NationStates Jolt Archive

On CNN, just now, they were speculating that, as a result of the Iraq war, Republicans are (and will be) distancing themselves from President Bush.

Some viewers wrote that the Republicans will NEVER abandon their own. While others said politicians always put themselves first... Another said that if Bush doesn't have it together by Christmas, then the Republicans will begin to abandon him. And finally, another said that Bush will announce in September that the Iraqis will all be trained and we'll start formally pulling back.

By the way, in the war, over 11 thousand U.S. soldiers were killed, but only 176 non-U.S. soldiers... So, how the hell did we have a "coalition"?

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=470

There are some parts of your post I question. 11,000 seems a mite high.

But I will tell you one thing: Politicians will do whatever it takes to win. They'll treat Bush like the plague if it'll help their campaign.

It's 11,000 US casualties, not deaths. About 1,850 US soldiers have died.

maybe bush shouldnt have attacked iraq, but at least those ppl will be free... parents r repubs and i dotn know if bush is the best, but everything always ends up the best
:upyours: :mp5: :sniper:

but everything always ends up the best
:upyours: :mp5: :sniper:

I wouldn't consider 11,000 casualties & 1,850 dead US soldiers best. That doesn't even start to consider the thousands & thousands of Iraqis who've died. How have things ended up best for them and their families?

*snip*

By the way, in the war, over 11 thousand U.S. soldiers were killed, *snip*

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=470

*cough* bullshit. There have been about 14,000+ injuries ranging from loss of limbs to organs.

There has been only about 1850 deaths but I think that also includes those killed in Afghanistan. I not 100% sure.

edited to add: nope just Iraq.

but at least those ppl will be free... :upyours: :mp5: :sniper:

Ah yes, freed of their mortal coil. I think most people would prefer to wait a while longer for that kind of freedom. It does seem like you're keen on violence & anger with all the shooting & up yours business. Give peace a chance: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

http://icasualties.org/oif/

There has been only about 1850 deaths
Riiiiight...cuz Iraqis & Afghanis don't count. They're just pretend.

Riiiiight...cuz Iraqis & Afghanis don't count. They're just pretend.


GEE maybe because my snip of his post was ONLY ABOUT US SOLDIERS deaths. :rolleyes:

Yeah, i think you will see the republican rats abandoning the sinking ship.

and IMO, not a moment too soon. The advancement of the Bush admin. agenda was depressing me.

Hoping there aren't enough lifeboats for Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rove.

GEE maybe because my snip of his post was ONLY ABOUT US SOLDIERS :rolleyes:
True, but my point is that the effects & damages of war should be about so much more than just US soldiers. While our government only tracks & reports deaths and injuries of US soldiers, it is at least as important to consider what's happening to all the people who actually live in the cities & towns where the war is taking place. Most of those people didn't exactly volunteer to be in the military & risk being thrown into a war. They just had it foisted on them.

Yeah, i think you will see the republican rats abandoning the sinking ship.

and IMO, not a moment too soon.
Oh, but rats can swim. Bush et al may decide to set sail on a new ship...destination Iran. Heck, they've already got all of the ships & guns & tanks over there...might as well go ahead & thrash on another country. Hopefully the rats will choose to do the hard work of swimming back to shore, rather than just grabbing ahold of the SS Mullah Masher.

I already oppose Bush, as such my poll choice said.

I already oppose Bush, as such my poll choice said.
Wanna move south? Immigration can't be that complicated.

I predicted a clear majority for the "I already oppose Bush" choice. I was surprised at how right I was :D

I don't like the title:

If the Iraq war fails, would you still support Bush?

If? If? The war has been a catastrophic failure. From start to...now.

I would support him, but only on his economic policy. I oppose him on his Big Government "conservatism" (true conservatives would be horrified by his spending spree), and am indifferent on everything else. So, I'm pretty neutral overall and Iraq wouldn't really affect my opinion.

[COLOR=DarkRed]A number of militants on that list, 21 of whom were thought to be outside Saudi Arabia, have reportedly died fighting alongside anti-US insurgents in neighboring Iraq, but this has not been officially confirmed. - AFP

A number of them have been reported to have died fighting alongside anti-US insurgents in Iraq, but this has not been officially confirmed. - USA Today

As long as we don't have more attacks at home (US) I'd say the Pres. plan is working. Let them blow them selves up in Iraq and not here.

If there is another attack here he might have to rethink what he is doing.

I feel bad for the good Iraq's that are caught in the middle.

I don't like the title:

If the Iraq war fails, would you still support Bush?

If? If? The war has been a catastrophic failure. From start to...now.It hasn't failed outright yet. Things aren't *that* bad (and they are getting a bit better).

I feel bad for the good Iraq's that are caught in the middle.This is why some people didn't want to involve them in the first place...

As long as we don't have more attacks at home (US) I'd say the Pres. plan is working. Let them blow them selves up in Iraq and not here.

If there is another attack here he might have to rethink what he is doing.

I feel bad for the good Iraq's that are caught in the middle.
So you basically feel that it's better that innocent Iraqis are killed by terrorists than innocent Americans. Why? Why are Americans so superior?

