it, I'll repeat it.

The Iraqis are the insurgents.


Actually there is a Foreign element as well; Jihadis.

I read awhile back (or was it a news blip?) there was a case of 3 of them walking down the street and shop owners came out with weapons and killed them.

Reason: They were here to cause problems and fighting the Americans around here means getting people killed.

So yes Iraqis are the large part of it. But to say they are the only part is not true.

sorry but in this case the far greater international evil is Bush
I don't like Bush, but he's never committed genocide. Saddam has.

Wellllll. It's not that simple. The Kurds may have wanted him gone but supporting the Kurds and possible allowing the to setup say Kurdistan; would have meant a probably invasion by the Turks. They kind of don't like the Kurds as well.
Turkey would not invade Kurdistan if such a state was set up. It would flush their chances of EU membership down the toilet, and that is something that they care about.

Oppressed?? Wellllll sorta but not really. They had a mindset and many were willing to die for the Emperor so were they really oppressed? Don't forget the emperor remained. ;)

I said that a minority of people in the Japanese Empire were oppressed.

Well that's kind of not right as well. Freeing the Iraqi people was a part of the value. Not the driving force by any means but I am sure it listed on the reasons chart. Freeing the Iraqis also allows for a US friendly goverment which also is in the interest of the the US.

Whatever. I get the feeling that Bush only talks about "freedom" as a feel-good factor to hide the hard realistic reasons for the war. NOt all pro-US governments are liberal, but I'm happy that the US seems to be going for a democratic style of pro-American state this time.

It sort of seems to imply that the democratically expressed will of the majority is only valid if it happens to favour market capitalism, otherwise the people must be "freed" from themselves.
Replace market capitalism with "political liberalism and human rights" and you will have my view. If the Iraqis want to vote in a socialist government I would be happy with that.

Erm. So, the support for democracy in America is tyranny by the majority also, there are oppressed minorities there as well. America should therefore be "freed" from it's own democracy? This is the oddest sort of circular argument I have seen in awhile. It makes my mind ache.

No, because people are not being killed, tortured and oppressed in America because of its political/social liberalism. (Well, they are, but not because of America's ideals.)

Only if you give objective evidence that the morality that lead the US leaders to make this decision is superior to that of the country they invaded.
Easy. Saddam was far more of a genocidal maniac than the US leaders.


The Iraqis are the insurgents.

They are in a small minority of Iraqis. Some of them are travelling jihadists from other ME countries.

And for all Americans that have a beef with the French- we Americans would not be here if France had not intervened on our behalf in the final years of the 18th century.
I agree, I despise the American armchair Rambos who talk shit about the French constantly. Fine, you disagreed with them on Iraq, it's not like they dropped a fucking a-bomb on Washington DC.

I agree, I despise the American armchair Rambos who talk shit about the French constantly. Fine, you disagreed with them on Iraq, it's not like they dropped a fucking a-bomb on Washington DC.

"France does not know it, but we are at war with America. Yes, a permanent war, a vital war, a war without casualties, at least on the surface." -Former French President Francios Mitterand

France works to perpetuate the myth of them being an ally to the United States while nakedly working to create a European alliance against the United States, willing to break off the our 260 some odd year relationship over the safety of a psychopath- Saddam Hussein.

I can understand Americans irritation with France. No shots have been fired. The sabres are tucked away but insults fly.

France also gets a pass on Africa while Baghdad is under the microscope.

Let's see... it's been a few months since I read the book, but I'll try a memo to the Minitrue to rectify the error

052505 11:22
ungood malquotation of Big Bush 2002-2003. rectify ungood malquote involve superplus good situation of freedom in superplus good iraq. rectify ungood malquote of ungood situations involving superplus good situations in iraq. malquotation "We are at war with Iraq". rectify malreport "rebels". rectify with superplus good word "insurgents". rectify superungood oldthink with newthink. superstrength goodthinkers.

Or the Minilove...

