NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I delve into the contents of this (very long) statement, I must first clarify a point. The statements I make are a direct result of my observations and collective attention I have paid to both sides of the argument regarding Iraq. I have done my best to put forth the facts and do not intend to pervert any information pertaining to the war. My intention is not to alienate or discourage others; nor is it meant to embarrass or insult. Rather, I hope this will spur some debate and discussion.
1.Weapons of mass destruction, or the lack thereof, are the number one cause for dissent among opponents of the Iraq war, and rightfully so. When the main reason for invading Iraq is proven to be false, people demand an explanation. But consider this: the CIA, the world’s leading espionage organization and foremost international intelligence agency proved the existence of WMDs in Iraq. Obviously, this is a bone of contention. Yet if the CIA provided this information to Congress, and Congress recognized and believed the information, regardless of whether or not it was true it had been proven. To put it in perspective, consider the defining clause in judiciary proceedings. In our judiciary system, a person is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. What this means is that someone who did not commit a crime, if his alibi was not viable and the evidence presented was overwhelmingly convicting (which is not unprecedented), that person would be proven guilty and sentenced to whatever punishment deemed necessary. In the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction had been proven to exist. I do not believe that President Bush deliberately tried to mislead the world about Iraq. However, he did act on evidence that was not sufficiently substantiated, but when such information is endorsed by the Central Intelligence Agency, well, what more do you need?
2.One of the more common arguments against entry into the war is the (logical) one of providing more time, more patience; why rush into a war when it can even be remotely possibly avoided? War is and should always be the last resort. Interestingly enough, however, Saddam Hussein was given time—nearly ten years. Beginning with the end of the first Gulf War, Iraq was given a chance to scale back and avert any unnecessary attention on a global scale. Yet a mandate by the UN to curtail and halt all development of WMDs failed to enact the required response, and what resulted was similar in nature to Germany and Japan’s aggressive inclinations and blatant disregard for the standing world body at the time, the League of Nations. Iraq, in failing to meet the demands of the UN, simply watched as that same body continued in easing back on its requirements, constantly giving Hussein and his agenda more space, more time. By continually granting more time, Iraq began to arouse suspicion and attention as to its goals, particularly by those countries and peoples who stood at greatest risk from an Iraqi invasion. Much of the Middle East stood in the path of an Iraqi takeover, and the United Nations failed to do anything that sufficiently prevented such a military threat. What the world was witnessing was the rise of another regime that, if left unchecked, would rival the effect of Nazi Germany in 1939, with the appeasements of time and, eventually, neighboring countries.
3.Finally, as a third and necessary point, America is safer because of Iraq, as supporters claim and critics dispute. Now before people start getting their manes ruffled, let me ask: since the beginning of the war, how many terrorist attacks have there been on United States soil? Even since 9/11? The fact is, Iraq has become a rallying point for terrorists across the Middle East. It has become a focal point of condemnation by Osama bin Laden and numerous, if not all, radical Islamic sects. Instead of focusing their efforts on hijacking planes to attack mainland USA, American soldiers (and others, but predominantly American) are able to eliminate potential threats by killing them wholesale in Iraq and the Middle East, thousands of miles away. Personally, I would rather the insurgents (or rather, terrorists) be fought and gotten rid of before they reached American shores.

Well, here I have voiced my opinion, and I hope that people respect it, as I intend to respect theirs. I know that people will disagree (and maybe even agree), and I look forward to the debate—our Constitutional right.

Okay...I'll just amuse myself for awhile... :p :gundge: :mp5: :sniper:

Right, next time, choose a more interesting topic. Got it!

I'm just plain bored with the whole affair.

Absolutely sublime, good sir. I've been for the war because I believe it's something we should have finished up in '91.

I am very sorry for the Iraqi people that we cannot instantly restore their nation, and I am very sorry that they suffer damage to resources, infrastrucure, and worst of all they lose lives. Bear in mind though, that we in the west are not the ones taking hostages of people attempting to rebuild the country, and we are not the ones using carbombs against the good, brave people who wish to join the Iraqi forces and rebuild their own nation. Ironically, by doing that they are greatly delaying Western withdrawal, but logic isn't something radicals are generally prized on.

I agree also with your first point; Bush may have been hasty, but I don't believe it's terribly unreasonable to believe one's own top-level intelligence and espionage agency. Don't forget, also, that Saddam and his cabinet were also very happy to make grand pontifications regarding their military prowess.

You covered that well.

I supported the war, but understand why some disagreed..

I think we should stay until Iraqi self-governance is possible, and do not understand why others disagree.

At first I did not support the war. I did not care about WMD. But as the war began I began to learn more about the horrors Sadam was committing against Iraqis. I began to support the war and still do because whatever the real reasons for the war, the Iraqi's now have the chance to be free.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. First of all, leaving Iraq before stabilization would not only allow the terrorists a chance to build up and prepare for another major attack, it would throw the entire region into disarray. Stabilization is key, but I also do not think that we should be a permanent crutch for the Iraqi government and should at least make preparations for scaling back, but definitely not leaving the country entirely.

But as the war began I began to learn more about the horrors Sadam was committing against Iraqis. I began to support the war and still do because whatever the real reasons for the war, the Iraqi's now have the chance to be free.

Exactly. And from what I have heard from the people returning from the area, the majority of Iraqis are indeed grateful for that taste of freedom.

Iraq war is just plain stupid :rolleyes:

Excellent! A dissenter! Please, explain just why the war is "stupid"--I would appreciate your reasoning

I don't mean to offend anybody's intelligence here, but stupid isn't a very good argument. Its generally used when one wants to make a point, but has no facts to back it up...or said person is unable to articulate any coherent thought on the issue. Another theory I have is that said individual is 14 or so...

War in its strictest sense is stupid, as you put it. However, that being said, its the ideals behind why a nation is at war in the first place that determines whether or not the war is stupid. Do you really think that the United States can turn a blind eye to tyranny? Sure, we could pull troops out right now, but that would mean some extremist group would just seize power and it would be the same thing, if not worse than when Saddam was in power, and we would just end up going back 10 years later. I think people should really think about what they are saying before they just talk.

If you can't say something that you put even a little thought into...

Shut up..and keep it to yourself.

People like you annoy me.

I supported the war, but understand why some disagreed..

I think we should stay until Iraqi self-governance is possible, and do not understand why others disagree.

Exactly! I fully understand why some disagree with the war, indeed there are areas I strongly advocate reviews are made, but to suggest we pull out now is simply foolish, as there is no longer any sensible or moral course but to finish the job.

Exactly! I fully understand why some disagree with the war, indeed there are areas I strongly advocate reviews are made, but to suggest we pull out now is simply foolish, as there is no longer any sensible or moral course but to finish the job.

Pulling out is the worst thing we could do. It would give the terrorists more confidence, recruitment propaganda, and allow Iraq to become another Iran, or even worse, another Afghanistan. Look at Lebanon in 1985 and Soviet Afghanistan if you want to see "cut and run" in action.

I honestly haven't heard an argument to invade Iraq that was based on logical reasoning and widely proven and believed facts. Saddam had a certain level of military capability and a history of hostility towards the US, but so does North Korea, which has a much more finely honed and unpredictable capability. I don't think we'll know the real reason the administration chose to invade for many years until documents are declassified and aides write their tell-all autobiographies.

maybe someone can answer this... since I haven't heard anything about it after the war started.

The information that the CIA recieved about WMD's were reports handed to Saddam himself. thus had a level of Validity that would convince the most staunchest of opponents. Saddam did infact order and fund WMD programs but the scientists (unable to agree on where to start) funded the money into their own programs and fed false reports to Saddam to save their own skin. (and this being against UN Resolutions since he wasn't suppose to even pursue WMD programs at the time)
there were discrepencies in the inventory of destroyed (including 2 Fassoud missiles MODIFIED to fly past the limit imposed on Iraq.) and they were ready to carry a payload that can only be speculated.
for some reason, I find it Ironic that what might save Saddam's skin was the corruption of his scientists.

Was this correct?

I supported the war from the beginning, still do, and believe that pulling out now would be the moral equivalent of Judas's betrayal of Christ.

maybe someone can answer this... since I haven't heard anything about it after the war started.

The information that the CIA recieved about WMD's were reports handed to Saddam himself. thus had a level of Validity that would convince the most staunchest of opponents. Saddam did infact order and fund WMD programs but the scientists (unable to agree on where to start) funded the money into their own programs and fed false reports to Saddam to save their own skin. (and this being against UN Resolutions since he wasn't suppose to even pursue WMD programs at the time)
there were discrepencies in the inventory of destroyed (including 2 Fassoud missiles MODIFIED to fly past the limit imposed on Iraq.) and they were ready to carry a payload that can only be speculated.
for some reason, I find it Ironic that what might save Saddam's skin was the corruption of his scientists.

Was this correct?

I did not know that his own scientists would save Saddam through their corruption (I think that's how you put it) but I do know that he did in fact possess WMDs...he used them against his own people, and his scientists did indeed go beyond the limits imposed by the UN. So yes, I would say you are correct.

