NationStates Jolt Archive

Deadly attacks increase pressure on Bush
New survey shows lowest approval yet for his handling of war

NEWS ANALYSIS
By Tom Raum
The Associated Press
Updated: 8:41 a.m. ET Aug. 5, 2005

Editor's Note: Tom Raum has covered Washington for The Associated Press since 1973, including five presidencies.


WASHINGTON - The deadly recent attacks on American troops in Iraq are increasing the pressure on President Bush to develop an exit strategy. The U.S. death toll from the war is now over 1,800, and a new AP-Ipsos poll shows the lowest approval yet for Bush’s handling of Iraq, just 38 percent.

The president’s fellow Republicans are growing nervous as they head into an election year.

Yet the administration must also confront the possibility that a U.S. drawdown of troops — tentatively planned to begin next spring — could further embolden the insurgents and throw Iraq into civil war.

“We will stay the course. We will complete the job in Iraq,” Bush pledged anew during a news conference on his Texas ranch with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Bush suggested his resolve was only strengthened by a videotaped warning earlier Thursday from al-Qaida’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, threatening more terror attacks in Britain and tens of thousands of U.S. military deaths if the United States doesn’t withdraw.

There has been little outward sign of progress in U.S.-led efforts to defeat the insurgency and to beef up the Iraqi army and police so they can take over security responsibilities and allow an orderly withdrawal of American forces.

Particularly lethal bombings over the past few weeks, including a roadside bomb that claimed the lives of 14 Marines on Wednesday, have made the situation look even bleaker than U.S. military experts suggest it is.

Eroding support
That translates into a continued erosion of public support for Bush’s Iraq policy at home.

An AP-Ipsos poll taken Monday through Wednesday indicated that just 38 percent of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of Iraq. A year ago, the public was evenly divided on Iraq, and Bush’s stance on the war and terrorism helped him to election victory.

Bush has lost support most dramatically among younger women, especially those who live in the suburbs, and among men with a high school education or less.

Despite the horrific headlines, many military analysts say that attacks on U.S. troops have actually remained constant in recent weeks while attacks on Iraqi civilians have increased.

“As tragic as they are, they don’t establish a pattern that says U.S. casualties are getting consistently worse,” said Anthony H. Cordesman, an Iraq expert and former Pentagon intelligence official. He attributed recent deaths of Marines to the fact that “these are more aggressive military patrols going into hostile areas.”


Even so, Bush faces a real dilemma, said Cordesman, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The president’s legacy, if he fails in Iraq, historically is an absolute disaster. President Bush and the Bush administration can scarcely ignore that problem.”

“If you pull out troops too quickly now, and you see the situation in Iraq collapse before the midterm elections, the impact is going to be far more serious than if you keep the troops in at reasonable levels,” Cordesman said.

Regardless of whether attacks against U.S. troops are increasing overall or remaining constant, the deaths over the past few days of Marines in western Iraq — including multiple losses for the community of Brook Park, Ohio — underscore that things in Iraq are not going well.

Jeff Mers, commander of a VFW post that has raised money and sent care packages to the Columbus-based Marine company that suffered the heaviest losses, said that even before this week’s attacks, he and other veterans were dazed from attending funerals.

‘Grim reminder’
“I think I’ve been to nine of these just in central Ohio in the past few months,” he said.

Bush called the fallen Marines a “grim reminder” that America is still at war.

The war will be a major factor in the 2006 midterm congressional races and could be one in the 2008 presidential race, said Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University political scientist who has studied the impact of wars on American politics.

“If you look at it from a Republican point of view, by the 2006 congressional elections, you’re going to want to have a timetable in place for withdrawal of U.S. forces and their replacement by Iraqis. And by the fall of 2008, you will want to have most U.S. forces out of there,” Cimbala said.

© 2005 The Associated Press.
Sucks, eh?

14 Marines die and we should just pull out?

Man, I'm glad Eisenhower didn't have your inititive.

Dont make wars without doors.
Pennywise Pound Foolish.

Bush had at least a 78% approval rating at one stage.

14 Marines die and we should just pull out?

Man, I'm glad Eisenhower didn't have your inititive.

That's just one of many examples that happen on a near daily basis for a "war" that's rather unwinnable, especially any time in the foreseeable future.

Bush is screwed. Just saying "stay the course" for the 500th time isn't going to cut it any more.
It seemed inevitable from the beginning though that he'd be the last victim of his own rhetoric. Damn shame.

The guy's approval rating's 'bout the same as our current Gov in our state. He, also, is a boorish, spoiled, intellectually-and-fiduciarily-challenged belligerent Republican.
Bush appears in better physical shape though ... but Murkowski beats him on syntax.

"I'm not going to get bogged down in the details, because ... i don't have to."
-Murkowski, with a pout, folding his arms.


....AND Bush says ....

_____________________________________ *insert quote here*

that's pretty high in my opinion, must be the die hard republicans who think a republican can never be wrong, unless they are a democrat in disguise. :D
(die hard democrats are just as bad).
That's why I think American politics is screwed, even if Bush declares tomorrow he's made himself a dictator 20% of republicans would say, "good keep those damn commie democrats out of office".

Bush will be remembered for the war started under his administration.
He hardly had a mandate to start the damn war in the first place, and as a big boy he needs to accept responsibility for his own public image.

What's the old saying? Live by the sword...

Bush will be remembered for the war started under his administration.
He hardly had a mandate to start the damn war in the first place, and as a big boy he needs to accept responsibility for his own public image.

What's the old saying? Live by the sword...

Die by the daily car and suicide bombings that have killed over 1,800 US troops and over 100,000 Iraqis?

By guess is that the war will be continued under the next regime.

His approval's at an all time low, the Congress' is plunging to new lows, support for his policies are faltering, and now this. I'd say 2001-2008 is going to be the rise and fall of the neocons (and possibly even Republicans in gneral); we'll see the first backlash starting in 2006 Congressional elections.

About 100% worse though was what I heard Rumsfeld say on the news yesterday:

Rumsfeld said he was referring to Syria's refusal to return Iraqi funds, housing of Baathists from Saddam Hussein's fallen regime and the flow of insurgents across the border. He said Syria was also "undoubtedly financing" some of the Iraqi insurgency.

"(Syria is) going to have to live in that neighborhood and Iraq doesn't like what Syria's doing," Rumsfeld said in a question-and-answer session following his speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council at the Beverly Hilton Hotel.

"Iraq is going to be in that neighborhood for a very long time. It's a bigger country and a richer country and will be a more powerful country," he said. "(In my view) the Syrians are not behaving in a wise manner at the present time."

What the fuck? If that isn't warmongering, then I don't know what is. Really, using Iraq as a threat to its neighbours?

About 100% worse though was what I heard Rumsfeld say on the news yesterday:



What the fuck? If that isn't warmongering, then I don't know what is. Really, using Iraq as a threat to its neighbours?

They don't know how to do anything else.

Nah, it's more like portraying Iraq as a threatened country and using that as an excuse to go into Syria

Hey, does, does anyone remember when good news came out of Iraq? Like, like when schools are being built, or, uh, when a terrorist is stoped and lives are saved, or, jeez, uhm, or how about those elections? Oh, wait, that's right, the US military walked those people to the elections with guns behind their backs saying, "Vote, damn you, vote!" Just like Sadam, right?

Last time I read a newspaper or got a news blip on Yahoo!, it was another report of a bomb going off or people dying, there is a war going on isn't there? Sorry, stupid question, of course not -- we haven't had one of those since 1945. Now I know most American's have an intention span of about 5 seconds or change their minds the second they see a squirl run by the window, but does anyone remember those terroist attacks that killed 3'000 people? September something, something, right? Or those attacks overseas, some ship, some embassy, something in 1993. I know when that September date gets brought up its just to scare people or make them feel bad. No, it's not to remind them that on that day everything changed, how stupid to think that. I guess saying December 7, 1941 over and over again does the same thing, oh, stupid man.

I know most people probably don't remember this either, but the US was at war for their independence and didn't even have the Articles of Confederation (anyone remember those?) ratified until after the war, which ended in failure, and they had to rewrite another, the present day, Constitution and ratify it in 1787. I thought things just happened over night, we wrote some Declaration and England backed off and things were all happy and the rivers ran with chocolate. Silly boy!

It doesn't matter; I want Bush to fail. It was a stupid thing to have done. We should have done what Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton did, just maintained the status-quo for stability in the region. Then, nothing bad would ever happen. Should have put more stock in the UN, let them do what they do best. We should just pull our troops out, I mean, none of us actually wants to be over there, and the terrorists would leave us alone. Pull out of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, and wherever else our troops are. Bring them all home! The world doesn't need us obviously, we just screw things up and make matters worse, all the time. Then we'll just mind our own business. If anything bad happens, we'll say we're sorry and hope cooler heads pervail.

That's the kind of America I want my kids to grow up in. That's one I want people to be proud of. An America that breaks under pressure. An America that listens to whatever the majority says, cause they are ALWAYS right! An America that mids its own business because it realizes it doesn't do any good at all, it just causes death and destruction. That's my America. God, oh, sorry, no body bless America!

According to the university of DUHHHHHHH Bush is a crappy president...

Hey, does, does anyone remember when good news came out of Iraq? Like, like when schools are being built, or, uh, when a terrorist is stoped and lives are saved, or, jeez, uhm, or how about those elections? Oh, wait, that's right, the US military walked those people to the elections with guns behind their backs saying, "Vote, damn you, vote!" Just like Sadam, right?

Last time I read a newspaper or got a news blip on Yahoo!, it was another report of a bomb going off or people dying, there is a war going on isn't there? Sorry, stupid question, of course not -- we haven't had one of those since 1945. Now I know most American's have an intention span of about 5 seconds or change their minds the second they see a squirl run by the window, but does anyone remember those terroist attacks that killed 3'000 people? September something, something, right? Or those attacks overseas, some ship, some embassy, something in 1993. I know when that September date gets brought up its just to scare people or make them feel bad. No, it's not to remind them that on that day everything changed, how stupid to think that. I guess saying December 7, 1941 over and over again does the same thing, oh, stupid man.

I know most people probably don't remember this either, but the US was at war for their independence and didn't even have the Articles of Confederation (anyone remember those?) ratified until after the war, which ended in failure, and they had to rewrite another, the present day, Constitution and ratify it in 1787. I thought things just happened over night, we wrote some Declaration and England backed off and things were all happy and the rivers ran with chocolate. Silly boy!

It doesn't matter; I want Bush to fail. It was a stupid thing to have done. We should have done what Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton did, just maintained the status-quo for stability in the region. Then, nothing bad would ever happen. Should have put more stock in the UN, let them do what they do best. We should just pull our troops out, I mean, none of us actually wants to be over there, and the terrorists would leave us alone. Pull out of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, and wherever else our troops are. Bring them all home! The world doesn't need us obviously, we just screw things up and make matters worse, all the time. Then we'll just mind our own business. If anything bad happens, we'll say we're sorry and hope cooler heads pervail.

That's the kind of America I want my kids to grow up in. That's one I want people to be proud of. An America that breaks under pressure. An America that listens to whatever the majority says, cause they are ALWAYS right! An America that mids its own business because it realizes it doesn't do any good at all, it just causes death and destruction. That's my America. God, oh, sorry, no body bless America!

What does any of that have to do with Iraq?

I think he is doing a good job in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't give much credibility to polls. Last time I really trusted a poll was on November 2nd, 2004. Never again. How big was the sample in the poll? Let me guess.. inadequate as usual.

I don't want Bush to fail. To advocate failure is a great error. It will have implications on future generations in highly negative ways.

Now I know most American's have an intention span of about 5 seconds or change their minds the second they see a squirl run by the window, but does anyone remember those terroist attacks that killed 3'000 people?
:p

But seriously, I have no idea WTF you're talking about.

They don't know how to do anything else.
Nah, it's more like portraying Iraq as a threatened country and using that as an excuse to go into Syria

Do you guys think it's worth starting a seperate thread?

Do you guys think it's worth starting a seperate thread?
Meh. Not really, but knock yourself out.

Oh, and Aquilapus?

Here's a few things.

Schools being built- bombed by terrorists
Terrorists- not caught, still bombing
Elections- slight boost to approval ratings, end there.

Guess what? WE sold weapons and gave aid to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and now we're blaming THEM for our problems. And the presidents who sold them weapons? All republican.

September something, something, right?

"September, something, something". Hilarious :)

Guess what? WE sold weapons and gave aid to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and now we're blaming THEM for our problems. And the presidents who sold them weapons? All republican.

Most of Iraqis weapons were Russian/French origin, and the only thing we gave the Afghanis were stingers to hold off soviet troops.

Bush is doing a fine job.

Hey, does, does anyone remember when good news came out of Iraq? Like, like when schools are being built, or, uh, when a terrorist is stoped and lives are saved, or, jeez, uhm, or how about those elections? Oh, wait, that's right, the US military walked those people to the elections with guns behind their backs saying, "Vote, damn you, vote!" Just like Sadam, right?

Last time I read a newspaper or got a news blip on Yahoo!, it was another report of a bomb going off or people dying, there is a war going on isn't there? Sorry, stupid question, of course not -- we haven't had one of those since 1945. Now I know most American's have an intention span of about 5 seconds or change their minds the second they see a squirl run by the window, but does anyone remember those terroist attacks that killed 3'000 people? September something, something, right? Or those attacks overseas, some ship, some embassy, something in 1993. I know when that September date gets brought up its just to scare people or make them feel bad. No, it's not to remind them that on that day everything changed, how stupid to think that. I guess saying December 7, 1941 over and over again does the same thing, oh, stupid man.

I know most people probably don't remember this either, but the US was at war for their independence and didn't even have the Articles of Confederation (anyone remember those?) ratified until after the war, which ended in failure, and they had to rewrite another, the present day, Constitution and ratify it in 1787. I thought things just happened over night, we wrote some Declaration and England backed off and things were all happy and the rivers ran with chocolate. Silly boy!

It doesn't matter; I want Bush to fail. It was a stupid thing to have done. We should have done what Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton did, just maintained the status-quo for stability in the region. Then, nothing bad would ever happen. Should have put more stock in the UN, let them do what they do best. We should just pull our troops out, I mean, none of us actually wants to be over there, and the terrorists would leave us alone. Pull out of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, and wherever else our troops are. Bring them all home! The world doesn't need us obviously, we just screw things up and make matters worse, all the time. Then we'll just mind our own business. If anything bad happens, we'll say we're sorry and hope cooler heads pervail.

That's the kind of America I want my kids to grow up in. That's one I want people to be proud of. An America that breaks under pressure. An America that listens to whatever the majority says, cause they are ALWAYS right! An America that mids its own business because it realizes it doesn't do any good at all, it just causes death and destruction. That's my America. God, oh, sorry, no body bless America!

Seriously, though, this was a good read.

Oh, yeah, by the way. I don't think we are actually going to win this war, sorry, conflict or struggle, whatever. The reason why we won't win it is because no body wants us to. Only have a handful of allies (remember those people that are dying over there too, it our fault though, because we lied and they aren't smart enough to make their own choices). What a mistake. Things were going so well too. I just wish people would leave us alone! We'll give them whatever they want. I mean, we are the real terrorists after all.

Now that I spewed out all that BS.

You can disagree with this war all you want. But that doesn't change things. We are there and we are going to stay there until the job is done. Not half ass it like most people want to do. While 1'800 deaths is tragic, remember that 500'000 died in WWII, 75'000 died in Vietnam (which wasn't an actual war, right, just a conflict or struggle), and thousands of others have dies on the account of terrorism over the past 30 years. The first time someone actually does something about it, everyone gets pissed off because "it's the wrong thing to do". We'll what's the right thing to do? How would you confront terrorism, it is a problem isn't it? Go to the UN? Remember Kosovo, Africa, and Iraq? Let those 16 resolutions go on counting? Or keep those economic sanctions up, those ones that people said kept Sadam in check in the 90s, but now they have changed that tune to it was killing babies? Offer some suggestions here. If you aren't going to, SHUT THE HELL UP! It's so easy to be negative, to denounce, or to give up and quit. The hardest thing to do in times like these is be possitive, to offer suggestions, or to keep on fighting until the end. Last time I checked, the first option isn't an American characteristic. Those who choose that, yeah, you AREN'T AN AMERICAN. Those of you who choose the last option, who offer suggestions and are possitive, you are American's.

When we loose this war, and the poo really hits the fan. When a nuclear bomb goes off in New York or Chicago. I know exactly where to place blame, President Bush, not his predecesors, but just Bush. He got us into this, it's all his fault for doing something different. Doing something to actually change the world for the better. Shame on you Mr. Bush.

Actually, when that happens. I'm not going to blame anyone. It doesn't matter. What matters is that we destroy this problem of terrorism together, with or withour help, and fight it out to the end. Regardless of what happens next or what anyone says about us.

Boo-who-who, nobody likes us! :( I just want everyone to like the US and everything we do. I just want to be popular and be the Homecoming King!!!

Hey, rest of the world, SHUT UP!

Most of Iraqis weapons were Russian/French origin, and the only thing we gave the Afghanis were stingers to hold off soviet troops.

Bush is doing a fine job.

That doesn't mean we didn't sell the Iraqis weapons, it just means others sold them more.

And we also gave the Afghanis about $245 million in aid to help them fight as well. I guess they repaid us for that big time.

Seriously, though, this was a good read.

For the hilarity yes, but that's about it.

Oh, and Aquilapus?

Here's a few things.

Schools being built- bombed by terrorists
Terrorists- not caught, still bombing
Elections- slight boost to approval ratings, end there.

Guess what? WE sold weapons and gave aid to both Iraq and Afghanistan, and now we're blaming THEM for our problems. And the presidents who sold them weapons? All republican.

Just to brush up on your history, during the Iraq-Iran war, France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, AND the US sold Iraq WMD's because nobody wanted the Shah of Iran to win. So go join your Euro buddies who have never done anything wrong. Isn't the Pragmatism of our grandparents and parent a bitch? We'll just clean it up later.

Just to brush up on your history, during the Iraq-Iran war, France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, AND the US sold Iraq WMD's because nobody wanted the Shah of Iran to win. So go join your Euro buddies who have never done anything wrong. Isn't the Pragmatism of our grandparents and parent a bitch? We'll just clean it up later.

That might be true, but we were the only idiots who sold weapons to BOTH sides.

Iraq- To defeat Iran and get back our hostages
Iran- To get on their good sides and possibly get back hostages


Then we used the funds from the sale to fund contrarevolutionaries in Nicaragua and allow them to destroy the legitimately elected government.

Just to brush up on your history, during the Iraq-Iran war, France, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, AND the US sold Iraq WMD's because nobody wanted the Shah of Iran to win.
HAHAHAHHA!
The Shah?

I think someone said it earlier that it will habe to be continued into the next admin. The next President will not like to be seen as the one that slinked away and lost to a bunch of rag tag insurgents.......

....the New Vietnam anyone.... :confused:

What does any of that have to do with Iraq?

I know this is just Republican mumbo-jumbo, but Iraq is just another area of operations in the overall War on Terrorism, or struggle against terrorism, whatever they want to call it to be PC.

It's got everything to do with Iraq.

Bah.

Iraq wasn't worth it. It was like stirring a hornet's nest.

More important targets SHOULD have been Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

Bush was too stupid to see them on a map, I guess.

Oh but Iraq was very much worth it. I would put a bullet in Saddam's head myself.

Also, let me say this.. I'm shocked to see so many want failure.. when it can adversely affect them.

That might be true, but we were the only idiots who sold weapons to BOTH sides.

Iraq- To defeat Iran and get back our hostages
Iran- To get on their good sides and possibly get back hostages


Then we used the funds from the sale to fund contrarevolutionaries in Nicaragua and allow them to destroy the legitimately elected government.

Is George W. Bush to blame for the idiocy of those before him?

I'm going to get something to eat, feel free to drop me a telegram. I'm not even going to get into the new Vietnam comparison (there are similarities, but they are two completly different wars, with two completly different origins). I did loose my temper a little with all the shut ups, so, sorry (that was F'n hard!) about that. Overall, just wake up and smell the coffee people!!! Good posts too! And, it was the Shah wasn't it, or should I just say some religious guy with a towel over his head? (That wasn't PC!!!)

Oh but Iraq was very much worth it. I would put a bullet in Saddam's head myself.

Also, let me say this.. I'm shocked to see so many want failure.. when it can adversely affect them.

Failure helps no one at this stage- esp the Iraqi people themselves. Failure= civil war, a religious civil war that will drag in Iran, possibly Turkey with the Kurd problem and spread amongst the less then stable Saudi Kingdom.

It goes without saying that bush is an idiot, and even the staunchest supporters of the iraq war must now admit that it wasnt exactly the best idea, but pulling out the troops now would be even worse. the only police, security, and effective government in iraq right now are the ones that we are maintaining. pulling out without first establishing a decent infrastructure would leave the country literally in anarchy. the Sunnis and Shiites would start fighting again, leading to civil war with a bodycount dwarfing the war bush started. And in the end the only way order could be restored is if either a sunni warlord like saddam gained power, or the shiites won and established an islamic theocracy like Iran.

Bush created this God awful mess. He should at least be given the time to clean it up.

Is George W. Bush to blame for the idiocy of those before him?

He has PLENTY of that to begin with, but I find it unfair that Aqui is blaming solely the Democrats on this one.

Oh but Iraq was very much worth it. I would put a bullet in Saddam's head myself.

Also, let me say this.. I'm shocked to see so many want failure.. when it can adversely affect them.

It was worth the lives of 1800 US soldiers so that America could settle a GRUDGE?

Nobody wants failure, but if Bush keeps up this handling of Iraq, we'll get failure whether we want it or not.

Bah.

Iraq wasn't worth it. It was like stirring a hornet's nest.

More important targets SHOULD have been Iran, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

Bush was too stupid to see them on a map, I guess.

So it would have been OK if Bush attacked one or all of those countries? That'd somehow be easier, or different?

Failure helps no one at this stage- esp the Iraqi people themselves. Failure= civil war, a religious civil war that will drag in Iran, possibly Turkey with the Kurd problem and spread amongst the less then stable Saudi Kingdom.

I don't want failure and I asked my friends who opposed it, and they don't want it at this stage either. Iraq is headed for success no matter the obstacles, in my opinion.

It goes without saying that bush is an idiot, and even the staunchest supporters of the iraq war must now admit that it wasnt exactly the best idea


Actually I don't agree at all. You can't speak for war supporters. It was a great fucking idea. It was so good that Saddam is now facing trial.

So it would have been OK if Bush attacked one or all of those countries? That'd somehow be easier, or different?
Easier? No.
More justified? Certainly.

But also pretty impossible, at least to attack Saudi Arabia...

He has PLENTY of that to begin with, but I find it unfair that Aqui is blaming solely the Democrats on this one.



It was worth the lives of 1800 US soldiers so that America could settle a GRUDGE?

Nobody wants failure, but if Bush keeps up this handling of Iraq, we'll get failure whether we want it or not.

Dude, go back and find out were I was blaming anyone, or blamed the Democrats or liberals or Republicans or anyone for that matter. Do you have a guilty conscience?

Dude, go back and find out were I was blaming anyone, or blamed the Democrats or liberals or Republicans or anyone for that matter. Do you have a guilty conscience?