052505 11:22
increase superplus good thinkpol doublely. use of rectifying doubleunplusgood crimethink superplusgood. use of bellyfeel superplus good with proles. rectify superfew use doublethink by Big Bush. rectify ungood number of oldthinkers. use of thinkpol superplusgoodthink.

Good luck deciphering what these mean.

wow, i can almost understand that. thanks!

Turkey would not invade Kurdistan if such a state was set up. It would flush their chances of EU membership down the toilet, and that is something that they care about.

Not necessarily true. There's a surge of Turkish nationalism in many parts of the country that feels that the EU is heaping demands on them. They may not have the power, but who knows whether that will change? Besides, the military still plays a dangerous role in politics, something the EU constantly criticizes.
A new Kurdish state could actually bring them to power.

"France does not know it, but we are at war with America. Yes, a permanent war, a vital war, a war without casualties, at least on the surface." -Former French President Francios Mitterand

France works to perpetuate the myth of them being an ally to the United States while nakedly working to create a European alliance against the United States, willing to break off the our 260 some odd year relationship over the safety of a psychopath- Saddam Hussein.

I can understand Americans irritation with France. No shots have been fired. The sabres are tucked away but insults fly.

France also gets a pass on Africa while Baghdad is under the microscope.
When in the 260 years of History were Americans not pissed off at the French?

When in the 260 years of History were Americans not pissed off at the French?

In the first 20 years or so, due to them helping us out in the Revolutionary war. Or in WWI when we various references to a frenchman(I don't know how to spell his name, but he was a key player in the Revo War) were used as propaganda. Or WWII when the French rejoiced and celebrated the release of German control by cheering the US soldiers marching through the streets. We have pockets here and there.

In the first 20 years or so, due to them helping us out in the Revolutionary war. Or in WWI when we various references to a frenchman(I don't know how to spell his name, but he was a key player in the Revo War) were used as propaganda. Or WWII when the French rejoiced and celebrated the release of German control by cheering the US soldiers marching through the streets. We have pockets here and there.
In WWI, the French gained a reputation for being bad soldiers and cowards (because some of them mutinied). In WWII, the French losing to the Germans in the first place gave France a bad name. De Gaulle was only made part of the Big 4 because Churchill wanted France in. I have political satire from the 60s that makes fun of the French, and I'm pretty sure that the idea that the French were "timid" soldiers was widespread during the revolution. The Americans and French have always had a very special friendship.

My biggest fear is that the war will start a chain reaction and we'll go after another oppressive state when we're not done cleaning up after the last country we freed. At the very least we need to repeal the the taxcuts for the rich. Deliberately taking in less money during a war is not exactylthe best financial idea that's been thrown my way in a while

They are in a small minority of Iraqis. Some of them are travelling jihadists from other ME countries.

I remember a few months back a government report which was proud to proclaim that the Iraqi(As in those who are Iraqi; not ones from other countries) insurgents made up only 15% of the population. I don't know the numbers these days, but I'm sure it hasn't changed a great deal either way. Now, 15% may not seem like alot to the uninformed, but 15% is a HUGE number of people. 15% is not just a small "insurgency" it's on the border of a full rebelion. I'm sure the government would like us to think that everything is A-OK in Iraq, but it is not. Fighting occurs pretty much daily. Sure, certain cities and areas are better, but a great deal of people are unhappy with the situation. So what do we do? Instead of studying the situation, perhaps adapting it, we just say "We will not give in" and continue on a stubborn path.

That's my main problem with Bush: A complete inability to adapt. There is a difference between strong resolve and idiotic stubbornness. Resolve means you put forward a plan with all intentions of going through with it, but knowing that if problem come up you can adapt the plan to fit the situation better. Stubborn means that you set forth a plan knowing that you will not adapt to any situation. Bush does not have Resolve, he is stubborn.

1. France only likes the US when:
a. a major attack happens to America, like 9-11, and showing hatred would hurt their image badly
b. when they need the US. WWII. The Allies needed the US in order to win. The US needed the allies in order to win.
France has almost always hated the US and vice-versa. It's tradition.

