NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050818/ap_on_re_us/peace_mom

"More than 1,600 vigils were planned Wednesday from coast to coast by liberal advocacy groups MoveOn.org Political Action, TrueMajority and Democracy for America. A large vigil was also planned in Paris."

Throw the Iraqi's to the wolves. Why would we want to nurture a blossoming free country - so what if their freely elected leaders have asked for our help. Let's show the world how we support our allies - afterall - they've shown us.

Why do so many Americans pretend to care about the Iraqis so much all of the sudden? :confused:

I may be opposed to having gone into Iraq in the first place, but even I realize how stupid pulling out too soon would be. Of course, we're fucked whether we stay or leave. =-/

Why do so many Americans pretend to care about the Iraqis so much all of the sudden? :confused:

To make themselves feel like good people?

Why do so many Americans pretend to care about the Iraqis so much all of the sudden? :confused:
They were in support of Cindy, I believe...

Oh, and this thread is flamebait.

I may be opposed to having gone into Iraq in the first place, but even I realize how stupid pulling out too soon would be. Of course, we're fucked whether we stay or leave. =-/
Welcome to the Korea/Vietnam/Algeria/Afghanistan experience! :D

From what I can tell, at this particular moment Iraq is neither 'blossoming' nor 'free', and that doesn't look like it's going to change in the near future. If every single man and woman is killed in this struggle for democracy, will it still be worth it?

Let's show the world how we support our allies - afterall - they've shown us.

As I recall, after 9/11 the majority of the Western world was in full support of the United States. I know here in Britain people were actually hanging the stars and stripes from their windows and singing the American national anthem -- more than they normally do with our own flag and anthem, that's for sure. The USA was onto a great thing. What happened?

I don't know, must have been some of the things you said and did...

Throw the Iraqi's to the wolves. Why would we want to nurture a blossoming free country - so what if their freely elected leaders have asked for our help. Let's show the world how we support our allies - afterall - they've shown us.B0zzy, there's nicer ways of criticizing the "let's get out now" crowd.

Original Post

/signed

The USA was onto a great thing. What happened?Bush, that's what happened.

Welcome to the Korea/Vietnam/Algeria/Afghanistan experience! :D

America is good at fucking itself, eh?

Thousands call for US surrender?
How can we surrender when we've already won (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/1030-02.jpg)?

I want the war to end...but uh...giving Iraq to the fundies is a BAD idea!

Why do so many Americans pretend to care about the Iraqis so much all of the sudden? :confused:
Why shouldn't they? Their government sent in an army that disrupted a stable dictatorial secular system that, while oppressive at times, was working. The disruption caused a pseudo-anarchy, fostering prime conditions in which insurgency could take a foothold. Now, lives are beginning to mount... Do you see where I'm going with this? (Mind you, this is a non-conservative theory).

Why shouldn't they? Their government sent in an army that disrupted a stable dictatorial secular system that, while oppressive at times, was working. The disruption caused a pseudo-anarchy, fostering prime conditions in which insurgency could take a foothold. Now, lives are beginning to mount... Do you see where I'm going with this? (Mind you, this is a non-conservative theory).
Well, I can understand the 'liberal' contingent getting upset about the situation in Iraq, because it tends to get upset about the situation everywhere, depending on what the flavour of the year is.

What I cannot understand is how conservatives can do the same, they are hardly consistent in their concern for the world - indeed for many, a complete disregard for the world's affairs is an openly-stated source of pride.

It's unfortunate how bad a catch 22 situation the U.S. is in. They can leave like everyone wants them too, and give up the billions of dollars in oil they will eventually syphon (not mention leave the current gov to be ass-raped by the next half-trained army to come alone). Or they can stay and continue to foster increasing mistrust and hatred not only internationally but at home as well.

I feel bad for the superpower. As much as I hate the U.S. as a govermental entity, I can't help but admit most of that hate comes from my own frustration (due mostly to how dependant Canada is on them for trade) and the fact the U.S. will do anything to keep themselves on top. However, I can understand why the U.S. would do this, as the the first two jobs of a country are the same as the first two jobs of any politician: get the power, and then keep the power.

Fun fact: Did you know that Canada sells 80% of it's exports to the U.S? Where would we be without the U.S? In the third world...

Fun fact: Did you know that Canada sells 80% of it's exports to the U.S? Where would we be without the U.S? In the third world...
I'm sure the European Union would give you a 'helping hand'.

Your economy. Restructure it like this. NOW. :D

I'm sure the European Union would give you a 'helping hand'.

Your economy. Restructure it like this. NOW. :D

I'm sure the U.S. would have something to say about that, considering they need to buy our exports almost as much as we need to sell them.

Bush: "Canada has WMDs, we must act now."
Random Reporter: "WMDs such as?"
Bush: "Ever heard of the 'Chicken Cannon'?"

Bush: "Canada has WMDs, we must act now."
Random Reporter: "WMDs such as?"
Bush: "Ever heard of the 'Chicken Cannon'?"
:eek:

All right! Good job! :D

:( I miss Air Farce...

:eek:

All right! Good job! :D

:( I miss Air Farce...

Air Farce is still on TV, but it's not the same without Robert Morgan.

From what I can tell, at this particular moment Iraq is neither 'blossoming' nor 'free', and that doesn't look like it's going to change in the near future. If every single man and woman is killed in this struggle for democracy, will it still be worth it?



As I recall, after 9/11 the majority of the Western world was in full support of the United States. I know here in Britain people were actually hanging the stars and stripes from their windows and singing the American national anthem -- more than they normally do with our own flag and anthem, that's for sure. The USA was onto a great thing. What happened?

I don't know, must have been some of the things you said and did...
It was, apparently, all words for the vast majority. When the time for words was over and work began their sudden 'support' evaporated.

snip

Fun fact: Did you know that Canada sells 80% of it's exports to the U.S? Where would we be without the U.S? In the third world...

interesting - what about imports? Whos stuff do they buy?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050818/ap_on_re_us/peace_mom

"More than 1,600 vigils were planned Wednesday from coast to coast by liberal advocacy groups MoveOn.org Political Action, TrueMajority and Democracy for America. A large vigil was also planned in Paris."

Throw the Iraqi's to the wolves. Why would we want to nurture a blossoming free country - so what if their freely elected leaders have asked for our help. Let's show the world how we support our allies - afterall - they've shown us.
It's what I've been saying all along, that Americans are starting to value the life of an insurgent over their own lives. Notice how I said Americans instead of American, because once you encourage individual thought, and not group think, logic prevails.

From what I can tell, at this particular moment Iraq is neither 'blossoming' nor 'free', ...
What about Iraq is not free? Who are they taking orders from? Expand on your claim with facts.

and that doesn't look like it's going to change in the near future.
You mean, apparently, the death and distruction inflicted by the insurgents on the citizens of Iraq. What do you propose would stop that?

If every single man and woman is killed in this struggle for democracy, will it still be worth it?
It will depend how much they value their liberty. I would suggest you read up on Patrick Henry for inspiration on that topic.


As I recall, after 9/11 the majority of the Western world was in full support of the United States. I know here in Britain people were actually hanging the stars and stripes from their windows and singing the American national anthem -- more than they normally do with our own flag and anthem, that's for sure. The USA was onto a great thing. What happened?

I don't know, must have been some of the things you said and did...
Action talks - bullshit walks. When the time for action came the bullshit was revealed. Any dumbass can hang a flag or sing a song - the heavy lifting is when they cut and run.

It was, apparently, all words for the vast majority. When the time for words was over and work began their sudden 'support' evaporated.


Because everyone is wrong except the US right? Of course, the US is perfect, has never made a mistake and it's people are some kind of master race (Except those dirty liberals, who are responsibile for everything wrong with the world. We should politically cleanse the US! Zieg heil!)

We should leave. We left Vietnam and they're still around. They now make our shoes.

We should leave. We left Vietnam and they're still around. They now make our shoes.
Hell, they're good capitalists now, just like the rest of the world.

Action talks - bullshit walks. When the time for action came the bullshit was revealed. Any dumbass can hang a flag or sing a song - the heavy lifting is when they cut and run.

The time for action was invading Afghanistan, and that didn't lose the US any support. What did it was invading a country that was obviously not a threat, and not related to 9/11.

And the reason that conservatives are suddenly really concerned about the poor Iraqis is that the humanitarian excuse is the only one that hasn't been shot down. The alternative is admitting that they never should have gone to war.

Because everyone is wrong except the US right? Of course, the US is perfect, has never made a mistake and it's people are some kind of master race (Except those dirty liberals, who are responsibile for everything wrong with the world. We should politically cleanse the US! Zieg heil!)
Last I recall the US was not alone in their effort to combat terrorist regimes. If you prefer inaction then be my guest - go sanction Iran, again. Send a strongly worded letter to Kim Jong Il. Then you can hang flags and sing.

THAT'LL change the world! :rolleyes:

The time for action was invading Afghanistan, and that didn't lose the US any support. What did it was invading a country that was obviously not a threat, and not related to 9/11.

And the reason that conservatives are suddenly really concerned about the poor Iraqis is that the humanitarian excuse is the only one that hasn't been shot down. The alternative is admitting that they never should have gone to war.

Who said we were out to avenge 9/11 in Iraq? We are doing whatever is necessary to eliminate people who would commit or support another act of terrorism again. Iraq was an obvious choice given Saddam's Record.

Vengance is a but a quick fix - the real task is much more difficult - too difficult for your peer group apparently.

Last I recall the US was not alone in their effort to combat terrorist regimes. If you prefer inaction then be my guest - go sanction Iran, again. Send a strongly worded letter to Kim Jong Il. Then you can hang flags and sing.

THAT'LL change the world! :rolleyes:

That argument would be fine if Al Qaeda and Saddam weren't old friends of the US who just don't happen to see eye to eye any more. Terrorist regimes seem to be just fine as long as they are friendly.

That argument would be fine if Al Qaeda and Saddam weren't old friends of the US who just don't happen to see eye to eye any more. Terrorist regimes seem to be just fine as long as they are friendly.

LOL - straw man argument. Nice try. The US was once allied with the USSR - didn't make us commies - didn't even mean we supported them. You should try staying at least in the same decade as the topic of this thread.

--snip

You get a respect cookie.

Surrender to the insurgents? WTF? We're kicking their asses right now.

Geez, MOVEON we're not french...

interesting - what about imports? Whos stuff do they buy?Check it out here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html#Econ)

LOL - straw man argument. Nice try. The US was once allied with the USSR - didn't make us commies - didn't even mean we supported them. You should try staying at least in the same decade as the topic of this thread.No... not like lend lease is a form of support. :rolleyes:

Last I recall the US was not alone in their effort to combat terrorist regimes. If you prefer inaction then be my guest - go sanction Iran, again. Send a strongly worded letter to Kim Jong Il. Then you can hang flags and sing.

THAT'LL change the world! :rolleyes:Damn. You justed summed up American policy concerning those two countries. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

It's unfortunate how bad a catch 22 situation the U.S. is in. They can leave like everyone wants them too, and give up the billions of dollars in oil they will eventually syphon (not mention leave the current gov to be ass-raped by the next half-trained army to come alone). Or they can stay and continue to foster increasing mistrust and hatred not only internationally but at home as well.

I feel bad for the superpower. As much as I hate the U.S. as a govermental entity, I can't help but admit most of that hate comes from my own frustration (due mostly to how dependant Canada is on them for trade) and the fact the U.S. will do anything to keep themselves on top. However, I can understand why the U.S. would do this, as the the first two jobs of a country are the same as the first two jobs of any politician: get the power, and then keep the power.

Fun fact: Did you know that Canada sells 80% of it's exports to the U.S? Where would we be without the U.S? In the third world...

That's one of the most logical explinations I've heard for our situation, foreign or internal. Thank you.

Hundreds can call for our surrender, but we won't until Congress decides they want out. I applaud Bush and the admin. for having a backbone (a really rare feature among today's politicians). Those that call for surrender probably haven't placed themselves in the Iraqis' situation yet, and don't understand what will happen once we leave. They probably think that we'll leave, and they'll just live their lives in peace. That's wrong. The moment we leave, the terrorists will come in harder, kill those in power, steal said power, and we'll be back in square one again. Also, the lives of the citizens will go to shit. Those that call for surrender should first think about how THEY would feel in the Iraqis' position and think what they would rather have, some sort of order, or total chaos, cause that's the alternative.

Fun fact: Did you know that Canada sells 80% of it's exports to the U.S? Where would we be without the U.S? In the third world...


I'm more then certian some other resource hungry nation like China or something would be more then happy to do more business with us. And if not, we could use it towards are own development. Oh Damn! Wouldent that be aweful? -_-

Fun fact: Did you know that Canada sells 80% of it's exports to the U.S? Where would we be without the U.S? In the third world...Hm... I just looked at my source and it tells me you lied. It's 85% (but then again, my source is the CIA ;) )

Surrender to insurgents? Does these protesters think we are fucking morons or something? Why would we do that? How braindead can people be these days?

Or how about those little foolish protesters calling for a return of US troops? Right... people demonstrate such little foresight. We must stay in Iraq so they can decide on a constitution, then hold elections. That will be a great day, and those naysayers will be proven wrong. In fact they will get a slap in the face for spreading their lies.

Surrender to insurgents? Does these protesters think we are fucking morons or something? Why would we do that? How braindead can people be these days?