Of what? What position are you trying to take, I don't see it.


Actually I don't agree at all. You can't speak for war supporters. It was a great fucking idea. It was so good that Saddam is now facing trial.

I ask you one more time: Was the lives of 1,800 US Soldiers and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis worth this grudge?

I ask you one more time: Was the lives of 1,800 US Soldiers and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis worth this grudge?

Yes it was. It was very well worth the sacrifice.

I'm not surprised about the approval rating, but remember the election. He had less than 50% approval rating then, and still won.

Most of Iraqis weapons were Russian/French origin, and the only thing we gave the Afghanis were stingers to hold off soviet troops.
Only? We shoved weapons up their asses. We armed the Islamic extremists to the tooth, in an effort to stop the Soviets from taking over. We trained Osama and the other current terrorists, and we act suprised because they're hard to catch?

If you play with fire, you're gonna get burned.

does anyone remember those terroist attacks that killed 3'000 people? September something, something, right? Or those attacks overseas, some ship, some embassy, something in 1993. I know when that September date gets brought up its just to scare people or make them feel bad. No, it's not to remind them that on that day everything changed, how stupid to think that. I guess saying December 7, 1941 over and over again does the same thing, oh, stupid man.
And what did Iraq have to do with that? That's why I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and any action taken against the terrorists. That seems to have fallen by the wayside, now. It's been forgotten, eclipsed by a pointless war started without reason. They tried to say he had WMDs, but now that the truth is out about that, they bullshitted about "liberating the Iraqi people". Almost nobody remembers what we went to war for in the first place.

A good percentage of Americans have no real business complaining at this point. If you want to believe in the polls, when the war started 70% of us were in favor of it. Pro-war sentiment seemed so pervasive that I thought I was the only person in the world that thought the war was a retarded idea... but maybe that was just media spin. And this 70% was long enough after 9/11 that people should have been able to think rationally about things like wars and occupation. What did that 70% think was going to happen? :headbang:

Plus 52% of us voted Bush back in office AGAIN... knowing full well what Bush was about. 14 of that 52% apparently don't approve of the handling of the war by Bush... if that's so then what were they thinking about? Was the war not an important issue? Was stopping gays from getting married really that fucking important? It's not like these elections were all that long ago.

Off topic, I did however agree with the idea of invading Afghanistan, although it seems like we've forgotten about Afghanistan real quickly, just like we did in the 80's, which is what started the problems up there in the first place.

For what we've accomplished over there, we could have spent the money building a huge rocket, put 1800 servicemen and women into it, then fired it into the sun and it would have been about as effective as our current 'plan'. :(

Yes it was. It was very well worth the sacrifice.

You ass. You cost people their husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, daughters, and sons because you didn't like Saddam. I dare you to say to the Americans who lost loved ones that "it was worth it, because it'll be so fucking sweet to put Saddam on trial!" and see their reaction.

Robot and the rest of you can peddle all the anti-americanism you want. Great. Go ahead. I could care less.

Aquilapus, you make good points, so rather than just citisize, ill take your advice and propose something (probally crappy but what the hey).


Why not give the terrorists/unsrugents/whatever theyre own part of the country, we (im australian but for some reason my prime minister felt obliged to send our troops into iraq without even having it pass through the dam parliament.) focus on rebuilding the part of the country that wants our help, and stay the hell away from the part that dosent?

Hows that sound to everyone?

bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity.

You ass. You cost people their husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, daughters, and sons because you didn't like Saddam. I dare you to say to the Americans who lost loved ones that "it was worth it, because it'll be so fucking sweet to put Saddam on trial!" and see their reaction.

You have been reported. I have a relative in Iraq, and three friends. Your attitude is unacceptable. I do think it was worth it. That does not make me an "ass".

Of what? What position are you trying to take, I don't see it.



I ask you one more time: Was the lives of 1,800 US Soldiers and HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis worth this grudge?

I'm not taking a position in those posts I wrote. My position is that I support the war, I support president Bush (not on all his policies mind you), and we need to finish this war to the very end.

Yes, the lives of those lost has been worth it, and it's not a grudge. I would rather have no deaths and just have Bush and Usama fight it out in a boxing ring and whoever wins wins. That's not how things happen though. It would be cool if they did, but they don't.

Seriously though, I'm starving, need to grab a samich. I'll be on in a few hours, I'll check this post. If you want an immediate response from me later, telegram me! Later, good posts. See you on the intellectual battlefield later Asia.

Robot and the rest of you can peddle all the anti-americanism you want. Great. Go ahead. I could care less.

Anti Americanism? Is that the best argument you have? We've shown how your ideas have harmed America and you call US anti Americanists?

What next, should we follow our leaders like blind sheep?

If you didn't realize, America was founded on dissent, and I'm proud to keep it that way.

You have been reported. I have a relative in Iraq, and three friends. Your attitude is unacceptable. I do think it was worth it. That does not make me an "ass".


report for having an opinion?

Anti Americanism? Is that the best argument you have? We've shown how your ideas have harmed America and you call US anti Americanists?

What next, should we follow our leaders like blind sheep?

If you didn't realize, America was founded on dissent, and I'm proud to keep it that way.

YOU ARE THE ONE HARMING AMERICA. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTS FAILURE. SHAME ON YOU. You are the one who wants more and more failure. America was not founded on failure mongers.

report for having an opinion?

No.. reported for calling me an ass.

Anti Americanism?
Calm down.
He does that sometimes. You're not going to convince him otherwise.
You can try, but stay calm, otherwise you end up being the one in trouble for flaming and insulting.

According to him, I want to see all Americans dead too.

YOU ARE THE ONE HARMING AMERICA. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTS FAILURE. SHAME ON YOU. You are the one who wants more and more failure. America was not founded on failure mongers.

You're an idiot. I don't want failure. I avoid failure at all costs. But saying that something ISN'T failing when all signs point to it failing doesn't change it from a failure to a success.

I'm not a failure monger any more than I'm white. But if we DON'T change our current policy, we are not guaranteed success.

Calm down.
He does that sometimes. You're not going to convince him otherwise.
You can try, but stay calm, otherwise you end up being the one in trouble for flaming and insulting.

According to him, I want to see all Americans dead too.

Apparently someone doesn't read my posts thoroughly.

You know, I just don't know how bush lives with himself

Apparently someone doesn't read my posts thoroughly.

First off, your one sentence posts are read thoroughly in 2 seconds. Secondly, you ignored my entire post, don't even think about addressing others ignoring yours.

Apparently someone doesn't read my posts thoroughly.
Explain.
You reported him for calling you "an ass". Hardly a real insult in these days.

You called me "Anti-American" many times, and you suggested that I want to see Americans dead, that I want to see you fail.
Didn't you?

First off, your one sentence posts are read thoroughly in 2 seconds. Secondly, you ignored my entire post, don't even think about addressing others ignoring yours.

Wake up. My posts often are a lot more then just one sentence. Additionally, I'm sick of your damn attitude.. the "I'm right and if you disagree with me.. you're an ass" attitude. Nice one.

For what we've accomplished over there, we could have spent the money building a huge rocket, put 1800 servicemen and women into it, then fired it into the sun and it would have been about as effective as our current 'plan'. :(
No sir, you are wrong. Knowing that mankind had the technology to send 1800 self-sacrificing human beings that far into space could certainly have been considered an admirable endeavor.

Jeez guys, chill for a minute :(

You can be pro-dissent and not 'anti'-something. They're not mutually exclusive.

I didn't see where Southwset Asia said he wanted to see Iraq fail....Bush yes, Iraq no.

No sir, you are wrong. Knowing that mankind had the technology to send 1800 self-sacrificing human beings that far into space could certainly have been considered an admirable endeavor.
:D

Ok, everyone chill. Remember: the more insults you throw into your answers, the less credible your argument looks.

Wake up. My posts often are a lot more then just one sentence. Additionally, I'm sick of your damn attitude.. the "I'm right and if you disagree with me.. you're an ass" attitude. Nice one.

Better than your "I'm right and if you disagree with me...you're anti-American" attitude. Secondly, you haven't addressed the issue that you are offending those who lost loved ones when you say their lives were worth a simple grudge.

EDIT: Alright, I'm calmer now. Proceed with the destruction of previously held beliefs.

Yes it was. It was very well worth the sacrifice.

This undoubtedly is one of the worst posts I have ever read. And I must admit, that if I did indeed know where you lived, I most certainly would try and kill you. It would be worth it.

YOU ARE THE ONE HARMING AMERICA. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTS FAILURE. SHAME ON YOU. You are the one who wants more and more failure. America was not founded on failure mongers.

No.

Going all caps to defend your point rather than using real world examples is an example of how many people are messing up America.

No one wants failure. Any rational mature person knows that failure in Iraq or elsewhere is gonna be a whole lot worse for you and me and the troops than it is for George W. He'll still be rich, he'll still be connected, even whgen he is no longer President.

No, what we want is an unabashed look at the facts. We don't want flip-floppers, but we do want someone who can recognize when plan A simply isn't working.

America was not founded on squelching dissent. America was not founded to be an agressor state. America was not founded to be the world police.

America was founded on the principle that man has the right and the duty to challenge authority when said authority is corrupt, incompetent, tyrranical, or all three.

Democracy is also founded on the principle that everyone should have the freedom to express their thoughts and ideas, especially if said thoughts or ideas run counter to the thoughts and ideas of those in power.

Robot and the rest of you can peddle all the anti-americanism you want. Great. Go ahead. I could care less.
I am American.






:D





You have no way to respond, so you resort to petty insults. Face it- the Iraq war is pointless. You were mislead, we were all mislead, and there was no threat to our security. The president knowingly lied to the public, but you love him so much that when he's found out you just go "Meh, it was worth it anyway".

-edit-This undoubtedly is one of the worst posts I have ever read. And I must admit, that if I did indeed know where you lived, I most certainly would try and kill you. It would be worth it.
Well he's got family, and there are lots of people who I'm sure would be very sad if he was killed, but you've got a grudge so it's all worth it.

It would be worth it if we didn't have to, I dunno, go into a continuous chain of wars to solve the problem.

We'd have to defeat Syria AND Jordan now. Anyone on NS Roleplay knows how awful several wars one right after another can be on the economy and public in general.

It would be worth it if we didn't have to, I dunno, go into a continuous chain of wars to solve the problem.

We'd have to defeat Syria AND Jordan now. Anyone on NS Roleplay knows how awful several wars one right after another can be on the economy and public in general.

Even then it wouldn't solve the problem. Slapping someone repeatedly because they're angry at you isn't gonna make them stop being angry at you.

...I most certainly would try and kill you...
:D
I say we put the two in an arena and watch!

Even then it wouldn't solve the problem. Slapping someone repeatedly because they're angry at you isn't gonna make them stop being angry at you.

It's not a slap, it's more of a "tie up and throw into trunk" model.

This undoubtedly is one of the worst posts I have ever read. And I must admit, that if I did indeed know where you lived, I most certainly would try and kill you. It would be worth it.

Now THIS is a post you should report, Mesatecala.

Dont make wars without doors.
Pennywise Pound Foolish.

Bush had at least a 78% approval rating at one stage.
Yeah, and that was before we knew they were torturing Muslims, running propaganda missions with the Office for Strategic Influence, or blaming the CIA and FBI for pre-war intelligence failures, when Wolfowitz and the Office for Special Plans supposedly oversaw them all.

That was also back when Bush said, a year ago, "all hostilities in Iraq have ended," and Cheney said months later, that the terrorists were in "their last throes."

Give me a fucking break.

I think that a lot of people, especially 9\11 survivors and families were pissed off when Bush said about a year ago or so in his exact words, "I don't know where Bin Ladin is. I don't care. It's not a priority."

I don't supposed anyone here remembers when the U.S. military 'LOST' SEVERAL HUNDRED TONS OF EXPLOSIVES IN IRAQ, do you? It's been pathetic. Furthermore, from the Iraqi constitution, we can already see that they're going to implement sharia (Islamic law), which is bad.

I think he is doing a good job in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't give much credibility to polls. Last time I really trusted a poll was on November 2nd, 2004. Never again. How big was the sample in the poll? Let me guess.. inadequate as usual.
It was the fucking Associated Press, a highly-respected news agency. It's not CBS, Fox News, or some random independent media.

Oh but Iraq was very much worth it. I would put a bullet in Saddam's head myself.

Also, let me say this.. I'm shocked to see so many want failure.. when it can adversely affect them.
Pulling out of Iraq now won't adversely affect us at all, because even if we stay there, no matter how long we're there, as soon as we leave, the government will crumble. Sometimes, you need to recognize a lose-lose situation and cut your losses. Even the Republicans are quietly pushing for us to get out of Iraq, by speeding up the time-table for the Constitution, permanent government, and withdrawal, because they know that if we're still occupying Iraq during the 2006 elections, or even worse, the 2008 Presidential elections, they'll be totally fucked.

As President Clinton said on Larry King live, throughout history, whenever one country has invaded another and there has been an uprising of insurgents, the insurgency either won the war or the government had to occupy the country for several decades.

I'm not surprised about the approval rating, but remember the election. He had less than 50% approval rating then, and still won.
In 2000, he had less than 50% of the vote and won by a slim margin. In 2004, he won by over 50% of the vote (a mandate), but by the smallest margin in history. Both elections were also the first to have such a massive controversy over voting fraud. According to polls, roughly 20% of Americans believe that there was some voting fraud going on, from either Republicans or Democrats.

Ok, everyone chill. Remember: the more insults you throw into your answers, the less credible your argument looks.
Actually, you're wrong.

The more insults in your answers, the less likely the average person is persuaded, but throwing in insults is likely to persuade people who already agree with your ideas. "Preaching to the choir," like when Hitler would scream on and on about nonsense.

But I know what you mean.

This undoubtedly is one of the worst posts I have ever read. And I must admit, that if I did indeed know where you lived, I most certainly would try and kill you. It would be worth it.

Goodbye. Death threats are not tolerated on this board.

I don't supposed anyone here remembers when the U.S. military 'LOST' SEVERAL HUNDRED TONS OF EXPLOSIVES IN IRAQ, do you?

I remember that... unbelievable. There's some comic strips about that here...

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war42.html

If you can't laugh at 380 tons of explosives being stolen by terrorists during the middle of a war, then what CAN you laugh at, eh? :rolleyes:

I remember that... unbelievable. There's some comic strips about that here...

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war42.html

If you can't laugh at 380 tons of explosives being stolen by terrorists during the middle of a war, then what CAN you laugh at, eh? :rolleyes:
I still can't figure that out. 380 tons.. That is hundreds of trucks' worth of explosives... It would fill an entire warehouse. How the hell do you lose THAT MUCH stuff?

When it happened, I actually kinda got the feeling that the CIA sold it to Israel or something. Or someone. There's no way that they just 'lost' that stuff.

And if they did, then it certainly explains why the suicide-bombers never run out of bombs.

Yes it was. It was very well worth the sacrifice.

Especially since you didn't have to sacrifice anything but just had to follow the war and the killing from your comfy tv-sofa, right? It's disgusting how you welcome the deaths of so many people.

Well this board went from interesting debate to WTF in less than an hour, not bad.

The report of a weapons stash stolen was later discredited because no body does sincere reporting these days.

Please remember this about US elections, or any election for that mater. 60% of eligible voters voted in 2004: 52% for Bush and 48% for Kerry. That means only 31.2% of voters actually voted for Bush and 28.8% actually voted for Kerry. Not that impressive when you look at it that way. Also, the Republicans boasted about having the most votes in history, last time I checked, there are more people in the US than in 1980. Kind of like boasting about having the highest grossing movie in history, doesn't take into account certain things.

Try and avoid the Bush is stupid, smelly, poo-poo head arguments, please. Are you four? Is that the best you can do?

Also, does it make sense that the US attacked Germany after being bombed by Japan, old argument, but think about it. Did the German's have anything to do with Pearl Harbor? Granted, Germany declared war on the US three days afterwords, but that was when countries actually declared war on other countries, not using executive mandates or resolutions.

Even though I am shouting on some deaf ears, try to keep some perspective. It is so EASY to be negative or say it was a mistake when all the signs (which is constant reports of nothing, but bad news) are pointing to it. Last time I checked optimisim wasn't being stupid or foolish. First two years of WWII were looking bad, we were on the defensive for three years, thank goodness for them being optimistic. We've been at war for four years, almost, and we still don't know exactly what happend here or there. Everyone seems so sure that THEY know exactly what happend and EXACTLY why we are in Iraq or Afghanistan. Does anyone know of any back-channel deals going on between countries? Why Israel just so happens to be withdrawing out of Palestine after 60 years and countless other failures? No of us truely knows what is happening, but by all means make your opinions, but don't be stupid enough not to keep an open mind about what is going on.

Hopefully this board will go into some better arguments after this. I'll check on later to cause some trouble, I've got to go eat some dinner now. Later.

In 2000, he had less than 50% of the vote and won by a slim margin. In 2004, he won by over 50% of the vote (a mandate), but by the smallest margin in history. Both elections were also the first to have such a massive controversy over voting fraud. According to polls, roughly 20% of Americans believe that there was some voting fraud going on, from either Republicans or Democrats.
That's not approval rating, that just the statistics from the vote.

I'm talking about approval rating as in polling a lot of people and asking "Do you like Bush, yes or no?". They're done all the time. At election time, his approval rating was only about 48%, that means only 48% of people approved of his actions.

Yet he was still elected.

People fear change.

I still can't figure that out. 380 tons.. That is hundreds of trucks' worth of explosives... It would fill an entire warehouse. How the hell do you lose THAT MUCH stuff?

When it happened, I actually kinda got the feeling that the CIA sold it to Israel or something. Or someone. There's no way that they just 'lost' that stuff.

And if they did, then it certainly explains why the suicide-bombers never run out of bombs.
They weren't lost, they were buried. In a year the army will "find" them and declare them the missing WMDs.

;)

Right, I'll be responding to the whole point of this thread. "Do I think Bush is handling the war in Iraq well?"

My answer: Hell fucking no.

Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, BUT; the man lead us to Iraq, telling us Saddam Hussein had connections with Bin Laden(whom our leader has seemed to have forgotten) and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, especially biological weapons.

The public rallied behind Bush, and we went in kicking ass. Everything was going very well, we were destroying Saddam's troops like they were ants. We soon won the battle. Everyone cheered when the statue of Saddam was torn to the ground.

Then... the trouble started.

Anarchy reigned. The people went absolutely nuts. They had never been free before, and they were already starting to abuse it by looting everything they could get their grubby little hands on. The troops soon got most of the people in order, but then the terrorists attacked.

They used guerilla tactics, mines, suicide bombers, ambushes, everything they could think of. Time went on, and as the US sent more and more troops, money and armor to Iraq, more American soldiers died. Soon, the death toll was higher than the death toll of the initial battles.

Saddam was hiding, and apparently, so were the WMDs. We couldn't find them. We searched as long and as hard as we could. But there were no WMDs.

Excuses (as through my eyes) were thrown out, saying that we aren't searching hard enough, or that Saddam transported them out of the country. The WMDs would be found sooner or later, and everything would be alright. The public was hesitant, but still agreed.

Weeks, then months passed, and we finally caught Saddam. Yay. So... where are those WMDs? Oh that's right, we're still searching for them. Finally, after God-knows-how-long, Bush admits that there might not have been WMDs in the first place.

Really now? There's no WMDs in Iraq? Then what the fuck are we doing there to begin with? Liberate the people? I believe we (combined with terrorist attacks) are killing more civilians than Saddam did when he was still in power.

Then, the elections, people come to elect a leader in a pure, non-tampered election. Whoop-dee-fucking-doo. Our troops are DYING out there. Dying for what? These poor fucking morons (the Iraqis) that still have no real running electricity, water, AND have their women treated as second-class? I'm sorry, but I just don't see the point in that.

Now then, what to do? We want to get out, and BADLY I might add, but if we do, the whole world's going to be pissed at us AGAIN. But we can't stay there. We're losing too many troops to make it worthwhile.

I say: Get out as cleanly and as fast as possible.

We lost. We can't destroy these terrorists, and we're getting clobbered again and again, day after day. So I say, "run, run away to live and fight another day." Better we save the lives of our troops than save our dignity.

So ok. Let's say we DO get out of there. The world's pissed at us right? So what do we do? We mind our own business. We have enough problems at home, how can we set a good example to others if we have problems of our own? I say, go into isolation, and fix the economy, the crime, the environment, the whole shebang. Until we get our own problems fixed, we can't go out there acting like we're invincible cowboys, because we're not.

Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Wars World'] So... where are those WMDs? Oh that's right, we're still searching for them.

You guys DID manage to find a very suspicious looking warehouse full of salt. Don't ever forget the salt!

Well this board went from interesting debate to WTF in less than an hour, not bad.

The report of a weapons stash stolen was later discredited because no body does sincere reporting these days.
Wrong. It wasn't journalists. It was the Iraqi Interim government and the International Atomic Energy Agency who made the claims. The media just covered their reports. The military did an investigation into it and claimed that the regular munitions (not high explosives) were destroyed by the military when they captured the facility, but they couldn't say what happened to the high explosives.

An Iraqi informant also notified the CIA in April that there was heavy looting of the facility, so it's clear that there were at least some explosives that were stolen. But the "380 tons," claim was an exaggeration, due to some confusion and miscommunication.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6370144/site/newsweek/


Please remember this about US elections, or any election for that mater. 60% of eligible voters voted in 2004: 52% for Bush and 48% for Kerry.
Wrong. 50.73% and 48.27% voted for Kerry, giving Bush a "mandate," but he won by the smallest margin in U.S. history.

Way to go, calling our arguments stupid and coming up with some stupid ones yourself.

Also, does it make sense that the US attacked Germany after being bombed by Japan, old argument, but think about it. Did the German's have anything to do with Pearl Harbor? Granted, Germany declared war on the US three days afterwords, but that was when countries actually declared war on other countries, not using executive mandates or resolutions.
Because Germany was ALLIED with Japan. Hussein was not allied with Bin Laden. There's just a select amount of anecdotal evidence that they've used to claim he "cavorted," with terrorists...

...But that's no worse than Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, or Saudi Arabia.

Theres probably more solid evidence for all the above countries being involved in terrorism, than the amount of anecdotal evidence that links Iraq and Al-Qaeda; for one thing, Bin Laden thought Hussein was an infidel.

Theres probably more solid evidence for all the above countries being involved in terrorism, than the amount of anecdotal evidence that links Iraq and Al-Qaeda; for one thing, Bin Laden thought Hussein was an infidel.
More than that, Bin Laden used to fund anti-Hussein terrorist groups in Northern Iraq.

However, they had been considering some kind of agreement... They never came to it, but they met on several occassions, Hussein even offered to let Bin Laden stay in Iraq, however Bin Laden declined. So, they might have eventually become buddies, but nothing was ever finalized and as the 9\11 Commission report said, they never had any "formal, operational relationship."

Whereas the Germans and the Japanese were part of the Axis Powers.

Okay Aquilapus, this may sound like I'm trying to do war against you, but you seem to be the strongest debater with your point of view I have seen, and i don't mean just on this board, or even just the internet, I mean EVER. This is partly because debating is becoming a lost art. I'll try my best giving you a challenge.