2. As for Japan, remember, the emperor wasn't the one calling the shots. It was the Japanese military. In fact, if it was up to the emperor, Japan would have given up sooner. Some Japs in the Japanese government knew this and plotted to kill the emperor. What saved the emperor? The US. US bombers flew over Tokyo. As a response, the city's lights went out in order for the bombers to not see Tokyo. This helped lead to the Japanese surrender. Of course, the daring assasination of a high-ranking Japanese official by US war planes helped.

3. The Japanese people were brain-washed to fear the US. They were told that the US soldiers would rape the women and bbq and eat the children. As a result, some of the Japanese people fought against the US. Know why? Take a wild guess.

4. The insurgencies in Iraq are a tiny minority in Iraq. Qhy do you think the voter turnout was so high?

5. Bush went into Iraq to finish the job the other Bush didn't finish. Bush 1 didn't invade Iraq because he was worried about the image of the US. Bush 2 didn't worry and he's in office right now.

History channel. Watch it. History books. Read them.

PS. The US was in WWII because of Pearl Harbor. Watch the movie to figure out what happened there. Here's a hint: It was the second-most devestating attack on US soil with over 2400 people killed. It was second only to 9-11.

So it is a war against islam? cool.How did you drag that little bit of misinformation out of "When are we going into Dafur?"

It's not a war against Islam. And your attitude that if it were, that would be "cool" is less than childish. You'd need about 6 promotions to reach moron.

Since no one else has mentioned this, I'll clue you in. Read carefully now.

The Iraqis are the insurgents.

Just in case you missed it, I'll repeat it.

The Iraqis are the insurgents.

The vast majority of the anti-US fighters over there are not al-Qaeda, and they're not Syrians or Iranians or Saudis. They're Iraqis who are in the early stages of a full-blown civil war, the natural result of taking a brutal dictator out of power and not having the resources to maintain order in place. It doesn't matter if we leave now or if we leave in ten years--there will be a civil war when we leave, and it will be bloody, anad that will be our greatest gift to Iraq.

okay, i'll clue you in:

the vast majority of Iraqis are not with the insurgency, be the insurgents iraqi, syrian or otherwise. the vast majority of iraqis are happy to be free from saddam, even if they're not totally happy that the US is still there.

Iraq's Sunni muslims likely make up most of the insurgency. sunni muslims comprise only about 20% of the total population of Iraq.

So the minority ruled the majority for a very long time under saddam, and they don't want to lose that inordinate amount of power. This makes sense, sort of.

Hopefully if the Sunnis are represented (or at least if their interests are represented) in the new Iraqi government, the insurgency will die down.

My biggest fear is that the war will start a chain reaction and we'll go after another oppressive state when we're not done cleaning up after the last country we freed. At the very least we need to repeal the taxcuts DURING the war. That's just plain stupid.

Yeah, well what can you do? I fail to understand Bush's economic plan, especially since it is tried and true to fail. Whenever we have tax cuts, the economy slumps. Things go down hill.

For those of you not in the know of this "plan" for lack of better words:

Bush decreases taxes(Oddly enough, the rich get the most tax cuts-of course these cuts are not meant for the rich. Of course.), but increases spending VASTLY in many areas, such as Defence... and that's about it. To pay off part of the Deficit next year, he plans on taking Social Security surplusses, and spending them on it. Oh, and No Child Left behind is "supposed" to increase funding to schools. Basically, decreases input but increase output. Paying for everything with nothing.