Well, I'll try. (BTW, it was a well written post)

1. On WMD: You right, we do have ever reason to be angry about this. The problem I have isn’t so much as the president lied to us (and I don’t think he deliberately did so), as it is evidence now seems to point to President Bush, having decided to have gone to war, cherry picked intelligence to support this decision, and ignored dissenting voices. He guided the intelligence around his decision, not his decision around the intelligence (this is not the same as him having created the intelligence, but reading what he wanted to read). This is unpardonable in my mind, even worse, when it was discovered that, yes, there were/are no WMD in Iraq, US forces were cast adrift with a reason to be in that country fighting. The reason keeps changing, and that damages credibility. It really does make the US look like it just decided to invade and is NOW thinking of a reason why. If war is the last resort, then our reasons have to be fixed and bullet proof. Gulf of Tonkin or WMD does not provide good support for the US at large, or US troops.

2. Yes, Saddam was given time, but this administration also failed to give the UN weapons inspectors time to report. Instead, we have the famous statements that we KNEW where the WMDs were, but we were not going to tell the UN teams, even if they were acting on our behalf. When the inspection teams concluded that Iraq had not restarted its WMD programs, such reports were ignored or derided by the administration. We rushed to war, plain and simple.

3. The fly paper argument makes no real sense. Let us look at this one for a second. The claim is, due to the war, we have had no terrorist attacks within the United States since 9/11. Fair enough, however, it should be noted that previous to 9/11 we hadn’t had a foreign terrorist attack in over ten years (the World Trade Center bombing). AQ so far seems to like plans that take years to come to conclusion. Obviously, striking within the US takes a great deal of planning and effort. Their base is not here after all, their support is not here. This would be the same as if the US sent a small strike team into a hostile country (think USSR, perhaps) to strike at something. It wouldn’t be done on a lark or quickly. The terrorist had been in the states for YEARS. So stating that since we have not had an attack, we are obviously doing well by invading Iraq (which had NOTHING to do with 9/11) is a falsity and illogical. A better analogy would be if you were stung by a wasp, so you send some friends to knock over a bee hive. Watching them getting stung from the safety of your living room, you then conclude that it was the correct action because that wasp hasn’t been back to sting you again.
I am against this war as we shouldn’t have been there in their first place, and we have kicked over a hive that is stinging out friends and loved ones (currently I have a family member and too many friends over there), sometimes to death. And what did we get out of this? A war that we cannot really win (in the traditional sense), that we are fighting for reasons that are unknown or disconnected from that which has been stated, and we will be doing so for years.

And all the time we are just riling up more bees that already disliked us, but now have reason to hate us, and have lost influence with the international community. Most damaging of all, in my eyes, we have Americans now seeing their military as beasts who torture.

But, we did kick the hive over, so we’re going to have to fix this mess, whether we like it or not. I just feel sad at the lives, on both sides, that will be lost because of it, and for no good reason.

Excellent! A dissenter! Please, explain just why the war is "stupid"--I would appreciate your reasoning
War is murder and pain, War is rape and torture, War creates suffering and hate.

If you go to War...gotta be sure you dont have a choice.

3. The fly paper argument makes no real sense. Let us look at this one for a second. The claim is, due to the war, we have had no terrorist attacks within the United States since 9/11. Fair enough, however, it should be noted that previous to 9/11 we hadn’t had a foreign terrorist attack in over ten years (the World Trade Center bombing).

I agrees, also i think it is important to note that the group responsible for the bombing was tied to the same group that eventualy collapsed the twin towers, a group now based in and functioning out of AFGANISTAN, though the former Afgan government did support Hussein they were not particularly alligned if memory serves.

There was much evidence to support the idea that Saddam had WMD's, this is true, and it appeared to be credible. Personally, and this is my opinion, it was not sufficient justification for war. I do not believe in the pre-emptive agenda that this administration has set forth. I feel that the jingoistic pursuit of all perceived threats will cause us to overextend ourselves, as it may have already done. Or worse yet, we could hypocrtically allow certain rogue nations (such as North Korea, which has openly declared that it posesses nuclear weaopns) to go about their business.
While Saddam's violations of basic human rights under his regime are tragic and abhorrent, again, I feel that America does not have the capability to gallavant about the globe, spreading democracy like some ideological Johnny Appleseed. We simply cannot police the world.
If we are to go about the world disarming and democratizing rogue nations, we must build stronger coalitions, not just in terms of the number of nations, but also in terms of their participation. The vast majority of casualties in the Iraq war on the side of the coalition have been American, and the contribution of other allies has been, sorry if this is crass, token. I am not, mind you, attempting to detract from the efforts of any foreign soldiers or civilians trying to rebuild Iraq. They are brave for being there, and worthy of the utmost respect. My quarrel is with the governments of other world powers that sit back and let America exhaust itself carrying the bulk of the load of the war, and with the administration for not pressuring its foreign allies to do more.
That said, I still feel that the only proper justification for war is self defense against an aggressor who has clearly attacked us or has directly supported those who have attacked us, such as the Taliban.
Even so, we are there now, so what to do? If we pull out, civil war will likely result, possibly leading to the emergence of a dictator as bad as Saddam. Iraq would also become a hotbed of terrorist activity, even more than it is now. This seems the greater of two evils.
The second evil is to stay there and rebuild the nation. The last time America truly rebuilt another nation, I believe, was after World War II, a time during which the American economy was booming and capable of supporting such a task, and there were no insurgencies to speak of. The people of West Germany and Japan were weary of fighting a long and horrific war with millions of casualties, and entire cities obliterated. They turned their thoughts to ideas of peace and prosperity, and both of those nations have been rebuilt fully and now thrive economically and politically. I would consider these operations a resounding success.
We face now a nation torn not by advancing armies and/or atomic bombs, but by political turmoil and unrest. If we stay in Iraq, we must be ready for insurgent activity that may last on a timescale comparable to that of the Israeli/ Palestinian conflict, which has raged for the past 60 years, with no lasting peace. We must understand that as long as we keep troops and contractors there, they will be kidnapped and carbombed.
Even if every insurgent were to die right now, this second, all it takes to start an insurgency is a malcontent with weapons and charisma to recruit others. While the majority of Iraqis may support our presence, there are enough radicals to make the process of rebuilding Iraq very unsavory. But we gotta stick it out now.

another tidbit that i forgot i'll just ad on here. I believe that we all honestly thought that there were WMDs over there. I hear my friends, most of whom are anti war/bush, say that we knew there was nothing their and that we just wanted to impress some one with our power. This is just rediculous, political wars arent started so they can end in "oops, i guess there wasn't anythign here." at the very least something would be planted to save face, if in fact he knew that there was nothing there, I honestly believe that if we knew for a fact that nothing was there we would have been sure to find something.

BTW i'm anti war in general

I honestly haven't heard an argument to invade Iraq that was based on logical reasoning and widely proven and believed facts. Saddam had a certain level of military capability and a history of hostility towards the US, but so does North Korea, which has a much more finely honed and unpredictable capability. I don't think we'll know the real reason the administration chose to invade for many years until documents are declassified and aides write their tell-all autobiographies.
War is murder and pain, War is rape and torture, War creates suffering and hate.

If you go to War...gotta be sure you dont have a choice.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf

That link sums up the logical reasons for the war based on accepted fact.

There may have been a choice but the alternative to war was doing nothing and letting that continue.

There may have been a choice but the alternative to war was doing nothing and letting that continue.The alternative was to let Blix finish his damn Job.

The alternative was to let Blix finish his damn Job.

He was getting the run around by......

Saddam Hussein.

Please. Saddam wasn't cooperating with Hans Blix and Blix said it himself :rolleyes:

The alternative was to let Blix finish his damn Job.
Blix was only looking for WMD and quite frankly, I don't care about WMDs. I could make a basic WMD in a couple months. WMDs are not something to be overly concerned with.

Did you read the link? That is why the Iraq war was the right choice, althought something smaller scale might have sufficed.

1. The CIA admitted that they had shaky information about the existance of WMD's. Stories about uranium being shipped from Niger to Iraq, perpetuated by Colin Powell, were proven to be false. Iraq had military-weapons, but what country doesn't? The chemical weapons they MAY have had were given to them by us, in the 80's, to kill Iranian's with. Ask Donald Rumsfeld, he's the one who personally met with Saddam to make the deal. My main point is, Iraq, whether or not they were working on WMD's, is not the worlds biggest threat. Countries like Pakistan and North Korea, who WITHOUT A DOUBT have nukes are a bit more concerning to me.

2. The war should have been avoided because Saddam and Iraq had absolutely no link to Osama bin Laden or Al Qaedia. You would think other countries that certainly do have links would be higher on the hit list, IE Saudi Arabia, but that would put a real sour on our governments beautiful negotiations with one of the worlds worst human rights violators.

3. How many (foreign) terrorist attacks were there on American soil BEFORE 9/11? Two that I can think of, and one of those is Pearl Harbor, an act of war, not really terrorism. 9/11 itself could have been avoided, had it not been for the bungling of clear intelligence by the Clinton AND Bush administrations. We had every means available to us to stop it from happening, but we failed miserably.