Basicly alot of things you have said i disagree with, I'm kind of in a rush right now so I'll put up quotes later upon request, but I think you should be able to follow even with out that.

One thing I must point out is that is Bush said "Hey look this Sadam guy is basicly an asshole, I think we should gut him" I would not have such a problem with it. For one thing, I can agree that he was an asshole. For another that is a possiable, rational objective. I would think it was kind of random, I run into ass holes when ever im in the super market, or get cut off in trafic. But still it is at least almost intellegent.

Sadam is a person, he can be killed. Fear, hate... terror, these are feelings, you can't kill these things. Just as Bush says that these people can not shake our values, we can't shake theirs. The only real way of stoping people from attacking us is for every one to like us. And as you have said "screw the rest of the world". So unless we brain wash people, we can't stop it.

Their are two basic resons for us to go into Iraq ((or at least that is how I see it)).

1- 9/11
2- Iraq could have some weapons that could screw us later on

As far as I see Iraq had no more to do with 9/11 than any other country over there. Not to mention how we found no weapons at all.

I'm not saying that if we went in just saying "we are going to take out an evil dictator" rather than "we are going to stop tarrorism" that it would all be sunny and perfect. But I sure would feel better about it, and I think Bush would look alot less stupid. We would still need to set back up Iraq with a new government, but I think we would have a clearer picture of what exactly we are suposed to be doing over there.

Now I know I left my self wide open for picking at with some of this stuff, and go ahead pick away. I know I don't have everything figured out, but I doubt many (and by many I mean any) people do, but i think that was a good introdustion to my views.

Also, does it make sense that the US attacked Germany after being bombed by Japan, old argument, but think about it. Did the German's have anything to do with Pearl Harbor? Granted, Germany declared war on the US three days afterwords, but that was when countries actually declared war on other countries, not using executive mandates or resolutions.

Surely you can't compare the global influence and threat level of pre-occupation Iraq to Germany in 1941? Even from a strictly isolationist point of view, a German empire extending from France and Britain to Indo-China (which could possibly have happened had Germany defeated Russia, then knocked Britain out of the war and occupied her empire while the US and Japan beat up on each other), would NOT have been good in any respect for America.

Iraq on the other hand was not allied to Afghanistan, posed no military threat whatsoever, and since the Gulf War did not have the money or power to be a significant player in world politics. It's apples and oranges.

Even though I am shouting on some deaf ears, try to keep some perspective. It is so EASY to be negative or say it was a mistake when all the signs (which is constant reports of nothing, but bad news) are pointing to it. Last time I checked optimisim wasn't being stupid or foolish. First two years of WWII were looking bad, we were on the defensive for three years, thank goodness for them being optimistic. We've been at war for four years, almost, and we still don't know exactly what happend here or there. Everyone seems so sure that THEY know exactly what happend and EXACTLY why we are in Iraq or Afghanistan. Does anyone know of any back-channel deals going on between countries? Why Israel just so happens to be withdrawing out of Palestine after 60 years and countless other failures? No of us truely knows what is happening, but by all means make your opinions, but don't be stupid enough not to keep an open mind about what is going on.


With WWII, we didn't have any choice but to be optimistic. We were basically fighting for our lives. With Iraq, we didn't have to go there and we don't have to stay there.

Back-channel deals go on all the time. But when you go to war you'd better be somewhat straight with the populace, especially in a democracy, or you're gonna get raked over the coals. Didn't anyone learn from Vietnam? And I think they're lucky to be getting away with getting called 'poo-poo heads'. In my view someone, in fact more than one someone, should be hung for this shit... there's a LOT of people over there who are dead and maimed for no apparent reason at all.

It's no joke... when you start a war you'd better have a straightforward reason for doing so and an actual plan for what you're going to do once you start it. Have you seen a credible plan? Because all I've seen with the Iraq war is inane flag waving, asinine statements like 'Bring it on', 'Mission Accomplished', and 'Axis of Evil', and buzzwords like 'Terror' and 'Freedom' and 'Democracy'. IMO, you're gonna need more than that bullshit to justify thousands of dead, people getting their heads chopped off on TV, and 2 years of occupation. I'm disgusted that this war was ever popular here in the first place.

Because Germany was ALLIED with Japan. Hussein was not allied with Bin Laden. There's just a select amount of anecdotal evidence that they've used to claim he "cavorted," with terrorists...

...But that's no worse than Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, or Saudi Arabia.

And the USA... after all, the IRA didn't get it's money and arms from Santa Claus. No, the government didn't support the IRA but it certainly didn't bust its ass trying to track down and prosecute private individuals who were helping support and fund it. You notice once Britain played ball in Iraq, we stopped hearing about the IRA? I could be wrong, but it did seem to be at around the same time.

I'm sure the 'rebels' we helped in Central America in the 80's might have been considered 'terrorists' by the people they were blowing up, too.

Of course terrorism is bad. But claiming that this is an effort to stop terrorism for good and not just an example of a powerful nation flexing on weaker nations to extort natural resources is a little over the top. It's a farce.. accusing nations of 'supporting terror' is just a witch-hunt.

Okay Aquilapus, this may sound like I'm trying to do war against you, but you seem to be the strongest debater with your point of view I have seen, and i don't mean just on this board, or even just the internet, I mean EVER. This is partly because debating is becoming a lost art. I'll try my best giving you a challenge.
Are you Aquilapus's alternate account? Such compliments from a new account are rather suspicious. I've seen it in other forums before, many times. Someone makes another account to "agree," with them. Silly.

But really, his arguments were pathetic.

He implied Hussein and Al-Qaeda were allies, by comparing them to Nazi Germany and Japan. False.
He said Bush recieved 52% of the vote in 2004. False.
He said that the weapons missing in Iraq were just lies put out by the media. False.
And to top it all off, he called our arguments stupid, despite making these false claims, throwing a stone in a glass house.

EDIT: As Noam Chomsky put it, Iraq was immoral, not because it was a "pre-emptive war," but because it was a preventative war. Hussein clearly was not a threat, but one day might be, if he screwed with our oil prices in the same way that Iran once did.

The Neocons have openly stated that they'll use lethal force whenever necessary, not to keep us safe, but in order to deal with the challenges to global U.S. supremacy. They've even stated that they must stop European countries from becoming "too powerful."

Such a regime is true terrorism.

First off im not his alternet account, and I didn't say all of his arguments were good, all I said was he was probly the most compatint person that is pro-Bush... however in my oppinion there arn't too many people to choose from in that catagory...

But you are right his blunt insults were extreamly lame.

Also, have you heard that Iraqi women are scared that they won't get as many freedoms under their new government as they had under sadam? If it winds up the way they fear, there will be no way any one can say that this mucking aout in the middle east was worth it.

First off im not his alternet account, and I didn't say all of his arguments were good, all I said was he was probly the most compatint person that is pro-Bush... however in my oppinion there arn't too many people to choose from in that catagory...

But you are right his blunt insults were extreamly lame.

Also, have you heard that Iraqi women are scared that they won't get as many freedoms under their new government as they had under sadam? If it winds up the way they fear, there will be no way any one can say that this mucking aout in the middle east was worth it.
In the end, Iraq might end up becoming another Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was oppressed by the Soviets and they were "infidels," for ignoring Islam. But at least they were provided for. America helped topple the Soviets in Afghanistan and the Taliban came into power. After that happened, they were free, but they were so horribly starving and poor, that the Afghanis felt betrayed and tricked by the Americans, which partially led Osama to start Al-Qaeda.

Now, we have Iraq. Under Saddam Hussein, any political opponents were executed. And if you were rich, Saddam forced you to either join the Ba'ath party or die. But on the other hand, Hussein provided free healthcare, free education up until college, and the standard-of-living in Iraq was rather good. Hussein also abolish Islamic law. His "mass murder," was not completely random, but because of the Kurds in the north who wanted (and STILL WANT) independence from Iraq, in a new state of Kurdistan.

Well, now, just like Afghanistan, we've toppled an oppressive government. But that oppressive government provided for the people. If Iraq turns into the sinkhole that almost everyone foresees it's going to be, then the Iraq war will have created more terrorism than if we had just left Hussein alone.

Coupled with the credible reports of the U.S. putting forth false intelligence, I agree with what someone else said: I don't know how Bush sleeps at night. I was rather hurt to discover that he sent thousands of our soldiers and Iraqi civilians to die, based on lies.

I've documented the fraudulent Iraqi intelligence at http://fapfap.org/ if anyone is interested.

Pull out of iraq. I dont see whats so hard about that.

Owe, my head is hurting.

OK, I did not say that anyone's arguments were stupid. I have asked people to not make the Bush is stupid arguments, stupid used there is refering to people calling Bush stupid. I did pose the question after that of "are you four?" because I feel that that type of argument of name calling is juvenial. Again, I didn't call anyone stupid. I got some good responses off of the WWII argument, though I wasn't comparing the occupation of Iraq to WWII. I was going off of memory on the election results, although that wasn't the point that I was trying to make, which no one has commented on that point, did you miss it? Still, John F. Kennedy was voted in with 49.9% of 62.8% of the electorate to Richard M. Nixon's 49.6% I believe (0.7% went to George Wallace and something like 0.2% (just guessing) went to other parties; check out Garfield, Cleveland, and the election of 2000 for some close races as well) . That's a closer election isn't it?

It's good to see I'm not shouting on deaf ears, if that was an insult to people or close enough to calling you stupid or your arguments stupid, I apologize. I am mistaken on the weapons report, I apologize about that. See, I realize I make mistakes sometimes though I try my best not to, but I'm young, I make mistakes.

Finally, President Shrub. I don't appreciate the remarks from you that I have called people's arguments stupid, or that my arguments are stupid. You are entitled to your own opinion, but please be sure you are clear as to what it is I am saying. I think you must be reading a little to deep in between the lines with what I have written. Another point with the WWII argument that was missed, is that this war we are fighting now is completly different. There are no clear alliances between countries, only through ideologies. There are no clear enemies. Just ideologies.

I haven't even made a strong argument for my support of Bush, or of the war, or of why Iraq was a resonable target -- I'll admit that. I will be posting that argument hopefully sometime next week for all of you to pick apart. Ilkarzana thank you for the remarks, and I have not seen you or heard of you before, and I'm have no alternate accounts. So whoever said that or thinks I'd do that, ouch, you have hurt my intellect and my feelings :(.

Again, Shrub, stop reading into my posts so much. I did not imply anything about Saddam having an alliance with anyone. I already mentioned the voting comment. I didn't say that the media was pushing out lies either. I said that "the story was later discredited" and something about nobody does serious reporting these days. That last part was remarking that the media has jumped on stories before with very little evidence to back it up. The stockpiles is another example because they came out saying one thing and it was later found out to have subtle differences. Again, if you are going to make acusations at me, be sure you are going off of the facts and not what YOU THINK I was IMPLYING. Again, I did not call anyones arguments stupid. If I IMPLIED it ANYWHERE, let me know and I will publicly apologize for it. Only other time I used stupid was in reference to myself and it was as a joke towards myself. Shrub might agree with that one though.

Do you feel Shrub that Iraq and Afghanistan were doing better under Saddam and the Taliban, respectively? That's what I think you are IMPLYING, but I just want to be sure. I'll get to the "false intelligence" argument later. Bush didn't send Iraqi civilians to die, they were already living there.

Finally, when you base your argument with the pure intention of debasing everything about the Iraq war, you tend to look only at the facts that suit your argument or make your case. This is the dangerous part when making any argument. I am not saying or IMPYING that you or anyone has done this, but it is a good thing to keep and mind or at the minimum think about. To make a good argument, throw in the facts (NOT EMOTIONS!!!) that make your case or even facts that go against some things you believe. A good argument tries to paint the picture honestly from both sides and not just one side.

I'm sure I'll hear more about this in the morning, but until then, everyone have a good night. Yes, even you Shrub.

Pull out of iraq. I dont see whats so hard about that.


Allow me to illustrate.

Bush decides to invade Iraq, right after he is elected.
The reason to do this, is becuase of Iraq's most abundant exportable rescource.
Oil.

Why worry about Iraq's oil, when we get more from South America, and Saudi Arabia?

Simple.
Imagine if you will, for the last 10 years, militay analysts tell everyone who will listen, about how the Middle East is slowly destabilizing.
The Muslims hate the Jews, and Vice Versa..and some Muslimes hate each other....

So..shortly before Bush takes office...our "allies" the Royal Saudis, decide to make us remove all military bases from their soil.
That means that we dont have a base of operations in the middle east, anymore.
This means we have no way of protecting our oil supply, in the event of a massive war in the middle east.

So what does Bush do?

Gets lucky with 9/11.

After the invasion in afghanistan, he invents some trumped-up accusations of "WMD"'s in Iraq, and convinces us that its our patriotic duty to support the invasion of Iraq, "To eliminate the threat that Saddam poses to America."

He finds nothing.

Quickly, turning the media attention to "Liberating the Iraqi People", we continue to this day.

So..to sum up..we arent leaving Iraq anytime soon, if at all.
Saudi Arabia are becoming too unstable, to truly count as "allies"...but now that we have Iraq..we have a staging point for an all out war, in the middle east..as well as a secured source of crude oil.

Pretty evil, aint it?

Pull out of iraq. I dont see whats so hard about that.

Mmm. I'm sure Bush would love to, just they know that if they do

1. There will be a big 'ole power vacuum just waiting to filled by God (sorry Allah) knows who.

2. It will be a huge loss of face given the costs incurred by the invasion.

And what the fulla above says, they want a pro-US government in that region to expand US influence. Add to that Israel and you've got some good leverage on Iran.

Oh and oil... though I'm always a bit shy of that argument, not because its invalid just that its often used oversimplistically as an explanation.

Sucks, eh?


Not really ..

“We will stay the course. We will complete the job in Iraq,” Bush pledged anew during a news conference on his Texas ranch with Colombian President Alvaro Uribe.

Bush suggested his resolve was only strengthened by a videotaped warning earlier Thursday from al-Qaida’s second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, threatening more terror attacks in Britain and tens of thousands of U.S. military deaths if the United States doesn’t withdraw.

There is no point stopping now no WAY !

Nice convoluted theory (though it does have some traction), but it is being quite simplistic.

The "Liberation of Iraq" was not just thrown into the press once things started to get difficult. While that phrase was not commonly used antebellum, the ideas of freedom and liberation are found in Bush's speeches and was a supplementary agenda to the overall war plan.

Here is another "theory" to add on. We invade Afghanistan, then we invade Iraq. Look on a map and see who is right in the middle of that? Add Turkey in the North and Israel to the West and you have pressure of (not neccesairly pro-US, but more pro-West) influences throughout the entire region. Look on a map for better illustration.

While I will agree that oil might be on the agenda for reasons to invade Iraq, to say it is the ONLY reason is too simplistic. There is much more going on over there than what is just being reported or what we can see.

Another "theory" for you. Imagine, if you will, when the Middle East is stable years down the road because the people are legitimately represented by their governments, what the West calls democracy. There will be no need for the US to babysit the region (just in case) if the region itself is stable. Induced only from the inside out, by the people of the Middle East. Democracy's don't occupy one another (we had troops in Germany due to the Cold War and troops in Japan to keep an eye on North Korea -- with the country's permission and not as occupiers). Now that might be convoluted as well, but just think about it.

I think he's handled it badly, but that's assuming he has control over whether or not they use Rumsfelds war doctrine. I think the entire reason we're losing is because we didn't put enough troops in due to the Rumsfeld Doctrine, which states that a small, well-equipped, high-technology force will beat an enemy any day of the week and twice on Sundays. As we can see in Iraq, this was not the case.

The Powell Doctrine is what America used to use before Rumsfeld started with his clap-trap. It learns from the mistakes of Vietnam and states that consistent, overwhelming force is the key to decisive victory in any theatre. With the overwhelming force dictated by the Powell Doctrine, the coalition could have smashed the Iraqi army quickly (not that the Rumsfeld Doctrine didn't do that already, but it was more a case of the Iraqi's failing to formulate tactics against us and just driving themselves straight into the grinder) and secured the major cities from insurgents that we're now having trouble with in urban warfare. We would have had the number of troops to pull that sort of thing off, but the Rumsfeld Doctrine didn't allow for that - a failure considering the Rumsfeld Doctrine is supposed to allow for military force flexibility.

The idea with the Rumsfeld Doctrine is that your aforementioned small high-tech force is lightly equipped and can quickly relocate to new flashpoints, maneuvring faster than the enemy strategists can react. It beat the original opposition of the Iraqi army quickly, no doubt, but we had no real tactical opposition to fight. The Iraqis just sent their troops right at us for us to shoot. It didn't even matter at the time that the American army had entered the war with only one armour unit present, compared to the three units that are normally considered necessary for entering a theater with. Of course that came round to bite us in the arse when we needed armour cover in our street battles and there wasn't enough to go around.

Now our troops are stood on street corners waiting for some fighting. What good is a force designed for tactical military flexibility when it's only being used to patrol small parts of the city. The Rumsfeld Doctrine has no use here - we need to ditch it and move in with the Powell Doctrine again... but Rummy won't let that happen, so the inefficient coalition army will keep getting chewed up by the guerrilla enemy.

Just my one, slightly straying from the topic, penny.

Good post Demographika.

I personally feel that the Rumsfeld Doctrine is doable, but since this type of warfare or miltary doctrine hasn't been used before it is in the process of working out all the kinks. Instead of throwing it away altogether, I can only assume that it is evolving as all military doctrine's do throughout all wars. However, it might just be a horrible idea and an overhall needs to be done. The Powell Doctrine would be very usefull from the start, absolutly. It would have been better to use the might of the US military and get things done. One problem, perhaps the essential problem, with this war is that politics and being PC are influencing Washington and the Pentegon. This happens in war, but should be kept to a minimum as much as possible. This was an inevitable problem with Vietnam, which had many other problems mind you.

It's good to see a suggestion as to how we should proceed to get the job done.

Iraq was shere stupidity....the only way it was going to be pulled off was through a few strategic lies for the American people to swallow to get us there. :mad:

The money we've spent could have been used on our own security situation and the needs of Afghanistan which last i heard was were Osama was.(at the time of our invasion) I'm sure he laughed in glee when he saw us move into Iraq. Then anyone with a bone to pick with us took off to Iraq to get there free shots in....
:sniper:

How will they survive if we leave? We cant remove the problem now with 150000 troops what do you think is going to happen when we leave? American arrogance and idealism has put us here as WW said...

"A little group of willful men reflecting no opinion but their own have rendered the great Government of the United States helpless and contemptible.
Woodrow Wilson.

Civil war will be our answer after we leave..if we ever really do and all thoose countrys that choose to join us in this Imperialistic endeavour will be long gone..

Two thousand Americans and 50-75 thousand Iraqees are dead...comparing these numbers to any war and blowing your horn that its not as bad as so and so's numbers shows me how outta touch we are with the world.

Invade Afghanistan, send 200000 troops, get who attacked us, rebuild that country and take that 300 billion(were using in Iraq) and invest it in our own security and the rest in a rebuilt Afghanistan with tons of world support.

We coulda sat on Iraq till they turned to dust from Afghanistan. Sadly this administration thinks its a big Risk boardgame and all the pieces are plastic and disposable.

Very good post. I agree with you here and there, but there are a few things I just want to bring up.

First, comparing the casualties of Iraq to another war is only to keep perspective. 1'800 (not 2'000) is terrible and I wish it wasn't so. 500'000 in WWII was terrible and I wish it wasn't so; millions of lives were lost on the Soviet side. This is not blowing ones horn or by comparing other casualties to soften the blow. It's facing the facts to keep a perspective on the situation.

Is money and loss of life the biggest concern for you?

Finally, if we did what you are recommending, finishing up in Afghanistan, what happens after that? Does that solve the problem of terrorism? Does that help secure the possibility of no further attacks on American or allied interests? Should the US just have finished in Afghanistan and wait for the next possible terrorist attack?

I am assuming with you quote from Willson (good choice by the way) that you feel the Administration is ignoring the people because they have their own agenda or will that they want fulfilled? Is that a fair assessment? How, then, do you explain the election of 2004? How do you explain the "swallowing of lies" that you speak of when various countries agreed that Iraq was a threat, had their own resources and intelligence, and when the "evidence" was taken to the UN the world agreed with the stance of the US and Great Britain?

While this was a well done post, you are only bringing out the negatives of the situation; the "should of" or "could of" constructed argument. I respect your opinion, while I disagree with it.

"First, comparing the casualties of Iraq to another war is only to keep perspective. 1'800 (not 2'000) is terrible and I wish it wasn't so. 500'000 in WWII was terrible and I wish it wasn't so; millions of lives were lost on the Soviet side. This is not blowing ones horn or by comparing other casualties to soften the blow. It's facing the facts to keep a perspective on the situation."

Ive always had a problem with humans as ammuniton..not to say this hasnt been the history of mankind. My idealism at it's finest i suppose.


"Is money and loss of life the biggest concern for you?"

"Finally, if we did what you are recommending, finishing up in Afghanistan, what happens after that? Does that solve the problem of terrorism? Does that help secure the possibility of no further attacks on American or allied interests? Should the US just have finished in Afghanistan and wait for the next possible terrorist attack?"

This adminstration is under the idea that you can fight terrorism with an army. To think we can stop an ideal or religous beliefe is also quite silly....many have theorized that this war was in the works before 9/11 happened and i tend to agree.

1.Does that solve the problem of terrorism? Afghanistan was as much a political move as it was a military one. The approach was wrong.

2.Does that help secure the possibility of no further attacks on American or allied interests? Noone has that answer yet regardless whether your criticising the war or supporting it.

3.Should the US just have finished in Afghanistan and wait for the next possible terrorist attack?" There will always be the potentional for another attack...but alluding that we are winning the war (thanks Bush) puts us in a place were we cant win.

4.I am assuming with you quote from Willson (good choice by the way) that you feel the Administration is ignoring the people because they have their own agenda or will that they want fulfilled? Is that a fair assessment?

Whats fair or objective in this world? Im thinking logically(subjectively that is ;p) for the most powerful country in the world we didnt take our time on getting this right. Intellegence blunders, cultural misconceptions, and most of all why we ever thought Iraq had the terrorists.

5.How, then, do you explain the election of 2004? Bringing up elections in this country is rather silly considering 1/3 or so of our population doesnt vote...other than electoral just about all elections have been in the 52-48 population vote. Special interests and lots of money and the occasional hot button topic determines who wins....ie 2004 gay marriage.

"Sure there are dishonest men in local government. But there are dishonest men in national government too."
Richard M. Nixon

'How do you explain the "swallowing of lies" that you speak of when various countries agreed that Iraq was a threat, had their own resources and intelligence, and when the "evidence" was taken to the UN the world agreed with the stance of the US and Great Britain?'

Well i would say here who were thoose countrys? Most likely affiliates of american policy i would say. As for the evidence presented to the UN what if any of it was correct? And how if any of it tied 9/11 to Iraq? If you mean the mis-intelligence id agree there. If you look for something long enough and hard enough you will find it. The Bush administration did that.

As for the UN...well we know how the US looks at that and still does whatever it chooses anyway. Also the UN did not sanction the war we just went ahead and did it. The US always does it that way when the UN is involved.