Or how about those little foolish protesters calling for a return of US troops? Right... people demonstrate such little foresight. We must stay in Iraq so they can decide on a constitution, then hold elections. That will be a great day, and those naysayers will be proven wrong. In fact they will get a slap in the face for spreading their lies.Mesa, how would you like to get slapped for spreading B0zzy's lies? No one is calling for a "surrender" or anything near that.
I'll agree with you on your points on pulling out. They're my thoughts exactly. But it wasn't the protesters that "lied" in the first place, if I may remind you.

Mesa, how would you like to get slapped for spreading B0zzy's lies? No one is calling for a "surrender" or anything near that.
I'll agree with you on your points on pulling out. They're my thoughts exactly. But it wasn't the protesters that "lied" in the first place, if I may remind you.

Those protesters may be saying their views but I think they don't understand the situation. You see.. I understand the situation. My friend who opposed the war also understands it. We both support finishing the job that was started and not leaving in the middle of it. Today, I had a conversation with him and he agreed with me. I just don't trust those protesters and I don't feel they are being honest with regards to the reality.

Surrender to insurgents? Does these protesters think we are fucking morons or something? Why would we do that? How braindead can people be these days?

Or how about those little foolish protesters calling for a return of US troops? Right... people demonstrate such little foresight. We must stay in Iraq so they can decide on a constitution, then hold elections. That will be a great day, and those naysayers will be proven wrong. In fact they will get a slap in the face for spreading their lies.
Oh dear, except that the Iraqi constitution is currently on hold due to no real nationlism among the three groups. And, oh yes, even the Bush Administration is not admiting that its ideals of a full fleged and flowering Iraqi democracy is a dream with no basis on the reality on the ground and that, they're making ajustments in expectations.

And of course the country is becoming a nice breeding ground for the very terrorists we were supposedly going after in the first place (or whatever reason it is).

Personally it looks like Iraq WILL degenerate into civil war, the only question being will the US still be there to get shot at when it does. We stired up a beehive and you can only swat so many bees before being stung to death.

Those protesters may be saying their views but I think they don't understand the situation. You see.. I understand the situation. My friend who opposed the war also understands it. We both support finishing the job that was started and not leaving in the middle of it. I had a conversation with him and he agreed with me. I just don't trust those protesters and I don't feel they are just being honest with regards to the reality.There's someone else who wasn't being honest with regards to reality and he's cost more American lives than the protesters ever will. I find it a bit disgusting that you're more willing to condemn them for their actions than the President that started the war by lying to the world.

There's someone else who wasn't being honest with regards to reality and he's cost more American lives than the protesters ever will. I find it a bit disgusting that you're more willing to condemn them for their actions than the President that started the war by lying to the world.

I supported the war from the beginning and I still do. So please don't make a mockery of my views. I'm not going to condemn the president and I won't even say he lied.

Nervun, no.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050819/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AkYCw99TeozgWHSqhLQpPw4UewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A spokesman for the biggest Shiite party Thursday predicted a breakthrough on the constitution within the next two days, as negotiators scrambled to finish the draft by next week's deadline.

---

It takes time and effort to make it work. It is best to do it right and not fuck it up. Make sure all parties are at least satisfied with the constitution. There won't be a civil war, and if anyone says there will be, they don't understand the situation and are lying to themselves.

I supported the war from the beginning and I still do. So please don't make a mockery of my views. I'm not going to condemn the president and I won't even say he lied.Mesa, denying the facts (that there were no WMDs and that Bush said there were some are qualified for that) isn't going to change anything. Fact is, the protesters aren't saying that anything will happen, they just want the troops back. It has been proven that Bush misled the public. He "lied". If you are unwilling to admit that and are willing to say that these protesters are lying, then there's something wrong with your definition of a lie.
I'm not mocking your views, unless your view is that telling people something that is not true is not a lie while telling people something that isn't exactly prudent is. In that case, your views deserve mockery.

It takes time and effort to make it work. It is best to do it right and not fuck it up. Make sure all parties are at least satisfied with the constitution. There won't be a civil war, and if anyone says there will be, they don't understand the situation and are lying to themselves.That remains to be proven. I doubt it will happen if the US stays in Iraq until the dust settles, but I'm not going to bet anything on it because I can't tell the future. Neither can you, neither can NERVUN.

Mesa, denying the facts (that there were no WMDs and that Bush said there were some are qualified for that) isn't going to change anything. Fact is, the protesters aren't saying that anything will happen, they just want the troops back. It has been proven that Bush misled the public. He "lied". If you are unwilling to admit that and are willing to say that these protesters are lying, then there's something wrong with your definition of a lie.
I'm not mocking your views, unless your view is that telling people something that is not true is not a lie while telling people something that isn't exactly prudent is. In that case, your views deserve mockery.

Laerod, I don't give a fuck about the WMDs. So please, the protesters can kiss my rear end. I'm not going to give any respect to those people out there and I would rather spit at them in great disgust. I want the job done. I'm not going to admit to your beliefs and adopt them as my own. You deserve mockery. Bush went by what he had and I'd pin a medal on the guy for having guts.

Nervun, no... It takes time and effort to make it work. It is best to do it right and not fuck it up. Make sure all parties are at least satisfied with the constitution. There won't be a civil war, and if anyone says there will be, they don't understand the situation and are lying to themselves.

Similar optimism was expressed publicly last week before the negotiators had to admit they were deadlocked. However, Sunni and Kurdish officials also seemed upbeat.

"I expect that the constitution would be finished before Monday," Sunni negotiator Saleh al-Mutlaq said. "Negotiations are still under way and everybody is determined to finish it before the deadline."

And we've been down this road before.

However, U.S. officials had also placed great hopes on other milestones — the December 2003 arrest of Saddam Hussein, the June 2004 handover of sovereignty and the Jan. 30 elections. Yet the insurgency continues.

I can hope for no civil war, but as even the administration is backing away from the idea of a strong democracy in the country... It looks to me too much like Yugoslavia, three peoples who didn't like each other were wedded to each other by the USSR in the hopes that would cause nationalism to bloom. Only the pressence of the USSR kept the country from tearing itself apart.

Once the Soviet Union withdrew, that's exactly what happend.

Or perhaps a better example would be Iraq itself, a country created by the British Empire that has only stayed stable with nationalism beeing shoved down their throats.

Like I said, US withdraws, the shooting starts. US stays, it gets shot at.

Anybody who thinks calls for a US pullout are calls for a "surrender" to the insurgents are either legally retarded or snide assholes who recognize an oversimplification when they see one, but feel like provoking an argument with the hated liberals.

Which are you?

Laerod, I don't give a fuck about the WMDs. So please, the protesters can kiss my rear end. I'm not going to give any respect to those people out there and I would rather spit at them in great disgust. I want the job done. I'm not going to admit to your beliefs and adopt them as my own. You deserve mockery. Bush went by what he had and I'd pin a medal on the guy for having guts.You know, it's really sad that you consider a proven liar a hero and would rather spit on people that disagree with him. No matter how much you worm around that, these aren't just "views" of mine. I hold no capital on truth, but I'll wager that my "views" are closer to it than yours are.
As for guts, here come my real "views" and not just something I'd call "proven fact": Bush is a coward. He didn't go to Vietnam like others, instead he managed to stay in Texas. He didn't risk his or any of his loved one's lives when starting that war. He didn't protect us Americans AT ALL. In fact, he let a worse dictatorship (Iraqis at least had cell phones, cars, and women were allowed to use bicycles) get away with building a nuclear arsenal capable of hitting the place your profile says you are at.
Mock these. If you have anything further to say about the president and the protesters though and which of them are more guilty of willful deception, be prepared to bring some proof.

I can hope for no civil war, but as even the administration is backing away from the idea of a strong democracy in the country... It looks to me too much like Yugoslavia, three peoples who didn't like each other were wedded to each other by the USSR in the hopes that would cause nationalism to bloom. Only the pressence of the USSR kept the country from tearing itself apart.

It looks like that to you because you are too biased to even think something will happen in a good way. This isn't going to end up in a civil war because the situation is different.

Also Yugoslavia was non-aligned. It never was allied with the USSR. At least get your history right. Yugoslavia fell apart because Tito died.

Not the same in Iraq.

Once the Soviet Union withdrew, that's exactly what happend.

The Soviet Union wasn't in Yugoslavia. Maybe you meant Afghanistan. But we are going to do this job correctly.

Like I said, US withdraws, the shooting starts. US stays, it gets shot at.

Yeah, and Iraq wins and the insurgency gets puts down. I feel that there will be progress made. Progress has already been made in the form of elections.

I don't know if you can describe someone who joined the National Guard for the dental plan as having guts. I'm just saying...

You know, it's really sad that you consider a proven liar a hero and would rather spit on people that disagree with him. No matter how much you worm around that, these aren't just "views" of mine. I hold no capital on truth, but I'll wager that my "views" are closer to it than yours are.
As for guts, here come my real "views" and not just something I'd call "proven fact": Bush is a coward. He didn't go to Vietnam like others, instead he managed to stay in Texas. He didn't risk his or any of his loved one's lives when starting that war. He didn't protect us Americans AT ALL. In fact, he let a worse dictatorship (Iraqis at least had cell phones, cars, and women were allowed to use bicycles) get away with building a nuclear arsenal capable of hitting the place your profile says you are at.
Mock these. If you have anything further to say about the president and the protesters though and which of them are more guilty of willful deception, be prepared to bring some proof.

A "proven liar" in your own arrogant perspective.. but what can I say, your views are lies and you lie. I'm not going to give you any inch of a concession. Those who opposed this war were the cowards. Bush was not. And my dad didn't go to Vietnam either. It doesn't make him a coward. North Korea has been developing a nuclear arsenal for decades. I'm going to mock you and those creeps out there protesting. You people don't know what proof is.

A "proven liar" in your own arrogant perspective.. but what can I say, your views are lies and you lie. I'm not going to give you any inch of a concession. Those who opposed this war were the cowards. Bush was not. And my dad didn't go to Vietnam either. It doesn't make him a coward. North Korea has been developing a nuclear arsenal for decades. I'm going to mock you and those creeps out there protesting. You people don't know what proof is.Don't want that. Want PROOF.
The problem I'm having with arguing with you is that you fail to separate fact from opinion. You stated before that there will be no civil war. That is not a fact, it is an opinion, because it hasn't been proven. I would wager that there won't be a civil war if things continue as they are, but that is my "opinion", as are most statements about the future.
Stop calling my statements that I wilfully separated from what I consider my opinions lies unless you have something to prove me wrong.

A "proven liar" in your own arrogant perspective.. but what can I say, your views are lies and you lie. I'm not going to give you any inch of a concession. Those who opposed this war were the cowards. Bush was not. And my dad didn't go to Vietnam either. It doesn't make him a coward. North Korea has been developing a nuclear arsenal for decades. I'm going to mock you and those creeps out there protesting. You people don't know what proof is.
You should host a show on Fox News. Your arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude, and your dismissal of anything that isn't your view would fit right in with their cast.

I'm not the arrogant one, I'm one who likes to be optimistic about things.

You should host a show on Fox News. Your arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude, and your dismissal of anything that isn't your view would fit right in with their cast.
I love the "you don't know what proof is." It's great to see people resort to things like that.

I'm not the arrogant one, I'm one who likes to be optimistic about things.No one blames you for optimism, Mesa.

Hmmm..

Debates like this make me ponder "Where's the Fun gone?"

As an American educator of a class of 3rd graders, I recently asked them to come up with creative solutions to our current quandary in Iraq - I thought I'd share a few with you, they're kind of interesting/hilarious:

1.) Have them run for statehood, becoming the 51st state - "Iraqinois"
2.) Bring home my brother Jeff who's in the Army, & send my other brother Tyler instead - he's mean.
3.) Hold a bake sale
4.) Create 3 nations instead of one, give 1 for the Sunny, one for the She-ites, and one for the Kurdles.
5.) Outlaw gun ownership, and give them more good cars.
6.) Build a waterpark, with a log flume
7.) All the bad men should have to be nice to their girlfriends, by law.
8.) Have a lot of our armymen and govenrment guys learn Arabic and talk to them
9.) Send them more tanks and some ice cream (because they are very hot)
10) Maybe if they just hugged?

:D

~FLG, out

I supported the war from the beginning and I still do. So please don't make a mockery of my views. I'm not going to condemn the president and I won't even say he lied.



He said that Iraq had WMD and were producing more WMD
He said they were a threat to world peace.
He said that WMD were the reason for going to war
He said he had evidence
He said the US could identify the places they were being produced

Then he said that it would be hard to find them because
Iraq is the size of Texas

Then he said there weren't any but anyway that wasn't really
why he ordered the war anyway.

That he lied is rather obvious.

If despite his lying you still support an illegal war that has led to the
deaths of over one hundred thousand people then you're lucky if all that
happens is that your views are mocked.
In a perfect world you'd be in prison for incitement to war
and as an accessory after the fact.

Edit
would probably be more accurate to say
accessory before, during and after the fact

<snip>I love it :D

were kicking terrorist ass thoose pussy ass bitches id like 2 shove a 9 mill. pistol right up their ass

He said that Iraq had WMD and were producing more WMD
He said they were a threat to world peace.
He said that WMD were the reason for going to war
He said he had evidence
He said the US could identify the places they were being produced

Then he said that it would be hard to find them because
Iraq is the size of Texas

Then he said there weren't any but anyway that wasn't really
why he ordered the war anyway.

That he lied is rather obvious.