This War on Terrorism is not new. The only way you can change a fundamental belief that the Muslim nations of the world hold is by complete dominance. You can't change their minds about how great democracy is with gentle words, or by killing 12,000 Iraqi civilians. This has always been going on, and will likely continue on forever until one of those countries I mentioned above goes apesh*t and fires a nuke, thus resulting in a massive nuclear holocaust worldwide.

And by the way, I served in Iraq, Kosovo and Africa as a paratrooper in the army, so I have the right to critisize this ;)

Blix was only looking for WMD and quite frankly, I don't care about WMDs. I could make a basic WMD in a couple months. WMDs are not something to be overly concerned with.

Did you read the link? That is why the Iraq war was the right choice, althought something smaller scale might have sufficed.
But that was not the stated reason we went to war. Many bad things happen in the world, many goverments do bad things to their own people. My question has always been, why Iraq? Saddam was hardly the worst of the lot, and many of the worst of the lot happen to be our allies, and yet we make no move to invade THEM.

Why, why did we go? That is the question I have been asking since day one and you know what, it has never been answered. Till it is, it was not worth the cost.

Blix was only looking for WMD and quite frankly, I don't care about WMDs. I could make a basic WMD in a couple months. WMDs are not something to be overly concerned with.Bush and Blair did seem overly concerned with WMD...

do you have CableTV? you know like CNN/FOX...or even regular TV...

unless you been hiding in a cave without TV...you would know that they seemed truly concerned with WMD...

maybe they were faking...but they did go out of their way (likely breaking laws) to pass on all that concern to Congress and Parliaments...even used sexed up Intelligence.

Bush and Blair did seem overly concerned with WMD...

do you have CableTV? you know like CNN/FOX...or even regular TV...

unless you been hiding in a cave without TV...you would know that they seemed truly concerned with WMD...

maybe they were faking...but they did go out of their way (likely breaking laws) to pass on all that concern to Congress and Parliaments...even used sexed up Intelligence.
Yes they were and I know they were concerned with WMD and that is why I did not support the war at first. At first I was opposed to the war because I didn't care about WMD.

But I changed my mind and support the war because whatever the BS reasons used to gain support for the war, the fact still remains that Saddam was an evil dictator who brutalized those he was supposed to be protecting.

3. How many (foreign) terrorist attacks were there on American soil BEFORE 9/11?

USS Cole, The two embassies in Africa, Lebenon base, WTC in 1993. All of those are US soil.


I say get Iraq cleaned up, and then move on to north korea.

But that was not the stated reason we went to war. Many bad things happen in the world, many goverments do bad things to their own people. My question has always been, why Iraq? Saddam was hardly the worst of the lot, and many of the worst of the lot happen to be our allies, and yet we make no move to invade THEM.

Why, why did we go? That is the question I have been asking since day one and you know what, it has never been answered. Till it is, it was not worth the cost.
I know it wasn't thr stated reason. But it's better to do what is right for the wrong reasons then vice versa.

Iraq was probably chosen because of their strategic positioning in the Middle-East region. But again so what? Whatever the reason it was chosen there's currently one less despotism butchering civilians en masse. ewven though the war is brutal there's hope for the future of Iraq and a chance at freedom and stability, which there wasn't under Saddam.

the fact still remains that Saddam was an evil dictator who brutalized those he was supposed to be protecting.so are most ME Sheiks...they are brutal corrupt dictators...but they are good friends/puppets of Washington...

and the Saudis are good friends of Bush.

[QUOTE=OceanDrive2]War is murder and pain, War is rape and torture, War creates suffering and hate.

Sadam was Murdering, he was pain, he Raped and tortured, he created his own suffering and hate.

war may suck, it costs lives and billions of dollars, but doing nothing would cost more lives and even more money, do you want your children to have to fight a war that you couldve instead.

i think team america put it best, that their are dicks pussies and assholes in the world, and that dicks like to fuck to much, and pussies usualy get fucked by dicks, but dicks also fuck assholes, and if we dicks didnt fuck the assholes you just end up with your dicks and your pussy all covered in shit.

I know it wasn't thr stated reason. But it's better to do what is right for the wrong reasons then vice versa.

Iraq was probably chosen because of their strategic positioning in the Middle-East region. But again so what? Whatever the reason it was chosen there's currently one less despotism butchering civilians en masse. ewven though the war is brutal there's hope for the future of Iraq and a chance at freedom and stability, which there wasn't under Saddam.
I don't accept that (not you personally, but as a valid reason for war). Again, if the US is going to go out and remove every dictator who does bad things to hir or her people, then we have to go after ALL of them, and under that reason, not change reasons in mid stream and carefully overlook those countries that are worse, but are selling us oil or what not.

Policemen, if that is what we have become, are supposed to enforce the laws equally. As President Bush has said himself, we are a nation of laws. One of our founding codes IS equality before the law.

Which we are not doing right now, and is why I am opposed.

so are most ME Sheiks...they are brutal corrupt dictators...but they are good friends/puppets of Washington...

and the Saudis are good friends of Bush.
Your point. Realpolitik does some crazy things and I'm not going to argue that the US doesn't have some brutal friends. But just because they don't overthrow all the despotisms in the world does not nullify the fact that overthrowing Saddam was a good thing.

war may suck, it costs lives and billions of dollars, but doing nothing would cost more lives and even more money, do you want your children to have to fight a war that you couldve instead.
And just when do you think Iraq would have managed to invade the United States of America or attacked one of her posessions?

I don't accept that (not you personally, but as a valid reason for war). Again, if the US is going to go out and remove every dictator who does bad things to hir or her people, then we have to go after ALL of them, and under that reason, not change reasons in mid stream and carefully overlook those countries that are worse, but are selling us oil or what not.

Policemen, if that is what we have become, are supposed to enforce the laws equally. As President Bush has said himself, we are a nation of laws. One of our founding codes IS equality before the law.

Which we are not doing right now, and is why I am opposed.
First, logistically and strategically it's impossible. There are too many despots and people living under despots to possibly liberate them all at once. You've got to eliminate them one at a time and hope the reverse dominoe effect works.

Second, different situations require different approaches. Invading China to free it would likely lead to nuclear war, but it's slowly progressing to be more free.

Just because the US may not be applying it equally doesn't automatically mean that Iraq war is bad.

Your point. Realpolitik does some crazy things and I'm not going to argue that the US doesn't have some brutal friends. But just because they don't overthrow all the despotisms in the world does not nullify the fact that overthrowing Saddam was a good thing.BUSH message goes like this:

if you are friendly to the Halliburtons and other BIG-O-corps on my list...you can kill and rape...noProblemo...

but if you stop taking orders...we will Fuck you up...and your sons...and your friends...and anyone in betweeen...

First, logistically and strategically it's impossible. There are too many despots and people living under despots to possibly liberate them all at once. You've got to eliminate them one at a time and hope the reverse dominoe effect works.

Second, different situations require different approaches. Invading China to free it would likely lead to nuclear war, but it's slowly progressing to be more free.

Just because the US may not be applying it equally doesn't automatically mean that Iraq war is bad.
But that's not what we started out with to do, and we have stated time and time again that we are not going to engage in nation building. We ignore, not even comment on, but out right ignore, the reprehensible actions of others (if not outright support them) when it suits us.

If we're going to talk the talk, we better walk the walk.

BUSH message goes like this:

if you are friendly to the Halliburtons and other BIG-O-corps on my list...you can kill and rape...noProblemo...

but if you stop taking orders...we will Fuck you up...and your sons...and your friends...and anyone in betweeen...
What's your point, exactly?

That doesn't prove in the least that the Iraq war was bad, all it "proves" is
that you don't like Bush and that maybe Bush started the war for the wrong reasons.

The right thing done for the wrong reason is better then the wrong thing done for the right reason.

But that's not what we started out with to do, and we have stated time and time again that we are not going to engage in nation building. We ignore, not even comment on, but out right ignore, the reprehensible actions of others (if not outright support them) when it suits us.

If we're going to talk the talk, we better walk the walk.
I agree, but as I've said freedom for one part of the world gained for the wrong reason is better than no freedom for the 'right' reason.

I agree, but as I've said freedom for one part of the world gained for the wrong reason is better than no freedom for the 'right' reason.
As for that, the jury's still out. We can hope for the best though.

As for that, the jury's still out. We can hope for the best though.
It's up to the Iraqi's now. They have the oppurtunity to take the freedom handed to them, or they can spurn it.

another tidbit that i forgot i'll just ad on here. I believe that we all honestly thought that there were WMDs over there. I hear my friends, most of whom are anti war/bush, say that we knew there was nothing their and that we just wanted to impress some one with our power. This is just rediculous, political wars arent started so they can end in "oops, i guess there wasn't anythign here." at the very least something would be planted to save face, if in fact he knew that there was nothing there, I honestly believe that if we knew for a fact that nothing was there we would have been sure to find something.