"While this was a well done post, you are only bringing out the negatives of the situation; the "should of" or "could of" constructed argument. I respect your opinion, while I disagree with it."

Please explain the positves then if you would......all i have to speak on now that the war is "on" is should of could of debate. Ill try to be constructive now since that was the major complaint the republicans had about the democrats.(of which i am neither)

What i would have done.

9/11 occurs....
1. Dump alot of money into American security and intelligence for various reasons.(350 billion would go along way im sure)
2. Boatloads of covert ops into Afghanistan/Pakistan.(iffy on an invasion)
3. Re-examination of failed US policy with the middle east (theres a ton of it)
4. Re-evaluation of all the info we had on Al'Quida before the attack.
5. Re-establishing the very weak intelligence community we had in the Middle East.
6. Rubbing the "oil" out of our eyes about the Saudis and understanding that just about all the terrorists came from the majority of the Middle East and not Iraq.
7. Thanking my lucky stars that im wedged between 2 HUGE oceans and also cursed because of how outta touch we are with other world cultures.

As much as this is philosophy its also a plan of action which would have kept mercs in there countrys rather than Iraq and helped to stop multiplying the number of terrorists weve created with our current policy. They started the battle we made it a war.

'What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? "
Mahatma Gandhi

Bush is screwed. Just saying "stay the course" for the 500th time isn't going to cut it any more.
It seemed inevitable from the beginning though that he'd be the last victim of his own rhetoric. Damn shame.

No. Not a shame. Serves him right. He lied, people died. Serves him right that this war is making him unpopular. I supported Afghanstan. We never finished the job in Afghanistan. Then Bush had to get all gung-ho about going after Iraq, who hadn't done a goddazmn thing to us, and was no threat.

This is what you get when you kick a hornet's nest.

I'm laughing my ass off about it. I hope it costs the Republicans both the House and Senate in '06...and the White House in '08!!

END REPUKENICAN RULE NOW!!!

Vote Democrat, the ass you save may be your own!!

Democrats are sexy...Whoever heard of getting a good piece of elephant?

"First, comparing the casualties of Iraq to another war is only to keep perspective. 1'800 (not 2'000) is terrible and I wish it wasn't so. 500'000 in WWII was terrible and I wish it wasn't so; millions of lives were lost on the Soviet side. This is not blowing ones horn or by comparing other casualties to soften the blow. It's facing the facts to keep a perspective on the situation."

Ive always had a problem with humans as ammuniton..not to say this hasnt been the history of mankind. My idealism at it's finest i suppose.


"Is money and loss of life the biggest concern for you?"

"Finally, if we did what you are recommending, finishing up in Afghanistan, what happens after that? Does that solve the problem of terrorism? Does that help secure the possibility of no further attacks on American or allied interests? Should the US just have finished in Afghanistan and wait for the next possible terrorist attack?"

This adminstration is under the idea that you can fight terrorism with an army. To think we can stop an ideal or religous beliefe is also quite silly....many have theorized that this war was in the works before 9/11 happened and i tend to agree.

1.Does that solve the problem of terrorism? Afghanistan was as much a political move as it was a military one. The approach was wrong.

2.Does that help secure the possibility of no further attacks on American or allied interests? Noone has that answer yet regardless whether your criticising the war or supporting it.

3.Should the US just have finished in Afghanistan and wait for the next possible terrorist attack?" There will always be the potentional for another attack...but alluding that we are winning the war (thanks Bush) puts us in a place were we cant win.

4.I am assuming with you quote from Willson (good choice by the way) that you feel the Administration is ignoring the people because they have their own agenda or will that they want fulfilled? Is that a fair assessment?

Whats fair or objective in this world? Im thinking logically(subjectively that is ;p) for the most powerful country in the world we didnt take our time on getting this right. Intellegence blunders, cultural misconceptions, and most of all why we ever thought Iraq had the terrorists.

5.How, then, do you explain the election of 2004? Bringing up elections in this country is rather silly considering 1/3 or so of our population doesnt vote...other than electoral just about all elections have been in the 52-48 population vote. Special interests and lots of money and the occasional hot button topic determines who wins....ie 2004 gay marriage.

"Sure there are dishonest men in local government. But there are dishonest men in national government too."
Richard M. Nixon

'How do you explain the "swallowing of lies" that you speak of when various countries agreed that Iraq was a threat, had their own resources and intelligence, and when the "evidence" was taken to the UN the world agreed with the stance of the US and Great Britain?'

Well i would say here who were thoose countrys? Most likely affiliates of american policy i would say. As for the evidence presented to the UN what if any of it was correct? And how if any of it tied 9/11 to Iraq? If you mean the mis-intelligence id agree there. If you look for something long enough and hard enough you will find it. The Bush administration did that.

As for the UN...well we know how the US looks at that and still does whatever it chooses anyway. Also the UN did not sanction the war we just went ahead and did it. The US always does it that way when the UN is involved.

"While this was a well done post, you are only bringing out the negatives of the situation; the "should of" or "could of" constructed argument. I respect your opinion, while I disagree with it."

Please explain the positves then if you would......all i have to speak on now that the war is "on" is should of could of debate. Ill try to be constructive now since that was the major complaint the republicans had about the democrats.(of which i am neither)

What i would have done.

9/11 occurs....
1. Dump alot of money into American security and intelligence for various reasons.(350 billion would go along way im sure)
2. Boatloads of covert ops into Afghanistan/Pakistan.(iffy on an invasion)
3. Re-examination of failed US policy with the middle east (theres a ton of it)
4. Re-evaluation of all the info we had on Al'Quida before the attack.
5. Re-establishing the very weak intelligence community we had in the Middle East.
6. Rubbing the "oil" out of our eyes about the Saudis and understanding that just about all the terrorists came from the majority of the Middle East and not Iraq.
7. Thanking my lucky stars that im wedged between 2 HUGE oceans and also cursed because of how outta touch we are with other world cultures.

As much as this is philosophy its also a plan of action which would have kept mercs in there countrys rather than Iraq and helped to stop multiplying the number of terrorists weve created with our current policy. They started the battle we made it a war.

'What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? "
Mahatma Gandhi
Not bad for 2 posts. Welcome to NS, even if you were a different name before!
*bows*

Theres probably more solid evidence for all the above countries being involved in terrorism, than the amount of anecdotal evidence that links Iraq and Al-Qaeda; for one thing, Bin Laden thought Hussein was an infidel.
Frank Black ROCKS!!!!!
...Owls and Roosters ....

Now THIS is a post you should report, Mesatecala.
Maybe Mesatecala is backlogged .....

Yes it was. It was very well worth the sacrifice.
Sacrifice in this case, would be an example of ....
calling "no fair" and reporting people that disagree with you in a heated debate on an internet forum, one that takes ....how many .... hours of your day?
Sacrifice indeed.
Check yourself.
*poke*

YOU ARE THE ONE HARMING AMERICA. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTS FAILURE. SHAME ON YOU. You are the one who wants more and more failure. America was not founded on failure mongers.
Ah, dregging Michael "Savage" Weiner. Savory. :rolleyes:

Die by the daily car and suicide bombings that have killed over 1,800 US troops and over 100,000 Iraqis?
www.iraqbodycount.net puts the civilian death toll at around 26,500 people. And that isn't just deaths from American guns/bombs. It includes common criminal murders which can't be entirely blamed on the war.

Mmm. I'm sure Bush would love to, just they know that if they do

1. There will be a big 'ole power vacuum just waiting to filled by God (sorry Allah) knows who.

2. It will be a huge loss of face given the costs incurred by the invasion.

And what the fulla above says, they want a pro-US government in that region to expand US influence. Add to that Israel and you've got some good leverage on Iran.

Oh and oil... though I'm always a bit shy of that argument, not because its invalid just that its often used oversimplistically as an explanation.

1. I dont care

2. I dont care

About the oil, its the only decent explanation and reason, and I still dont care. I would much rather us get off our oil dependancy, and not go to war unless absolutly required(I doubt anyone in the middle east will start anything, especially with Israel having the bomb).

1. I dont care

2. I dont care

About the oil, its the only decent explanation and reason, and I still dont care. I would much rather us get off our oil dependancy, and not go to war unless absolutly required(I doubt anyone in the middle east will start anything, especially with Israel having the bomb).

Actually, you should carwe about #1. A power vacuum is always filled by the most brutal SOB around. There's no way America would invade Iraq again after pulling out, so that SOB would be relatively safe from outside intervention. Iraq would become another Afghanistan...with oil.

Can you say massive funding of terrorists?

Damn. In this poll, 15% believe he did a good job. 85% believe he did a bad job.

That's fucking pathetic, dude. Nobody can blame a "Liberal-bias," either. I mean, the majority of the people here are Americans, for one. And there's nothing that'd attract liberals here more than anyone else.

Good posts and responses Sunsilver. It's good to actually have a proper debate with someone finally. While I disagree with you, you did a great job at making your case and offering some suggestions as to what you would have done differently. A few things I want to mention. Just because a majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia doesn't make everyone a terrorist in Saudi Arabia. Aside from concentrating on the "should of" or "could of" side of the debate all the time, it might be more productive to discuss the "what next" or "what now" part of a debate (it's still on topic here, but another board perhaps). All the members of the UN Security Council is who I am refering to about "other countries". The Administration believes in fighting this war using multiple weapons, not just an army. I remember rather well, and I can go get the paper if you want, that it was the newspapers at the time that first mentioned an invasion of Iraq ON 9/11. The UN is another issue I'll get to later. While I appreciate your suggestions, almost all of them were done. Others are too subtle. They kill thousands and your recourse is to take the diplomatic route? Again, I appreciate your suggestions, but I don't think just doing that would stop the problem. Avoid war, yes, but stop the problem, not with just those few steps. Overall, good posts, good responses. I'll be sure to keep an intellectual eye on you in any future debates.

Damn. In this poll, 15% believe he did a good job. 85% believe he did a bad job.

That's fucking pathetic, dude. Nobody can blame a "Liberal-bias," either. I mean, the majority of the people here are Americans, for one. And there's nothing that'd attract liberals here more than anyone else.

149 people on an Internet, rather unscientific, poll is reflexive of actual public oppinion?

Maybe Mesatecala is backlogged .....

I take it the named person is rather quick to run to the mods?

I used to think we had to stay. But now I think we must pull out entirely. Vietnam still makes our shoes.

Actually, you should carwe about #1. A power vacuum is always filled by the most brutal SOB around. There's no way America would invade Iraq again after pulling out, so that SOB would be relatively safe from outside intervention. Iraq would become another Afghanistan...with oil.

Can you say massive funding of terrorists?

Meh. If the Iraqi people want democracy and all that so much, they can fight for it themselves.

And If they overtly supported terrorism, we could simply bomb them(not invade, just take out their military and major industries), and do that until they stopped. If it was covert, I doubt they would be giving that much money. Terrorism has jumped because we invaded Iraq. Many would be happy that america was out of the middle east. I dont think the new iraqi government would want to start something again, especially since the US left their nation. If a terror attack occured on the US, and we knew the new iraqi government was behind it, we would take action.

16% approval here. O well. :rolleyes:

I take it the named person is rather quick to run to the mods?
That is the prevalent threat, it would seem.
Someone might be more used to the playground than the real world ... or they're used to someone else doing the talking for them!!!

Going to Iraq was a horrible decision if Bush wanted to stop Al-Quaeda. Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, yes, but one that didn't like competetion. Under the iron fist of Saddam, Hussein was the only one causing tons of trouble, eh? Now Iraq is an open recruiting ground for terrorists, because so many extremist, eager young Anti-Americans are in Iraq. We went in Iraq and ruined the country. It's just as bad, or worse, then it was with Saddam.

We had no business being in Iraq at all. We need to pull out and come home. We have more than enough shit to deal with here. We need to stop monkeying in other countries' affairs. The US isn't the world-cop, and should never be one. Teddy Roosevelt was wrong on that point.

If people actually want democracy, they need to fight for it. Other countries can't just come in and "liberate" them.

Bush is doing a fine job.Wrong. The PNAC is doing a fine job of carrying out it's emperialistic ideals.

I wonder how on earth is it possible to discuss American foreign policy or the Invasion of Iraq without mentioning the PNAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

When former British Minister Robin Cook was talking about how "Evidence was not being gathered and analyzed in order make correct decisions and take the correct course of action, but rather being manipulated in a way to justify allready existing policy", the PNAC is exactly what he was talking about.

Wrong. The PNAC is doing a fine job of carrying out it's emperialistic ideals.

I wonder how on earth is it possible to discuss American foreign policy or the Invasion of Iraq without mentioning the PNAC.
It's sad to see that like 90% of Americans don't know who is really running their country. And I find it interesting to see how no conservatives bring up the PNAC, it is always well read liberals.

Meh. If the Iraqi people want democracy and all that so much, they can fight for it themselves.

And If they overtly supported terrorism, we could simply bomb them(not invade, just take out their military and major industries), and do that until they stopped. If it was covert, I doubt they would be giving that much money. Terrorism has jumped because we invaded Iraq. Many would be happy that america was out of the middle east. I dont think the new iraqi government would want to start something again, especially since the US left their nation. If a terror attack occured on the US, and we knew the new iraqi government was behind it, we would take action.

Then we should have left them to support or not support Democracy on their own. As it is, we came in and created a vacuum and if we leave without at least giving stability a decent shot, we are merely compounding our sins. I wish we could simply erase this who Iraqi adventure, but walking away now isn't the answer. It's like promising someone who lives in a shack a nice house, knocking over the shack and then leaving town.

Wrong. The PNAC is doing a fine job of carrying out it's emperialistic ideals.

I wonder how on earth is it possible to discuss American foreign policy or the Invasion of Iraq without mentioning the PNAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PNAC

When former British Minister Robin Cook was talking about how "Evidence was not being gathered and analyzed in order make correct decisions and take the correct course of action, but rather being manipulated in a way to justify allready existing policy", the PNAC is exactly what he was talking about.

That's it? That's your reasoning behind US foreign policy? I didn't see any mention about the Masons anywhere. While I respect your beliefs, whatever they may be, the conspiracy theories are just that, conspiracy and theories. Does the PNAC have some influence in Washington, probably, but what about those other "think tanks" founded by Liberal, independent, or Conservative organizations? They have influence as well. You believe American foreign policy is based only in this one organization? You might be right, but do you have any proof to back this up? JUST because the PNAC was founded by many members of the current and former Bush Administration, and JUST because they belive that the US should reign supreme doesn't make it true. That is a conspiracy theory. Just because the sun comes up in the east and everytime I see a sunrise I also see a delivery truck go by, doesn't mean the delivery truck makes the sun go up. That is a fallacy and flawd logic. Get me some proof, and I might change my mind.

That's it? That's your reasoning behind US foreign policy? I didn't see any mention about the Masons anywhere. While I respect your beliefs, whatever they may be, the conspiracy theories are just that, conspiracy and theories. Does the PNAC have some influence in Washington, probably, but what about those other "think tanks" founded by Liberal, independent, or Conservative organizations? They have influence as well. You believe American foreign policy is based only in this one organization? You might be right, but do you have any proof to back this up? JUST because the PNAC was founded by many members of the current and former Bush Administration, and JUST because they belive that the US should reign supreme doesn't make it true. That is a conspiracy theory. Just because the sun comes up in the east and everytime I see a sunset I also see a delivery truck go by, doesn't mean the delivery truck makes the sun go up. That is a fallacy and flawd logic. Get me some proof, and I might change my mind. How much more proof do you need? The highest officials in the Administration are part of this Imperialistic neocon clan, yet you're not convinced they have even an ounce of impact on the Administration's actions?

How much more proof do you need? The highest officials in the Administration are part of this Imperialistic neocon clan, yet you're not convinced they have even an ounce of impact on the Administration's actions?

How about some evidence that someone said, "Hey, invade Iraq, just because we can and it'll be better for the US in the long run."; or "We don't need the UN, no sir bobby, let's just do it by ourselves, we know we kick ass, come on...do it!" Any of these "smoking guns"? Some claim the Downing Street memo's, but those could be hoax's, they could be real. So many people want to find a conspiracy or find something and say, "Ha, Bush did lie, liar, liar, pants on fire, bring our troops home, I knew he lied." Is that what you want to accomplish, just to say "Gotcha!"? What good will come of that? You see your selves as true American's trying to show this Administration for what it truely is. Instead, you come off as muckrackers, conspiracy theorists, bitter, and wanting nothing better than to prove Bush wrong. Is that it? You might be right in the end, but I hope you aren't because of what will happen if you are. Also, I did say that such a group and such people would have some influence in Washington. To think that just a handful of people are running the country is a conspiracy theory.

Hey, does, does anyone remember when good news came out of Iraq? Like, like when schools are being built, or, uh, when a terrorist is stoped and lives are saved, or, jeez, uhm, or how about those elections? Oh, wait, that's right, the US military walked those people to the elections with guns behind their backs saying, "Vote, damn you, vote!" Just like Sadam, right?

Last time I read a newspaper or got a news blip on Yahoo!, it was another report of a bomb going off or people dying, there is a war going on isn't there? Sorry, stupid question, of course not -- we haven't had one of those since 1945. Now I know most American's have an intention span of about 5 seconds or change their minds the second they see a squirl run by the window, but does anyone remember those terroist attacks that killed 3'000 people? September something, something, right? Or those attacks overseas, some ship, some embassy, something in 1993. I know when that September date gets brought up its just to scare people or make them feel bad. No, it's not to remind them that on that day everything changed, how stupid to think that. I guess saying December 7, 1941 over and over again does the same thing, oh, stupid man.

I know most people probably don't remember this either, but the US was at war for their independence and didn't even have the Articles of Confederation (anyone remember those?) ratified until after the war, which ended in failure, and they had to rewrite another, the present day, Constitution and ratify it in 1787. I thought things just happened over night, we wrote some Declaration and England backed off and things were all happy and the rivers ran with chocolate. Silly boy!

It doesn't matter; I want Bush to fail. It was a stupid thing to have done. We should have done what Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton did, just maintained the status-quo for stability in the region. Then, nothing bad would ever happen. Should have put more stock in the UN, let them do what they do best. We should just pull our troops out, I mean, none of us actually wants to be over there, and the terrorists would leave us alone. Pull out of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, and wherever else our troops are. Bring them all home! The world doesn't need us obviously, we just screw things up and make matters worse, all the time. Then we'll just mind our own business. If anything bad happens, we'll say we're sorry and hope cooler heads pervail.

That's the kind of America I want my kids to grow up in. That's one I want people to be proud of. An America that breaks under pressure. An America that listens to whatever the majority says, cause they are ALWAYS right! An America that mids its own business because it realizes it doesn't do any good at all, it just causes death and destruction. That's my America. God, oh, sorry, no body bless America!


Your use of sarcasm was so irritating I stopped reading half way through the second paragraph.

Your use of sarcasm was so irritating I stopped reading half way through the second paragraph.

Well I'm glad you picked up the sarcasm at least.

Well I'm glad you picked up the sarcasm at least.

Yeah I'm Australian. I don't need Jay Leno to lean forward and press the canned laughed button to make me realise when something is 'meant' to be funny....And Jay Leno is definately not funny.

You seem intelligent, I'll look through your posts on this thread and see if you have less irritating formats of posting other then using elipses and exclamations fleetingly.

Yeah I'm Australian. I don't need Jay Leno to lean forward and press the canned laughed button to make me realise when something is 'meant' to be funny....And Jay Leno is definately not funny.

You seem intelligent, I'll look through your posts on this thread and see if you have less irritating formats of posting other then using elipses and exclamations fleetingly.

The POINT wasn't sarcasm. You seem intelligent enough for me not to do a point by point analysis of what I am trying to say.

In short, my college education has showed me that a chunk of journalism is biased. Your approval rating depends on who looked into it because they're going to go look for the rating they want people to see. Like if i went to a republic area, the rating could be high, but if I want a low rating, I'd go to a democratic state. I don't buy into these ratings. Go find some real news to justify an outcome.

In short, my college education has showed me that a chunk of journalism is biased. Your approval rating depends on who looked into it because they're going to go look for the rating they want people to see. Like if i went to a republic area, the rating could be high, but if I want a low rating, I'd go to a democratic state. I don't buy into these ratings. Go find some real news to justify an outcome.

The approval ratings are based on a sample size of what a few thousand people? Depends. To get a proper sampling size for 300'000'000 Americans, 3'000 or even 30'000 doesn't seem like it'll justify such responses, no mater how sound your statistics might be. Still, who are those people being polled? How old are they? Where do they live? These questions everyone should be asking whenever they see ANY poll data.

Aquilapus. I'm having trouble convincing myself that you are that naive.
Here is a six step process that will take anybody on the right path to understanding what is really going on in America.
1. Look at the list of people involved in the PNAC.
2. Look and analyze their ideals, goals, opinions and views.
3. Look at the list of people in the Bush administration.
4. Look and analyze the foreign policy that the US has carried out.
5. Realize that the PNAC is the US government and that the US government is the PNAC.
6. Take action by either agreeing with this, denouncing this, or tuning into Fox and pretending it's just not true.

How much more proof do you need? The highest officials in the Administration are part of this Imperialistic neocon clan, yet you're not convinced they have even an ounce of impact on the Administration's actions?Exactly.

Aquilapus. I'm having trouble convincing myself that you are that naive.
Here is a six step process that will take anybody on the right path to understanding what is really going on in America.
1. Look at the list of people involved in the PNAC.
2. Look and analyze their ideals, goals, opinions and views.
3. Look at the list of people in the Bush administration.
4. Look and analyze the foreign policy that the US has carried out.
5. Realize that the PNAC is the US government and that the US government is the PNAC.
6. Take action by either agreeing with this, denouncing this, or tuning into Fox and pretending it's just not true.

Again, all you're arguments are open to conjecture. The similarities are daunting, grated, but just because you have numerous people from the same organization doesn't mean they are running the country, doesn't mean they believe the EXACT same thing, and doesn't mean that every single person in the White House or Washington believs what you are implying. If one person or a large group of people believed that animals shouldn't be kept in zoos, and next week legislation is passed to illegalize zoos across the US or the president pushes this agenda, does that mean those people a running the country? Or does it mean that the president might agree with what these few people are saying? Or does it mean that these people all believe the exact same thing and use their positions of influence to get some things done? I'd guess you believe the latter. You think I'm naive because I'm using reasoning and being logical? You have nothing but strands of "proof" and nothing but conjecture.

The approval ratings are based on a sample size of what a few thousand people? Depends. To get a proper sampling size for 300'000'000 Americans, 3'000 or even 30'000 doesn't seem like it'll justify such responses, no mater how sound your statistics might be. Still, who are those people being polled? How old are they? Where do they live? These questions everyone should be asking whenever they see ANY poll data.


Wrong. Statistics dictates that sample size is correlated with accuracy of results regardless of parent population size. In other words, the average of a 50-person sample gives you as accurate a picture of the whatever you're measuring whether you're measuring from 30 thousand or 30 billion people.

Newcomers to statistics find that a hard concept to grasp. They want to think that for a larger population you need a larger sample. The truth is the confidence of your result (+/-) depends solely on sample size, and even n=3000 would be a damn good sample size.