Now, could someone please tell me why Bush thinks this will work? It is PROVEN that it doesn't. EVERY time this has been tried in the past, it has not worked. Trickle-Down economics DOES NOT WORK. It has never worked. Of course, Americans are stupid, and only think of the shortrun. "Taxcuts" you say? I'M ALL FOR IT! But the fact is, the ONLY way to fix things is an INCREASE in taxes, or at the very least, DECREASE in spending. People think that an increase in taxes would increase burden on the people. No, no it wouldn't. When taxes increase, people will not be going into financial hardship. That's what we call "Appealing to emotion". No, if done RIGHT it will actually ELEVIATE hardship. Of course, nobody understands this, as it takes a genius to understand even a small part of the American Economy(Especially the tax code-take 7 bible and stack them on each other-that's this year's tax code). Also... hmm, we have a war that costs us close to $150 MILLION dollars a day. That's close to 1 Billion Dollars a WEEK. AND WE WANT TO CUT TAXES? How in the HELL is this going to help? Oh, the people get a wopping $200(If you make 40-50 thousand year, that is) more! How wonderful! They can spend that on useless crap now, while in 5 years, we go into an economic shithole. I've talked to many people who are currently going through financial hardship-that is people who go on 30,000 dollars a year, living from pay-check to pay-check, and not one thinks that Bush's economic plan is good. I've talk to teachers, who are always going through hardship, and they don't give a damn about a couple extra buck at tax-time. They would much rather want that money going to help the current situation. Who are the ones complaining about "financial hardship"? Oddly enough, it is those who ARE NOT going through financial hardship. Those who have MORE than enough money. Those who don't have to worry about hardship. Those who want to line their pockets.

Is Bush really worried about "undue hardship" on the people? No. If he is, he understands absolutely nothing. Those who are currently facing hardship actually WANT an increase in taxes, or at the very least do not want a tax cut.

Well, that turned into a nice little rant.

and yet... Saddam is now gone, the Iraqis had a free election, and they're trying to rebuild and overcome the insurgence.

was THAT not a good reason to fight in Iraq... to free a people?

Man, you're tough to satisfy.


no, no its not a good enough reason. Peace cannot be won by a military. Peace must be fought and won by the populace or it is a fake and artifical peace. Besides, its just no good when one country walks into another and says "you must do it this way now". This is conquering and this will bite us in the ass very soon.

and yet... Saddam is now gone, the Iraqis had a free election, and they're trying to rebuild and overcome the insurgence.

was THAT not a good reason to fight in Iraq... to free a people?

Man, you're tough to satisfy.
No if that is the case why haven't we gone into Cuba Haiti Somolia Honduras & all the host of countries in central america where drug lords reign & put 5 yr olds to work in factories at death camp wages.

Instead they used this trumped up excuse of nuclear weapons & terrorism to make sure we did not point out these obvious flaws in his personal plans for greed & profit.

Now to add insult to injury C.A.F.T.A will put a tigher stronghold for these human rights abusers in central america by freeing trade to line their pockets & allow american companies to come in & do the same thing.

Hail the conquering Hero!

"slavery-fries" ?

When in the 260 years of History were Americans not pissed off at the French?

I don't mind the French. I actually liked the ones I met over there. ;)

"France does not know it, but we are at war with America. Yes, a permanent war, a vital war, a war without casualties, at least on the surface." -Former French President Francios Mitterand

France works to perpetuate the myth of them being an ally to the United States while nakedly working to create a European alliance against the United States, willing to break off the our 260 some odd year relationship over the safety of a psychopath- Saddam Hussein.

I wouldn't call Mitterand a great man. Just because he said Franec is at war with America does not make it true. In 2003, French trade with America was up 10% on 2002, despite "tensions between the two nations".

Who said the second quote? I doubt Saddam would refer to himself as a psychopath.

I remember a few months back a government report which was proud to proclaim that the Iraqi(As in those who are Iraqi; not ones from other countries) insurgents made up only 15% of the population. I don't know the numbers these days, but I'm sure it hasn't changed a great deal either way. Now, 15% may not seem like alot to the uninformed, but 15% is a HUGE number of people. 15% is not just a small "insurgency" it's on the border of a full rebelion. I'm sure the government would like us to think that everything is A-OK in Iraq, but it is not. Fighting occurs pretty much daily. Sure, certain cities and areas are better, but a great deal of people are unhappy with the situation. So what do we do? Instead of studying the situation, perhaps adapting it, we just say "We will not give in" and continue on a stubborn path.
15%? That sounds awfully high? I assume that counts people who have supportive opinions of the insurgency? Still, that means that 85% of Iraqis do not support the insurgency.