BTW i'm anti war in generalThe fact that congress and the American public were lied to about Iraq can easily be proven. Determining why is no so simple. I would suggest that you consider that the ultimate goals of the men and woman who are responsible for this mess may well be in conflict what a regular rational person might think are the interests of the nation. And besides, most of these people have lived lives of isolated privilage, and probably suffer from mental disorders like Howard Hughes, Michael Jackson, and Tom Cruise.

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf

That link sums up the logical reasons for the war based on accepted fact.

There may have been a choice but the alternative to war was doing nothing and letting that continue.One alternative might have been to end the sanctions in Iraq. If you want to keep a dictator in power, cutting them off from trade seems to work. Just look at Castro.

And by the way, I served in Iraq, Kosovo and Africa as a paratrooper in the army, so I have the right to critisize this ;)You don't think that you need to earn the right to give such opinions by "doing you time" in the military do you?

/I have a right to ask that question because I did my time in the Army (all boring old peaceful CONUS) :D

One alternative might have been to end the sanctions in Iraq. If you want to keep a dictator in power, cutting them off from trade seems to work. Just look at Castro.

And according to WMD groups, Saddam would've restarted his WMD program if we removed the sanctions.

That doesn't prove in the least that the Iraq war was bad.for me...its enough to repudiate that War.

I am against that war...and so is most of the World.

that war is creating hate against the US...you can see it in most Worls media... you can see it at their forums...you can hear on their conversations...

or you close your eyes and say "everything is going as planned"..."stay the course.."

for me...its enough to repudiate that War.

I am against that war...and so is most of the World.

that war is creating hate against the US...you can see it in most Worls media... you can see it at their forums...you can hear on their conversations...

or you close your eyes and say "everything is going as planned"..."stay the course.."
If it's enough for you then that's your opinion, but that doesn't prove the war is bad.

The fallacy of appealling to popular belief. Just because most of the world thinks the war is wrong does not make it so.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html
You do what is right, even if others condemn you for it.

Everything is not going as planned, but it's still better than just standing back and watching Iraqis live and die in tyranny.

One alternative might have been to end the sanctions in Iraq. If you want to keep a dictator in power, cutting them off from trade seems to work. Just look at Castro.
I don't agree with sanctions either, but ending them wouldn't have helped all that much.

And according to WMD groups, Saddam would've restarted his WMD program if we removed the sanctions. :eek: OH NO! Not Weapons of Mass Destruction!

I really don't care. It's not like nuclear Iraq would've been any worse than nuclear Pakistan. And I really don't think he'd have lasted long enough to ever succeed with such a program anyway. Sure, he might have brought back chemical and bio weapons programs, but I really really don't care about that.

:eek: OH NO! Not Weapons of Mass Destruction!

I really don't care. It's not like nuclear Iraq would've been any worse than nuclear Pakistan. And I really don't think he'd have lasted long enough to ever succeed with such a program anyway. Sure, he might have brought back chemical and bio weapons programs, but I really really don't care about that.

Apparently you dont know Saddam Hussein as well as you think you do in regards to staying in power. He sure could've stayed in power even if his own people rose up against him.

As for not caring about chem and bio weapons, way to show concern for those he considers his enemies. His support for terror is all he needed to pawn some of them off for them to hit us or our allies.

As for not caring about chem and bio weapons, way to show concern for those he considers his enemies. His support for terror is all he needed to pawn some of them off for them to hit us or our allies.
So this has been brought up, and so it has been repeatedly shot down. Saddam, for being a bastard, was a secular bastard. He feard fundies and they didn't like him either, see the war between Iraq and Iran. It is highly doubtful he would have given the groups who would have targeted the US WMD.

No matter what VP Chenny says.

So this has been brought up, and so it has been repeatedly shot down. Saddam, for being a bastard, was a secular bastard. He feard fundies and they didn't like him either, see the war between Iraq and Iran. It is highly doubtful he would have given the groups who would have targeted the US WMD.

No matter what VP Chenny says.

He had connections with Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Come on NERVUN, it hasnt been totally debunked. Infact some of it has been proven.

Apparently you dont know Saddam Hussein as well as you think you do in regards to staying in power. He sure could've stayed in power even if his own people rose up against him. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. I don't care. In any case, it's hard to imagine the mortality rate would've been within the same order of magnitude.

As for not caring about chem and bio weapons, way to show concern for those he considers his enemies. His support for terror is all he needed to pawn some of them off for them to hit us or our allies.Okay, I care. My heart bleeds. :( I just don't care so much that I'm willing to support the waste of American blood and treasure. If a group of Americans wanted to organize a real volunteer Army to go fight some despot, that wouldn't bother me much, but I wouldn't join.

He had connections with Hamas and other terrorist organizations. Come on NERVUN, it hasnt been totally debunked. Infact some of it has been proven.
Last I read, he had extensive contacts with orginzations within the PLO (or sheltered by such). He had NO contact with the fundementalist orginizations, such as AQ, who hated him do to his secular nature. Forgetting the fact that he was obviously a look out for number one guy and unlikely to give away weapondy that would bite him in the ass or he would not be able to use in his defence for a moment, said wepondry would probably be used against Iseral.

I'm in the minority here.

Yes, Saddam Hussien was a brutal dictator who killed his own people. But there are so many countries that are guilty of that. 90% of the African continent, North Korea, Iran, some parts of central America...

Where do you draw the line on who we should oust and who we should not? Is one humans rights violator worse than another?

And just when do you think Iraq would have managed to invade the United States of America or attacked one of her posessions?

or one of our allies, iraq attacked kuwait and we helped them, do you honestly think saddam would sit there for long and not attack someone, and that we as americans would sit back and not help out like we always have in the past.

:eek: OH NO! Not Weapons of Mass Destruction!

I really don't care. It's not like nuclear Iraq would've been any worse than nuclear Pakistan. And I really don't think he'd have lasted long enough to ever succeed with such a program anyway. Sure, he might have brought back chemical and bio weapons programs, but I really really don't care about that.

unless your a solider fighting iraqi forces and you get gased and your lungs are on fire and your eyes are burning and you die.

unless your a solider fighting iraqi forces and you get gased and your lungs are on fire and your eyes are burning and you die.Please pay attention. If I had my way, there wouldn't be or have been American soldiers fighting Iraqi forces.

12,000 Iraqi civilians dead. Civilians, not militants.

4 Iraqi's for every person that died in the WTC attacks. Funny story, I dunno if you've heard yet, but Iraq didn't have anything to do with the WTC attacks...in fact, NONE of the hijackers were Iraqi! Even funnier story, Osama didn't want anything to do with Saddam because he thought he was a bad Muslim!

9/11 and the war in Iraq are fucked up. Go find Osama, attack Saudi Arabia, spread freedom to Dafur where GENOCIDE is happening, then we'll talk about the rights and wrongs of Iraq.

12,000 Iraqi civilians dead. Civilians, not militants.

4 Iraqi's for every person that died in the WTC attacks. Funny story, I dunno if you've heard yet, but Iraq didn't have anything to do with the WTC attacks...in fact, NONE of the hijackers were Iraqi! Even funnier story, Osama didn't want anything to do with Saddam because he thought he was a bad Muslim!

9/11 and the war in Iraq are fucked up. Go find Osama, attack Saudi Arabia, spread freedom to Dafur where GENOCIDE is happening, then we'll talk about the rights and wrongs of Iraq.

Up the fuck shut. (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf)

Goddamned good enough reason for anyone with half a brain. Claim of links about 9/11 is a whole 'nother ball game.

12,000 Iraqi civilians dead. Civilians, not militants.
gee and who's to blame for the majority of those deaths. American Soldiers or Suicide bombers who blow themselves up in school buses, shopping area, check points that are filled with iraqi's going to work... :rolleyes:

gee and who's to blame for the majority of those deaths. American Soldiers or Suicide bombers who blow themselves up in school buses, shopping area, check points that are filled with iraqi's going to work... :rolleyes:

I can answer that one!

The Suicide Bombers.

I'm just plain bored with the whole affair.

yah when i saw the title i was like 'oh joy' another one of these threads...

I can answer that one!

The Suicide Bombers.
with the exception of the bombing that started the war and killed countless thousands of innocent Iraqis and the DU ammo that's screwing up Iraqi babies and why are the "suiciders" blowing themselves up anyway? It's not like they'd do it if we weren't there. So it is American troops--no, the Administration that sent the troops--that are killing countless thousands of innocent Iraqis.

with the exception of the bombing that started the war and killed countless thousands of innocent Iraqis and the DU ammo that's screwing up Iraqi babies and why are the "suiciders" blowing themselves up anyway? It's not like they'd do it if we weren't there. So it is American troops--no, the Administration that sent the troops--that are killing countless thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Any sources to back up your numbers?

By the way, there is plenty of evidence that Saddam had an extensive Weapons of Mass Destruction program.