If despite his lying you still support an illegal war that has led to the
deaths of over one hundred thousand people then you're lucky if all that
happens is that your views are mocked.
In a perfect world you'd be in prison for incitement to war
and as an accessory after the fact.





youre all little basterd an you can go to hell the only reason we havent found them is were downing the president during a war u want this to be another god dam veitnam thoose little towel wearing basterds need 2 shove(terrorist only) besides were helping a country become free isnt that wat were all about and also join the army you basterds(i cant im 2 young)but i will without wars wed get our asses kicked by North Korea thoose communist basterds

youre all little basterd an you can go to hell the only reason we havent found them is were downing the president during a war u want this to be another god dam veitnam thoose little towel wearing basterds need 2 shove(terrorist only) besides were helping a country become free isnt that wat were all about and also join the army you basterds(i cant im 2 young)but i will without wars wed get our asses kicked by North Korea thoose communist basterds

Nice flame, troll. Knock it off or I'll report it to the mods.

youre all little basterd an you can go to hell the only reason we havent found them is were downing the president during a war u want this to be another god dam veitnam thoose little towel wearing basterds need 2 shove(terrorist only) besides were helping a country become free isnt that wat were all about and also join the army you basterds(i cant im 2 young)but i will without wars wed get our asses kicked by North Korea thoose communist basterds

Even if I don't agree with him, I think that seriously crosses the line.

What about Iraq is not free? Who are they taking orders from? Expand on your claim with facts.
No one has to be giving orders for there to be a lack of freedom and liberty.

You mean, apparently, the death and distruction inflicted by the insurgents on the citizens of Iraq. What do you propose would stop that?
There in lies the problem. How does one put the spilt milk back in the bottle?

It will depend how much they value their liberty. I would suggest you read up on Patrick Henry for inspiration on that topic.
But only apply the ideas to Iraq, not to the US and for instance the Patriot Act. Only one thing confuses me. A lot of people supporting the Iraqi war due to the notion of 'freeing' Iraqis at any cost to Iraqi lives, also tend to support gaining security for US citizens, at any cost to US freedoms and liberties. Is it that the freedom of an Iraqi citizen is so much more valuable than the freedom of an American person, or (as I suspect) the lives of Americans are just that much more valuable than the lives of Iraqis in the minds of those support the war on freedom grounds and the Patriot Act on security grounds. Actually I think it's more a matter of the President is part of their favourite Superbowl team...oops sorry, political party, and it's win at all costs, the facts and reality be dammed.

Action talks - bullshit walks. When the time for action came the bullshit was revealed. Any dumbass can hang a flag or sing a song - the heavy lifting is when they cut and run.
Aha, and when the proverbial hit the fan, the opportunistic went to war to sacrifice civil security in another nation for that nation's 'freedom' while taking away the liberties in their own nation apparently for security...why should anyone be cycnical and suspicious about that? :rolleyes:

It's tough to respond coherently to arguments as cogent & thoughtful as those laid down by Ze_Barrio...

So why try? :p

I know that for myself, I'm pretty schizophrenic on the topic of what's happening in Iraq at the moment.

I didn't vote for our current president, and I do think that the American public was seriously misled by the current administration. I do believe (though can't prove) that there were a lot of very cynical backroom administration shenannigans undertaken to deliberately "hide the pea" with the facts about going to war. Don Rumsfeld & Rove are consummate shucksters - both guys reminds me of nothing so much as an unholy blend of used-car salesmen & shell-game con artists in nicer suits.

That being said, us Dems & Liberal-Commies ;) ain't perfect either. My conservative friends characterize Clinton & Carville as I just characterized Rumsfeld & Rove. To each their own, all a matter of perspective, I suppose.

Now that we're in this war though, I don't see protesting over spilt milk to be a terrific option either. The war's a reality, and as suspicious as I am of the aims & goals of the Bush administration vis Iraq, they're the only people on the planet that I see trying to create a stable government of some type there. I guess we could release Saddam from jail, give him $50 and a Hallmark Card saying "Sorry about bombing you & yours back to the Stone Age" and then all immediately leave, apologizing, but it seems a little late for that...

To me, seeing average middle-class Americans protesting a war that's barely affecting them smacks of hypocrisy. As a lifelong believer in liberal values and causes, loudly protesting and "vigil"-ing wars that hardly touch you & yours is seriously counterproductive, at least if your goal is to win hearts & minds. The probable result I see is the reduction of troop morale & engendering hatred from the Right and the middle on the homefront.

The only people I think will make a difference protesting the war here in the US are the veterans who have fought in it.

That's my 2 pennies-

Let 'er rip :p

~FLG

That being said, us Dems & Liberal-Commies ;) ain't perfect either. A common misconception. Liberals are right from center, commies are far left. In fact, in America, two party's share one quarter of the political spectrum that is covered in Europe.

To me, seeing average middle-class Americans protesting a war that's barely affecting them smacks of hypocrisy. I wouldn't consider losing a child "barely affected".

Consider yourself "ripped". :p

A common misconception. Liberals are right from center, commies are far left. In fact, in America, two party's share one quarter of the political spectrum that is covered in Europe.
I wouldn't consider losing a child "barely affected".

Consider yourself "ripped". :p

Danke Laerod -

I was waiting for the "fur to fly" with that :p

I know the European spectrum of political theory vis left --> right is much more comprehensive than that here in America, but here in the States it's pretty common political rhetoric for those on the American right to lump all Dems (the "left") in with - commies, socialists, agrarian hippie hemp communes, etc. Just as common as it is for us here on the American Left to hyperbolize our opponents on the right as Nazis, jackbooted stormtroopers, Elmer Fudd, etc.

America - Land of Wildly Fun & Inaccurate Hyperbole for a Better Tomorrow ;)

Laerod, on your second point - good one. You are right, no argument at all.

~FLG

Welcome to the Korea/Vietnam/Algeria/Afghanistan experience! :D
amen.

I know the European spectrum of political theory vis left --> right is much more comprehensive than that here in America, but here in the States it's pretty common political rhetoric for those on the American right to lump all Dems (the "left") in with - commies, socialists, agrarian hippie hemp communes, etc. Just as common as it is for us here on the American Left to hyperbolize our opponents on the right as Nazis, jackbooted stormtroopers, Elmer Fudd, etc.The funny thing is, the German party by the name of Republikaner are a bunch of Neo-Nazi scum.
But the Democrats are about as far left as the conservative parties over here. They only cover the left a bit because there's no other big parties. It's one of the reasons why I'll be voting Green from now on.

youre all little basterd an you can go to hell the only reason we havent found them is were downing the president during a war u want this to be another god dam veitnam thoose little towel wearing basterds need 2 shove(terrorist only) besides were helping a country become free isnt that wat were all about and also join the army you basterds(i cant im 2 young)but i will without wars wed get our asses kicked by North Korea thoose communist basterds

You've been warned before for your behavior, yet you don't listen. Can't say I didn't warn you...
Take a 4-Day break from the forums, go outside, get a tan, and take a few strolls through the park.
Ze_Barrio: 4-Day Forumban

youre all little basterd an you can go to hell the only reason we havent found them is were downing the president during a war u want this to be another god dam veitnam thoose little towel wearing basterds need 2 shove(terrorist only) besides were helping a country become free isnt that wat were all about and also join the army you basterds(i cant im 2 young)but i will without wars wed get our asses kicked by North Korea thoose communist basterds

And we are expecting people who cannot use periods to have an informed opinion on the situation in Iraq?

Brilliant!!! I'm going to try to translate and edit this!!!!


You’re all little bastards, and you can go to hell. (In this instance I believe he is referring to those protesting the war in Iraq.) The only reason we have not found the WMD’s is because you are “rejecting the views” (hard to find a word to replace downing in this situation.) of the President during a war. Do you want this to become another horrid Vietnam? Those turban wearing jerk terrorists need to refrain from imposing their radical views upon others. The point is we’re helping a country become free, isn’t that what the America is all about?
In addition, join the army you naysayers (although I cannot currently join due to my age, I will when I am able). Without being prepared and willing to go to war, we would be at risk of getting our posteriors kicked by countries like, but not limited to, North Korea; Those communist bastards.


All I ask is that people put a little foresight into their posts.

Now to reply to what I think "went down" in this post.
youre all little basterd an you can go to hell the only reason we havent found them is were downing the president during a war
1. I doubt that "downing" the president during the war is going to make WMD's dissapear.

thoose little towel wearing basterds need 2 shove(terrorist only)
2. What? I mean seriously how old are you, 9? See, come on, this only makes the U.S. look stupid, I don't care how old you are.

besides were helping a country become free isnt that wat were all about
3. Yes you are helping a country become free, but it is obvious that there were alterior motives A.K.A. greed.

also join the army you basterds
4. Just because of that I won't join the army.

without wars wed get our asses kicked by North Korea thoose communist basterds
5. I may be wrong but I don't think the reason the U.S. went to war with North Korea was because America was being threatened. Nope, it was a tool used in the battle between communism and democracy. A fruitless war that achieved little if not nothing.



Finally

I do not think that the U.S. should have started the war in the first place, especially not without approval from the UN. Very few Canadians approved of what Bush did, this was evident when he was practically booed away form Canada. But now that they are stuck in the middle of it there is no way they can leave: they have to deal with their mess. If the troops were to be pulled out only more chaos could come of it then if the troops stayed.

P.S.
Bush... if for some reason you're reading this... I'll pretend this whole thing never happened if you cut me in on the oil deal.

Why do so many Americans pretend to care about the Iraqis so much all of the sudden? :confused:

why do war protestors pretend to value human life when they dont care about the consequences of withdrawl ? (that being the total chaos which would consume the nation)

Why do protestors pretend to be humanitiarian when they are nothing more then racist.... being American lives are more valuable then Iraqi lives ?? :confused:

Laerod,

Are the Republikaner gaining any real political power in Deutschland? My knowledge of modern German politics is pretty scant, but you guys have proportional representation in your legislature, I think (Feel free to mock/correct me if I'm totally wrong). Hopefully those... people... aren't gaining any seats or power.

I seem to recall seeing a piece on the "Deutsche News Thingy" (German news program who's name escapes me) recently about the Republikaners being investigated for hate crimes comitted against Muslims, Jews, gays - anyone not them. They sounded like very bad news, it's hard for me to conceive that there's that much hatred & ignorance still running around unchecked... Then again, it's been less than 200 years here since I could have gotten 3/5 of a vote for every black man I owned...

"None of us by ourselves are as stupid as all of us together" :p
Colonel Scheisskopf, Catch-22

~FLG

Are the Republikaner gaining any real political power in Deutschland? Hopefully those... people... aren't gaining any seats or power.I would never mock someone that would openly admit that I might know better :D
Sadly, they are getting political power. Not in national elections, but in state and communal elections. So far, the Republikaner got into the state parliament of Brandenburg, the NPD got into the Saxon parliament (both of these were part of the GDR), and the DVU has one representative in the city-state of Bremen, due to a unique voting system that has to do with Bremerhaven, where there's a lot of people that don't have jobs in the shipbuilding business anymore. The DVU and the NPD were planning on a joint campaign, but I think the early elections (if they happen) caught them off guard.
I seem to recall seeing a piece on the "Deutsche News Thingy" (German news program who's name escapes me) recently about the Republikaners being investigated for hate crimes comitted against Muslims, Jews, gays - anyone not them. They sounded like very bad news, it's hard for me to conceive that there's that much hatred & ignorance still running around unchecked... Then again, it's been less than 200 years here since I could have gotten 3/5 of a vote for every black man I owned...The NPD nearly got banned, if it weren't for the fact that there were problems in the way evidence was gathered (some issue with whom the Interior Ministry wanted as witnesses). They haven't tried to do another case, preferring now to observe and not push them underground.
As for that, if any of the friendly people with shaved heads figured out I was half American and managed to catch me alone one night, I'd get to feel that hatred & ignorance first hand.

"None of us by ourselves are as stupid as all of us together" :p
Colonel Scheisskopf, Catch-22Yeah. That was a great book. :D

Oh, and this thread is flamebait.
I agree with CSW.

I agree with CSW.
This thread is only flamebait because there are those out there that desire to turn this into a flamewar.

As for that, if any of the friendly people with shaved heads figured out I was half American and managed to catch me alone one night, I'd get to feel that hatred & ignorance first hand.

Wow.

Thanks for the comprehensive reply, Laerod. Stay safe, too :eek: For some reason the song "You'd better Run" (or was it just "Run"?) by Pink Floyd leaps to mind when you describe the uncertainty of having political partied like - those ones in your country. "Chased & beaten by skinheads" isn't a concept I've thought about in connection with today's Germany... Scary.

Although I am philosophically opposed to my conservative brethren here in the States, they're angels next to 'people' like that. I'm hard pressed to think of a political party (recently) here in the USA that's been based on a platform of pure Xenophobia & hatred - at least, one that's ever gotten any power.

Knock on wood ;)

"The frog is almost five hundred million years old. Could you really say with much certainly that America, with all its strength and prosperity, with its fighting man that is second to none, and with its standard of living that is the highest in the world, will last as long as. . .the frog?"
Old Man arguing with Lietenant Nately, Catch-22 :D

It's unfortunate how bad a catch 22 situation the U.S. is in. They can leave like everyone wants them too, and give up the billions of dollars in oil they will eventually syphon (not mention leave the current gov to be ass-raped by the next half-trained army to come alone). Or they can stay and continue to foster increasing mistrust and hatred not only internationally but at home as well.

I feel bad for the superpower. As much as I hate the U.S. as a govermental entity, I can't help but admit most of that hate comes from my own frustration (due mostly to how dependant Canada is on them for trade) and the fact the U.S. will do anything to keep themselves on top. However, I can understand why the U.S. would do this, as the the first two jobs of a country are the same as the first two jobs of any politician: get the power, and then keep the power.