I agree about Bush and his stubborness. It's dangerous.

I wouldn't call Mitterand a great man. Just because he said Franec is at war with America does not make it true. In 2003, French trade with America was up 10% on 2002, despite "tensions between the two nations".

Who said the second quote? I doubt Saddam would refer to himself as a psychopath.


15%? That sounds awfully high? I assume that counts people who have supportive opinions of the insurgency? Still, that means that 85% of Iraqis do not support the insurgency.

I agree about Bush and his stubborness. It's dangerous.

That's probably it. But still, that does not necessarily mean that 85% like American occupation. That's just saying that 85% don't support the insurgents. Just because they do not support insurgency does not mean they support American Occupation.

1. France only likes the US when:
a. a major attack happens to America, like 9-11, and showing hatred would hurt their image badly
b. when they need the US. WWII. The Allies needed the US in order to win. The US needed the allies in order to win.
France has almost always hated the US and vice-versa. It's tradition.


Isn't it more of the goverments not liking each other. You could say the Parisians but they really don't like anybody. ;)

My father-in-law was convinced that I would get abused because "they hate americans." I never found anything remotely listed to hatred. Most people were polite if not nice.

The French as a whole have their own lives to worry about then to spend a great deal of time worrying about what the Americans are doing.



2. As for Japan, remember, the emperor wasn't the one calling the shots. It was the Japanese military. In fact, if it was up to the emperor, Japan would have given up sooner. Some Japs

How old are you?

in the Japanese government knew this and plotted to kill the emperor. What saved the emperor? The US. US bombers flew over Tokyo. As a response, the city's lights went out in order for the bombers to not see Tokyo. This helped lead to the Japanese surrender. Of course, the daring assasination of a high-ranking Japanese official by US war planes helped.


Ok I call for proof on the assassanation claims.

As to the bombers. Ever hear about the firebomb raids?

Actually, no French troops mutinied during WWI. They refused to attack again at Verdun after they had suffered horrendous losses against entrenched German machine gun and artillery fire, and the soldiers and field-grade officers thought that higher was issuing ridiculous orders. They held the line, they did not leave thier posts, but they refused to attack. They refused to carry out orders, but they did not mutiny. Things like that happen when you have had a stagnant front and MASSIVE casualties for three years.

When in the 260 years of History were Americans not pissed off at the French?
Well lets see. When they helped us out during the revolutionalry war & the war of 1812 giving us naval support.

Also when napolean sold us the louisania purchase

Oh & how bout when they gave us the Statue of Liberty.

"slavery-fries" ?
LOL!

Basically the only reason a lot of republicans are switching sides over the war is to save their own asses. Americans were overwhelmingly in support of the war when we first invaded but now a majority are having serious misgivings.

IMO the shift in public opinion has nothing to do with whether the war was right or not, but with the simple fact that a lot more American soldiers are dying now. Most of my countrymen really don't care about the moral and ethical misgivings of murdering tens of thousands of civilians halfway across the globe, so long as it isn't on the news staring them in the face every day. What they do care about is the death of people from towns close by, which the local news (at least in NC) does regularly cover.

So now a lot of the Republicans who once backed the war find themselves representing people who have changed their minds and think the war was a mistake. The politicians must change their tune or be elected out of office.

So now a lot of the Republicans who once backed the war find themselves representing people who have changed their minds and think the war was a mistake. The politicians must change their tune or be elected out of office.

Hmmm and next year is a major election..... ;)

Why do you people hate war?

Why do you people hate war?

And the award for "Most out of Touch with Current Events" goes to... RX-8!!!

Any number of reasons...

False pretences, lying, American deathtolls, civilian deathtoll's, damn dirty hippies against anything having to do with military action, useless war rants, going into a war we can't get out of, etc, etc. Different people have different reasons(Guess what: Many of them true!)