These two articles by my favorite journalist, Kenneth R. Timmerman (who spent 24 days as a hostage in Lebanon in 1984), provide background information on Saddam's WMD programs and what may have happened:

http://www.insightmag.com/media/paper441/news/2004/05/11/World/Investigative.Reportsaddams.Wmd.Have.Been.Found-670120.shtml
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&storyid=670123

Any sources to back up your numbers?
Unsurprisingly, I couldn't find any conservative or "unbiased" source such as foxnews.com or whitehouse.gov so you're gonna have to settle with the next best thing:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html
EDIT: it only has estimates for the initial bombing campaign, not from terrorism due to presence of U.S. troops or "collateral damage."

Here's (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) a more extensive source's data

...and I just keep finding more sources (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/)

Unsurprisingly, I couldn't find any conservative or "unbiased" source such as foxnews.com or whitehouse.gov so you're gonna have to settle with the next best thing:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/death.html
EDIT: it only has estimates for the initial bombing campaign, not from terrorism due to presence of U.S. troops or "collateral damage."
Here's (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) a more extensive source's data
Ok, so out of 12,000 iraqi civilians dead... the air war (according to the Iraqi Government) accounts for 2,300 (which we can assume is inflated but to be kind, I will only drop the 300) The Iraqi government says 2,300 civilians died during the air campaign.
that leave 10,000 Iraqi deaths. now, of those 10,000 deaths, how many is by US soldiers and how many by Suicide bombers or Insurgent attacks/bombings?

I can't see the insurgents not setting off their bomb when the American Convoy goes by because there are Iraqi civlivians there.


so let's look at your second link.

notice the teletype...
LATEST VIOLENCE: Wed 22 Jun:At least 11 killed by car bombs at restaurants, Shula, Baghdad [AP]
LATEST VIOLENCE: Sun 19 Jun: 23 killed by suicide bomber at kebab restaurant in Baghdad [AFP]
LATEST VIOLENCE: Mon 20 Jun: At least 15 killed by car bomb in Irbil [KR]
LATEST VIOLENCE: Tue 14 Jun: At least 20 killed by suicide bomber outside bank in Kirkuk [LAT]
LATEST VIOLENCE: Thur 02 Jun: 9 killed by car bomb in restaurant in Tuz Khurmatu [AP]
LATEST VIOLENCE: Tue 07 Jun: At least 19 killed by car bombers in Baghdad and northern Iraq [REU]
LATEST VIOLENCE: Thur 02 Jun: 9 shot dead in Baghdad market [AP]
LATEST VIOLENCE: Wed 22 Jun: 8 killed by suicide bomber at bus station in Baghdad [AP]
LATEST VIOLENCE: Wed 22 Jun:At least 11 killed by car bombs at restaurants, Shula, Baghdad [AP]Hmm... never knew the US forces used Car Bombs...

and the nice little chart they use... most of the fights are insurgents attacking civilians going to work to improve/repair Iraq. oh wait... Two died when an ATTACK on US TROOPS Transporting Detainees... sounds like a rescue attempt to me.
June 14, car not slowing down at checkpoint... sounds like probable cause to me. after all, it might be a CAR BOMB!
wow... see alot of deaths that seem to be at the hands of the freedom fighters.

the database does not differenciate between US caused deaths and Insurgent caused deaths so again, who is causing the most deaths in Iraq, The US forces who are trying to get Iraq up and running or the Insurgents who, for some reason, Kill the civilians trying to get Iraq up and running.

I like their clause...
This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.Basically it's saying. no matter who fires the first shot, even if the US is not invovled, it's still their fault. As noted in incident K1470 where it's police and gunmen... sounds like they're trying to restore order doesn't it. Thanks, now we can break it down and see who is actually killing the Civilians... the ones trying to free them from the murdering Americans.!

By the way, nice touch adding the 2004 report of that 100,000 dead... which your other links already prove it's not even half that.

<snip>
I think my entire point was that there wouldn't be this senseless killing of Iraqi civilians if the U.S. hadn't had invaded in the manner that they did.
And just out of curiousity, how many people did Saddam kill under his reign of power granted by the CIA?

I think my entire point was that there wouldn't be this senseless killing of Iraqi civilians if the U.S. hadn't had invaded in the manner that they did.
And just out of curiousity, how many people did Saddam kill under his reign of power granted by the CIA?
Far more if you count his NON US approved or supported invasion of Kuait. but the real point is, most of these deaths are being caused by the Terrorists who are no longer fighting to free the Iraqi people but now just killing Americans. they no longer care about the Iraqi people or Saddam Hussein. They don't even care about a self-sustaining government. they only care about their little war that is hurting them more than the "Infidels."

Edit: I lost track... anyone know how many mass graves were found to date?

...
Basically it's saying. no matter who fires the first shot, even if the US is not invovled, it's still their fault...the US fired the first shot...I saw it on CNN...I think it was Cruise missiles blasting Baghdad...

every destroyed city, every murder, every kid with aputated limbs..every tortured prisoner....in this preemtive Bushite War its all the US gov fault.

the US fired the first shot...I saw it on CNN...I think it was Cruise missiles blasting Baghdad...

every destroyed city, every murder, every kid with aputated limbs..every tortured prisoner....in this preemtive Bushite War its all the US gov fault.Yep... all our fault. our fault that Saddam invaded Kuwait and got thoses sanctions on him... you know, the ones he's ignored! Yep our fault that key members of the UN were more concerned with the kickbacks they were getting from Saddam then seeing that the sactions were upheld. yep... our fault that our patrol planes were constantly being challanged over the UN Perscribed "No Fly Zone" yep our fault that Saddam tried to persue WMD's even when told he couldn't by the same UN he was bribing... yep all our fault.

...our fault that our patrol planes were constantly being challanged over the UN Perscribed "No Fly Zone" ...
The UN never prescribed the establishment of the said zones.

... yep all our fault.yep...

so next time...make the World a favor... do not start preemtive wars.

Yep... all our fault. our fault that Saddam invaded Kuwait and got thoses sanctions on him... you know, the ones he's ignored! Yep our fault that key members of the UN were more concerned with the kickbacks they were getting from Saddam then seeing that the sactions were upheld. yep... our fault that our patrol planes were constantly being challanged over the UN Perscribed "No Fly Zone" yep our fault that Saddam tried to persue WMD's even when told he couldn't by the same UN he was bribing... yep all our fault.
It's our fault for helping him and the Ba'th party rise to power

The UN never prescribed the establishment of the said zones.
really? I'm sure it was with the limitations on missle range. but I won't argue that.

yep...

so next time...make the World a favor... do not start preemtive wars.
... do not answer cries for help... do not help people in need... gotcha!

It's our fault for helping him and the Ba'th party rise to power
and we removed him from power... so I think we corrected that mistake.

and we removed him from power... so I think we corrected that mistake.
only by killing some 100,000 people in the going and kicking over a giant can of worms

Any sources to back up your numbers?
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Far more if you count his NON US approved or supported invasion of Kuait. but the real point is, most of these deaths are being caused by the Terrorists who are no longer fighting to free the Iraqi people but now just killing Americans. they no longer care about the Iraqi people or Saddam Hussein. They don't even care about a self-sustaining government. they only care about their little war that is hurting them more than the "Infidels."

Edit: I lost track... anyone know how many mass graves were found to date?How do you know what they care about?

the US fired the first shot...I saw it on CNN...I think it was Cruise missiles blasting Baghdad...

Hussein fired the first shots when he invaded Kuwait.

every destroyed city, every murder, every kid with aputated limbs..every tortured prisoner....in this preemtive Bushite War its all the US gov fault.

What city has been destroyed? None that I know of. And no! Faluja was not destroyed. You can't blame all murders on the US either. Nor aputee and those that tortured prisoners are being tried. Now that we got that out of the way....

How do you know what they care about?

By who the insurgents/terrorists are attacking. Basically those that belong to the Iraqi Government and coalition forces. So yea, his statement is accurate!

only by killing some 100,000 people in the going and kicking over a giant can of worms

Actually the number is far lower than that. Even lower if you want to iclude the baddies that are getting killed at the hands of the coalition as well as those killed by the Iraqi Police and National Guard.

Please pay attention. If I had my way, there wouldn't be or have been American soldiers fighting Iraqi forces.

i also never implied that the soliders are american, what about iranian soliders, or kurds, to not care what happens to other another countries soliders is just as bad as not caring what happens to your own, if we can sacrifice a few of our soliders while saddam dosnt have wmd's then wait until another countries gets wiped out. Evil Thrives when good men do nothing.

with the exception of the bombing that started the war and killed countless thousands of innocent Iraqis and the DU ammo that's screwing up Iraqi babies and why are the "suiciders" blowing themselves up anyway? It's not like they'd do it if we weren't there. So it is American troops--no, the Administration that sent the troops--that are killing countless thousands of innocent Iraqis.

ok i get it now, we "kill" a few thousand on accident and help them to liberate themselves from an oppresive dictator who already killed thousands of his own people on purpose and gave them barely any rights. you should find a better arguement, find something weve done to the iraqis that saddam already hasnt done in the past, you know those bad things like biulding schools and hospitals, and training their army and helping them set up their own democratic government, i cant believe we would oust saddam to do these HORRIBLE things to the iraqi civilians.