Fun fact: Did you know that Canada sells 80% of it's exports to the U.S? Where would we be without the U.S? In the third world...

Unfortunately Canada has become the 51st. State. Gone from dependance on Britian to dependance on the US. Sad for one of the wealthiest nations, Canada has one of the highest GDPs on this earth. Mind you most of the wealth is contained in Alberta and Ontario, no wonder they support the US takeover. Abolish NAFTA and you will no longer be dependant. Free trade is not "FREE' we all pay dearly.

As with the tariffs in the Steel Industry, protectionism does not work. The costs go unnoticed, because protected jobs in one industry are concentrated and easy to see, while the costs throughout the economy are widely dispersed, over hundreds of industries and millions of consumers.The 'trickle down effect'. Protectionism only keeps the domestic industries protected while it pushes other countries to open their borders. This is not only hypocritical, it is very harmful to those in the domestic economy who are exporting what they are good at producing but are prohibited from importing what they need.

The logging industry found other buyers, others can follow.

Whatever became of the surtax Canada was going to impose on imports from the US? [There's about 125 items I believe.] See this -> http://canadagazette.gc.ca/partI/2004/20041123-x/html/extra-e.html

Regarding all the war talk, wars have been going on on this planet since time began. Nothing ever learned from history. The power brokers know exactly how to control the masses, to have them do their bidding. Religion and Fear, such simple small words but oh so powerfull. Always a boogieman in the closet, but hey...they 'll protect you, after all 'God Is On THEIR Side'.....sending off all the young to far off lands to fight the boogieman...whether it be a 'Red PinKo Commie' or a 'Scary Looking Arab In A Cave'.

To die for 'FREEDOM'...Convenient Freedom. Freedom is only a convenient word they toss about when they want to control the masses. In reality there is no such thing as 'giving up a little freedom'. You are either free or a slave to the state. There is no middle ground. Every politician knows that you give the slaves a little liberty to keep them from rebelling. We always hear about those that died for freedom. Usually the people that say these things are the ones that hate freedom, the ones who are not willing to pay the real price for freedom. The one's not willing to give up what they have not earned. What they want to preserve is not freedom, but that system that makes them the beneficiaries of government confiscation and the enslavement of those who provide their unearned benefits. They think the lives of the young men and women that are shipped off to every corner of the earth to die is a small price to pay, as long as they themselves do not have to pay. Makes perfect sense to me...kill off the youngest, the healthiest of your citizens to protect a domestic policy that insures that no one will ever be free.

-------------------------------------------------
General Smedley Buttler said it best... 'War Is A Racket'

http://www.anti-sheep.com/articles/smedley_butler.php

-------------------


I was re-reading Bush's address after September 11th. and he is talking to the American people as though they are five year old children.I truly don't understand how people fall for this.I didn't count how many times he mentions freedom but he repeats it like a Mantra... freedom..freedom...freedom....
Yea if you hear it enough you might be stupid enough to believe it. Here's a few excerpts.

-------------------------------------------
Bush's Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People/September 20, 2001

On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars -- but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks -- but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day -- and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.
-----------------------
Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
------------------
These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way.

We are not deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. (Applause.)

-----------------

[In the above statement I believe that Bush was speaking of himself and his elite group of corrupt bastards.]

--------------------------------------------------------------
This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.

----------------------------

I ask you to uphold the values of America, and remember why so many have come here. We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them. No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith. (Applause.)

----------------------------

Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail. (Applause.)
----------------------------
I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.

The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them. (Applause.)

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2001/09/gwb092001.html

Perhaps these people that he is referring to that hate freedom so much would like their own freedom. Freedom from the big ol' bully on the block meddling in their affairs, telling them how to live, freedom from 'Big Mac's'. ;) hmmm...I managed to get that F word in three times in two sentences. ;)
---------------------------------
Great signature Mind Sickness. [edit] OOOPs...my bad..Not a sig. but this... :D
Bush: "Canada has WMDs, we must act now."
Random Reporter: "WMDs such as?"
Bush: "Ever heard of the 'Chicken Cannon'?"

Kind Regards,
TheUnWashed

Damn. You justed summed up American policy concerning those two countries. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

No, that is the EU policy.

Keep up with the news, will ya?

It was, apparently, all words for the vast majority. When the time for words was over and work began their sudden 'support' evaporated.
Well, if your leadership will act like dipshits... is it any wonder when you threw all of that goodwill back in our faces?

"Proven liar and coward"

Well..you need , I guess, to get a good Democrat President in then at the next election..one who doesn't lie and who doesn't dodge the draft and then boast about it....oh wait....

........

..what was his name again?.....

Mesa, how would you like to get slapped for spreading B0zzy's lies? No one is calling for a "surrender" or anything near that.
I'll agree with you on your points on pulling out. They're my thoughts exactly. But it wasn't the protesters that "lied" in the first place, if I may remind you.
PUlling out = surrender. Plain. Simple. The protesters are calling for that. Regardless anyones view of the cause of the war - calling for a pull out (retreat) is no different than surrender. It is what they want.

And the point that protesters are not liable for the deaths of soldiers is proven fallacy.

There's someone else who wasn't being honest with regards to reality and he's cost more American lives than the protesters ever will. I find it a bit disgusting that you're more willing to condemn them for their actions than the President that started the war by lying to the world.
I find it reprehensible that you would place your self-rightious political illusions ahead of your regard for the lives of the citizens of Iraq who would be left defenseless against the foreign funded, traind, an most often born, insurgents.

I suppose their lives aren't as important to you as the American soldiers who volunteered for service.

Why do so many Americans pretend to care about the Iraqis so much all of the sudden? :confused:
I've often wondered the same thing...no one cared when the sanctions meant children were starving to death...

As I recall, after 9/11 the majority of the Western world was in full support of the United States. I know here in Britain people were actually hanging the stars and stripes from their windows and singing the American national anthem -- more than they normally do with our own flag and anthem, that's for sure.
Ah...but we didn't all join them in the vendetta against Saddam. Strange that...most of us were willing to help in Afghanistan, but we found the excuses for the Iraq invasion a bit too flimsy...

Mesa, denying the facts (that there were no WMDs and that Bush said there were some are qualified for that) isn't going to change anything. Fact is, the protesters aren't saying that anything will happen, they just want the troops back. It has been proven that Bush misled the public. He "lied". If you are unwilling to admit that and are willing to say that these protesters are lying, then there's something wrong with your definition of a lie.
I'm not mocking your views, unless your view is that telling people something that is not true is not a lie while telling people something that isn't exactly prudent is. In that case, your views deserve mockery.
You sad little people keep clinging to the word 'lied' as if you invented it. You didn't - you just redefined it. A lie is intentional deception - not a logical conclusion from elusive information.

'The protesters want the troops back' - that sounds so much less offensive than 'surrender' but it is nothing more than sugar coating. It shows gross disregard for the lives of Iraqi or reality in general. No need to mock that - it is a mockery enough on its own merits.

The more I hear about the ringleader the more suspect her motives become...

Thousands call for US surrender?
How can we surrender when we've already won (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/images/1030-02.jpg)?
You'd think that someone would have warned him about making that claim...doesn't the guy play poker? *Kenny Rogers singing, "Don't count your money when you're sittin' at the table, they'll be time enough for counting...when the deal is done!"*

It was, apparently, all words for the vast majority. When the time for words was over and work began their sudden 'support' evaporated.
Yeah...Afghanistan doesn't count because we didn't play nice in Iraq :rolleyes:

Who said we were out to avenge 9/11 in Iraq? We are doing whatever is necessary to eliminate people who would commit or support another act of terrorism again. Iraq was an obvious choice given Saddam's Record.

Vengance is a but a quick fix - the real task is much more difficult - too difficult for your peer group apparently.
Yeah, it's going smashingly for your peer group.

Well, at least the "war on terrorism" is guaranteed to be self-perpetuating...you'll never be out of wars to fight! Not like the pesky cold war and the collapse of your favourite enemy...now wasn't that a bummer?

Laerod, I don't give a fuck about the WMDs
Too bad Bush hung the whole justification for the the invasion on them...he sure seemed to care about them.

Support him all you want. Pretend he didn't lie. That's fine. But it's not, as you claim, "understanding the situation". It's making a fantasy situation up so you can happily agree with it.

I have a lot more respect for people who know the whole thing was based on bullshit, but felt it necessary to go in anyway (as much as I disagree with them), because at least they are honest. You...well, not so much.

interesting - what about imports? Whos stuff do they buy?

We don't buy that much to be honest, but we do import, the most from the US, however, then again, the US & Canada are the world's largest trading partners. We both need each other because of NAFTA.

However, Canada nor the USA would go under tomorrow if NAFTA fell apart, we'd just go back to doing things the way we use to. Both countries would still be very rich!

Hmmm..

Debates like this make me ponder "Where's the Fun gone?"

As an American educator of a class of 3rd graders, I recently asked them to come up with creative solutions to our current quandary in Iraq - I thought I'd share a few with you, they're kind of interesting/hilarious:

1.) Have them run for statehood, becoming the 51st state - "Iraqinois"
2.) Bring home my brother Jeff who's in the Army, & send my other brother Tyler instead - he's mean.
3.) Hold a bake sale
4.) Create 3 nations instead of one, give 1 for the Sunny, one for the She-ites, and one for the Kurdles.
5.) Outlaw gun ownership, and give them more good cars.
6.) Build a waterpark, with a log flume
7.) All the bad men should have to be nice to their girlfriends, by law.
8.) Have a lot of our armymen and govenrment guys learn Arabic and talk to them
9.) Send them more tanks and some ice cream (because they are very hot)
10) Maybe if they just hugged?

:D

~FLG, out

AWESOME! I want to be in your class! I like the waterpark idea best.

He said that Iraq had WMD and were producing more WMD
He said they were a threat to world peace.
He said that WMD were the reason for going to war
He said he had evidence
He said the US could identify the places they were being produced

Then he said that it would be hard to find them because
Iraq is the size of Texas

Then he said there weren't any but anyway that wasn't really
why he ordered the war anyway.

That he lied is rather obvious.

If despite his lying you still support an illegal war that has led to the
deaths of over one hundred thousand people then you're lucky if all that
happens is that your views are mocked.
In a perfect world you'd be in prison for incitement to war
and as an accessory after the fact.

Edit
would probably be more accurate to say
accessory before, during and after the fact

LOL! Another surrender proponent who redefines 'lie' to suit himself.

The 'illegal' war is pretty funny too. The statement alone borders on asinine. Only someone who thinks war is a result of lawful activities could not see that for the oxymoron it is.

No one has to be giving orders for there to be a lack of freedom and liberty.


There in lies the problem. How does one put the spilt milk back in the bottle?


But only apply the ideas to Iraq, not to the US and for instance the Patriot Act. Only one thing confuses me. A lot of people supporting the Iraqi war due to the notion of 'freeing' Iraqis at any cost to Iraqi lives, also tend to support gaining security for US citizens, at any cost to US freedoms and liberties. Is it that the freedom of an Iraqi citizen is so much more valuable than the freedom of an American person, or (as I suspect) the lives of Americans are just that much more valuable than the lives of Iraqis in the minds of those support the war on freedom grounds and the Patriot Act on security grounds. Actually I think it's more a matter of the President is part of their favourite Superbowl team...oops sorry, political party, and it's win at all costs, the facts and reality be dammed.


Aha, and when the proverbial hit the fan, the opportunistic went to war to sacrifice civil security in another nation for that nation's 'freedom' while taking away the liberties in their own nation apparently for security...why should anyone be cycnical and suspicious about that? :rolleyes:

Quit trying to change the subject just because you're getting your arse handed to you - you sound desperate disjointed and incoherent. I'll own you on any other subject you wish to discuss - but in a thread suitable to that topic. I won't let you hijack this thread - start your own if you want to discuss the partiot act.

i think that those who ask and who protest for the surrender of the united states [or the withdrawl, etc] are admirable in that they are exercising their rights as americans and are attempting [in some cases] to help ease future suffering of other families. however, these people know nothing of military strategy and how infeasible it is to just pull out mid-way through something. regardless of one's opinion regarding whether or not the invasion was a mistake, one must also give a bit of respect for america's attempt to fix it, or continue despite the conflicts.

regardless of what any of us say, all we are doing is talking. the majority of us are not acting. though as americans, we can exercise our right to protest and write about it and show a dislike for what is going on, it is not the foremost duty of the government to listen. primarily, they are required to ensure the safety of america, and if an invasion and occupation of iraq is necessary to achieve the safety of america, it will be carried out. once america, in the eyes of the government is "safe from terrorism", then they can start listening.

It's tough to respond coherently to arguments as cogent & thoughtful as those laid down by Ze_Barrio...

So why try? :p

I know that for myself, I'm pretty schizophrenic on the topic of what's happening in Iraq at the moment.

I didn't vote for our current president, and I do think that the American public was seriously misled by the current administration. I do believe (though can't prove) that there were a lot of very cynical backroom administration shenannigans undertaken to deliberately "hide the pea" with the facts about going to war. Don Rumsfeld & Rove are consummate shucksters - both guys reminds me of nothing so much as an unholy blend of used-car salesmen & shell-game con artists in nicer suits.

That being said, us Dems & Liberal-Commies ;) ain't perfect either. My conservative friends characterize Clinton & Carville as I just characterized Rumsfeld & Rove. To each their own, all a matter of perspective, I suppose.