Also, that poll comes from Gallup, and when it comes to accurate statistical measurement they're the best, period. They eliminate hidden variables, ensure accurate measurements (none of that 'only answer the question if you're passionate enough'), and draw conclusions on correlation and not causality. Aside from SAS they're unrivalled.

<snip> You have nothing but strands of "proof" and nothing but conjecture.
How is that any different from Bush's entire case for waging war in Iraq? It isn't.

Wrong. Statistics dictates that sample size is correlated with accuracy of results regardless of parent population size. In other words, the average of a 50-person sample gives you as accurate a picture of the whatever you're measuring whether you're measuring from 30 thousand or 30 billion people.

Newcomers to statistics find that a hard concept to grasp. They want to think that for a larger population you need a larger sample. The truth is the confidence of your result (+/-) depends solely on sample size, and even n=3000 would be a damn good sample size.

Also, that poll comes from Gallup, and when it comes to accurate statistical measurement they're the best, period. They eliminate hidden variables, ensure accurate measurements (none of that 'only answer the question if you're passionate enough'), and draw conclusions on correlation and not causality. Aside from SAS they're unrivalled.

I'll need to go back to my Statistics books on that one, but I still find such a small sample size of a few thousand to acuratly depict what the entire population believs. You might be right, sounds like someone paid attention in STATS. Again, I'll take another look at that one, but until then, I'll just say you're right, I'm wrong, as you were so subtle to point out.

Sucks, eh?


Yes it does. The problem is not that this is happening, but that this will probobly happen for every few days we remain there.

How is that any different from Bush's entire case for waging war in Iraq? It isn't.

So if the language is the same behind what one person says and what another person says means that they belive the exact same thing?

Again, the similarities are surprising, I don't want to keep saying this. This is just coming off to me as another conspiracy theory, a "ha, we got you now" kind of moment.

If you are right, what do you expect to happen? I assume you belive Bush lied to the American people, and that it was the influence of a small group of people that led us to war and are responsible for countless deaths? Are you looking to place blame? Do you feel that you are on some righteous quest to destroy this Administration and expose it for what it really is and help to open the eyes of the American people to what is really going on under their noses? Am I understanding your positions correctly? What are you trying to accomplish?

Well, all that I can really say is:

He got re-elected. He can't be re-elected again, so, what the hell does it matter if people like him or not. We did our part, put him back in office.

Yeah, that’s a sucky attitude, but, it’s kind of like being in a Union, or having tenure...what can we possibly do about it.

I think the best thing to do is to let it go. I'm all for opinions, and for expressing them openly, and not having to worry about people jump down your throat for it. However, some debates have been, “done to death.”…this, my Generalite friends, is one of them. There’s no need to rant and rave at one another about a problem we cannot solve. He’s here for the duration, people, and we can’t change that.

For those of you who voted against him. You had your say in that, and kudos to you for it, while I’m not a fan of gloating, you may well have earned your right to brag a bit. If you voted for Bush, we are well past the time to defend your reasons why, for the deed is done. Like I said, we can’t fix the problem, he’s not going away, God forbid he is assassinated or hurt in anyway (even if you don’t like him, its not cool to wish death upon him, or anyone :) ).

If you didn’t vote at all, and you live in America, then, you really shouldn’t complain at all. If you didn’t vote because your from a foreign country. I guess you can just be glad it didn’t happen to you ;)

Anyways, not meaning to upset anyone here, but, I think this topic of debate has been a little overplayed.

If you are right, what do you expect to happen? I assume you belive Bush lied to the American people, and that it was the influence of a small group of people that led us to war and are responsible for countless deaths? Are you looking to place blame? Do you feel that you are on some righteous quest to destroy this Administration and expose it for what it really is and help to open the eyes of the American people to what is really going on under their noses? Am I understanding your positions correctly? What are you trying to accomplish?
What is it exactly that the Bush Administration is out to accomplish? That is what I am trying to figure out. I really hope I am wrong about everything, but all the facts point that there is something else going on behind the Bush Administration. The Downing Street memos, the PNAC, the fact Bush claimed he wanted to invade Iraq merely one day after 9/11. Bush's family is a whole different story that has some oddities to it. Now, what are you out to accomplish and why?

What is it exactly that the Bush Administration is out to accomplish? That is what I am trying to figure out. I really hope I am wrong about everything, but all the facts point that there is something else going on behind the Bush Administration. The Downing Street memos, the PNAC, the fact Bush claimed he wanted to invade Iraq merely one day after 9/11. Bush's family is a whole different story that has some oddities to it. Now, what are you out to accomplish and why?

Still didn't answer most of my questions, but OK. I have some newspapers published the day after 9/11 that write about going to war with Iraq, they do not cite the Administration holding this view. Iraq, has been on every presiden't agenda since the Iraq-Iran war. It is a threat to the interests of the US and its allies, agreed?

My motivation is for people to think about the problem as openly as possible. Most people speak of Iraq as if they now EXACTLY what's going on, I don't. It's the arrogance that frightens me. The bitterness. I fear that some people feel that this is their Vietnam, that they have an opportunity to "stick it to the man". That they are fighting a cultural war just like their parent's did in the 60s. I'm afraid of the willingness and complacency some people take in accepting such views as you are suggesting. I'm afraid that people are acting out of whatever their immediate motivations are and not thinking about 5 or 10 years down the road. They feel that what happens right now, tomorrow, next month is what is really important. My motivation is to get people to step back and take a look at the FACTS, not opinions of others or what they think they see. The facts. It is a fact that this organization has prominent members in the White House. It is a fact that this organization holds a view that is controversial and has similarties between the views held by them and the White House. It is NOT a fact that every member of this organization believs the same thing. It is NOT a fact that these members exerted influence on the White House. All you are going off of is the way things look. You are going off of assumptions and they are open to conjecture (word of the day). That is my motivation, is that clear enough?

How about some evidence that someone said, "Hey, invade Iraq, just because we can and it'll be better for the US in the long run."; or "We don't need the UN, no sir bobby, let's just do it by ourselves, we know we kick ass, come on...do it!" Any of these "smoking guns"? Some claim the Downing Street memo's, but those could be hoax's, they could be real. So many people want to find a conspiracy or find something and say, "Ha, Bush did lie, liar, liar, pants on fire, bring our troops home, I knew he lied." Is that what you want to accomplish, just to say "Gotcha!"? What good will come of that? You see your selves as true American's trying to show this Administration for what it truely is. Instead, you come off as muckrackers, conspiracy theorists, bitter, and wanting nothing better than to prove Bush wrong. Is that it? You might be right in the end, but I hope you aren't because of what will happen if you are. Also, I did say that such a group and such people would have some influence in Washington. To think that just a handful of people are running the country is a conspiracy theory.
Plenty of people have posted about that conspiracy.

*ahem*
June 19, 2005, 9:49AM

DOWNING STREET MEMOS
Terror link 'unconvincing'
Leaked documents detail Britain's doubts about the United States' arguments for invasion in the Iraq war's run-up, putting both governments in the hot seat
By THOMAS WAGNER
Associated Press
LONDON - When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.
President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.
In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.
"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."
The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law.
Changing tolerance
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," said a typed copy of a March 22, 2002, memo obtained Thursday by the Associated Press and written to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
"But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapons) fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."
Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage.
The eight memos — all labeled "secret" or "confidential" — were first obtained by British reporter Michael Smith, who has written about them in the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times of London.
The Associated Press obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who spoke on condition of anonymity reviewed the copies and said their content appeared authentic.
Iraq options
The eight documents total 36 pages and range from 10-page and eight-page studies on military and legal options in Iraq, to brief memorandums from British officials and the minutes of a private meeting held by Blair and his top advisers.
Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.
"The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity," Dodge said. "In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war's legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt."
Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq's complex ethnic and religious mix once Saddam was defeated.
Starting gun fired
The British documents confirm, as well, that "soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq," Dodge said.
Speculation about if and when that would happen ran throughout 2002.
On Jan. 29, Bush called Iraq, Iran and North Korea "an axis of evil." U.S. newspapers began reporting that a U.S.-led war with Iraq was possible.
On Oct. 16, the U.S. Congress voted to authorize Bush to go to war against Iraq. On Feb. 5, 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the Bush administration's case to the U.N. Security Council. On March 19, the U.S.-led invasion began.
Bush and Blair both have been criticized at home since their WMD claims about Iraq proved false. But both have been re-elected, defending the conflict for removing a brutal dictator and promoting democracy in Iraq. Both administrations dismissed the memos as old news.
Hot topics
Details of the memos appeared in British newspapers last month, but the news quickly turned to the election that returned Blair to power. In the United States, however, details of the memos' contents became hot topics of conversations, especially among Democratic critics of Bush.
It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.
"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq," wrote Manning, who's now British ambassador to the United States.
"It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair's) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."
Manning said, "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed." But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks.
Blair was to meet with Bush at his Central Texas ranch in Crawford on April 8, 2002, and Manning told his boss: "No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy."
A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must "ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."
Costly nation-building
"In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective. ... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point."
The British worried that "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the time scale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."
In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain:
"We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for," Ricketts wrote. "It is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability [including Iran]."
Blair's government has been criticized for releasing a prewar intelligence dossier on Iraq that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice.
Questionable legality
On March 25, Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a preemptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.
"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."
Here are some Internet links to the text of the Downing Street memos:
• Iraq: Legal Background
• Prime Minister: Your Trip to the U.S.
• Iraq and Afghanistan: A Conversation with Wolfowitz
• Iraq: Options Papers
• Iraq: Advice for the prime minister
• Crawford/Iraq
• Iraq: Conditions for Military Action
• Iraq: Prime Minister's Meeting, 23 July

• Memo excerpts
In a memo dated March 14, 2002, Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, tells the prime minister about a dinner he had with then-U.S. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who's now secretary of state. Manning is now the British ambassador to the United States.
"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq. It is clear that Bush is grateful for your (Blair) support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was very different than anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."
————
"Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks. ... From what she said, Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions: How to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified; What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition; How to coordinate a U.S./allied military campaign with internal opposition; (assuming there is any); What happens on the morning after?"
————
"No doubt we need to keep a sense of perspective. But my talks with Condi convinced me that Bush wants to hear your views on Iraq before taking decisions. He also wants your support. He is still smarting from the comments by other European leaders on his Iraq policy."

From a memo dated March 22, 2002 from Peter Ricketts, British foreign office political director, to Jack Straw, Britain's Foreign Secretary, on advice given on Iraq to Blair.
"The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September. This is not something we need to be defensive about, but attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase scepticism about our case. I am relieved that you decided to postpone publication of the unclassified document. My meeting yesterday showed that there is more work to do to ensure that the figures are accurate and consistent with those of the US. But even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programmes will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW (chemical or biological weapon) fronts: the programmes are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up."
————
"US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing. To get public and Parliamentary support for military operations, we have to be convincing that the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."
————
"We can make the case on qualitative difference (only Iraq has attacked a neighbour, used CW and fired missiles against Israel). The overall strategy needs to include re-doubled effort to tackle other proliferators, including Iran, in other ways (the UK/French ideas on greater IAEA activity are helpful here). But we are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq. This is something the Prime Minister and President need to have a frank discussion about."
————
"The second problem is the END STATE. Military operations need clear and compelling military objectives. For Kosovo, it was: Serbs out, Kosovars back, peace-keepers in. For Afghanistan, destroying the Taleban and Al Qaida military capability. For Iraq, "regime change" does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

From a document dated March 8, 2002, on Iraq from the Overseas and Defense Secretariat to Cabinet Office:
"Since 1991, our objective has been to re-integrate a law-abiding Iraq which does not possess WMD or threaten its neighbours, into the international community. Implicitly, this cannot occur with Saddam Hussein in power."
————
"Despite sanctions, Iraq continues to develop WMD, although our intelligence is poor. Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime were threatened, though there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD."
————
"The US administration has lost faith in containment and is now considering regime change."
"A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers advice, none currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade legally very difficult."
"Saddam is only likely to permit the return of inspectors if he believes the threat of large scale US military action is imminent and that such concessions would prevent the US from acting decisively. Playing for time, he would then embark on a renewed policy of noncooperation."
"The US has lost confidence in containment. Some in government want Saddam removed. ... The US may be willing to work with a much smaller coalition than we think desirable."
"We have looked at three options for achieving regime change (we dismissed assassination of Saddam Hussein as an option because it would be illegal)."
"Of course, REGIME CHANGE has no basis in international law."

From a memo dated March 25, 2002, from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to Blair:
"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL (Osama bin Laden) and Al Qaida. Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesses 1/2 sic 3/4 on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate."
Speaking about the difference between Iraq, Iran and North Korea, he said: "By linking these countries together in the "axis of evil" speech, President Bush implied an identity betwen 1/2 sic 3/4 them not only in terms of their threat, but also in terms of the action necessary to be done to delink the three, and to show why military action against Iraq is so much more justified than against Iran and North Korea. The heart of this case — that Iraq poses a unique and present danger — rests on the facts."
"A legal justification is a necessary but far from sufficient precondition for military action. We also have to answer the big question — what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything. Most of the assessments from the US have assumed regime change as a means of eliminating Iraq's WMD threat. But none has satisfactorily answered how that regime change is to be secured, and how there can be any certainty that the replacement regime will be better."
"Iraq has had NO history of democracy, so no one has this habit or experience."

From a briefing paper dated July 21, 2002, given to Blair and government officials before meeting on July 23, 2002, about Iraq:
"Even with a legal base and viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective. ... A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Futher work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired end state would be created, in particular what form of government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime's and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor."

From minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top government officials. "C" refers to Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain's intelligence service.
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude (about Iraq). Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
————
"The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime."
————
"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
The Sunday Times - World


June 12, 2005 Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action


The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source. PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY
--


So start looking at people's names, i'll post til i'm sick of it ... i have little time.

...completing my last post ....
June 12, 2005 Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action


The paper, produced by the Cabinet Office on July 21, 2002, is incomplete because the last page is missing. The following is a transcript rather than the original document in order to protect the source. PERSONAL SECRET UK EYES ONLY

IRAQ: CONDITIONS FOR MILITARY ACTION (A Note by Officials) Summary Ministers are invited to: (1) Note the latest position on US military planning and timescales for possible action. (2) Agree that the objective of any military action should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. (3) Agree to engage the US on the need to set military plans within a realistic political strategy, which includes identifying the succession to Saddam Hussein and creating the conditions necessary to justify government military action, which might include an ultimatum for the return of UN weapons inspectors to Iraq. This should include a call from the Prime Minister to President Bush ahead of the briefing of US military plans to the President on 4 August. (4) Note the potentially long lead times involved in equipping UK Armed Forces to undertake operations in the Iraqi theatre and agree that the MOD should bring forward proposals for the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements under cover of the lessons learned from Afghanistan and the outcome of SR2002. (5) Agree to the establishment of an ad hoc group of officials under Cabinet Office Chairmanship to consider the development of an information campaign to be agreed with the US. Introduction 1. The US Government's military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace. But, as yet, it lacks a political framework. In particular, little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it. 2. When the Prime Minister discussed Iraq with President Bush at Crawford in April he said that the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through the UN weapons inspectors had been exhausted. 3. We need now to reinforce this message and to encourage the US Government to place its military planning within a political framework, partly to forestall the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way by, for example, an incident in the No Fly Zones. This is particularly important for the UK because it is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action. Otherwise we face the real danger that the US will commit themselves to a course of action which we would find very difficult to support. 4. In order to fulfil the conditions set out by the Prime Minister for UK support for military action against Iraq, certain preparations need to be made, and other considerations taken into account. This note sets them out in a form which can be adapted for use with the US Government. Depending on US intentions, a decision in principle may be needed soon on whether and in what form the UK takes part in military action.



The Goal
5. Our objective should be a stable and law-abiding Iraq, within present borders, co-operating with the international community, no longer posing a threat to its neighbours or to international security, and abiding by its international obligations on WMD. It seems unlikely that this could be achieved while the current Iraqi regime remains in power. US military planning unambiguously takes as its objective the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, followed by elimination if Iraqi WMD. It is however, by no means certain, in the view of UK officials, that one would necessarily follow from the other. Even if regime change is a necessary condition for controlling Iraqi WMD, it is certainly not a sufficient one.


US Military Planning
6. Although no political decisions have been taken, US military planners have drafted options for the US Government to undertake an invasion of Iraq. In a 'Running Start', military action could begin as early as November of this year, with no overt military build-up. Air strikes and support for opposition groups in Iraq would lead initially to small-scale land operations, with further land forces deploying sequentially, ultimately overwhelming Iraqi forces and leading to the collapse of the Iraqi regime. A 'Generated Start' would involve a longer build-up before any military action were taken, as early as January 2003. US military plans include no specifics on the strategic context either before or after the campaign. Currently the preference appears to be for the 'Running Start'. CDS will be ready to brief Ministers in more detail.
7. US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia. This means that legal base issues would arise virtually whatever option Ministers choose with regard to UK participation.
The Viability of the Plans
8. The Chiefs of Staff have discussed the viability of US military plans. Their initial view is that there are a number of questions which would have to be answered before they could assess whether the plans are sound. Notably these include the realism of the 'Running Start', the extent to which the plans are proof against Iraqi counter-attack using chemical or biological weapons and the robustness of US assumptions about the bases and about Iraqi (un)willingness to fight.
UK Military Contribution
9. The UK's ability to contribute forces depends on the details of the US military planning and the time available to prepare and deploy them. The MOD is examining how the UK might contribute to US-led action. The options range from deployment of a Division (ie Gulf War sized contribution plus naval and air forces) to making available bases. It is already clear that the UK could not generate a Division in time for an operation in January 2003, unless publicly visible decisions were taken very soon. Maritime and air forces could be deployed in time, provided adequate basing arrangements could be made. The lead times involved in preparing for UK military involvement include the procurement of Urgent Operational Requirements, for which there is no financial provision.
The Conditions Necessary for Military Action
10. Aside from the existence of a viable military plan we consider the following conditions necessary for military action and UK participation: justification/legal base; an international coalition; a quiescent Israel/Palestine; a positive risk/benefit assessment; and the preparation of domestic opinion.
Justification
11. US views of international law vary from that of the UK and the international community. Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law. But regime change could result from action that is otherwise lawful. We would regard the use of force against Iraq, or any other state, as lawful if exercised in the right of individual or collective self-defence, if carried out to avert an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe, or authorised by the UN Security Council. A detailed consideration of the legal issues, prepared earlier this year, is at Annex A. The legal position would depend on the precise circumstances at the time. Legal bases for an invasion of Iraq are in principle conceivable in both the first two instances but would be difficult to establish because of, for example, the tests of immediacy and proportionality. Further legal advice would be needed on this point.
12. This leaves the route under the UNSC resolutions on weapons inspectors. Kofi Annan has held three rounds of meetings with Iraq in an attempt to persuade them to admit the UN weapons inspectors. These have made no substantive progress; the Iraqis are deliberately obfuscating. Annan has downgraded the dialogue but more pointless talks are possible. We need to persuade the UN and the international community that this situation cannot be allowed to continue ad infinitum. We need to set a deadline, leading to an ultimatum. It would be preferable to obtain backing of a UNSCR for any ultimatum and early work would be necessary to explore with Kofi Annan and the Russians, in particular, the scope for achieving this.
13. In practice, facing pressure of military action, Saddam is likely to admit weapons inspectors as a means of forestalling it. But once admitted, he would not allow them to operate freely. UNMOVIC (the successor to UNSCOM) will take at least six months after entering Iraq to establish the monitoring and verification system under Resolution 1284 necessary to assess whether Iraq is meeting its obligations. Hence, even if UN inspectors gained access today, by January 2003 they would at best only just be completing setting up. It is possible that they will encounter Iraqi obstruction during this period, but this more likely when they are fully operational.
14. It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community. However, failing that (or an Iraqi attack) we would be most unlikely to achieve a legal base for military action by January 2003.
An International Coalition


15. An international coalition is necessary to provide a military platform and desirable for political purposes.
16. US military planning assumes that the US would be allowed to use bases in Kuwait (air and ground forces), Jordan, in the Gulf (air and naval forces) and UK territory (Diego Garcia and our bases in Cyprus). The plans assume that Saudi Arabia would withhold co-operation except granting military over-flights. On the assumption that military action would involve operations in the Kurdish area in the North of Iraq, the use of bases in Turkey would also be necessary.
17. In the absence of UN authorisation, there will be problems in securing the support of NATO and EU partners. Australia would be likely to participate on the same basis as the UK. France might be prepared to take part if she saw military action as inevitable. Russia and China, seeking to improve their US relations, might set aside their misgivings if sufficient attention were paid to their legal and economic concerns. Probably the best we could expect from the region would be neutrality. The US is likely to restrain Israel from taking part in military action. In practice, much of the international community would find it difficult to stand in the way of the determined course of the US hegemon. However, the greater the international support, the greater the prospects of success.
A Quiescent Israel-Palestine
18. The Israeli re-occupation of the West Bank has dampened Palestinian violence for the time being but is unsustainable in the long-term and stoking more trouble for the future. The Bush speech was at best a half step forward. We are using the Palestinian reform agenda to make progress, including a resumption of political negotiations. The Americans are talking of a ministerial conference in November or later. Real progress towards a viable Palestinian state is the best way to undercut Palestinian extremists and reduce Arab antipathy to military action against Saddam Hussein. However, another upsurge of Palestinian/Israeli violence is highly likely. The co-incidence of such an upsurge with the preparations for military action against Iraq cannot be ruled out. Indeed Saddam would use continuing violence in the Occupied Territories to bolster popular Arab support for his regime.
Benefits/Risks
19. Even with a legal base and a viable military plan, we would still need to ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks. In particular, we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective as set out in paragraph 5 above. A post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the US military plans are virtually silent on this point. Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden. Further work is required to define more precisely the means by which the desired endstate would be created, in particular what form of Government might replace Saddam Hussein's regime and the timescale within which it would be possible to identify a successor. We must also consider in greater detail the impact of military action on other UK interests in the region.
Domestic Opinion
20. Time will be required to prepare public opinion in the UK that it is necessary to take military action against Saddam Hussein. There would also need to be a substantial effort to secure the support of Parliament. An information campaign will be needed which has to be closely related to an overseas information campaign designed to influence Saddam Hussein, the Islamic World and the wider international community. This will need to give full coverage to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including his WMD, and the legal justification for action.
Timescales
21. Although the US military could act against Iraq as soon as November, we judge that a military campaign is unlikely to start until January 2003, if only because of the time it will take to reach consensus in Washington. That said, we judge that for climactic reasons, military action would need to start by January 2003, unless action were deferred until the following autumn.
22. As this paper makes clear, even this timescale would present problems. This means that:
(a) We need to influence US consideration of the military plans before President Bush is briefed on 4 August, through contacts betweens the Prime Minister and the President and at other levels

---cont'd---

...and again continued...