Here's how I often describe my opinion of the whole situation:

Imagine that a guy broke into your house at night and killed your family in their sleep. Seeking vengance, you hunt the killer down and open fire at him in the middle of a crowded street, accidentally killing 50 innocent civilians in the process. Later on, you find out you killed the wrong guy, but he also happened to be a murderer. So, you don't feel AS bad about it. As for the civilians who got in the way, to explain it to the cops, you promise to help their families in this desperate time of need, changing your story from blind revenge to humanitarian and just. The real killer is still walking the streets, and occasionally you get a lead, but don't really follow up on it, instead opting to commit your life (or the lives of how many nessicary) to make the life of the previous uninvolved, dead civilians better.

In this imaginary scenario, a murderer is dead, which is GOOD, but innocent civilians are also dead. I doubt the families that the first, wrong killer affected would be comforted to know that they have been avenged, but that their fellow civilians fell into the crossfire and are simply written off as a casualty of revenge.

I'm just plain bored with the whole affair.

I agree the whole creating a thread about Iraq has been played out. :rolleyes:

Hussein fired the first shots when he invaded Kuwait..
Kuwait was a part of Iraq...small sultanates were created by imperialistic UK and France...

Empire motto: Divide and Rule the colonies.

Alot of people talk about iraq and its clear that its a difficult one, what worries me is that governments are human, and how can they be so sure that what they are doing is right if we still discussing it without any honest and sure outcome?

... what worries me is that governments are human...
well we gotta change that then.

*groan*

I didn't support the war before it started, I don't know what I think we should do now, and mostly I'm sick of hearing about it.

Based on the information I was given, I supported it then. To pull out now would be foolish, IMO, whether one supported the war in the first place or not.

the US fired the first shot...I saw it on CNN...I think it was Cruise missiles blasting Baghdad...

every destroyed city, every murder, every kid with aputated limbs..every tortured prisoner....in this preemtive Bushite War its all the US gov fault.

You mean all these (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf) murders and amputations and tortured prisoners?

You mean all these (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf) murders and amputations and tortured prisoners?
you mean the atrocities that we already fought a war for?

He was getting the run around by......

Saddam Hussein.

Please. Saddam wasn't cooperating with Hans Blix and Blix said it himself :rolleyes:
Every now and then, someone needs to remind you of the truth?

From the Blix Report:

Cooperation on process

It has regard to the procedures, mechanisms, infrastructure and practical arrangements to pursue inspections and seek verifiable disarmament. While inspection is not built on the premise of confidence but may lead to confidence if it is successful, there must nevertheless be a measure of mutual confidence from the very beginning in running the operation of inspection.

Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable.

Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.

Perhaps you prefer your version of the truth? I do believe this is the 3rd or 4th time that I have had to remind you of the reality.

*snips*

If Saddam was cooperating at all CH, he wouldn't have had 17 UN Resolutions on him. Do I have to remind you of this fact?

If Saddam Cooperated after getting tossed out of Kuwait, there wouldn't have been a need to invade him. He didn't cooperate and went on to violate 17 UN Resolutions.

To me, this is NOT, repeat NOT cooperation.

Kuwait was a part of Iraq...small sultanates were created by imperialistic UK and France...

Empire motto: Divide and Rule the colonies.

*Yes I'm going backwards*

Doesn't matter. I could say that Maine was a part of Massachuttess. Should Mass invade Maine?

Our soldiers agree to give up their lives for US causes by joining the armed forces. We, in turn, promise not to let them die for nothing. My worry is that they are starting to die for nothing. We bomb the crap out of a town, "pacify" it's people, rebuild it, it gets overrun agian. The local police forces that we are training are being blown up at an alarming rate and the local populations are getting shot, blown up, and maimed in collateral damage. It will be interesting to see if we get bogged down in another war of messy street fighting where we are picked off one bomb at a time, or if we will bite the bullet, accept that the world will hate us for it, and start agressivly leveling any area that shows terrorist activity regardless of civillian casualties....then letting the smoking hole stay there (not dump more money in to rebuild what we just bombed).
There just are no good solutions to this mess. If we pull out, we'll be back agian in a few years. If we stay longer people will rally with the terrorists and keep fighing to get us out. If we hard line bomb everything, everyone turns agianst us. this war sucks

If Saddam was cooperating at all CH, he wouldn't have had 17 UN Resolutions on him. Do I have to remind you of this fact?

If Saddam Cooperated after getting tossed out of Kuwait, there wouldn't have been a need to invade him. He didn't cooperate and went on to violate 17 UN Resolutions.

To me, this is NOT, repeat NOT cooperation.
The ONLY Resolution that anyone needs to concern themselves with is Resolution 1441. Under this Resolution, Blix was carrying out UN inspections in Iraq AND Iraq was in compliance.

It was under Resolution 1441, that Blix offered his report.

The US violated this Resolution by invading Iraq, making the invasion illegal.

2. Decides, while acknowledging paragraph 1 above, to afford Iraq, by this
resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991) and subsequent resolutions of the Council;

The US violated sections 2, 10 and 12 of Resolution 1441, and everyone should know the truth and not the half baked propaganda that you offer.

All the US had to do, was allow the UN inspectors to finish the job that they had been assigned. Iraq was co-operating, as per Hans Blix's report, and much progress was being accomplished.

And what has the US accomplished after 100,000 Iraqi deaths, 1750 US troops killed, 2 1/2 years of war (with no end in sight), and destruction of towns, cities and infastructure?

* increased terrorism
* increased mistrust of the US by Arab states
* alienation of traditional allies
* a black eye over the torture/deaths of prisoners by US troops
* more division amongst Americans
* $175 Billion increased debt

Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and should never have been included in the war on terror, as they were no threat to the US.

*Yes I'm going backwards*

Doesn't matter. I could say that Maine was a part of Massachuttess. Should Mass invade Maine?
today Maine and Mass. are part of the same country...

that is not the case of Kuwait...

Any kid with a minimum IQ can tell the difference

I never agreed with the Iraq war and I still don't. However, I believe that the US broke it and they should stay and fix it. Not get caught up in the sovereignty of Iraq, but rebuild what they destroyed and train Iraqi troops because it's their bone head fault that there is no security in Iraq because some civilian rocket scientist at the Pentagon decided it would be a good idea to disband the army! Doh! Would of went a lot smoother if Rummy & co had of had a freaking clue as to what they were doing.

I didn't support it at the time because I believed then that Bush & co were lying or at the very least misleading the world about the reasons for going to war in the first place. As it turned out I and many others who held my view were right, as we slowly watched the reasons dissolve and change from day to day. From being a threat to the US's national security, to Saddam is evil and gassed his own people (over freaking 12 years ago) so we must liberate Iraq to everything in between.

I don't really care why we were mislead, I don't care if Bush apologists want to say, "Oh it's what Bush believed" because quite frankly if you're going to invade another country you better be fucking right! If you're wrong then it should be your ass on the line. The buck stops with the president and that is the way it should be. I don't care if some are foolish enough to believe that the most powerful man in the world just didn't know better, it was still his fault and I don't believe history will be kind to Mr. Bush and rightfully so!

today Maine and Mass. are part of the same country...

that is not the case of Kuwait...

Any kid with a minimum IQ can tell the difference

Kuwait has been a separate entity from Iraq for more than a century and has been governing itself as a sovereign state for over 40 years. Iraq does not have a claim to those lands anymore.

I'm actually amazed and impressed that the pro-war, anti-withdrawal option has drawn a plurality of the votes. I guess these forums aren't as rife with bolsheviks as I had previously thought.

today Maine and Mass. are part of the same country...

that is not the case of Kuwait...

Any kid with a minimum IQ can tell the difference

It still goes along the same lines and OD2, don't insult me. Your IQ is way below mine. Its been proven time and again.

Your IQ is way below mine. Its been proven time and again.

Are you at it again insulting people Corneliu?

You know, I was always surprised you never figured out who I was..lol :p

Are you at it again insulting people Corneliu?

You know, I was always surprised you never figured out who I was..lol :p

Why should I care who you are? I don't. I have more important things to do than figure out than who is on the other side of a computer screen.

Why should I care who you are? I don't. I have more important things to do than figure out than who is on the other side of a computer screen.

Well it's just as Stephistan I always went at you the same way. I'm just surprised you of all people never figured it out. Zeppistan sure did your arguments in a lot too, so I would of thought you'd remember the style. ;)

Well it's just as Stephistan I always went at you the same way. I'm just surprised you of all people never figured it out. Zeppistan sure did your arguments in a lot too, so I would of thought you'd remember the style. ;)

Steph or Zep, I don't care which one, your style is about as out of date as the last Presidential Election. Anyway, your style is about as idiotic as your predecessors. Not even steeped in facts.

Steph or Zep, I don't care which one, your style is about as out of date as the last Presidential Election. Anyway, your style is about as idiotic as your predecessors. Not even steeped in facts.