Now that we're in this war though, I don't see protesting over spilt milk to be a terrific option either. The war's a reality, and as suspicious as I am of the aims & goals of the Bush administration vis Iraq, they're the only people on the planet that I see trying to create a stable government of some type there. I guess we could release Saddam from jail, give him $50 and a Hallmark Card saying "Sorry about bombing you & yours back to the Stone Age" and then all immediately leave, apologizing, but it seems a little late for that...

To me, seeing average middle-class Americans protesting a war that's barely affecting them smacks of hypocrisy. As a lifelong believer in liberal values and causes, loudly protesting and "vigil"-ing wars that hardly touch you & yours is seriously counterproductive, at least if your goal is to win hearts & minds. The probable result I see is the reduction of troop morale & engendering hatred from the Right and the middle on the homefront.

The only people I think will make a difference protesting the war here in the US are the veterans who have fought in it.

That's my 2 pennies-

Let 'er rip :p

~FLG


You're pretty cool, for a schizophrenic. Even if you are a liberal. Maybe some lithium will fix that? :)

Krystar']<snip>Excellent. ;)

A common misconception. Liberals are right from center, commies are far left. In fact, in America, two party's share one quarter of the political spectrum that is covered in Europe.
I wouldn't consider losing a child "barely affected".

Consider yourself "ripped". :p


I strongly doubt that everyone who is with her has lost a child in Iraq. In fact one parent even drove there to remove his son's name from a monument she was making as a protest to HER actions.
The fact is - the proportion of parents and service menbers who disagree with our presence in Iraq is miniscule compared to the number who are proud to support Iraq in every and any way.

B0zzy, do you have any arguements, or are you just going to be posting snide remarks to posts of people that aren't around to defend them?

The fact is - the proportion of parents and service menbers who disagree with our presence in Iraq is miniscule compared to the number who are proud to support Iraq in every and any way.
Though I'm sure if their child dies, that support is sorely taxed...

...even though it's a likely possibility, no one really thinks it's going to happen to their kid.

As for that, if any of the friendly people with shaved heads figured out I was half American and managed to catch me alone one night, I'd get to feel that hatred & ignorance first hand.

You are half American Indian?

B0zzy, do you have any arguements, or are you just going to be posting snide remarks to posts of people that aren't around to defend them?
Snide. That's the word I was looking for...I was going to use rude, but that doesn't quite describe saying things like, "you're getting your arse handed to you", "you sound desperate, disjointed and incoherant", "the statement alone borders on assinine", etc. etc. etc. Snide. Yes, that's exactly it!

I strongly doubt that everyone who is with her has lost a child in Iraq. In fact one parent even drove there to remove his son's name from a monument she was making as a protest to HER actions.
The fact is - the proportion of parents and service menbers who disagree with our presence in Iraq is miniscule compared to the number who are proud to support Iraq in every and any way.I was pointing out that not all were untouched by the war, and if you read his response, he totally agrees. ;)

Well, if your leadership will act like dipshits... is it any wonder when you threw all of that goodwill back in our faces?


Oooo, ahhh, that well written and articulate response really stings. You have enlightened me with such profound insights on the topic. Please. Stop. No. Your hurting me. (yawn)

Oooo, ahhh, that well written and articulate response really stings. You have enlightened me with such profound insights on the topic. Please. Stop. No. Your hurting me. (yawn)Sucks when you drink your own medicine, don't it?

I've often wondered the same thing...no one cared when the sanctions meant children were starving to death...

Straw man argument. People did care - except Saddam and the people in power at the time. (and the participants of the oil-for-food scandal)

The people who were responsible for that are now dead, under investigation, out of power, or in custody.

You are half American Indian?Neo-Nazis may be dumb, but they're not stupid. If I didn't "look German", do you think I'd be afraid of them noticing my English?

Ah...but we didn't all join them in the vendetta against Saddam. Strange that...most of us were willing to help in Afghanistan, but we found the excuses for the Iraq invasion a bit too flimsy...

I addressed this earlier - Liberals like you are so caught up in the tit-for-tat vengance rut that you can't see the stated (and much greater) goal - to eliminate anyone who would pursue or support a terrorist attack on civilians. Saddam was an obvious choice, but certainly not the last...

Iraq was never about revenge. it is about prevention.

I addressed this earlier - Liberals like you .....Sorry, I couldn't read the rest. Not when you begin it with snide labels.

Iraq was never about revenge. it is about prevention.What did it prevent? Iraq from getting nukes? A country that couldn't hit the US that didn't have a nuclear program? What about North Korea? Why didn't anyone bother preventing that?

Yeah, it's going smashingly for your peer group.

Well, at least the "war on terrorism" is guaranteed to be self-perpetuating...you'll never be out of wars to fight! Not like the pesky cold war and the collapse of your favourite enemy...now wasn't that a bummer?

Hey! You sound JUST like John Kerry!

here, see for yourself!

http://www.streamload.com/jmstein77/KerryAd2.wmv

Hey! You sound JUST like John Kerry!

here, see for yourself!


Wow! That immediately invalidates my point! *goes home*

Neo-Nazis may be dumb, but they're not stupid. If I didn't "look German", do you think I'd be afraid of them noticing my English?

Since 'american' is not an ethnicity on it's own merits you leave me confused about this.

Since 'american' is not an ethnicity on it's own merits you leave me confused about this.
Tsk tsk Bossy! Stay on track! To quote you:

Quit trying to change the subject just because you're getting your arse handed to you - you sound desperate disjointed and incoherent. I'll own you on any other subject you wish to discuss - but in a thread suitable to that topic. I won't let you hijack this thread - start your own if you want to discuss 'American as an ethnicity'.
Bold, my change.

Hmmm...can you hijack your own thread I wonder?

B0zzy, do you have any arguements, or are you just going to be posting snide remarks to posts of people that aren't around to defend them?

You consider disagreeing with you snide apparently. I'm sorry the quotes you chose do not have the same exquisite eloquence as these tidbits;

Mesa, how would you like to get slapped for spreading B0zzy's lies?

There's someone else who wasn't being honest with regards to reality.

I'm not mocking your views, unless your view is that telling people something that is not true is not a lie while telling people something that isn't exactly prudent is. In that case, your views deserve mockery

You know, it's really sad that you consider a proven liar a hero
Damn. You justed summed up American policy concerning those two

countries. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Next time you want to check someones attitude; consider your own first.

And Sinuhue (see, I spelled it right this time! W00T!)

you had my favorite;

Sorry, I couldn't read the rest. Not when you begin it with snide labels.

(I didn't realize you considered being called a liberal so offensive.)


Well, at least the "war on terrorism" is guaranteed to be self-perpetuating...you'll never be out of wars to fight! Not like the pesky cold war and the collapse of your favourite enemy...now wasn't that a bummer?

Good thing that wasnt snide - you'd look like a hypocrite.

What about Iraq is not free?There is an occupation Army...

I was pointing out that not all were untouched by the war, and if you read his response, he totally agrees. ;)

Actually I read yours to be singularly about her. I've not seen anything to suggest that there is a signifigant number of people there with her who have lost family to the insurgents.

If your post was not intednded to indicate that then I'm not sure what you wanted to communicate.

I addressed this earlier - Liberals like you are so caught up in the tit-for-tat vengance rut that you can't see the stated (and much greater) goal - to eliminate anyone who would pursue or support a terrorist attack on civilians. Saddam was an obvious choice, but certainly not the last...

Iraq was never about revenge. it is about prevention.

Huh. Even more reason to bring the troops back home then, considering there've been more terrorist attacks against United States civilians perpetrated by United States citizens than by Iraqi's. Really, if it's about prevention, George should consider turning himself in. His aggressive, go-it-alone policies have done more to promote terrorism in the last 6 years than anything Al Qaeda managed in the 20 years prior.

In fact.. I can't honestly think of any terrorist attacks against US civilians done primarily by Iraqis. Certainly there've been a couple big ones done by Saudi's recently, and a number by this pesky group Al Qaeda that also happens to be led by a Saudi that viewed this Saddam character as an affront to good religious values since he was running a mostly secular state.

Iraq was a contained state. Harmless, with the crap having been bombed out of it for several years, being kept in line by a dictator who was power hungry enough to not want terrorist groups operating in his country, for fear they'd get too popular and be able to take away what little power he had left. Ugly, yes. A threat? No. An obvious choice? Given the reaction of the world at large.. I'd say not really.

And other countries are willing to help in Iraq, indeed have offered to help in Iraq, under the condition that their forces be under UN control, not US control. This strikes me as only reasonable considering that the guys running the US show are PNAC political theorists such as Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, that disregarded the advice of their own generals and as a result have wound up in the quagmire they're currently in. No way I want my country sending in troops to be ordered around by political theorists that somehow thought the region would drop over 200 years of culture to instantly adopt and embrace democracy and capitalist values if they were "only given the chance". Hell, I wouldn't want such people taking care of my dog, to be honest.

Pulling out would be bad, I agree.
Ceding control to someone better suited? That strikes me as a decent idea.

Good thing that wasnt snide - you'd look like a hypocrite.
I'm glad you can tell the difference between oblique insults towards a poster and a jeering comment made about a nation's political and military policies.

What did it prevent? Iraq from getting nukes? A country that couldn't hit the US that didn't have a nuclear program? What about North Korea? Why didn't anyone bother preventing that?

It prevented a government which had demonstrated a willingness to use WMDs with little regard, a history of hostile action, and abyssmal treatment of their own citizens (including using WMDs on THEM) from continuing to be in power.

Sorry if that's not good enough for you. Iran and NK are not out of the woods. Don't think the US will stand in anyone's way if they decide to tackle that problem without us doing the heavy lifting (as we've had to do every time so far)

Wow! That immediately invalidates my point! *goes home*
It is quite germane considering the moot point you were attempting to make.

Hey, know what? Anybody's capable of acts that could be desrcibed as terrorism, bozzy. So what to do, put the whole world in pre-emptive protective custody?

Sometimes I get the feeling like someone's spiked the water supply with a bad hallucinogen. Then I drink water, and I feel okay.

What was I saying?

Tsk tsk Bossy! Stay on track! To quote you:


Bold, my change.

Hmmm...can you hijack your own thread I wonder?

ya got me there - but he piqued my curiosity.

You sad little people keep clinging to the word 'lied' as if you invented it. You didn't - you just redefined it. A lie is intentional deception - not a logical conclusion from elusive information.
Elusive information? Actually that would be inconclusive information, which is an entirely different thing to that described by the Bush administration prior to the Iraq war. It is not merely the conclusions that have been shown to be untrue, it is the description of the information on which the conclusions were based. The notion that the 'intelligence' might very well be utterly misnamed, did occur to many many many people. In fact the Bush administration were repeatedly challenged on the accuracy of their 'information' and at every turn insisted that they had proof....not evidence, not information, but proof. That's a lie. There was never any information that could lead one to deduct that there was no possibility Saddam didnt have WMD, although there was quite a large body of evidence suggesting that Saddam could not have WMD. Collin Powell stood in the UN and stated outright that certain photos he was showing the delegates, could absolutely not be anything other than mobile WMD factories....as it happens the photos showed farming equipment.

If you want to suggest that the 'leader of the free world' is so brainless he cannot tell the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' even with all his expensive advisers, that's fine. Why you want to be 'led' by an idiot, is outside my understanding. Personally even I give the guy more credit than that...

Quit trying to change the subject just because you're getting your arse handed to you - you sound desperate disjointed and incoherent. I'll own you on any other subject you wish to discuss - but in a thread suitable to that topic. I won't let you hijack this thread - start your own if you want to discuss the partiot act.
I'm not trying to change the subject. My comments were in direct reply to those they replied to. This is a world of interconnections, the Iraq war is not occuring in a vacum.

There is an occupation Army...

NO, an occupation army is there without the consent of the governing body. An occupational force does not take orders from the native government. It is also a singular force.

The US is the largest part of a group of international forces invited there by the government of Iraq while they struggle against foreign insurgents. The US forces report to the local government. Iraq has also asked other nations (including a plea to the UN) for help but many (most) have refused it.

Bzzzzt! You are wrong on all counts.

Since 'american' is not an ethnicity on it's own merits you leave me confused about this.That is an awefully stupid thing to say, unless you want me to think that you can't reason out that A) Neo-Nazis hate Americans for winning WW2 and B) they might try to hurt anyone they believe is American if they catch them in the right situation.

It prevented a government which had demonstrated a willingness to use WMDs with little regard, a history of hostile action, and abyssmal treatment of their own citizens (including using WMDs on THEM) from continuing to be in powerSo you're telling me a government that hated some of its citizens and neighbors badly but left anyone that shut up alone in most circumstances worse than a country that starves its entire population in order to get nukes to be trained on the west coast and a big military, denies its citizens the use of cell phones, denies its women the right to use bicycles on the roads because they cause too many accidents (there are almost no cars around btw), and that brutally represses anyone that speaks out against it?
I think they're on equal footing there. The difference between them is that North Korean WMDs can reach the US and Iraqi WMDs, if they had existed, could not.

NO, an occupation army is there without the consent of the governing body. An occupational force does not take orders from the native government. It is also a singular force.
Nonesense, if China got together with Cuba and both sent armed forces to invade Fiji, people would not say 'that's not an occupation because it is not a singular force'. That's like suggesting if more than one person lives in a house, the house cannot be called 'occupied' and it's residents are not 'occupiers' of the house... :rolleyes:

'The US is the largest part of a group of international forces invited there by the government of Iraq while they struggle against foreign insurgents. The US forces report to the local government. Iraq has also asked other nations (including a plea to the UN) for help but many (most) have refused it.
Bzzzzt! You are wrong on all counts.
The US was not invited there by a government of Iraq, perhaps you are confusing the invading forces with Hans Blix.