Additional memos These memos are additional correspondences between various U.K. government officials and agencies. See the related articles Excerpts from the Downing Street memos and Links to Downing Street memos: Blair was worried about Bush's Iraq war plans .
· memo from the Overseas and Defense Secretariat, 3/8/2002
· memo from the legal advisors of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 3/8/2002
· memo from chief foreign policy adviser David Manning, 3/14/2002
· memo from Ambassador Meyer, 3/18/2002
· memo from foreign office political director Peter Ricketts, 3/22/2002
· memo from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, 3/25/2002
Additional memos These memos are additional correspondences between various U.K. government officials and agencies. See the related articles Excerpts from the Downing Street memos and Links to Downing Street memos: Blair was worried about Bush's Iraq war plans .
· memo from the Overseas and Defense Secretariat, 3/8/2002
· memo from the legal advisors of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 3/8/2002
· memo from chief foreign policy adviser David Manning, 3/14/2002
· memo from Ambassador Meyer, 3/18/2002
· memo from foreign office political director Peter Ricketts, 3/22/2002
· memo from Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, 3/25/2002

IN ORDER:

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/ods020308.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/fcolegal020308.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/manning020314.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/meyer020318.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/ricketts020322.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/dowdoc/straw020325.pdf


---

More to come as long as mods don't mind.

More related stuff .....



http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast....spy/index.html

Apparently, documents in Iraq found that the Russians recorded private conversations between Bush and the Italian Prime Minister (Italy put out the bullshit intelligence about Niger's uranium), and also private conversations between Bush and Blair about the war in Iraq. The documents were dated March 3, 2002. (The same month as the Downing Street Memo)

Is 'Downing Street Memo' a smoking gun?
Bush critics say it shows he lied to Americans about Iraq, but others say memo offers nothing new.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and some media outlets, dismiss its importance, but the so-called 'Downing Street Memo' seems to be gathering increasing public attention.
Thursday senior Democrats held a public forum on Capitol Hill and called "for a full investigation into a memo that appears to accuse [Mr. Bush] of misleading Americans into backing the war with Iraq," as the CBC reports.
The memo [see it here] is based on a briefing given to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his top security advisers in July 2002, eight months before the war. Labelled "top secret," the memo summarizes a report from Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of British intelligence, who had just met senior Bush officials in Washington.
The memo says: "Military action was now seen as inevitable." That "Terrorism and WMD [weapons of mass destruction]" would be used to justify the war. But, the memo says, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Los Angeles Times editorial and opinion editor Michael Kinsley writes that the memo "is not proof that Bush had decided on war."
Of course, if "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," rather than vice versa, that is pretty good evidence of Bush's intentions, as well as a scandal in its own right. And we know now that this was true. Fixing intelligence and facts to fit a desired policy is the Bush II governing style, especially concerning the Iraq war. But [Sir Richard Dearlove] offered no specifics, or none that made it into the memo. Nor does the memo assert that actual decision-makers told him they were fixing the facts. Although the prose is not exactly crystalline, it seems to be saying only that "Washington" had reached that conclusion.
But Joe Conason of Salon.com writes that Kinsley's response to the memo is just more proof that "the leading lights of the Washington press corps are more embarrassed than the White House is by the revelations in the Downing Street memo."
Mooing in plaintive chorus, the Beltway herd insists that the July 23, 2002, memo wasn't news -- which would be true if the absence of news were defined only by their refusal to report it.
Editor and Publisher reported on Wednesday on a study prepared by "the liberal Web site Media Matters, " which found that "USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times" have "remained silent on the memo and its implications.
But the group’s survey of US newspaper coverage from May 1 to June 15 found at least 20 editorial pages across the country that addressed the memo, from large-circulation papers such as The Dallas Morning News to smaller papers such as the Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette. It said 18 of the 20 'emphasized the importance of the document, many calling for further investigation into the explosive questions it raises. The dissenters were editorials in The Denver Post and The Washington Post, both of which claimed that the memo merely reinforces what was already known from other sources and argued that US attention is best focused on how to win the war in Iraq.'
Reuters reports on other aspects of the memo. It was produced July 21, 2002 by Blair's staff in advance of his meeting with his security staff two days later; Britain's top spy (Dearlove) said that "war was inevitable" because "Bush wanted to remove Saddam {Hussein} through military action"; and Foreign Minister Jack Straw "said the case for war was 'thin' because 'Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD (weapons of mass destruction) capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.' "
The CBC also reports that a separate document shows that Blair urged Bush "to take his case to the United Nations to give a legal justification for the war." Michael Smith, the Sunday Times reporter who broke the original story, said this second memo was "a brillant case of misdirection."
"The whole business about going to the UN is not to avert war, but actually to get an excuse to carry out war. And I think that's the killer document for me."
Neither Bush nor Blair has disputed the authenticity of the memo, but when they met earlier this month they denied that it "accurately reflected events."
On Thursday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan dismissed the memo. He charged Democrats were "simply trying to rehash old debates that have already been addressed. And our focus is not on the past. It's on the future and working to make sure we succeed in Iraq."
Fred Kaplan, who does an extensive analysis of the memo for Slate.com, writes that the memo is both insignificant and significant. The memo doesn't really tell us anything new in terms of what we've already learned "that Bush was hellbent on war even earlier than this. The point has been made in Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack, Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, and Ron Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, as well as in articles by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker and Walter Pincus in the Washington Post.
On the other hand, he writes, historians will one day use it as a "primary-source documents" and will be a "key footnote in the history books." The real story of the memo, however, is how mistaken the Brits were about what was about the happen.
The tragedy embedded in these memos is that the Brits were mistaken in their two most basic premises: first, that Saddam Hussein really had WMD and really posed a threat; second, that just because Bush needed Blair's support, Blair could somehow influence him...
At least the Brits clearly saw the difficulties ahead and tried to engage Bush on their implications. Had he listened, our biggest problems in Iraq today might be a great deal smaller. This is another lesson to be gleaned from the Downing Street memos.
Downing Street Memo update - more documents.
Heads up! Here are links to the latest release of documents regarding the Downing Street Memo. This dates the war planning back to around March of 2002, six months before the Bush administration began to publicly push for "regime change" in Iraq.
Raw Story acquires new British Iraq docs; Narrative late tonight.

The Iraq options paper
After axis of evil, British foreign secretary says Iraq case weak
Condi committed to regime change in 2002
The British legal background
Admission that Iraq WMD program hadn't changed
The 'need to wrongfoot' Saddam on inspectors

Update [2005-6-6 12:6:25 by smintheus]:: We've been hearing rumors that the Republicans are hoping to bury the emerging DSM story permanently by issuing a response to John Kerry's planned statement, sometime today (?). Reportedly, they will argue that the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998" [HR 4655] gave the President all the authorization he needed to invade Iraq. Over at Democratic Underground, they're discussing this now. To my mind, any such attempt by the Republicans would be laughable, and welcome evidence that they are becoming increasingly desperate over the threat DSM represents.
Let me explain why briefly, so that we are on record from the outset. The bill does not authorize the President to invade Iraq. It authorizes him to work with those in Iraq who want to replace the dictatorship with a democracy. Furthermore, if Bush actually believed that HR 4655 authorized him to invade Iraq, why did he not say so and let it stand at that? Why did he ask Congress for authority to invade Iraq in October 2002? Why did he seek a UN resolution to authorize an invasion? Above all (and here's the kicker), why did he deceive the nation during the year before the invasion about his plans and his grounds for taking action? Why did he allow the facts and the intelligence on alleged WMDs and links to terrorism to be fixed around his policy of overthrowing Hussein?
Furthermore--and this is extremely important, folks--whatever Bush actually thought about HR 4655 (which is now virtually unproveable), it did not give him authority to misappropriate funds that Congress had appropriated for the war in Afghanistan. We've heard that at least 700 million dollars were shifted out of Iraq to the Gulf to support the secret shift of troops and materiel there. According to Senator Graham's book, Tommy Franks told him in Feb. 2002 that large numbers of forces were being shifted out of Afghanistan already, and that the war was now in Iraq. Did Bush ask Congress for permission to use funds appropriated for Afghanistan for the new war he was creating in Iraq? Graham was shocked by the revelation from Franks, so on the face of it the answer appears to be that he did not. Therefore it looks to be a clear case of misappropriation of funds on a massive scale. That is a crime, whether done by a President or by any other federal official. As they used to say in Watergate days, 'Follow the money.'

-----

As per the PNAC, well, there's probably plenty enough here to get you started. The argument about PNAC's involvement, of course, necessarily is facilitated through this atrocious fiasco w/Iraq.

I think i have more somewhere ....

Shorter, and to the point ....
aren't we a conspiracy as well?
Think about it.
That's all politics is about, really.
End of mysticism, end of the "magic" of the term, "conspiracy" :gundge:
con = with
spire = breathe

:eek:

Well that will take a while, but thank you for providing some evidence. A couple of memos wouldn't be enough to sway me personally, but I'll take a nice long look at this and reply tomorrow.

Straughn, in case you hadn't noticed, that last posting spree of yours:

13 Pages
7,110 Words
36,173 Characters
681 Lines


Would you mind shortening future posting? You don't have to write a dissertation to get your points across. And I think you'll find that more people listen to what you have to say when you keep it concise. As it is I doubt very many forum-goers waded through all that.

...Oh yes and 13-page posts do qualify as spam. Just a heads-up.

While all the above information shows evidence of poor intelligence and the changing climate in the post-9/11 world, it does not show without a doubt that there was a conspiracy or that the Administration of the US or Great Britain used 9/11 to their advantage with the sole purpose of devising a war to "get back" at Iraq. It does not show without a doubt that the president of the US or the PM of Great Britain delibratly lied to the people just to get their war. Again, what is it that you are trying to accomplish with such "evidence"? Are you trying to get the "a ha, gatcha" evidence and stick it to Bush and Blair? What do you want to see happen? This evidence is open to conjecture (word of the day) and everything you think it shows is largely implied. You don't think we should be in Iraq, you think Bush and Blair lied and deceived the people, and you want what? What do you want to come of this? What do you want to change? When you read these through glasses of "looking for the smoking gun" then all of it clearly points to "a ha, gatcha"! If you read it this way or that way it gives different results. All you want done is what has been happening for the past 30 years. The "right" way to do things. You just want to expose Bush for the liar you feel he is. Some things in this "evidence" I agree are disturbing, but that does not mean you have proved yourself or made your case without a doubt in the world to prove your point. Sounds to me, that you are trying to make a case for war and building the evidence around it to support your ideas.

what is bush supposed to do exactly? all these people know is violence, and if they arent showed it in excessive force they wont listen, i am not saying they arent good people, i have some friends from middle east, nice people. but the thing is, all they have known thier whole life is war, if bush was to be radical and say "for every casulty of war we will carpet bomb without warning 3 mosks" i can guarntee you they would stop....of course this cant be made possible cause all of the country except for texas would piss its pants, but honestly, mosks, buildings can be reproduced, the lives ruined from american casulties cant be. all i can say is, if i was told that the enemy was gonna blow the crap out of 3 of the most important places in my life, i would sure as hell stop

The POINT wasn't sarcasm. You seem intelligent enough for me not to do a point by point analysis of what I am trying to say.

If the point wasn't sarcasm then don't be sarcastic. Thats like a comedian getting up on stage and saying "i'm not trying to be funny"

You were trying to make an arguement using the technique of sarcasm. Your poor use of said technique made me ignore your most-probably worthy arguement.

<<snip>>
[Iraq]
You can disagree with this war all you want. But that doesn't change things. We are there and we are going to stay there until the job is done.
<<snip>.


The thing which doesn't seem clear is what that job is.

To get the terrorists responsible for 9/11? Would probably have been better to invade Saudi Arabia then (except Bush has close links with that country('s oil) and there are billions of Saudi dollars invested in the US.

To destroy all those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was about to unleash on the world? Oops. Bush and Blair seem to have conveniently forgotten that one.

To bring democracy to an abused people in a tyranical dictatorship? Well hey, let's not stop at Iraq - what about Zimbabwe & North Korea? And to be honest, recent elections in the US make me wonder if America is necessarily the most appropriate country to impose democracy on other states.

Ouch, the Republicans are going to feel this in 06, but seriously is anyone really surprised by this? Bush's approval ratings have been going downhill for several months now.

If the point wasn't sarcasm then don't be sarcastic. Thats like a comedian getting up on stage and saying "i'm not trying to be funny"

You were trying to make an arguement using the technique of sarcasm. Your poor use of said technique made me ignore your most-probably worthy arguement.

OK, maybe I do need to do a point by point analysis for you.

The first paragraph is going at the bias towards no "good" news being reported out of Iraq. When all you do is hear the bad news, people start to belive that nothing good is happening. If I called someone stupid everyday, they'd probably start beliving they were. It was also taking jabs at the radical rationality and logic behind some peoples thinking.

Paragraph two is refering to the fact that no war has been declared since 1945. People are stating that Iraq is not an actual war because no declaration of war was declared, yet they are quick to consider Vietnam a war when, again, no declaration of war was declared. The next part is a criticism of the American people forgetting what the atmosphere is like that they are living in. They seem to forget how we got from A to B, it didn't happen over night. Reference to September 11, indirectly of course, because when you mention it you are trying to scare people, then I assert that this was not the case for December 7, 1941, or was it?

This paragraph (I'm a bit of an ass at first) references to the American Revolution to show how democracy is not easy or pretty. I think some people forget this sometimes.

The next paragraph is criticizing the failed foreign policy of the US over the past 30 years. It also criticises the fact that people are coming off overly negative and bitter. It is criticizing the "could of" and "should of" arguments and not what people ought to be looking at -- what's next? It is criticizing the attitude some might have that the US is an arrogant "world-police" state and should mind its business.

The final part is a criticism of the radical positions some might take. The criticism that people aren't thinking this all the way through and just concentrating on hating Bush, hating Iraq, and hating anything else that they disagree with.

Overall, that blurb is just pure sarcastic criticism of the American psyche on both ends of the isles and how people are avoiding rationality all together and turning to name calling and pure bitterness to get their points across. Emotional arguments, while entertaining, are empty arguments in the end. That is another point that I was trying to make. That blurb was not taking a stance on any issue, but was just a criticism, that's all. Again, trying to make a point that all people tend to be doing is criticizing and not offering any solutions or solid arguments by examining both sides of any one issue.

Does that clear things up?

The thing which doesn't seem clear is what that job is.

To get the terrorists responsible for 9/11? Would probably have been better to invade Saudi Arabia then (except Bush has close links with that country('s oil) and there are billions of Saudi dollars invested in the US.

To destroy all those weapons of mass destruction that Saddam was about to unleash on the world? Oops. Bush and Blair seem to have conveniently forgotten that one.

To bring democracy to an abused people in a tyranical dictatorship? Well hey, let's not stop at Iraq - what about Zimbabwe & North Korea? And to be honest, recent elections in the US make me wonder if America is necessarily the most appropriate country to impose democracy on other states.

I have mentioned this before, just because most of the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia doesn't make Saudi Arabia a terrorist state. That logic is flawed in believing that one Saudi is not different than any other Saudi. In regards to the WMD's, would people be more satisfied if our troops got hit by Mustard Gas on the way in, or anthrax? At least then we'd know. Would you be more content in seeing massive stockpiles of weapons? Would you be more content living with the idea that he might have weapons, which he might use on his neighbors, give to terrorists, or attack a US base, or Israel? Of course, you'd probably say other countries are more dangerous and we know more about what they have so we should've attacked them, right? Iran is OK, but Iraq is not. Saudi Arabia is OK, but Iraq is not. North Korea is OK, but Iraq is not. Is that correct? "Well, the others would make more sense" some might say. Your against this war, but others would be OK? I'm not even going to get into the geopolitical climate of what might happen with those other countries in this post, but later. Do you expect the US to just go out and topple any country it doesn't agree with or feels is a threat or want's to establish democracy with a coup or military force? I recommend looking back over our 200 years of history. I'm not going to get into the "imposing" of democracy argument, not in this post, maybe later. But, Sadam had 100% of the eligable voters vote for him, maybe he knows a thing or two about democracy after all, we should take a few notes from him, yah?

There are many arguments here that are very well thought out and all. But I grow tired of all the reading. Lets try things that are striaght to the point. Or if you have alot to say, put a summery at the end or begining, and then if it is intresting enough people can read the details you have there. Some of us have short lunch breaks.

Do you expect the US to just go out and topple any country it doesn't agree with or feels is a threat or want's to establish democracy with a coup or military force?
Yes. That is exactly what the PNAC's mission is, and they've already started in Iraq. And you've heard Bush say Iraq is just the beginning in the "War on Terror" a.k.a. PNAC's agenda.

Yes. That is exactly what the PNAC's mission is, and they've already started in Iraq. And you've heard Bush say Iraq is just the beginning in the "War on Terror" a.k.a. PNAC's agenda.

PNAC has been around for 8 years and this policy has been around for over 200 years, this is only an extention of the American philosophy as to what our nation should be. But, wait, it's a conspiracy, only a handful of powerful men with their own personal agendas are running the country, right?

PNAC has been around for 8 years and this policy has been around for over 200 years, this is only an extention of the American philosophy as to what our nation should be. But, wait, it's a conspiracy, only a handful of powerful men with their own personal agendas are running the country, right?
Well, if you agree with the "invade first, talk later" philosophy of the PNAC, then the argument should stop here. America shouldn't invade every country that is deemed "too powerful," or any country that doesn't cooperate with the U.S's policies.

PNAC has been around for 8 years and this policy has been around for over 200 years,No it hasn't. It's been around since the beginning of Bush's first term. The very first security meeting of the Bush administration was to discuss and plan the invasion of Iraq.

Straughn, in case you hadn't noticed, that last posting spree of yours:

13 Pages
7,110 Words
36,173 Characters
681 Lines


Would you mind shortening future posting? You don't have to write a dissertation to get your points across. And I think you'll find that more people listen to what you have to say when you keep it concise. As it is I doubt very many forum-goers waded through all that.

...Oh yes and 13-page posts do qualify as spam. Just a heads-up.
13 ? M'kay.
*nods*

The Project For a New American Century

I haven't seen this think-tank mentioned at all on these forums. This is
surprising since they have shaped US foreign policy for 4 years.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

These people are a group of neo-conservatives who believe in a, well frankly
imperialistic US foreign policy. They set up in 1997. They have a great
influence over the current administration. See their Satement of Principles.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/s...fprinciples.htm

Look at the signatories after you read it.

I particularly think that Bush supporters who believe that the Iraq war was
part of the war on terror should read it. PNAC has always wanted a US
invasion of Iraq. On 26th January 1998 they sent a letter to Bill Clinton
with this request.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

see also the Iraq section of

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

Now for my opinion. It is sinister that the people in the administration had
a plan of this kind before they got into power, before the 9/11 attacks.

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based
think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one
thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all
nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining
superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring
the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax
Americana.
The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper
produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses:
Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what
is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According
to PNAC, America must:

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and
the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine
and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a
strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic
product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Thank you Straughn for the clarity in presenting this information. Now if only Corneliu and Mesaetcala could lay their eyes on this discussion. I'd love to hear their point of view on all of this.

There was an obvious neocon influence on the first Bush administration's foreign policy. All you need to do is listen to the neocons of the 1970s, who argued, among other things, that since we couldn't detect Soviet subs in the Atlantic it had to mean the Soviets had developed super-secret stealth technology (no way could we actually have been winning the Cold War). There was an almost identical absence of logic in the lead-up to the Iraq War: We can't find any of Saddam's WMDs, so that must mean he's really good at hiding them; Didn't find any when we invaded, so that must mean they were smuggled to Syria; etc.

That said, I think as the Iraq debacle got more and more screwed up the neocons lost a lot of face, and they've kind of been scrambling for shelter ever since. In short, leaders of a social movement don't have to be caught red handed Nixon-style to lose the faith of the American people. Their sliminess will ooze from every public orifice and sooner or later they will discredit themselves and lose popularity.

Had we invaded Syria right after Iraq in our quest for phantom WMDs, I'd say the neocons posed a serious threat to our country and to the world. But as it is they've simply left a visible but limitted scar on the world, and retired to wherever is was they came from.

Until next time that is...

Hey! Recognize this pattern?
2, 4, 6, 8
Simple, right? And what's the next number? No, it's not potato, it's ten.

Then why doesn't anyone ever seem to see this one:
Babylon - Large, imperialistic superpower
Egypt - Large, imperialistic superpower
Persia - Large, imperialistic superpower
Alexander's Greece - Large, imperialistic superpower
Rome - Large, imperialistic superpower
The Turkish Empire - Large, imperialistic superpower
Spain - Large, imperialistic superpower
Great Brittain - Large, imperialistic superpower

Well, no one can deny that the Uninted States is a large superpower. And is all this war making us imperialistic? Probably.

Now do you see why I'm getting out of here as quickly as I may?

13 ? M'kay.
*nods*


Ya.

Don't take my word for it. Count your own post length.

Oh no! American soldiers are dying! We have to pull out! We can't win this war! It's a quagmire; just like vietnam! America can't win a war against such advanced gorilla tactics!

News for all of the "we can't win" people: That's a load of crap. We could finnish this war TOMORROW! But how can that be? There can't be any fool proof plan for beating the terrorists!

Here's my plan: We flatten iraq. To hell with it, we tactically nuke it from orbit. We wipe out every living thing on that piece of land and every other piece of land harboring terror. We give it all to Israel. Problem solved. Nuclear fall out? Hell, we wouldn't HAVE to use nukes, and in the event that we did we'd deal with it. Civilian casualties? Oh well, this is war.

The war can't be won? Give it an hour and we could theoretically wipe out every human harboring hate against the US in seconds. We could take the Iraqi oil fields and fix the 60+ dollars a barrel of oil that we're getting now. We could become this imperialist state that everyone tells us we are; start taking territories and forming new states. The united states of the world! I can see it now!

The funny thing is that we DON'T do this. That we don't solve all of our problems. We don't kill off our enemies, cheapen our gas, and otherwise flatten our problems. We instead let OUR men die. We pay more for OUR oil. We try to help people. But why would these american pig dogs with their imperialist outlook try to help people?! I thought those damn americans were bullies... they were out to take over the world!

No. America is doing everything in their power NOT to win this war. Bush doesn't want to win his Iraq war! He wants the IRAQI's to win their IRAQ war. IRAQI's that deserve a chance.... a chance to be as free as we are, at the very least.

Oh wait, but they deserve a chance? Now I'm enforcing my beliefs on others, right? Hell yes I am. If a country harbors terrorists, kills off it's citizens, allows a man to walk down the street, grab a woman, rape her and then put a bullet through her head.... yes... I believe in sticking up for the little guy.

So dumb American teenagers like the idea of fighting against the war because listening to rock and roll is cool. That's nice. The liberal children have this idea that they're somehow smarter than the rest of society. The liberal group as a whole believes they are some how on a higher moral plane than the republican conservatives. That's nice too. The fact is that the conservatives are trying to HELP those in need. We're knocking out two birds with one stone: fighting those that attacked us and freeing a society in need of freedom. We took a tyrant out of office and saved a nation from his cruelty.

Why then do these open-hearted liberals freak out about this whole situation? How is it that the approval rating of a president trying to HELP people is so low?

That's a question I can't answer. I'm honestly lost for words.

Oh no! American soldiers are dying! We have to pull out! We can't win this war! It's a quagmire; just like vietnam! America can't win a war against such advanced gorilla tactics!