Hahaha, are you just upset because we always proved you wrong and sort of made you look foolish? Cause you know that's exactly what we did. So unless you want us to go back to ripping every single thing you say apart like we use to, I suggest you stop flaming people. I don't think it's too much to ask. You never won a single argument with at least certainly Zeppistan.. so just stop flaming, mmmk?

Hahaha, are you just upset because we always proved you wrong and sort of made you look foolish? Cause you know that's exactly what we did. So unless you want us to go back to ripping every single thing you say apart like we use to, I suggest you stop flaming people. I don't think it's too much to ask. You never won a single argument with at least certainly Zeppistan.. so just stop flaming, mmmk?

Considering I haven't flamed anyone.....

no!

As for an arguement, I make it a point not to argue with liberals if I can avoid it. Which makes me wonder why I'm chatting in general as often as I do.

Considering I haven't flamed anyone.....

Oh Corny, do you want me to point out the flames you've made in just your last few posts on this thread? Do you really need me to even that for you?

Oh Corny, do you want me to point out the flames you've made in just your last few posts on this thread? Do you really need me to even that for you?

Do I have to point out to you that I use an isult only when insulted? This is a standard game between OD and I. We do this constently.

Do I have to point out to you that I use an isult only when insulted? This is a standard game between OD and I. We do this constently.

Unacceptable and you should by now know that. If someone flames you, you ignore it, or report it. An eye for an eye, or in this case a flame for a flame makes both parties guilty.. and this was also a flame..

Anyway, your style is about as idiotic as your predecessors

Now show me where I flamed you? I didn't. Would you also like me to point out the flames in other threads or inaccurate posts you've made? All I'm asking you as one player to another is to stop flaming, that's it, that's all. It's really not that much to ask, really!

Unacceptable and you should by now know that. If someone flames you, you ignore it, or report it. An eye for an eye, or in this case a flame for a flame makes both parties guilty.. and this was also a flame..

Oh we do it in jest. You know, a joke?

Now show me where I flamed you? I didn't. Would you also like me to point out the flames in other threads or inaccurate posts you've made? All I'm asking you as one player to another is to stop flaming, that's it, that's all. It's really not that much to ask, really!

Someone here can't take a joke :D

Do I have to point out to you that I use an isult only when insulted? This is a standard game between OD and I. We do this constently.the mods won't care... becareful Corneliu, that kind of 'game' can bring down mod wrath.

Hate to see ya forumbanned or worse.

the mods won't care... becareful Corneliu, that kind of attitude can bring down mod wrath.

Hate to see ya forumbanned or worse.

Yea I know. I kinda love these forums even though I am outnumbered. Alwell, that's the price you pay when your to the right of center.

Someone here can't take a joke :D

Calling my husband and I idiots is not a joke, see a joke is suppose to be funny. That has no markings of a joke.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread. Just stop flaming Corneliu, it only hampers your argument. I know you're more mature than that. Or at least I thought you were.

Yea I know. I kinda love these forums even though I am outnumbered. Alwell, that's the price you pay when your to the right of center.or anywhere but the extreme ends. [sigh] :(

Calling my husband and I idiots is not a joke, see a joke is suppose to be funny. That has no markings of a joke.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread. Just stop flaming Corneliu, it only hampers your argument. I know you're more mature than that. Or at least I thought you were.

Wait, you thought me mature? Damn, there goes my cover. Alwell....:D

Sorry Steph, won't happen again.

or anywhere but the extreme ends. [sigh] :(

Good point on that one JuNii. You have a distinct point! It is sad really that only the extremes get the coverage and not those in the middle.

Good point on that one JuNii. You have a distinct point! It is sad really that only the extremes get the coverage and not those in the middle.

Hah! The Middle is for weak-minded fools who don't have the intestinal fortitude to be extremists! :p

Good point on that one JuNii. You have a distinct point! It is sad really that only the extremes get the coverage and not those in the middle.

Heh, are you implying you're in the middle Corneliu? Come on, you know you're about as conservative as they come, just like I know I'm about as liberal as they come. ;)

Heh, are you implying you're in the middle Corneliu? Come on, you know you're about as conservative as they come, just like I know I'm about as liberal as they come. ;)

LOL! Now that's true but I'm not on the extreme side of right hand side of the spectrum! So compared to those that are on the extreme side of the spectrum, I am in the middle :D

Hah! The Middle is for weak-minded fools who don't have the intestinal fortitude to be extremists! :pNah, the middle usually comes up with the solutions that ends up killing threads. :D

Heh, are you implying you're in the middle Corneliu? Come on, you know you're about as conservative as they come, just like I know I'm about as liberal as they come. ;)Remeber, he(?) said he was close to center... for the extremes, that's close enough. :D

Remeber, he(?) said he was close to center... for the extremes, that's close enough. :D

Thank God you called me a he. I'm tired of being mistaken for a girl. It really burns me up to be called a female.

And yea, compared to the extremists, I am in the middle :D

And yea, compared to the extremists, I am in the middle :D

Well in that case I guess I'm in the middle too.. lmao. :D

are you romanian Corneliu? Corneliu is a Romanian name...

Well in that case I guess I'm in the middle too.. lmao. :D

*dies of a heart attack* :D

Anyway, troops stay till the job is done! "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down"

are you romanian Corneliu? Corneliu is a Romanian name...

Actually, I didn't add the s for Cornelius which I believe is Roman/Italian. No. I'm an American and Damn proud to be one too :)

Thank God you called me a he. I'm tired of being mistaken for a girl. It really burns me up to be called a female.

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that it says Über Spamgirl right under your name..

*dies of a heart attack* :D

Anyway, troops stay till the job is done! "When the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down"

If you read my lil rant in this thread (when I was actually on topic...lol) I agreed with that. I was against the war, still am, but US broke it, they have to stay and fix it. I agree.

Us in agreement is sort of creepy, no? LOL :p

See, you mistake Romania (Eastern European country) for the Romans. Our languange has pretty deep Latin roots, hence the similarity Corneliu/Cornelius

Maybe that has something to do with the fact that it says Über Spamgirl right under your name..

I blame Jolt for that. Can't wait to hit 9,000 posts so that can be gotten rid of.

If you read my lil rant in this thread (when I was actually on topic...lol) I agreed with that. I was against the war, still am, but US broke it, they have to stay and fix it. I agree.

Us in agreement is sort of creepy, no? LOL :p

LOL! Yea it is creepy but I was for it and still am. so we disagree there so we'll call this a tie :D

Wait, you thought me mature? Damn, there goes my cover. Alwell....:D

Sorry Steph, won't happen again.
Ummmm Steph? As in Stephistan, or are you just hallucinating?

Ummmm Steph? As in Stephistan, or are you just hallucinating?

uhh no I'm not!

Ummmm Steph? As in Stephistan, or are you just hallucinating?

Heya Canuck!!! Nope it is I, Stephistan.. and Zep was back too.. as "Leperous monkeyballs" I had intended to keep my identity secret, but I felt they (mods) went after Leperous monkeyballs unfairly.. so I blew my cover..lol.

In This Thread Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429367)

I'm sure you'll see Zep's writing style. ;)

Heya Canuck!!! Nope it is I, Stephistan.. and Zep was back too.. as "Leperous monkeyballs" I had intended to keep my identity secret, but I felt they (mods) went after Leperous monkeyballs unfairly.. so I blew my cover..lol.

In This Thread Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429367)

I'm sure you'll see Zep's writing style. ;)

I thought there was something odd about him. He seemed more uptight than usual. Not to mention he was more vehement too! But that is just my opinion. :D

I thought there was something odd about him. He seemed more uptight than usual. Not to mention he was more vehement too! But that is just my opinion. :D

He was justing having fun role playing.. some didn't get it.. but it was all in fun. C'est la vie.

He was justing having fun role playing.. some didn't get it.. but it was all in fun. C'est la vie.

Well anyway, its good that your back Steph but this time, please try not to be to insulting to the US of A otherwise, I'm going to have to insult Canada just as hard :D

please try not to be to insulting to the US of A otherwise, I'm going to have to......
Bush is a moron.

sue me Corneliu. :D
dude, dont challenge me like that...you know I cant resist that kind of Challenge...wait! that was for Sthepanie...

Ah well...too late

Bush is a moron.

sue me Corneliu. :D

LOL!

*calls up his lawyer to have him serve the papers* :D

Well anyway, its good that your back Steph but this time, please try not to be to insulting to the US of A otherwise, I'm going to have to insult Canada just as hard :D

Nope, don't intend on going after the US like before, as now it's pointless, like it or not you US folk chose the Bush again, not happy about that, but no ranting or otherwise will change that the world is stuck with him till 2008. So, me trying to change anyone's mind about Bush is pointless now. He was elected and can't run again. So, I will have no choice but to live with it and hope that my friends to the south make better judgement calls in 2006 & 2008. :)

Nope, don't intend on going after the US like before, as now it's pointless, like it or not you US folk chose the Bush again, not happy about that, but no ranting or otherwise will change that the world is stuck with him till 2008.

I never thought I see this day. Steph wising up to the fact that people actually can make decision on there own :D THough you are right that it is pointless now to try to change anyone's mind.