Any weapon can reach the US. Just bring it into mexico and walk it over the border.

Iraq was never about revenge.
After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad.Bold parts added.

Huh. Even more reason to bring the troops back home then, considering there've been more terrorist attacks against United States civilians perpetrated by United States citizens than by Iraqi's. Really, if it's about prevention, George should consider turning himself in. His aggressive, go-it-alone policies have done more to promote terrorism in the last 6 years than anything Al Qaeda managed in the 20 years prior.

In fact.. I can't honestly think of any terrorist attacks against US civilians done primarily by Iraqis. Certainly there've been a couple big ones done by Saudi's recently, and a number by this pesky group Al Qaeda that also happens to be led by a Saudi that viewed this Saddam character as an affront to good religious values since he was running a mostly secular state.

Iraq was a contained state. Harmless, with the crap having been bombed out of it for several years, being kept in line by a dictator who was power hungry enough to not want terrorist groups operating in his country, for fear they'd get too popular and be able to take away what little power he had left. Ugly, yes. A threat? No. An obvious choice? Given the reaction of the world at large.. I'd say not really.

And other countries are willing to help in Iraq, indeed have offered to help in Iraq, under the condition that their forces be under UN control, not US control. This strikes me as only reasonable considering that the guys running the US show are PNAC political theorists such as Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, that disregarded the advice of their own generals and as a result have wound up in the quagmire they're currently in. No way I want my country sending in troops to be ordered around by political theorists that somehow thought the region would drop over 200 years of culture to instantly adopt and embrace democracy and capitalist values if they were "only given the chance". Hell, I wouldn't want such people taking care of my dog, to be honest.

Pulling out would be bad, I agree.
Ceding control to someone better suited? That strikes me as a decent idea.

George's mistake was not in 'going it alone' - it was in asking at all. He gave the world the change to be our partner - Far too many thought it meant they were our keeper. There were some brave enough to participate - but many had their own agendas and placed that ahead of their relationship with the US.

To suggest that terrorism is 'flourishing' is foolishness. Terrorism is on the defensive. Terrorist supporting nations and organizations are under more pressure now than ever before.

Terrorism is like mold. If you have a mold problem in your home you can try to cover it up or ignore it - but it won't go away. When you do try to clean it it releases spores and attemnts to spread rapidly and much more agressivly than when it was unmolested. You must fight to contain it. If you do not then it WILL spread and become worse than before.

Blaming W for terrorism is like blaming the plumber who shows up at your home to fix your long-neglected toilet.

You may forget that Iraq invaded their neighbors regularly, targeted their own people, used chemical weapons without regard (even killing their own troops), put a 'hit' on a US president, shot a missile into a US warship 'by accident', paid the families of suicide bombers, and much much more. They didn't support terrorism, they embraced it.

Other countries say they are willing to help Iraq, where are they? I can understand (though not agree with) their excuse why they were a no-show before the election - but with Iraq having it's own leadership, where is everyone now? No money - no troops. A token amount of training (not IN iraq) is all most major nations are offering. Your point of them not wanting to be under US 'control' is moot now that Iraq has an elected government to whom the US handed governing power quite some time ago. The point is - there is no excuse for them not providing support anymore. None.

Meanwhile, the calls for a retreat come from a loud group within all of the nations that are there helping the Iraqis. I find it terribly doubtful that any nationa not already there would want to send troops under any circumstance - At the request of Iraq, the US or Muhammud himself.

That is an awefully stupid thing to say...

I didn't ask to be flamed. I simply asked for clarification. Neo-Nazis are not foreign to America; there are many here - though they do not go on killing rampages targeting wanton Americans. My questions were not nearly as stupid as your answer was rude.

So you're telling me a government that hated some of its citizens and neighbors badly but left anyone that shut up alone in most circumstances .snip...

That has to be the most grossly inaccurate and negligent summarization I've ever read. It pretty much invalidates anything you could say after it.

Nonesense, if China got together with Cuba and both sent armed forces to invade Fiji, people would not say 'that's not an occupation because it is not a singular force'. That's like suggesting if more than one person lives in a house, the house cannot be called 'occupied' and it's residents are not 'occupiers' of the house... :rolleyes:
If Fiji invited them with a clear and desperate necessity, then no, they would not be occupiers.


The US was not invited there by a government of Iraq, perhaps you are confusing the invading forces with Hans Blix.

Yes, the present, and freely elected, government of Iraq has requested the US presence there. You are mistaken if you want to argue otherwise.

NO, an occupation army is there without the consent of the governing body. An occupational force does not take orders from the native government. It is also a singular force.

The US is the largest part of a group of international forces invited there by the government of Iraq while they struggle against foreign insurgents. The US forces report to the local government. Iraq has also asked other nations (including a plea to the UN) for help but many (most) have refused it.

Bzzzzt! You are wrong on all counts.Bzzzzt? is that the sound of your brains shrinking?

If Fiji invited them with a clear and desperate necessity, then no, they would not be occupiers.



Yes, the present, and freely elected, government of Iraq has requested the US presence there. You are mistaken if you want to argue otherwise.The USA has invited themselves to Iraq.

If Fiji invited them with a clear and desperate necessity, then no, they would not be occupiers.
Yes, the present, and freely elected, government of Iraq has requested the US presence there. You are mistaken if you want to argue otherwise.The legal representation of Iraq did not invite the US. In fact, this never happened. The US has been asked to stay, as you said, but the US was never invited.

That has to be the most grossly inaccurate and negligent summarization I've ever read. It pretty much invalidates anything you could say after it.That has to be the most grossly inaccurate and negligent summarization I've ever read. It pretty much invalidates anything you could say after it.
And I'm not kidding. Whenever someone attempts to argue with you, you resort to the "you don't have an arguement" tactic.

The US has been asked to stay.like if the Iraq PM had any choice.

like if the Iraq PM had any choice.He did. He could have asked the Americans to leave. They weren't forcing him to ask them to stay, so technically, he had a choice.

They weren't forcing him to ask them to stay..I dont know about that.
Probably they are not holding his cojones...but I am not willing to bet on that.

B0zzy, Laerod, where's the love gone? :D

If I can completely miquote and take out of context everything said in my absence, Laerod had pointed out to me that my statement "Only Vets have a right to protest about US involvement in Iraq" might be better expanded to include "Parents of folks killed in Iraq". Which I do wholeheartedly agree with.

I still disagree with most of my fellow liberals that now is the time and/or place to protest the war in Iraq. For my basic reasons, see my prior post. I would have to agree with B0zzy that a vanishingly tiny percentage of my fellow American liberals who have been stirred to protest the war recently are:

A.) Past, present, future in the military
B.) Know anyone and/or related to anyone in category A.

I do repect the mothers & fathers who've lost kids in this war, but it enrages me to see their cause hijacked by liberal organizations like MoveOn and TruthOut, etc. to score cheap political points.

As a liberal myself, I think that this type of "protest" is shallow, self-serving, and ultimately much more damaging to the cause of liberal politics in America than helpful. The way to "Win" in America & Iraq to me, as a liberal, is to do 2 simple things-

* Open minds.
* Get them to vote. For the best candidate, regardless of party.

Well that's 4 pennies I've pitched into this pool now :p

Cheers-

~FLG

"Well they call me a dreamer...
But my heart's of gold....
I had to run away high...
So I wouldn't come home low..."
---Bad 80's Hair Band, 1985ish

B0zzy, Laerod, where's the love gone?

As a liberal myself, I think that
*snip
Cheers-

~FLG

"Well they call me a dreamer...
But my heart's of gold....
I had to run away high...
So I wouldn't come home low..."
---Bad 80's Hair Band, 1985ish
Shut up You... Commie Pinko Bleeding heart Liberal :D :mp5: :sniper:

Shut up You... Commie Pinko Bleeding heart Liberal :D :mp5: :sniper:

Lol - " 'Elp, 'elp, I'm bein' opressed -- Now we see the violence inherent in the system!! " :p

Lol - " 'Elp, 'elp, I'm bein' opressed -- Now we see the violence inherent in the system!! " :pIf I went around, claimin' kingship because some loony lady from a lake gave me a weapon, they'd lock me up! :D

This has turned into nothing but a flamewar. Get back on the real topic before someone asks the mods to investigate.

This has turned into nothing but a flamewar. Get back on the real topic before someone asks the mods to investigate.

Ah, heck Psychotic, the last few posts here are just a bit o' Python silliness, not exactly a good flame war.

Although I feel manipulated by my government into entering this Python Flamewar, I think it best to see the war through to the successful formation of some type of non-Python stability before unilaterally walking away from it..

Wouldn't you agree? :D

"If I went around sayin' I was king just because some moistened tart lobbed a scimitar at *me*, they'd lock me up and throw away the key!!!"

~FLG

Sorry, it's just that one of my biggest pet peives is seeing a flamewar start like that, destroying the original purpose of the thread.

I do have one opinion here, though. Everyone's saying that Bush lied about WMD. It seems like these people convienently "forgot" that he was only saying what his intelligence said. It's not his fault, whoever did intel. should be blamed. The only reason Bush is is because he's the top of the government. That sort of stuff really ticks me off.

Sorry, it's just that one of my biggest pet peives is seeing a flamewar start like that, destroying the original purpose of the thread.Considering the reputation of the person that started this thread, that isn't much of a surprise. He tends to fail to bring forth cohesive arguements and dodges a proper debate.

I do have one opinion here, though. Everyone's saying that Bush lied about WMD. It seems like these people convienently "forgot" that he was only saying what his intelligence said. It's not his fault, whoever did intel. should be blamed. The only reason Bush is is because he's the top of the government. That sort of stuff really ticks me off.I disagree. Did you read the article on the yellow cake issue a while back? (Or was that in a different thread?) It showed that Bush had been told that there was no link whatsoever between the allegations that Saddam was acting on an offer to gain material for nuclear weapons SHORTLY BEFORE HE SAID THE OPPOSITE IN HIS STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS. Please don't get ticked off when people have what they consider good reasons to disagree.

I appreciate you trying to bring this thread back to a proper debate :)

Really? If you can find the link to the thread, do give it to me. I would very much like to read that. Last thing I like to have is an argument with faulty backing. I honestly never heard that.

No prob., like I said, I hate off-topic tangents.

Really? If you can find the link to the thread, do give it to me. I would very much like to read that. Last thing I like to have is an argument with faulty backing. I honestly never heard that.

No prob., like I said, I hate off-topic tangents.
I'm kinda busy in the "Iraq war fail" thread right now (its exploding and that makes it difficult to keep up) so I don't really have the time to hunt for it, sorry...

All right, whatever. I'll see it eventually :P

Nonesense, if China got together with Cuba and both sent armed forces to invade Fiji, people would not say 'that's not an occupation because it is not a singular force'. That's like suggesting if more than one person lives in a house, the house cannot be called 'occupied' and it's residents are not 'occupiers' of the house... :rolleyes:
If Fiji invited them with a clear and desperate necessity, then no, they would not be occupiers.


The US was not invited there by a government of Iraq, perhaps you are confusing the invading forces with Hans Blix.

Yes, the present, and freely elected, government of Iraq has requested the US presence there. You are mistaken if you want to argue otherwise.

I do have one opinion here, though. Everyone's saying that Bush lied about WMD. It seems like these people convienently "forgot" that he was only saying what his intelligence said. It's not his fault, whoever did intel. should be blamed. The only reason Bush is is because he's the top of the government. That sort of stuff really ticks me off.
Of course it is President Bush's fault. 'Whoever did intel' is not someone the citizens of the US get to vote on. The President is. So in times when the people cannot have a say in an issue because 'National Security' requires they not even know the details, it is the job of the President to find out what the information is, the reliability of it's sources, whether it is proof or evidence, etc. To a large extent that is what a President is for.

We are not talking about just saying that he believed it, or even merely that information presented turned out later to be of dubious accuracy. Even if all the sources were good, there still wasnt proof. We know there cannot have been proof (and the case presented by the Bush administration was that there was proof, not just largely circumstantial, and entirely non-conclusive evidence, but proof), because what was claimed to be proven by the proof, actually wasnt true.

In this case, all the evidence that has since come out, indicates that there was never any reason to believe that there was proof, and in fact the evidence suggesting that Saddam didnt present a threat due to WMDs, added up to a far better case.

I find it very very hard to believe that President Bush is really so stupid, he actually believed that the 'evidence' amounted to proof. I do not know what is scarier, a US President who starts wars for reasons he apparently will not reveal, or a US President who cant tell the difference between a proven case, and a not-particularly-impressive circumstancial case.

Hey, know what? Anybody's capable of acts that could be desrcibed as terrorism, bozzy. So what to do, put the whole world in pre-emptive protective custody?

Sometimes I get the feeling like someone's spiked the water supply with a bad hallucinogen. Then I drink water, and I feel okay.

What was I saying?

Engage your mind dobbie - this post does not warrant a direct response. I have answered your poorly worded question quite clearly several times arleady. If you can't figure it out yourself then go drink some more of your water.

Engage your mind dobbie - this post does not warrant a direct response. I have answered your poorly worded question quite clearly several times arleady. If you can't figure it out yourself then go drink some more of your water.Why, for the love of God, did you choose to respond to it then? Why must you always ignore political statements or declare them moot for ludicrous reasons?