News for all of the "we can't win" people: That's a load of crap. We could finnish this war TOMORROW! But how can that be? There can't be any fool proof plan for beating the terrorists!

Here's my plan: We flatten iraq. To hell with it, we tactically nuke it from orbit. We wipe out every living thing on that piece of land and every other piece of land harboring terror. We give it all to Israel. Problem solved. Nuclear fall out? Hell, we wouldn't HAVE to use nukes, and in the event that we did we'd deal with it. Civilian casualties? Oh well, this is war.

The war can't be won? Give it an hour and we could theoretically wipe out every human harboring hate against the US in seconds. We could take the Iraqi oil fields and fix the 60+ dollars a barrel of oil that we're getting now. We could become this imperialist state that everyone tells us we are; start taking territories and forming new states. The united states of the world! I can see it now!

The funny thing is that we DON'T do this. That we don't solve all of our problems. We don't kill off our enemies, cheapen our gas, and otherwise flatten our problems. We instead let OUR men die. We pay more for OUR oil. We try to help people. But why would these american pig dogs with their imperialist outlook try to help people?! I thought those damn americans were bullies... they were out to take over the world!

No. America is doing everything in their power NOT to win this war. Bush doesn't want to win his Iraq war! He wants the IRAQI's to win their IRAQ war. IRAQI's that deserve a chance.... a chance to be as free as we are, at the very least.

Oh wait, but they deserve a chance? Now I'm enforcing my beliefs on others, right? Hell yes I am. If a country harbors terrorists, kills off it's citizens, allows a man to walk down the street, grab a woman, rape her and then put a bullet through her head.... yes... I believe in sticking up for the little guy.

So dumb American teenagers like the idea of fighting against the war because listening to rock and roll is cool. That's nice. The liberal children have this idea that they're somehow smarter than the rest of society. The liberal group as a whole believes they are some how on a higher moral plane than the republican conservatives. That's nice too. The fact is that the conservatives are trying to HELP those in need. We're knocking out two birds with one stone: fighting those that attacked us and freeing a society in need of freedom. We took a tyrant out of office and saved a nation from his cruelty.

Why then do these open-hearted liberals freak out about this whole situation? How is it that the approval rating of a president trying to HELP people is so low?

That's a question I can't answer. I'm honestly lost for words.
So, you're prepared to go to war with every dictatorship in the world?
There are so many things wrong with the points you made but that question is the one that kept nagging me when I read this.

Thank you Straughn for the clarity in presenting this information. Now if only Corneliu and Mesaetcala could lay their eyes on this discussion. I'd love to hear their point of view on all of this.
I once posted the link to the PNAC website for Mesatecala, and he dismissed it as liberal propaganda. Even after I repeated over and over that it was actually neoconservative propaganda; then he attacked me for repeating the same thing over and over again. It was fun. And I agree that those two, and more, could use a looky at this discussion, so, a bump.

Most of Iraqis weapons were Russian/French origin, and the only thing we gave the Afghanis were stingers to hold off soviet troops.
Ok you made your point, you hate the nations that dare to critisize the illegal war (where are the WMD's BTW? Still have not found them?). But you don't have to lie for that. The US was the nation that armed old buddy Saddam to the teeth. Or do you really think that a antique T-72 was the finest example of Iraqs army?


Bush is doing a fine job
Of course and sun turns around a flat earth :rolleyes: Look how Republican creationisme attacks the IQ, you're the living example.

So, you're prepared to go to war with every dictatorship in the world?
There are so many things wrong with the points you made but that question is the one that kept nagging me when I read this.

The problem is that he not only is prepared to do so, but probably feels that America is destined to go to war with the world.

I once posted the link to the PNAC website for Mesatecala, and he dismissed it as liberal propaganda. Even after I repeated over and over that it was actually neoconservative propaganda; then he attacked me for repeating the same thing over and over again. It was fun. And I agree that those two, and more, could use a looky at this discussion, so, a bump.

They are the same. BTW, once Corny is a meteorologist, then a history teacher/student, then a soldier aso.., depends on what titlle fits him that moment.
The kid (mentioned that he lives with the parents, altough he refuses the fact that he is a kid) spends the day before the screen (just look at all his posts).

Once he said that he stopped working as a explanation for his posts number. In another line you read that he and his mother will wait with the US flag in his hand when his dad comes home from Iraq. Once he is adult and working, next time we all see that he is a kid with a lot of fantasy, another time he is a brilliant history student/teacher.

Sorry, that kid with all his lies and fantasy is long done for most avid posters on NS. Just log in and watch his post account runnig during the day..

But they're kind of fun, nice to see how those marginals allways try getting away with their bullshit.

... The US was the nation that armed old buddy Saddam to the teeth. Or do you really think that a antique T-72 was the finest example of Iraqs army?

...
Actually, the USSR and France were Iraq's primary suppliers of military equipment. And yes, Saddam had nothing that was better than a T-72... except a T-80.

Actually, the USSR and France were Iraq's primary suppliers of military equipment. And yes, Saddam had nothing that was better than a T-72... except a T-80.
Not to mention the fact that in 1983 one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam begin his WMD program that led to the mass slaughter of innocent Iraqis. And the fact that the CIA helped Saddam and the Ba'th Party rise to power in 1963 and supplied a list of innocent Iraqi Communist Party members that were slaughtered.

Not to mention the fact that in 1983 one Mr. Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam begin his WMD program that led to the mass slaughter of innocent Iraqis. And the fact that the CIA helped Saddam and the Ba'th Party rise to power in 1963 and supplied a list of innocent Iraqi Communist Party members that were slaughtered.
That's basically true, AFAIK.

Die by the daily car and suicide bombings that have killed over 1,800 US troops and over 100,000 Iraqis?
Actually the number is around 20,000 civilians, not 100,000, moron.
Oh yeah and:

http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_19.gif
http://www.protestwarrior.com/nimages/signs/large/pw_sign_23.gif

Wake up. My posts often are a lot more then just one sentence. Additionally, I'm sick of your damn attitude.. the "I'm right and if you disagree with me.. you're an ass" attitude. Nice one.


Ladies, Ladies, (not an insult ot women)

CLAM FREAKIN DOWN!

This is a discussion about war, not A war.

Lincoln almost lost his re-election during the Civil War. Approval ratings come and go, what history decides is what matters.

Lincoln almost lost his re-election during the Civil War. Approval ratings come and go, what history decides is what matters.

Interesting fact about Lincoln... I wonder how it would turn out if he lost the election. Maybe the north would have lost the war, which would have made US history quite diffrent. Therefor because of that election, history turned out the way it did.

So, really, history depends on people to decide what matters.

No it hasn't. It's been around since the beginning of Bush's first term. The very first security meeting of the Bush administration was to discuss and plan the invasion of Iraq.

PNAC was created in 1997. Ever here of the Monroe Doctrine, Truman Doctrine, Reagan Doctrine, Manifest Destiny, Expansionism, American exceptionalism, or the Declaration of Independence? The list goes on. The ideas of the Bush Administration and the PNAC are not anything new in this country, but are restating the old with a more contemporary tone.

Well that will take a while, but thank you for providing some evidence. A couple of memos wouldn't be enough to sway me personally, but I'll take a nice long look at this and reply tomorrow.
I appreciate your patience!

*not sarcasm*

*bows*

While all the above information shows evidence of poor intelligence and the changing climate in the post-9/11 world, it does not show without a doubt that there was a conspiracy or that the Administration of the US or Great Britain used 9/11 to their advantage with the sole purpose of devising a war to "get back" at Iraq. It does not show without a doubt that the president of the US or the PM of Great Britain delibratly lied to the people just to get their war. Again, what is it that you are trying to accomplish with such "evidence"? Are you trying to get the "a ha, gatcha" evidence and stick it to Bush and Blair? What do you want to see happen? This evidence is open to conjecture (word of the day) and everything you think it shows is largely implied. You don't think we should be in Iraq, you think Bush and Blair lied and deceived the people, and you want what? What do you want to come of this? What do you want to change? When you read these through glasses of "looking for the smoking gun" then all of it clearly points to "a ha, gatcha"! If you read it this way or that way it gives different results. All you want done is what has been happening for the past 30 years. The "right" way to do things. You just want to expose Bush for the liar you feel he is. Some things in this "evidence" I agree are disturbing, but that does not mean you have proved yourself or made your case without a doubt in the world to prove your point. Sounds to me, that you are trying to make a case for war and building the evidence around it to support your ideas.
Dunno if you mean m'self ....

Actually i have this tendency to give context for a person to draw their own conclusions of things from cases of material that really aren't very well disproven. I take that kind of attitude very seriously.

I also take very seriously the idea that the majority of Bush supporters are VERY quick to spout the Fox/Limbaugh line without doing any personal investigation on their own parts, and when i hear that even more from people who don't know the difference between a grommet and a comet who are suddenly domestic-and-foreign policy experts with a keen understanding of the situation, i tend to be all the more intent on seeing where it really goes.

Most of all, it has been posted PLENTY of times how often the administration, its lackeys, and Bush *him*self have come forth with either a twist or a fullblown line of bullsh*t, so as far as me "feel"ing he's a liar, you should try reconsidering your point of view as far as your diatribe goes. He's not a reed in the wind, and neither are the f*ckers who act like his sh*t don't stink.
Not jello to a wall - it is a case of others lying and obfuscating for him.
You can make up your own mind, good, if that's really what you're doing.
But don't think you're taking me down in mine, or anyone else who bothers to investigate. More power to 'em.

Thank you Straughn for the clarity in presenting this information. Now if only Corneliu and Mesaetcala could lay their eyes on this discussion. I'd love to hear their point of view on all of this.
Thank you, sir, for taking this matter seriously. I hope more posters/readers will at least consider things i bring up in terms of their view of current events and intent.

Corny's fun to argue with but doesn't do much to defend his point (facts)

Mesaetcala isn't as fun to argue. Walking land mine IMHO
;)

*bows*

Ya.

Don't take my word for it. Count your own post length.
Please forgive my ignorance ... my browser doesn't account page length for posts through this forum. And the font size is what it is from where i have it stored .... ??

I once posted the link to the PNAC website for Mesatecala, and he dismissed it as liberal propaganda. Even after I repeated over and over that it was actually neoconservative propaganda; then he attacked me for repeating the same thing over and over again. It was fun. And I agree that those two, and more, could use a looky at this discussion, so, a bump.
Your posts rock. I think i often lift yours, and if i reprint them, i apologize if i've done so in poor taste or spirit.

*bows*

16.04% approval rating here.

just goes ta show ya how biased polls can be, if the 'mainstream' media is saying 38% approval.

it depends who you ask.

Oh no! American soldiers are dying! We have to pull out! We can't win this war! It's a quagmire; just like vietnam! America can't win a war against such advanced gorilla tactics!

News for all of the "we can't win" people: That's a load of crap. We could finnish this war TOMORROW! But how can that be? There can't be any fool proof plan for beating the terrorists!

Here's my plan: We flatten iraq. To hell with it, we tactically nuke it from orbit. We wipe out every living thing on that piece of land and every other piece of land harboring terror. We give it all to Israel. Problem solved. Nuclear fall out? Hell, we wouldn't HAVE to use nukes, and in the event that we did we'd deal with it. Civilian casualties? Oh well, this is war.

The war can't be won? Give it an hour and we could theoretically wipe out every human harboring hate against the US in seconds. We could take the Iraqi oil fields and fix the 60+ dollars a barrel of oil that we're getting now. We could become this imperialist state that everyone tells us we are; start taking territories and forming new states. The united states of the world! I can see it now!

The funny thing is that we DON'T do this. That we don't solve all of our problems. We don't kill off our enemies, cheapen our gas, and otherwise flatten our problems. We instead let OUR men die. We pay more for OUR oil. We try to help people. But why would these american pig dogs with their imperialist outlook try to help people?! I thought those damn americans were bullies... they were out to take over the world!

No. America is doing everything in their power NOT to win this war. Bush doesn't want to win his Iraq war! He wants the IRAQI's to win their IRAQ war. IRAQI's that deserve a chance.... a chance to be as free as we are, at the very least.

Oh wait, but they deserve a chance? Now I'm enforcing my beliefs on others, right? Hell yes I am. If a country harbors terrorists, kills off it's citizens, allows a man to walk down the street, grab a woman, rape her and then put a bullet through her head.... yes... I believe in sticking up for the little guy.

So dumb American teenagers like the idea of fighting against the war because listening to rock and roll is cool. That's nice. The liberal children have this idea that they're somehow smarter than the rest of society. The liberal group as a whole believes they are some how on a higher moral plane than the republican conservatives. That's nice too. The fact is that the conservatives are trying to HELP those in need. We're knocking out two birds with one stone: fighting those that attacked us and freeing a society in need of freedom. We took a tyrant out of office and saved a nation from his cruelty.

Why then do these open-hearted liberals freak out about this whole situation? How is it that the approval rating of a president trying to HELP people is so low?

That's a question I can't answer. I'm honestly lost for words.
Lost for words? Wait for Limbaugh. He'll fill you up.

Seriously, get off the fascism or move somewhere where that kind of thinking DOESN'T INHERENTLY conflict with the well being of the civilization you inhabit.
Clinical .....

Will you people get it in your head that WAR IS WRONG? Starting ANY war is wrong. People DIE! DIE DIE DIE ! I wonder why we have police? Or right so they can arrest murderers and prevent murders... but no lets go over there and kill their people, its all good. Starting wars is the worst thing you can do. No one should die. Do you also know what war means? It is an all out fight until the opposition dies or unconditionally surrenders. Do you really want all so many people dead? Because innocents will always die, and so will the poor soldiers who got into the army to pay for college etc.
It just pisses me off how people can casually say "Oh yeah those Syrians man, they rape and pillage over there and they killed some ppl from other countries. Lets go fucking kill them all." You gotta be a retard to use that kind of logic. It would be so much easier if EVERYONE was in the UN and they just had a huge army. ANd you would just deploy a few million tanks and threaten the government to stop the bullshit. Its alot better than fighting would-be terrorists in a country full of civilians.. eh?

OK, maybe I do need to do a point by point analysis for you.

The first paragraph is going at the bias towards no "good" news being reported out of Iraq. When all you do is hear the bad news, people start to belive that nothing good is happening. If I called someone stupid everyday, they'd probably start beliving they were. It was also taking jabs at the radical rationality and logic behind some peoples thinking.

Paragraph two is refering to the fact that no war has been declared since 1945. People are stating that Iraq is not an actual war because no declaration of war was declared, yet they are quick to consider Vietnam a war when, again, no declaration of war was declared. The next part is a criticism of the American people forgetting what the atmosphere is like that they are living in. They seem to forget how we got from A to B, it didn't happen over night. Reference to September 11, indirectly of course, because when you mention it you are trying to scare people, then I assert that this was not the case for December 7, 1941, or was it?

This paragraph (I'm a bit of an ass at first) references to the American Revolution to show how democracy is not easy or pretty. I think some people forget this sometimes.

The next paragraph is criticizing the failed foreign policy of the US over the past 30 years. It also criticises the fact that people are coming off overly negative and bitter. It is criticizing the "could of" and "should of" arguments and not what people ought to be looking at -- what's next? It is criticizing the attitude some might have that the US is an arrogant "world-police" state and should mind its business.

The final part is a criticism of the radical positions some might take. The criticism that people aren't thinking this all the way through and just concentrating on hating Bush, hating Iraq, and hating anything else that they disagree with.

Overall, that blurb is just pure sarcastic criticism of the American psyche on both ends of the isles and how people are avoiding rationality all together and turning to name calling and pure bitterness to get their points across. Emotional arguments, while entertaining, are empty arguments in the end. That is another point that I was trying to make. That blurb was not taking a stance on any issue, but was just a criticism, that's all. Again, trying to make a point that all people tend to be doing is criticizing and not offering any solutions or solid arguments by examining both sides of any one issue.

Does that clear things up?

If you asked me on a tuesday I'd say: Yes much better, no crap just fact, what I like to read.

And now to reply, yes extremes suck, but then again the whole situation sucks. America shouldn't have rushed in like they did. It was just a big grab and dash for something that didn't end up existing. It's like a pole jump person going up REALLY high when the bar was set at like 6 cm.


Ilkarzana is lazy and should learn to read more often if he can only handle two sentenced posts.

<snip>

Let's have a war!
So you can go and die.
Let's have a war!
We could all use the money.
Let's have a war!
We need the space.
Let's have a war!
Clean out this place.

Let's have a war!
Jack up the Dow Jones.
Let's have a war!
It can start in New Jersey.
Let's have a war!
Blame it on the middle-class.
Let's have a war!
We're like rats in a cage.

Let's have a war!
So you can go and die.
Let's have a war!
We could all use the money.
Let's have a war!
We need the space.
Let's have a war!
Clean out this place.

Let's have a war!
Jack up the Dow Jones.
Let's have a war!
It can start in New Jersey.
Let's have a war!
Blame it on the middle-class.
Let's have a war!
We're like rats in a cage.


....APC or original....?

....APC or original....?
both...I haven't heard the original. :( Yeah, I know...

Your posts rock. I think i often lift yours, and if i reprint them, i apologize if i've done so in poor taste or spirit.

*bows*
why, thank you! :D I haven't noticed, but now that you bring it up, I'll be on the lookout, PLAGIARIZER!!! :p

Will you people get it in your head that WAR IS WRONG? Starting ANY war is wrong. People DIE! DIE DIE DIE ! I wonder why we have police? Or right so they can arrest murderers and prevent murders... but no lets go over there and kill their people, its all good. Starting wars is the worst thing you can do. No one should die. Do you also know what war means? It is an all out fight until the opposition dies or unconditionally surrenders. Do you really want all so many people dead? Because innocents will always die, and so will the poor soldiers who got into the army to pay for college etc.
It just pisses me off how people can casually say "Oh yeah those Syrians man, they rape and pillage over there and they killed some ppl from other countries. Lets go fucking kill them all." You gotta be a retard to use that kind of logic. It would be so much easier if EVERYONE was in the UN and they just had a huge army. ANd you would just deploy a few million tanks and threaten the government to stop the bullshit. Its alot better than fighting would-be terrorists in a country full of civilians.. eh?


Untill you come up with a non-violent solution for dealing with rulers that obviously need to be disposed but are too high strung/insane to listen, you can keep your little opinion to yourself. Im pretty sure everyone knows that war is bad, but its often a necessary evil.

Anybody see that idiot Cindy Sheenan running around the country with the support of ultra left wing groups including Michael Moore? And this:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm

"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."

Any comments on that?

Will you people get it in your head that WAR IS WRONG? Starting ANY war is wrong. People DIE! DIE DIE DIE ! I wonder why we have police? Or right so they can arrest murderers and prevent murders... but no lets go over there and kill their people, its all good. Starting wars is the worst thing you can do. No one should die. Do you also know what war means? It is an all out fight until the opposition dies or unconditionally surrenders. Do you really want all so many people dead? Because innocents will always die, and so will the poor soldiers who got into the army to pay for college etc.
It just pisses me off how people can casually say "Oh yeah those Syrians man, they rape and pillage over there and they killed some ppl from other countries. Lets go fucking kill them all." You gotta be a retard to use that kind of logic. It would be so much easier if EVERYONE was in the UN and they just had a huge army. ANd you would just deploy a few million tanks and threaten the government to stop the bullshit. Its alot better than fighting would-be terrorists in a country full of civilians.. eh?

You just have to be one of those tards to write such drivel.

You just have to be one of those tards to write such drivel.
I thought you were DoS wad.

I thought you were DoS wad.
he is

I didnt real all the posts, i stopped after page 4 but ive got somethings to say.This war will directly impact me, I never supported this war, I tried to argue my entire social studies class against the war before it started, but hey it happened anyway. But we can't leave now, we can't cut and run, because however bad things are now they will be worse if we leave, the country will tear itself apart, Iran and Turkey will likely invade and hundreds of thousands more will die plunging the country into even greater ruin. Oh and we wont be able to get any of that tasty oil. ;-) No, we need more troops in Iraq, lots more, which will cause higher american deaths because the insurgents will have more targets but its what has to be done. Take the 50,000 troops of Okinawa, which has no strategic value what soever except as a military beach resort, and send em to Iraq. Take the troops out of Germany and Italy and South Korea, oh fun fact!! The South Korean army, all of it, is under direct control of an American General! Because American and South Korea are the only UN countries still in the Korean War, which is still declared and technically active. But back to my point, This war will directly impact me, because I am 16 years old and there will I repeat THERE WILL be a DRAFT! There has to be to get the troops we are gonna need to fight in Iraq, Syria and Iran, because we will be fighting all three, So I want some answers, first of all when did the reason for war become "spreading democracy in the world" I though it was Weapons of Mass Destruction! What are those again? I havent heard anything about them in the past two years so i had forgotten what they were. And the problem isn't just Bush, who however incompetent he may be isn't totaly to blame. The blame rests on the American people who elected Bush and let him get away with this crap, God... no Buddah....no Allah....aww forget it. But we need to reprioritize our defense spending, lets take the money we were spending on Nuclear Weapons from Lockheed Martin (A very large political donater) and spend it on body armor! Lets spend the money we are using to buy F-22 Raptors which are the definition of overkill, No country other than our allies had anything which could challenge the F-15, why did we need to spend billions and billions on the F-22? Lets take the money from those and buy Armored Humvees. Lets stop reserching Chemical Weapons and develop weapons that let our troops shoot around corners, how about a device that can detect C4 that can attach to the front of trucks and go off with an alarm or something so there will be less deaths from roadside bombs. Lets stop stealing all of Iraqs oil and give the people of Bagdad electricity again? Hey you know the stuff that makes my computer work, that lets me tell all you people this. Lets let the Iraqi people have electricity, and dignity. Lets show them a little respect, how about we educate our own people about Islam. Oh! Golly No! We can't try to understand our enemy! We can find the real reasons why they hate us! We just have to spew out retoric that makes no sence like "Our enemy hates us because he hates everything we stand for, like liberty and democracy and freedom." No Mr. Bush, no Mr. Cheny, Radical Islam hates us because we have troops in Saudi Arabia, and because we support Israel, don't even get me started on Israel, they have a right to bitch about that mess. So, how do we stem the tide of terrorism? Pull out of Saudi Arabia, which is one of the most backwards countries on the face of the earth, stop giving support to Israel, and make real progress in Iraq, and im not talking about body counts here, im not talking about how many kids my age you kill who are fighting for what they belive in, no Help the Iraqi people, give them power, give them water, give the security, do not give them asshole oil companies, do not give them retoric, do not give them silence. Because that is what we are giving the Iraqi people right now. When has Bush gone to Iraq? When has Rumsfield on his 999 suprise visits talked to real Iraqi people and not just soldiers who glare at him. But once again this all started because we let Bush get away with this, which was our fault, It was our fault for letting a political system take place where Politicians aren't willing to take a stand because they are afraid of political retrobutions, I'm not just railing against Republicans, Democrats are just as much to blame mainly for being so fucking spineless, i refuse to call myself a democrat, because the democratic party is so worthless right now. But I will go to Iraq because even if I don't get drafted, I very might well volunteer, because why should someone else have to go in my place? This is our society's fault as a whole and we have to own up to it now, why should just the poor kids who can't afford to go to college have to go. My mother says I should try to run to Canada, but then someone will have to go in my place, and I can't do that, I didn't support the war but I can't send someone else to do my job. Because even though they wont say "Hey this kid didn't show up draft Joe Smith" But they will draft x people, and y number of people wont show up so they willl draft z more people. I wont be part of y. i don't know where I was going with this i just needed to vent EDIT: I got some sleep, i've read all the posts now.

oh and all you people with like 5000 posts, you have way too much free time on your hands

No anyone with over 500

Wow. Yet another war poll in which we're asked to chose between "Everything Bush is doing is right" and "Everything Bush is doing is wrong."