So, me trying to change anyone's mind about Bush is pointless now. He was elected and can't run again. So, I will have no choice but to live with it and hope that my friends to the south make better judgement calls in 2006 & 2008. :)

Don't bet on it. I'll give you 3-1 that the Congress remains in Republican Hands. As for 2008, I'll worry about that when I see who is actually going to run for the office.

Don't bet on it. I'll give you 3-1 that the Congress remains in Republican Hands. As for 2008, I'll worry about that when I see who is actually going to run for the office.

Well, I'm not the betting type.. just the hoping type. :)

Whoever said I have no "faith" ..LOL

Well, I'm not the betting type.. just the hoping type. :)

Whoever said I have no "faith" ..LOL

hmm u? LOL! Come to think of it, I'm not a betting person either. I love giving odds though :D

hmm u? LOL! Come to think of it, I'm not a betting person either. I love giving odds though :D

Ah grasshopper, you have only just entered the political arena.. politics is one of those things that can turn on a dime, a blow job or a war.. or a million other variables... people in this poli-sci business spend years cultivating their craft and can be wrong often still.. you have to keep taking the pulse of a nation daily, watch trends, and all that can mean nothing at the end of the day come election day. People, we are fickle things.. and people turn on elected officials more than lawyers...lol Ya just never can tell what might pop up two days before an election.. I have often wonder why they call it "political science" as there is really nothing scientific about it, unless we weigh in chaos theory.. :D

.. I have often wonder why they call it "political science" as there is really nothing scientific about it, unless we weigh in chaos theory.. :D
Indeed.
Political Science is almost an oxymoron.

Heya Canuck!!! Nope it is I, Stephistan.. and Zep was back too.. as "Leperous monkeyballs" I had intended to keep my identity secret, but I felt they (mods) went after Leperous monkeyballs unfairly.. so I blew my cover..lol.

In This Thread Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=429367)

I'm sure you'll see Zep's writing style. ;)
A HUGE welcome back. I have enjoyed your posts, and thought to myself awhile back that they were like classic Steph's, but I dismissed that thought because you were an American. ;)

I also enjoyed LM's posts, although while praising one of his posts in particular, I suggested that he was overworking the vernacular a tad.

Anyways, I hope LM is not banned and that the two of you stick around awhile, to keep these overzealous righties in line. :)

I never have, do nor will ever support the Iraq war. And exactly how many terrorist attacks did we have before 9/11? Corrupt governments and their brainwashed and blind patriots hate life but love war! How many more lives? Sheeesh! That's all I have to say on this sad subject. I won't be back on this thread, so bombs away!

I'm actually amazed and impressed that the pro-war, anti-withdrawal option has drawn a plurality of the votes. I guess these forums aren't as rife with bolsheviks as I had previously thought.
Bolsheviks? Please explain.

Ah grasshopper, you have only just entered the political arena..

Granted. I've already giving poli sci professors headaches :D

politics is one of those things that can turn on a dime, a blow job or a war.. or a million other variables...

Yep yep yep! So very true. Especially the realm of International Politics :D

people in this poli-sci business spend years cultivating their craft and can be wrong often still..

Like you? ;)

you have to keep taking the pulse of a nation daily, watch trends, and all that can mean nothing at the end of the day come election day. People, we are fickle things.. and people turn on elected officials more than lawyers...lol Ya just never can tell what might pop up two days before an election.. I have often wonder why they call it "political science" as there is really nothing scientific about it, unless we weigh in chaos theory.. :D

HAHA!! Yea, I just have to go through the last few elections to see the last second crap that seems to pop up. That's ok, I mostly ignore the last second scandals and stay focused on the issues (to many don't do that :()

A HUGE welcome back. I have enjoyed your posts, and thought to myself awhile back that they were like classic Steph's, but I dismissed that thought because you were an American. ;)

Well I figured if I posted outright Canadian, it would be too obvious and surely give me away. However, it wasn't a lie either, I am an American, last time I checked the US didn't own North America, in fact Canada owns a much larger chunk of it..lol. But I agree I was a little misleading.

I also enjoyed LM's posts, although while praising one of his posts in particular, I suggested that he was overworking the vernacular a tad.

Anyways, I hope LM is not banned and that the two of you stick around awhile, to keep these overzealous righties in line. :)

Well, I can't speak for Zeppistan, as I think the run in with the mods to do with LM left sort of a bad taste in his mouth.. as he was only trying to have a little role play fun with a shock-jock type pundit character. But yeah, I'll probably stick around for a spell. It's great to see you. I wanted to tell some people who I was (you included) but I thought it best at the time to keep it to myself. ;)

I never have, do nor will ever support the Iraq war. And exactly how many terrorist attacks did we have before 9/11?

Do you want a list?

Bolsheviks? Please explain.

:headbang:

Bolsheviks=Communists

Come on, its littered throughout history that Bolsheviks is another name for Communists.

Do you want a list?

He may of meant on US soil. Now while I understand that embassies in other countries are considered US soil, most people don't really look at it that way. However, you're correct in implying 9/11 was not the first attack.

:headbang:

Bolsheviks=Communists

Come on, its littered throughout history that Bolsheviks is another name for Communists.That's not what I needed explaining. :rolleyes:

He may of meant on US soil. Now while I understand that embassies in other countries are considered US soil, most people don't really look at it that way. However, you're correct in implying 9/11 was not the first attack.

True true that people don't think of Embassies as that belonging to the nation that flies their flag. Also, warships are also considered soveriegn territory.

But I'll grant you that he meant US Soil. :)

You mean all these (http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hrdossier.pdf) murders and amputations and tortured prisoners?

That's good documentation, thanks.

Anybody defending Saddam's regime on NS - and there are a few - should read this. Good perspective on why self-governance in Iraq will be beneficial.

Saddam is a brutal man. Not reason enough to invade, maybe, but it's a damn good thing we did.

Personally, I hope to see him executed for his crimes.

That's good documentation, thanks.

Anybody defending Saddam's regime on NS - and there are a few - should read this. Good perspective on why self-governance in Iraq will be beneficial.

Saddam is a brutal man. Not reason enough to invade, maybe, but it's a damn good thing we did.

Personally, I hope to see him executed for his crimes.

Indeed but does that justify the US occupying Iraq? It's a little like, beating up the lunch bully. And then going to his house and making sure his parents do their job in the way that you agree with.

Indeed but does that justify the US occupying Iraq? It's a little like, beating up the lunch bully. And then going to his house and making sure his parents do their job in the way that you agree with.

No, it doesn't, in my view. But it was a part in justifying the invasion, and I'm happy for the Iraqi's that he is gone. Saddam's regime should not be defended - it was as brutal as any that has ever existed, if not by magnitude then by intention.

My point is that in the eternal debate over Iraq we can lose sight of some of the benefits of our occupation. As my mother would say, "look on the bright side".

We're there and we have accomplished some good things, too. It shouldn't diminish anyone's anti-war position to recognize these benefits.

only by killing some 100,000 people in the going and kicking over a giant can of worms
Which, even if true, is many less than the number of people killed by Saddam Hussein. And although predicting the future is impossible, it is likely, given past events, that Saddam and his successors would have killed many more. They would also have continued policies that kept the Shia and Kurdish populations in a permanent state of human rights denial.

Here's how I often describe my opinion of the whole situation:

Imagine that a guy broke into your house at night and killed your family in their sleep. Seeking vengance, you hunt the killer down and open fire at him in the middle of a crowded street, accidentally killing 50 innocent civilians in the process. Later on, you find out you killed the wrong guy, but he also happened to be a murderer. So, you don't feel AS bad about it. As for the civilians who got in the way, to explain it to the cops, you promise to help their families in this desperate time of need, changing your story from blind revenge to humanitarian and just. The real killer is still walking the streets, and occasionally you get a lead, but don't really follow up on it, instead opting to commit your life (or the lives of how many nessicary) to make the life of the previous uninvolved, dead civilians better.

In this imaginary scenario, a murderer is dead, which is GOOD, but innocent civilians are also dead. I doubt the families that the first, wrong killer affected would be comforted to know that they have been avenged, but that their fellow civilians fell into the crossfire and are simply written off as a casualty of revenge.
Here's are some amendments to improve the accuracy:

Let the criminal you are after not be a single-case murderer, but a man who has set off a series of firebombs in homes around the city. Around 800 people have been killed in his attacks. He also has several hundred cases of assault under his belt.

Continue from there. My supplied figures are more accurate proportionally to Saddam's victims (even not including Iran war in the 80s) vs victims of the US war in Iraq.

to Saddam is evil and gassed his own people (over freaking 12 years ago) so we must liberate Iraq to everything in between.

Do you believe in the UN Declaration of Human Rights 1948?

I guess these forums aren't as rife with bolsheviks as I had previously thought.
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a communist."

Are you at it again insulting people Corneliu?

You know, I was always surprised you never figured out who I was..lol :p
How were we all supposed to know who you were??? ;) There were no constant references to "my hubby".