Elusive information? Actually that would be inconclusive information, which is an entirely different thing to that described by the Bush administration prior to the Iraq war. It is not merely the conclusions that have been shown to be untrue, it is the description of the information on which the conclusions were based. The notion that the 'intelligence' might very well be utterly misnamed, did occur to many many many people. In fact the Bush administration were repeatedly challenged on the accuracy of their 'information' and at every turn insisted that they had proof....not evidence, not information, but proof. That's a lie. There was never any information that could lead one to deduct that there was no possibility Saddam didnt have WMD, although there was quite a large body of evidence suggesting that Saddam could not have WMD. Collin Powell stood in the UN and stated outright that certain photos he was showing the delegates, could absolutely not be anything other than mobile WMD factories....as it happens the photos showed farming equipment.

If you want to suggest that the 'leader of the free world' is so brainless he cannot tell the difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' even with all his expensive advisers, that's fine. Why you want to be 'led' by an idiot, is outside my understanding. Personally even I give the guy more credit than that...


I'm not trying to change the subject. My comments were in direct reply to those they replied to. This is a world of interconnections, the Iraq war is not occuring in a vacum.

Actually it is your leader who is brainless. Spineless too. With no political courage or ethical foundation.

There - now I have lowered myself to your level by insulting your leader with equal ambiguity. I can now speak on your plane.

From this low plane I suppose I could expect intel to be an exact science. Back in the real world we don't have such a luxury. To suggest that Saddam was Mr. Compliant would be a grave abuse of that term.

There is no doubt that no WMDs were found. It is questionable that there was any mass manufacture of them prior to the invasion. There is considerable evidence and reasonable conjecture that Saddam had intention of pursuing them at his first opportunity. It is also clear that Saddam had the intention of continued terrorism support. Not every justification for the war was found true - but there were plenty of sound reasons which did.

Removing Saddam from power was not a mistake.

Bzzzzt? is that the sound of your brains shrinking?

No silly, it is the sound of you being served.

Now, quit talking with your mouth full.

Eat up - crow is good for you.

Actually it is your leader who is brainless. Spineless too. With no political courage or ethical foundation. Say that to me please, I beg you.
To suggest that Saddam was Mr. Compliant would be a grave abuse of that term.Because people that do exactly as they're told once they're convinced they'll be ousted if they don't are... the proper term in this case would be compliant, actually.

There is no doubt that no WMDs were found. It is questionable that there was any mass manufacture of them prior to the invasion. There is considerable evidence and reasonable conjecture that Saddam had intention of pursuing them at his first opportunity. It is also clear that Saddam had the intention of continued terrorism support. Not every justification for the war was found true - but there were plenty of sound reasons which did.
Sucks that the WMD case was the only thing that would have gotten Americans behind it, huh?
Removing Saddam from power was not a mistake.I'd agree. It's the way it was done that I'd consider it a mistake.

The USA has invited themselves to Iraq.

And continued to stay at the request of her people.

Nice try.


Bzzzt!

Why do so many Americans pretend to care about the Iraqis so much all of the sudden? :confused:


Same reason Anti war people say they care about the Iraqi civilian deaths and the military deaths as well. I know most of them revel at every death to add to the number, they see each soldiers death as a personal victory.

Same reason Anti war people say they care about the Iraqi civilian deaths and the military deaths as well. I know most of them revel at every death to add to the number, they see each soldiers death as a personal victory.That, my dear friend, is rather insulting.

The legal representation of Iraq did not invite the US. In fact, this never happened. The US has been asked to stay, as you said, but the US was never invited.

And, just who is the 'legal' representation of Iraq - that guy in jail? :lol:

I would prefer to follow the wishes of the people who were elected. Your argument from there would be based on semantics. 'Invited to stay' was what I thought I said earlier - if it wasn't my exact words then that was my intended message and not too difficult to deduce.

That has to be the most grossly inaccurate and negligent summarization I've ever read. It pretty much invalidates anything you could say after it.
And I'm not kidding. Whenever someone attempts to argue with you, you resort to the "you don't have an arguement" tactic.

You called that an argument? Eeek. For shame! How can you base an argument on a statement with no basis in fact? Should I just make up stuff to so we can argue about who makes up the best stuff? Come on - my response was kind after such a steaming pile of bullshit that you tried to pass off.

This has turned into nothing but a flamewar. Get back on the real topic before someone asks the mods to investigate.


and don't come back or I shall taunt you a second time!

(to another poster) Considering the reputation of the person that started this thread, that isn't much of a surprise. He tends to fail to bring forth cohesive arguements and dodges a proper debate....
snip

Listen pee-wee - if you have an issue with me you take it up with ME. You want to talk about my reputation then I am right here. You want to spread shit about me - take it to me.

(snipped by B0z in deference to Laerod)

Why, for the love of God, did you choose to respond to it then? Why must you always ignore political statements or declare them moot for ludicrous reasons?

probably for the same reason you feel the need to make inane political statements. I just can't help but point out their fallacy. Consider it free reality therapy.

Actually it is your leader who is brainless. Spineless too. With no political courage or ethical foundation.
And my leader is?

There - now I have lowered myself to your level by insulting your leader with equal ambiguity. I can now speak on your plane.
You'll have to be specific, I really have no idea what you are referring to. It seems to me that if your comments are honest, the only explanation I can come up, is that you have misunderstood my comments.

From this low plane I suppose I could expect intel to be an exact science. Back in the real world we don't have such a luxury.
Of course people do not expect intell to be an exact science. That is why is it desirable to have an open, honest, intelligent, critical thinker with the nation's best interests upper most in his or her mind, evaluate the evidence and made final decisions. Clearly a minimal requirement is the ability to tell the difference between proof and evidence. Either President Bush cannot make this distinction, or he lied.

To suggest that Saddam was Mr. Compliant would be a grave abuse of that term.
To suggest my cat is Mr. Compliant is also a grave abuse of the term, but that is not proof that he is manufacturing WMDs.

There is no doubt that no WMDs were found. It is questionable that there was any mass manufacture of them prior to the invasion.
It was more questionable prior to the war, that he could not have WMDs. The fact is there is the evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Saddam was not a WMD threat, nor was he in any particular danger of becoming one.

There is considerable evidence and reasonable conjecture that Saddam had intention of pursuing them at his first opportunity.
There is considerable evidence my cat would eat most of the contents of my fridge at the first opportunity, but without good reason to believe such an opportunity will arise, it would be silly consider the existence of intent as reason to act.

It is also clear that Saddam had the intention of continued terrorism support. Not every justification for the war was found true - but there were plenty of sound reasons which did. It is not clear just what, if any, support he gave to terrorism, or was going to give to terrorism. It is most certainly not clear that such a claim justifies the actions taken by the US.

Removing Saddam from power was not a mistake.


The only way to deduce if the Iraq war was 'a mistake' is to know why it was started.

Same reason Anti war people say they care about the Iraqi civilian deaths and the military deaths as well. I know most of them revel at every death to add to the number, they see each soldiers death as a personal victory.

Glad that other people see it as well.
I was in Iraq, and the amount of miss information coming out of that country by the mainstream press is criminal. The media takes the worst event of the day, even if its the only thing that happended that day, and make it sound like horrible things are happening all over the country, instead of a few real hot spot areas.

I wish that the press would talk to survivors of Saddam's family. But that might mean people would think that we really accomplished something good there.

From what I have heard, Iraq is not getting any better now than it was when we went in, except they don't have Saddam anymore. That is really the only difference. There's still terrorists and bombs. Really that is the only good that has come out of this. But I still don't think we should have gone in the first place.

Also, about the 9/11 comments, has anyone ever proved that Iraq was even connected to the 9/11 attack? Bush may have been planning this before 9/11, but who knows I guess...

B0zzy and Laerod: Both of you need to calm down before you receive warnings for baiting and flaming each other. I did notice that you, B0zzy edited your post to take away the vulgarity of what it used to be, and I did see what it said before hand. This doesn't take away from what you originally wrote. Nevertheless, this is still an unofficial warning, because both of you are appropriately responsible, because of Laerod's bait:
(to another poster) Considering the reputation of the person that started this thread, that isn't much of a surprise. He tends to fail to bring forth cohesive arguements and dodges a proper debate....
snip

So knock it off you too.

From what I have heard, Iraq is not getting any better now than it was when we went in, except they don't have Saddam anymore. That is really the only difference. There's still terrorists and bombs. Really that is the only good that has come out of this. But I still don't think we should have gone in the first place.

Also, about the 9/11 comments, has anyone ever proved that Iraq was even connected to the 9/11 attack? Bush may have been planning this before 9/11, but who knows I guess...

Total power generation is higher than before the war, water and food distribution is at a higher volume than before the war.

Again, from what you have heard from the press, and the main media outlets have a vested intrest in making it sound as bad as possible. Iraq had made many improvments from the time I got there to the time I left.

Total power generation is higher than before the war, water and food distribution is at a higher volume than before the war.

Again, from what you have heard from the press, and the main media outlets have a vested intrest in making it sound as bad as possible. Iraq had made many improvments from the time I got there to the time I left.

Unfortunately this Iraqi woman that writes of conditions in Iraq does not agree with you.

-----------------------------------------
Friday, July 01, 2005

Unbelievable...
“Not only can they not find WMD in Iraq,” I commented to E. as we listened to the Bush speech, “But they have disappeared from his speeches too!” I was listening to the voiceover on Arabiya, translating his speech to Arabic. He was recycling bits and pieces of various speeches he used over two years.

E., a younger cousin, and I were sitting around in the living room, sprawled on the relatively cool tiled floor. The electricity had been out for 3 hours and we couldn’t turn on the air conditioner with the generator electricity we were getting. E. and I had made a bet earlier about what the theme of tonight’s speech would be. E. guessed Bush would dig up the tired, old WMD theme from somewhere under the debris of idiocy and lies coming out of the White House. I told him he’d dredge up 9/11 yet again… tens of thousands of lives later, we would have to bear the burden of 9/11… again.

I won the bet. The theme was, naturally, terrorism- the only mention of ‘weapon’ or ‘weapons’ was in reference to Libya. He actually used the word ‘terrorist’ in the speech 23 times.

He was trying, throughout the speech, to paint a rosy picture of the situation. According to him, Iraq was flourishing under the occupation. In Bush’s Iraq, there is reconstruction, there is freedom (in spite of an occupation) and there is democracy.

“He’s describing a different country…” I commented to E. and the cousin.

“Yes,” E. replied. “He’s talking about the *other* Iraq… the one with the WMD.”

“So what’s the occasion? Why’s the idiot giving a speech anyway?” The cousin asked, staring at the ceiling fan clicking away above. I reminded him it was the year anniversary marking the mythical handover of power to Allawi’s Vichy government.

“Oh- Allawi… Is he still alive?” Came the indolent reply from the cousin. “I’ve lost track… was he before Al Yawir or after Al Yawir? Was he Prime Minister or did they make him president at some point?”

9/11 and the dubious connection with Iraq came up within less than a minute of the beginning of the speech. The cousin wondered whether anyone in America still believed Iraq had anything to do with September 11.

Bush said:
“The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001.”

Do people really still believe this? In spite of that fact that no WMD were found in Iraq, in spite of the fact that prior to the war, no American was ever killed in Iraq and now almost 2000 are dead on Iraqi soil? It’s difficult to comprehend that rational people, after all of this, still actually accept the claims of a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Or that they could actually believe Iraq is less of a threat today than it was in 2003.

We did not have Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war. We didn’t know that sort of extremism. We didn’t have beheadings or the abduction of foreigners or religious intolerance. We actually pitied America and Americans when the Twin Towers went down and when news began leaking out about it being Muslim fundamentalists- possibly Arabs- we were outraged.

Now 9/11 is getting old. Now, 100,000+ Iraqi lives and 1700+ American lives later, it’s becoming difficult to summon up the same sort of sympathy as before. How does the death of 3,000 Americans and the fall of two towers somehow justify the horrors in Iraq when not one of the people involved with the attack was Iraqi?

Bush said:
“Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. … The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, "We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us."

He speaks of ‘abroad’ as if it is a vague desert-land filled with heavily-bearded men and possibly camels. ‘Abroad’ in his speech seems to indicate a land of inferior people- less deserving of peace, prosperity and even life.

Don’t Americans know that this vast wasteland of terror and terrorists otherwise known as ‘Abroad’ was home to the first civilizations and is home now to some of the most sophisticated, educated people in the region?

Don’t Americans realize that ‘abroad’ is a country full of people- men, women and children who are dying hourly? ‘Abroad’ is home for millions of us. It’s the place we were raised and the place we hope to raise our children- your field of war and terror.

The war was brought to us here, and now we have to watch the country disintegrate before our very eyes. We watch as towns are bombed and gunned down and evacuated of their people. We watch as friends and loved ones are detained, or killed or pressured out of the country with fear and intimidation.

Bush said:
“We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who exploded car bombs along a busy shopping street in Baghdad, including one outside a mosque. We see the nature of the enemy in terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul…”

Yes. And Bush is extremely concerned with the mosques. He might ask the occupation forces in Iraq to quit attacking mosques and detaining the worshipers inside- to stop raiding them and bombing them and using them as shelters for American snipers in places like Falluja and Samarra. And the terrorists who sent a suicide bomber to a teaching hospital in Mosul? Maybe they got their cue from the American troops who attacked the only functioning hospital in Falluja.

“We continued our efforts to help them rebuild their country. Rebuilding a country after three decades of tyranny is hard and rebuilding while a country is at war is even harder."