I applaud you, The Bow Seat, for making the best post so for out of the ones that I have read (too many to read them all). I agree with you on many points.

But there are a few things that I think we will disagree on. In the case of a military draft, there will be resistance movements. People won't just run to Canada like during Vietnam. People will grab weapons and fight against the government. And I'll be with them.

As much flaming and hatred will be directed at my above paragraph, it will be but a fraction of what I'm about to suggest. I very much doubt that ANYONE will agree with me here:

I remember 9/11. I remember showing up to school after I was sick Monday, and having to catch up on work. I remember sitting in my 7th grade English class, watching on the television as the second plane hit. I remember what Usama bin Laden did and al Queda did that day. They killed thousands of innocents, which we drove them to do. We've supported corrupt rulers in the Middle East. It needs to end. We need to refocus the war. And we need to ally with al Queda.

They've killed many innocents. But they haven't always. They haven't always been about attacking civilians. The bombing of the WTC in the 90's was a message, one that we never listened to. They are not war-mongerers like the Bush administration. Our ignorance over the past few decades, which includes Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, and our allowance and aid to those who would suppress sects of worship, gamble, commit adultery, and various other sins have caused these people to act against us. And their sympathizers and their followers grow while we give them more and more reason to hate us. I bet if we had said originally that the war in Iraq was just about Hussein, instead of making false connections between him and Usama bin Laden, they would have been a little grateful. But we lied, and we lied about them.

If someone was threatening you, your family, and your very way of life, what would you do? Many people use that as an excuse for this war, as a motivation for our troops. Well it's a hell of a lot more real for these people. They see their faith as being under attack, and so they launched a Jihad against us. This all began as a misunderstanding, or perhaps they had exactly the right idea when they went against us. Either way, both sides must now apologize, and leave each other alone or unite. They are fighting for their idea of freedom. How can we deny them that?

Do I agree with their methods? Like I said, I remember, clearly, that day, and I will never condone such tactics. Many people died. Good people as well as bad. Many innocent children will grow up motherless and/or fatherless. They were wrong to use such tactics. And yet we've killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. This war needs to stop. And we need allies, ones that believe in something other than the all-mighty-dollar and the pleasures of the flesh.

Both sides have fucked up bad. Maybe we can put it behind us. But if we do nothing, if we keep handling Iraq the same way, well let me give you a little quote from Ayman al-Zawahiri:

"We thank God for appeasing us with the dilemma in Iraq after Afghanistan. The Americans are facing a delicate situation in both countries. If they withdraw they will lose everything and if they stay, they will continue to bleed to death."

I remember 9/11. I remember showing up to school after I was sick Monday, and having to catch up on work. I remember sitting in my 7th grade English class, watching on the television as the second plane hit. I remember what Usama bin Laden did and al Queda did that day. They killed thousands of innocents, which we drove them to do. We've supported corrupt rulers in the Middle East. It needs to end. We need to refocus the war. And we need to ally with al Queda.

They've killed many innocents. But they haven't always. They haven't always been about attacking civilians. The bombing of the WTC in the 90's was a message, one that we never listened to. They are not war-mongerers like the Bush administration. Our ignorance over the past few decades, which includes Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, and our allowance and aid to those who would suppress sects of worship, gamble, commit adultery, and various other sins have caused these people to act against us. And their sympathizers and their followers grow while we give them more and more reason to hate us. I bet if we had said originally that the war in Iraq was just about Hussein, instead of making false connections between him and Usama bin Laden, they would have been a little grateful. But we lied, and we lied about them.

If someone was threatening you, your family, and your very way of life, what would you do? Many people use that as an excuse for this war, as a motivation for our troops. Well it's a hell of a lot more real for these people. They see their faith as being under attack, and so they launched a Jihad against us. This all began as a misunderstanding, or perhaps they had exactly the right idea when they went against us. Either way, both sides must now apologize, and leave each other alone or unite. They are fighting for their idea of freedom. How can we deny them that?

Do I agree with their methods? Like I said, I remember, clearly, that day, and I will never condone such tactics. Many people died. Good people as well as bad. Many innocent children will grow up motherless and/or fatherless. They were wrong to use such tactics. And yet we've killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. This war needs to stop. And we need allies, ones that believe in something other than the all-mighty-dollar and the pleasures of the flesh.

Both sides have fucked up bad. Maybe we can put it behind us. But if we do nothing, if we keep handling Iraq the same way, well let me give you a little quote from Ayman al-Zawahiri:

"We thank God for appeasing us with the dilemma in Iraq after Afghanistan. The Americans are facing a delicate situation in both countries. If they withdraw they will lose everything and if they stay, they will continue to bleed to death."

I don't know quite what to say about your opinion, but the most polite thing is that you are wrong. You might want to do a little more reading and thinking about this.

Are you aware that Al-Quaeda has attacked at least 16 nations, a number which are Islamic nations? In which they specifically target innocent civilians. They are not 'warmongers'? And they do this because their faith is under attack - by all the nations they attacked ? How is their faith under attack and by whom? You appear to accept this because we supported countries which have gambled, commited sins, etc?

You say they haven't always attacked civilians as if that justifies the fact that they do now - civilian terror is their specialty to the tune of thousands dead. And you say it began as a misunderstanding, please explain.

Then, after they have attacked us, and the civilians in many other nations the US should ally and unite with them? How about other nations attacked, they should ally with Al-Quaeda too? Against whom and for what purpose?

Seriously, could you explain your position in less rambling terms and address some specifics? None of what you say makes any sense to me. I'll check in tomorrow to see what you say.

They've killed many innocents. But they haven't always. They haven't always been about attacking civilians. The bombing of the WTC in the 90's was a message, one that we never listened to. They are not war-mongerers like the Bush administration. Our ignorance over the past few decades, which includes Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, and our allowance and aid to those who would suppress sects of worship, gamble, commit adultery, and various other sins have caused these people to act against us. And their sympathizers and their followers grow while we give them more and more reason to hate us. I bet if we had said originally that the war in Iraq was just about Hussein, instead of making false connections between him and Usama bin Laden, they would have been a little grateful. But we lied, and we lied about them.

If someone was threatening you, your family, and your very way of life, what would you do? Many people use that as an excuse for this war, as a motivation for our troops. Well it's a hell of a lot more real for these people. They see their faith as being under attack, and so they launched a Jihad against us. This all began as a misunderstanding, or perhaps they had exactly the right idea when they went against us. Either way, both sides must now apologize, and leave each other alone or unite. They are fighting for their idea of freedom. How can we deny them that?

Do I agree with their methods? Like I said, I remember, clearly, that day, and I will never condone such tactics. Many people died. Good people as well as bad. Many innocent children will grow up motherless and/or fatherless. They were wrong to use such tactics. And yet we've killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. This war needs to stop. And we need allies, ones that believe in something other than the all-mighty-dollar and the pleasures of the flesh.

Both sides have fucked up bad. Maybe we can put it behind us. But if we do nothing, if we keep handling Iraq the same way, well let me give you a little quote from Ayman al-Zawahiri:

I understand where you are coming from but yours is a nieve and shows shallow understanding of the issues at hand. Their faith is not under attack, they only believe it is. Lets say that Saudi Arabia was a world power and not the US and that a crazy dictator with a huge army ruled Canada, and lets just say that you were Morman. OK? Just for laughs. And the Saudis with the United States blessing set up a military base near Salt Lake City. Is that an excuse to go killing innnocent civilians? Is that an excuse to go to Saudi Arabia and blow up women and children, I don't think so, the issue here isn't Usama, because we need to blow him in to thousands of tiny pieces, The issuse is what to do to fix Iraq which is a much more direct problem

Wow. Yet another war poll in which we're asked to chose between "Everything Bush is doing is right" and "Everything Bush is doing is wrong."
No the poll is asking do if you think bush is doing a good job in Iraq, I see no refrences to domestic or any other foreign policy in that poll, maybe you need to have your eyes checked because you seem to be seeing words that aren't there, or maybe you're high, thats gotta be it.

I understand where you are coming from but yours is a nieve and shows shallow understanding of the issues at hand. Their faith is not under attack, they only believe it is. Lets say that Saudi Arabia was a world power and not the US and that a crazy dictator with a huge army ruled Canada, and lets just say that you were Morman. OK? Just for laughs. And the Saudis with the United States blessing set up a military base neer Salt Lake City. Is that an excuse to go killing innnocent civilians? Is that an excuse to go to Saudi Arabia and blow up women and children, I don't think so, the issue here isn't Usama, because we need to blow him in to thousands of tiny pieces, The issuse is what to do to fix Iraq which is a much more direct problem
So what's your example have to do with the crazy dictator with a huge army in Canada? You sort of dropped that fictional character halfway through your supposition.

So what's your example have to do with the crazy dictator with a huge army in Canada? You sort of dropped that fictional character halfway through your supposition.
Ok...Ok...Thinking...Thinking...Oh yeah, the Canadian army while seeming powerful is actually poorly equiped and unmotivated, and while the Canadian Dictator is crazy, he has enough sanity left to realize that if he never actually does anything and just yells that he stay in power and live his life of luxury.

Anybody see that idiot Cindy Sheenan running around the country with the support of ultra left wing groups including Michael Moore? And this:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcs.htm

"The Sheehan Family lost our beloved Casey in the Iraq War and we have been silently, respectfully grieving. We do not agree with the political motivations and publicity tactics of Cindy Sheehan. She now appears to be promoting her own personal agenda and notoriety at the the expense of her son's good name and reputation. The rest of the Sheehan Family supports the troops, our country, and our President, silently, with prayer and respect."

Any comments on that?
*HIJACK*

Ooh, Drudge. Yep, another post of integrity.
Seems like someone had a topic here .... seems that your post has little to do with it.
So now are you under attack since i object to your post?
Ow!
*looks wistfully at mods*

Anybody see that idiot Cindy Sheenan running around the country with the support of ultra left wing groups including Michael Moore?Congratulations. You've just called a grieving mother an idiot.

It's funny how the administration states that she is promoting her own personal agenda at the expense of her son's good name... When the administration has been promoting the PNAC's personal agenda at the expense of the USA's good name, and honesty in international affairs.

Mesatecala... You disgust me. You absolute horror of a human being.

(Just so everyone knows, I tried to post this last night, but I must have spent too much time or something and got signed out, so all my writing was gone.)

My main source is Michael Sheuer's Imperial Hubris.

We prevent them from defending their faith:

America has declared that waging jihad against Islam's attackers is a criminal act . . . For a Muslim to refrain from joining a defensive jihad to protect Islam means disobeying God's law and earning damnation.

We prevent them from giving to their faithful brothers and sisters:

America has demanded that Muslim regimes limit, control, and track the donations Muslims make to charitable organizations that serve their poor, refugee, or embattled brethren. Tithing is one of Islam's five pillars, and so America is asking Muslims to abandon God's law for man-made law.

We alter their faith:

America has demanded Muslim educational authorities alter their curricula to teach a brand of Islam more in keeping with modernity and, not coincidentally, U.S. interests.

We help those who attack them:

U.S. policy supports oppression and often aggression by Hindu India in Kashmir, Catholic Fillipinos in Mindanao, Orthodox Christian Russians in Chechnya, Uzbek ex-communists in Uzbekistan, Chinese communists in Xinjiang Province, apostate al-Sauds in the Arabian Peninsula, and Israeli Jews in Palestine.

We help corrupt Middle-Eastern leaders:

America supports apostate Islamic governments in Kuwait, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. The regimes are corrupt, ruled by man-made not God's law, and oppress Muslims trying to install shariah law.

We continuously sanction them:

America, on its own or with the UN, often imposes economic and military sanctions on Muslims, including peoples of Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan, Libya, Iran, and Indonesia.

We want their oil, and we want it cheap:

The U.S. government and oil companies are seeking control of the Arab Peninsula to make sure its energy resources are sold to the West at below-market prices.

Magick Isles, one question. Are you serious?

Have I given any indication that I'm kidding?

Yes, I'm serious. We need to rethink our strategies in the Middle-East, and we need to help the oppressed, rather than help those who can help us. America use to stand for independence and freedom from oppressing nations. Now we stand for imperialism, and we are the oppressing nation.

Have I given any indication that I'm kidding?

Yes, I'm serious. We need to rethink our strategies in the Middle-East, and we need to help the oppressed, rather than help those who can help us. America use to stand for independence and freedom from oppressing nations. Now we stand for imperialism, and we are the oppressing nation.
I'm not a supporter of the war in question. However, I fail to see how providing a list of excuses for terrorism, separatism, fundamentalism and the whole bit of other -isms is going to help anyone.

What does the author want--the US helping to establish the Caliphate with Shariah legal system from Morocco to Indonesia? It will be very Islamic, I s'pose.

'Disobeying God's law and earning damnation', 'apostate al-Saudis', 'Orthodox Christian Russians in Chechnya'. That's over the top...

*BUMP*
There's a few posts that merit longer perusal here.
...and....
Just where "all over the country" is Cindy Sheehan "running around" to?
She's out in front of smirkingchimp.com's ranch. He's ignoring her.
Although .... i think i read that Ben & Jerry's is involved somewhat - one of the co-owners.

If I was President...

1. Pull out of every single military base in the world that we own and bring our men and women in uniform home, for good.
2. Pull all embacies out of forgein soil. Why do we need them if we could just as easily send a phone call or, in hostile terms, curce at them on T.V.?
3. Stop giving forgein aid. While I am at it, I'll stop trying to choose sides in every war or to disable a dictator. If anything, we should be buttraping Castro and not Hussein or Osama.
4. Sell all shares in international organizations. Leave the UN and just about every other organization. True allies do not need an agreement to defend eachother, expecially if you are being invaded for the wrong reason.

Now, with that said, what would happen? Some may be like "w00t" for a month or two. Then what? EU's economy starts to drop. The Middle East errupts into a desert fire. Africa litterally is a continental brush war, and China goes ballistic with Russia's leaders pounding the desks of their offices.

They critisize us every secound, but what they don't relize is, if we are gone, they too will die, or be very close.

Isolationism is what we need to do with this nation. While we're at it, illegalize outsourceing. "You outsource, you can't trade with us." (Same with Forgein and Domestic companies).

Oh yeah, almost forgot, stop the damn Canadians from crossing that border. Every time they do one gets eaten by a shark and the government yells at the governor of California or something...

Alright, I am blowing off some built-up steam, but it is in my theory with Puerto Rico. Take away all we give them, all their abilities and treaties with us, and see what they do in the next five years.

Yes, I'm serious. We need to rethink our strategies in the Middle-East, and we need to help the oppressed, rather than help those who can help us. America use to stand for independence and freedom from oppressing nations. Now we stand for imperialism, and we are the oppressing nation.
You'd get my vote. If I were American. And you were running for office. And the elections weren't rigged.

You'd get my vote. If I were American. And you were running for office. And the elections weren't rigged.

:eek: You're joking right? You meant the other guy, right? I'm completely serious here, but I didn't think anyone would agree with me. I actually did think about going into politics, but I'm not sure. It would take a lot of work, and I would have to start doing better in school about 2 years ago, at the least.

<snip>
"Anonymous" revealed himself!?

Good book, btw

:eek: You're joking right? You meant the other guy, right? I'm completely serious here, but I didn't think anyone would agree with me. I actually did think about going into politics, but I'm not sure. It would take a lot of work, and I would have to start doing better in school about 2 years ago, at the least.

I hope he's joking since most of your arguments are based on assumptions.

I hope he's joking since most of your arguments are based on assumptions.

Assumptions? It's just an assumption that we have made it a crime to defend their faith? It's an assumption that we force the leaders of Muslim nations to control the charity given by its citizens? It's an assumption that the Islam we want their children to learn is an altered form? It's an assumption that we help those who oppose and oppress Muslims? It's an assumption that these leaders bring a lot of money to the U.S., while they discriminate against many Muslims in their own country? It's an assumption that we've been sanctioning them? It's an assumption that there's a lot of oil in the Middle East that we could have real cheap by being friendly with the leaders that will scratch our back and taking it from those who won't?

Dear God, half of you have no damn idea what is going on. Your still pissed that liberals couldnt get elected so you could abort your children. Listen, I have sat down with many members of the military and it is effective. Not to long ago Iraq police actually staged a battle and won it. Which was very uncommon becuase the would run with the bullets started flying. Not only that but the media dosnt tell you the half of it. While you people are too busy poking at the war becuase americans die you forget to look on your own soil. Last night in Houston, TX nine people were killed due to voilent crimes, only two americans were killed in Iraq due to that. It makes me sick how arrogant you people are with things like punkvoter.com and hollywood blasting propoganda into your head. Instead you seriously need to sit down and study what is really going on such as I did when I was checking to see if Kerry was full of shit. This just in. He is, and I am damn glad he didnt get voted. Plus you realize that if all these restrictions liberals keep putting on the military we would be done by now. Seriously, get the real facts. I bet half of the people posting are animal rights activists to. Go to liberal hell. But to people with a head on thier shoulders about the subject. Good for you.

Dear God, half of you have no damn idea what is going on. Your still pissed that liberals couldnt get elected so you could abort your children. Listen, I have sat down with many members of the military and it is effective. Not to long ago Iraq police actually staged a battle and won it. Which was very uncommon becuase the would run with the bullets started flying. Not only that but the media dosnt tell you the half of it. While you people are too busy poking at the war becuase americans die you forget to look on your own soil. Last night in Houston, TX nine people were killed due to voilent crimes, only two americans were killed in Iraq due to that. It makes me sick how arrogant you people are with things like punkvoter.com and hollywood blasting propoganda into your head. Instead you seriously need to sit down and study what is really going on such as I did when I was checking to see if Kerry was full of shit. This just in. He is, and I am damn glad he didnt get voted. Plus you realize that if all these restrictions liberals keep putting on the military we would be done by now. Seriously, get the real facts. I bet half of the people posting are animal rights activists to. Go to liberal hell. But to people with a head on thier shoulders about the subject. Good for you.

Hmm, a vast conglomeration of ad hominem attacks and bad grammar. Excellent 2nd post. I also wonder what Kerry has to do with Bush's handling of the war, and how the "liberals" restrict the war when both houses are controlled by Republicans.

So, are you saying the Republicans are so ineffective that they can't effectively advance their agenda even when they control all 3 parts of the American government? Man, if they are that bad, maybe they should step back and let some more qualified people in.

At least Kerry didn't try to smear Bush by creating false ads about his military record, like Bush did. He used the same tactic against McCain. You can say Bush wasn't connected, but pens and paper don't mean connections.

And quick question: In liberal hell, is Kerry the devil, or Bush. I mean it would seem like Kerry would fit in liberal hell, but Bush would be a much more frightening figure. I'm not the first to admit it, but I know Kerry's a pussy. Now can you admit that Bush is a warmongering oilaholic?

I hope he's joking since most of your arguments are based on assumptions.
Then your hopes are dashed. I think Magick Isles is a breath of fresh air around here, and I meant just what I wrote.

All of it.

Dear God, half of you have no damn idea what is going on. Your still pissed that liberals couldnt get elected so you could abort your children. Listen, I have sat down with many members of the military and it is effective. Not to long ago Iraq police actually staged a battle and won it. Which was very uncommon becuase the would run with the bullets started flying. Not only that but the media dosnt tell you the half of it. While you people are too busy poking at the war becuase americans die you forget to look on your own soil. Last night in Houston, TX nine people were killed due to voilent crimes, only two americans were killed in Iraq due to that. It makes me sick how arrogant you people are with things like punkvoter.com and hollywood blasting propoganda into your head. Instead you seriously need to sit down and study what is really going on such as I did when I was checking to see if Kerry was full of shit. This just in. He is, and I am damn glad he didnt get voted. Plus you realize that if all these restrictions liberals keep putting on the military we would be done by now. Seriously, get the real facts. I bet half of the people posting are animal rights activists to. Go to liberal hell. But to people with a head on thier shoulders about the subject. Good for you.

We don't allow flaming on this forum. Take a three day break.

Then your hopes are dashed. I think Magick Isles is a breath of fresh air around here, and I meant just what I wrote.

All of it.

Wow. Thanks for the support. Really, I didn't expected anyone to back me up. It's good to know someone else understands where I'm coming from.

And then to Hidden Hands, I apologize for my last post, because I only commented on what I thought was the "bad" of your post. You did have a few good points. The media does only focus on the bad, and we are too focused on the deaths of our soldiers over there. Our soldiers are there to protect freedom, even if it means their life. They knew what they were doing when they got in. There are still the innocent deaths over there though, which, in my opinion, are far worse than our soldiers dying. And the innocent deaths over here, those are worse too. Should the deaths of American soldiers be sad? Of course, but treat them with the honor and dignity they deserve. They're protecting freedom overseas, how about we, the civilians, focus on the more tragic deaths of civilians, people who didn't ask for their life to be put on the line.

Only next time, Hidden, try to prove your point with better grammar. It gives you more of an aura of intelligence. I'm not saying you're stupid, but that's how people will see you.

YOU ARE THE ONE HARMING AMERICA. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WANTS FAILURE. SHAME ON YOU. You are the one who wants more and more failure. America was not founded on failure mongers.

Jesus Christ! Will you ever SHUT UP? You are the most annoying type of person on the face of the earth. The kind that paints themself into a corner and then decides to build a fort out of couch cushions and lob spitballs at people who walk on the paint job. So, in the words of one of your, likely, favorite pundits... SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

wow this is gonna sound really really egosentric and arrogant but could someone please give me a serious response to my original post? I posted because I was hopeing for some feedback on my opinions and what others thought of them, nothing agains you Isles but YOU'RE STEALING MY SPOTLIGHT! lol! But Isles your conclusions have some serious holes in them. First of all what most people fail to understand is that terrorism isn't really to cause terror, people completely misunderstand terrorism, mainly because it has the word terror in it. No people use terrorism because its cheap. If the insurgents could afford tanks, then hell they'd use tanks, but they can only afford some cheap explosives with no reliable delivery system other than a human being, if they were able to use cruise missles they would but they can't afford it, terrorism is just a very cheap form of warfare. And I don't deny that we have much too little respect for Islam and Muslims but nothing gives you an excuse to kill innocent people, nothing ever. Which goes the same for Bush in Iraq too, and Blair, everyone seems to have forgotten about Blair in this thread. We need to respect Islam, but not pander to it.

Jesus Christ! Will you ever SHUT UP? You are the most annoying type of person on the face of the earth. The kind that paints themself into a corner and then decides to build a fort out of couch cushions and lob spitballs at people who walk on the paint job. So, in the words of one of your, likely, favorite pundits... SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP!

Are you discriminating against "couch cushion fort" builders? That happens to be one of my favorite hobbies.

*lobs a spitball at Greed*