Three decades of tyranny isn’t what bombed and burned buildings to the ground. It isn’t three decades of tyranny that destroyed the infrastructure with such things as “Shock and Awe” and various other tactics. Though he fails to mention it, prior to the war, we didn’t have sewage overflowing in the streets like we do now, and water cut off for days and days at a time. We certainly had more than the 8 hours of electricity daily. In several areas they aren’t even getting that much.

“They are doing that by building the institutions of a free society, a society based on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and equal justice under law.”

We’re so free, we often find ourselves prisoners of our homes, with roads cut off indefinitely and complete areas made inaccessible. We are so free to assemble that people now fear having gatherings because a large number of friends or family members may attract too much attention and provoke a raid by American or Iraqi forces.

As to Iraqi forces…There was too much to quote on the new Iraqi forces. He failed to mention that many of their members were formerly part of militias, and that many of them contributed to the looting and burning that swept over Iraq after the war and continued for weeks.

“The new Iraqi security forces are proving their courage every day.”

Indeed they are. The forte of the new Iraqi National Guard? Raids and mass detentions. They have been learning well from the coalition. They sweep into areas, kick down doors, steal money, valuables, harass the females in the household and detain the men. The Iraqi security forces are so effective that a few weeks ago, they managed to kill a high-ranking police major in Falluja when he ran a red light, shooting him in the head as his car drove away.

He kept babbling about a “free Iraq” but he mentioned nothing about when the American forces might actually depart and the occupation would end, leaving a “free Iraq”.

Why aren’t the Americans setting a timetable for withdrawal? Iraqis are constantly wondering why nothing is being done to accelerate the end of the occupation.

Do the Americans continue to believe such speeches? I couldn’t help but wonder.

“They’ll believe anything.” E. sighed. “No matter what sort of absurdity they are fed, they’ll believe it. Think up the most outrageous lie… They have people who’ll believe it.”

The cousin sat up at this, his interest piqued. “The most outrageous lie? How about that Iraq was amassing aliens from Mareekh [Mars] and training them in the battle art of kung-fu to attack America in 2010!”

“They’d believe it.” E. nodded in the affirmative. “Or that Iraq was developing a mutant breed of rabid, man-eating bunnies to unleash upon the Western world. They’d believe that too.”


Mykeru has a fantastic post about the speech, as do Juan Cole (as usual), and TomDispatch.

- posted by river @ 3:21 AM

Riverbends Bahgdad Burning Blog - http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

If we surrender, I will go on a killing spree and thus shoot myself. Losing isn't an option. No way. Nadda. If our government even considers surrendering, we should overthrow it. Mesada complex crap. Never gonna happen.

Greetings Proletariat,

Who cares if there were WMD's in Iraq, Indiana, or Indochina? (Obviously a lotta folks :D )

It's kinda irrelevant at this late date, unless you've mastered time travel. In which case you should be hanging out in San Diego circa 3005 AD - I hear it's gonna ROCK. Or preventing this goofy war to begin with by going back in time to 2001 & tying G.W.'s shoelaces together or something.

The US now has Umpteen Gerbajillion troops in Iraq (Official figure - I Googled it), and we got ourselves a fine little merry mess of a war thingy to deal with.

The only real question now is, *how* do we deal with it?

With tongue out of cheek, the only realistic answers I see to the above are:

1.) Pull out before we restabilize Iraq
2.) Pull out after

Placing tongue back in cheek, I think "Coitus Iraqus Interruptus" (Option #1) is not the correct one, for many, many reasons that lots of folks on this thread whom I otherwise (politically) disagree with have pointed out.

woot! That's a nickel and a penny total o' Ameri-Liberal-Hippy Opinion for y'all! ;)

Cheers-

~FLG

Unwashed, it would apear to me that your blogger lives in western baghdad. Utilities stations there are positioned near the outskirts of the city, and are an easy target for mortors.

One thing that it seems that many people don't seem to realize is that Iraq is more than Baghdad. Those who live outside major metroplotan areas have benifitted the most. Many of those who lived in rural areas lived in a type of squalor that most of america and europe can't imagine.

Other things about this blog just feel wrong. One, how many people would sit in a building with no A/C and limited power just to listen to a translated speach by GW. Two, no mentions anywhere about the attacks that are carried out by the insurgency against public utilities that are causing the power outages. Three, the wording doesn't feel consistant with someone who has learned english as a second language, especially if that laguage is a form of arabic. This blog feels very suspect.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050818/ap_on_re_us/peace_mom

"More than 1,600 vigils were planned Wednesday from coast to coast by liberal advocacy groups MoveOn.org Political Action, TrueMajority and Democracy for America. A large vigil was also planned in Paris."

Throw the Iraqi's to the wolves. Why would we want to nurture a blossoming free country - so what if their freely elected leaders have asked for our help. Let's show the world how we support our allies - afterall - they've shown us.


First off, we invaded their country under false pretenses- we have no obligation to be there. That’s like forcing someone to marry a girl after he’s got her pregnant. I’m not saying there shouldn’t be economic and military aid, I’m just saying that occupying their country is a little much. There are reports of abuse, beatings and torture- indeed, abu ghraib seems only the tip of the ice berg. This will happen in any war- indeed , any place there is violence and death. But we must ask ourselves- is this the price we want to pay? Sacrifice OUR sons and daughters for a country that hasn’t done anything for us? I’m not calling for surrender, just withdrawal. I’m sorry if that seems a little cold hearted, but it’s just my opinion.

If we surrender, I will go on a killing spree and thus shoot myself. Losing isn't an option. No way. Nadda. If our government even considers surrendering, we should overthrow it. Mesada complex crap. Never gonna happen.


I agree.


Withdrawing troops, on the other hand...

Oh, and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong here, but Move on.org didn't call for surrender, did they?

Me being the liberal that I am, I got an email. It didn't mention withdrawal...


Again, maybe I speed read. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Awwwww...


nobody wants to argue with me...

To suggest that terrorism is 'flourishing' is foolishness. Terrorism is on the defensive. Terrorist supporting nations and organizations are under more pressure now than ever before.

Got proof of that? Because from what I've been seeing, major terrorist attacks from those of extremist muslim faith have actually gone up quite a bit, and are hitting closer to home. Spain, Britain, etc..

Terrorism is like mold. If you have a mold problem in your home you can try to cover it up or ignore it - but it won't go away. When you do try to clean it it releases spores and attemnts to spread rapidly and much more agressivly than when it was unmolested. You must fight to contain it. If you do not then it WILL spread and become worse than before.

Blaming W for terrorism is like blaming the plumber who shows up at your home to fix your long-neglected toilet.

Actually, that's a reasonable analogy, and if a plumber came to fix the clog in my toilet with the idea that the best way to do it is to tear apart my kitchen sink, I'd be wondering about him to. This is essentially what Bush has done by moving away from the actual perpetrators of the terrorism, namely the Saudis and the extremist fundamentalists that are sheltered there to the secular nation of Iraq.

You may forget that Iraq invaded their neighbors regularly,
Regularly? Name three. I can think of only two countries Iraq has moved against. First Iran with the blessings, guidance, and military support of the United States, and then Kuwait, which, if you actually read beyond your national media and looked into the situation, you'd see he did with the idea that the US wasn't going to get involved. Oops. He made the cardinal mistake of trusting the US government. Panned out about as well for him as it has for every other nation that tries it.

targeted their own people, used chemical weapons without regard (even killing their own troops),
Huh. Heard of napalm? Now what country was it that was using that, even killing their own troops with it?

put a 'hit' on a US president,
Very unfair because special forces had never tried to kill Saddam. He just went around with body doubles for the heck of it, after all.

shot a missile into a US warship 'by accident',
Got a link for that? I can't find anything.

paid the families of suicide bombers,
This I'll grant.

and much much more.
This I won't. You want to say much more, find proof and present. Otherwise we can simply get into fantasy land and I can point out GWB supporting a coup against a democratically elected Venezuelan president.

They didn't support terrorism, they embraced it.
No argument that there was some support of terrorism going on, but like I said before, why go after the kitchen sink when the problem is at the toilet. After all, I notice you completely ignore the reference to Saudi Arabia, where the terrorist cells are actively supported and funded from. Is this because it doesn't fit with your cozy world view of "My side can do no wrong?"

Other countries say they are willing to help Iraq, where are they? I can understand (though not agree with) their excuse why they were a no-show before the election - but with Iraq having it's own leadership, where is everyone now? No money - no troops. A token amount of training (not IN iraq) is all most major nations are offering. Your point of them not wanting to be under US 'control' is moot now that Iraq has an elected government to whom the US handed governing power quite some time ago. The point is - there is no excuse for them not providing support anymore. None.
Ah, so you really believe that the Iraqi government is the one calling the shots on where the troops over there are going and what they're doing? I might suggest you take off the blindfold and actually read up on the situation. Sure, the new Iraqi government may be the rubber stamp that legitimizes what's going on, but the US still refuses to allow the UN any military control of any forces in the region, requires all Iraqi forces be under their direct command, and any other forces in the region work within the US strategy.

Meanwhile, the calls for a retreat come from a loud group within all of the nations that are there helping the Iraqis. I find it terribly doubtful that any nationa not already there would want to send troops under any circumstance - At the request of Iraq, the US or Muhammud himself.Because no other nation has an interest in the region being stable, after all, right? Be serious. I'd support my nation's troops going over there, if I knew they were going over to be peacekeepers and not as troops to try to maintain a poorly thought, poorly implemented US strategy for occupation.

We're not leaving Iraq so all you little pussy liberals can stfu. I'm sick of all you. Instead of praying for our soldiers and caring about them, you turn against them. Do you think that all of them want to be there right now? No. So, the best we can do for them is put them in the best protection as possible and let them do their job.

Thanks Noobs.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050818/ap_on_re_us/peace_mom

"More than 1,600 vigils were planned Wednesday from coast to coast by liberal advocacy groups MoveOn.org Political Action, TrueMajority and Democracy for America. A large vigil was also planned in Paris."

Throw the Iraqi's to the wolves. Why would we want to nurture a blossoming free country - so what if their freely elected leaders have asked for our help. Let's show the world how we support our allies - afterall - they've shown us.So B0zzy--still tilting with straw men, I see. Some things never change. :rolleyes:

We're not leaving Iraq so all you little pussy liberals can stfu. I'm sick of all you. Instead of praying for our soldiers and caring about them, you turn against them. Do you think that all of them want to be there right now? No. So, the best we can do for them is put them in the best protection as possible and let them do their job.

Thanks Noobs.
That little bolded part? That's against the rules. Just a friendly little heads-up from one of those liberals you're ranting against. Wouldn't want you to get deleted so quickly after joining.

Pfft Liberals, you own them and they try and change the subject...

Instead of praying for our soldiers and caring about them, you turn against them. Do you think that all of them want to be there right now? No. So, the best we can do for them is put them in the best protection as possible and let them do their job.


How is wishing to heck a bunch of people were, and had always been safe instead of in grave danger, already injured, or already dead, turning against those someones? How is wishing someone had never ended up where they dont want to be, turning against them?

Pfft Liberals, you own them and they try and change the subject...
First off, I wasn't trying to engage you in conversation--I was trying to let you know that if you go over to the Moderation forum and look at what others have been warned about, you might decide to tone down your language before you get your ass reported. But if you want to act superior, well, I can't stop you from trying.

To answer the, umm, "charges" ( :rolleyes: ) you made against liberals, here you go. First of all, I don't pray. I've found that agititating for change and pointing out where the blame for the shitty situation our soldiers are in belongs does a lot more to help them out that praying to a God I don't believe in does. I believe that raising money for body armor that our government ought to be supplying does a damn sight more good than dropping an occasional hint to a deity who may or may not exist does. But that's just me--a liberal who lives in the reality-based community.

I'll let you in on a little secret--even though lots of liberals didn't like this war from the beginning (me, for example), if I'd had no choice but to send soldiers in, I'd have done a way better job at it than Bush did. I can guarantee you that they'd have had body armor, that they'd have had armored Humvees, that they'd have had three times the soldiers to help maintain postwar security and minimize the potential for insurgencies. In short, I'd have listened to my military advisors instead of listening to the politicians. But again--that's me, a liberal who lives in the realty-based community.

But hey--you obviously know so much better than I do. So go put on your Rambo underoos and show us how it's done.

I support the war but Bush did it completely wrong. We should of gotten U.N. approval or at least wait it out.

"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


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


There is no solution here only a poor choice from an arrogant presidents idealism. We will be here for a long time...it was a mistake.

Just how many military actions in the last 20 years have been stamped "UN APPROVED"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050818/ap_on_re_us/peace_mom

"More than 1,600 vigils were planned Wednesday from coast to coast by liberal advocacy groups MoveOn.org Political Action, TrueMajority and Democracy for America. A large vigil was also planned in Paris."

Throw the Iraqi's to the wolves. Why would we want to nurture a blossoming free country - so what if their freely elected leaders have asked for our help. Let's show the world how we support our allies - afterall - they've shown us.

First of all no one is calling for us to surrender to anything, they are calling for are exit from what is becoming an intractable disaster!

Second, the leaders of Iraq were not "freely elected", the elections were marked by fraud and ballot box stuffing (read the New Yorker).

Third, Iraq's "elected government" will in all likly hood propose a Consitution that will create something of a Theocratic State (or allow for the creation of a Theocratic State sometime in the future).

(As to my own personal views on what to do about Iraq, I don't really know, all the options are bad and seem to lead to the same hellish place).