I would support him, but only on his economic policy.
Are you referring to his economic policy which basically continues all US economic policies since FDR by subsidising everything?

This is why some people didn't want to involve them in the first place...

If this plan of Bush's works and it spreads peace in the middle east, the world is going to owe the Iraqs alot.

Are you referring to his economic policy which basically continues all US economic policies since FDR by subsidising everything?

No, his efforts on passing free trade agreements and cutting taxes. That being said, I don't support his decision to cut taxes while fighting a war and wasting a fortune on poorly planned Big Government bureaucracy.

I don't like the title:

If the Iraq war fails, would you still support Bush?

If? If? The war has been a catastrophic failure. From start to...now.
I don't think the Iraq war has failed at all. I believe Bush is achieving his goals. Bush has been supported by money from oil companies his ENTIRE LIFE. His oil buddies helped him get elected, and now in return, Bush has created horrible instability in the Middle East w/ the threat of the whole region erupting into war. This instability has contributed significantly to the incredible rise in oil prices that has led to record profits for Bush's oil tycoon friends. If everything was peaceful & happy in Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia, the price of oil would plummet, and basically everybody ivolved wants to profit from the increased profit margins that fear & uncertainty create. If the whole region erupts into World War III, it will take a lot of state owned oil fields out of production & drive the prices of corporate-sold oil even higher.

If this plan of Bush's works and it spreads peace in the middle east, the world is going to owe the Iraqs alot.If it was peace you were after, then we didn't need to invade Iraq and destroy it. Peace-wise (not human rights wise) the situation was much better than it was now.

If this plan of Bush's works and it spreads peace in the middle east, the world is going to owe the Iraqs alot.

Well it seems to be working to some degree: a lot of arab nations have put aside their diffrences to hate the US...

But I don't think thats the type of peace anyone wanted...

As long as we don't have more attacks at home (US) I'd say the Pres. plan is working. Let them blow them selves up in Iraq and not here.

Err, right....and it doesn't matter that there are attacks all over the rest of the world? London, Madrid, Cairo, Bali etc etc spring to mind....surely eventually the US will be hit again through sheer numbers of attacks being on the increase...

Err, right....and it doesn't matter that there are attacks all over the rest of the world? London, Madrid, Cairo, Bali etc etc spring to mind..
Like 24oz said, the President's plan is working. Has Bush done anything that would lead you to believe that he is deeply troubled by violence in all of these places?

Like 24oz said, the President's plan is working. Has Bush done anything that would lead you to believe that he is deeply troubled by violence in all of these places?

Well, only the fact that Blair has been increasingly crushed by the pressure caused by the bombings and the war by the public and media, and simply won't be able to shield and protect Bush any longer....I mean, if Blair goes or is rendered impotent.....how is Bush's USA Vs The World policy going to play out?

How many americans lost theyre life for freedom from Britain? Seems like a small price to pay for freedom from tyranny that made the red coats look like candy stripers. Seems like a small price to pay for the begining of democracy in a Islamic nation. Seems like a small price to pay for what may actually be peace in the middle east. The only person that should be afraid of success is anti-americans, of which it seems like we have no shortage here...

-snip-

Can I just say I am not anti-american. Canada rocks.

How many americans lost theyre life for freedom from Britain? Seems like a small price to pay for freedom from tyranny that made the red coats look like candy stripers. Seems like a small price to pay for the begining of democracy in a Islamic nation. Seems like a small price to pay for what may actually be peace in the middle east. The only person that should be afraid of success is anti-americans, of which it seems like we have no shortage here...

err, right........you believe whatever you want to believe.....the difference being that the americans fought and lost their lives because they wanted to fight for their democracy.....compared with the Iraqi having US democracy thrust upon them.....what if they want a different sort of democracy, the type they want to fight for and develop themselves? Perhaps the type of democracy that is very anti-US? Imagine how the Americans would have felt if the Brits IMPOSED their own democracy on them....oh wait, they didn't like it did they and fought back for their own democracy.....and that's what'll happen in Iraq too......

Bush Derangement Syndrome is always amusing to watch. :)

The real question is, how many of those who oppose him would still do so when the Liberation of Iraq turns out to be a success? :p

It'll be interesting to see just how many liberals and Euros are largely immune to reality. ;)

You know what I find astonishing?

When one group of people enters a country and attacks it with the intent of changing that country's way of life...

The second group of people enters a country and attacks it with the intent of changing THAT country's way of life.

Does anyone see the hypocrisy here?

There are a myriad of other ways I could put holes in the justifiability of this war, but that there should be enough. We don't like what they did to us, so we do the same thing to them. America is not superior, because we're doing the same thing that we hate about our enemies.

Of course by they and them I'm referring to people who don't like America, because, get this, for some reason (what could it POSSIBLY be?) a lot of people in the world, especially in the Middle East, don't like America. Imagine that...

The real question is, how many of those who oppose him would still do so when the Liberation of Iraq turns out to be a success? :p


LMAO...and you base your hypothesis of success on what exactly? The last 2.5 years have been a chaotic bloodbath....the past tends to dictate the future....maybe in 50years time we'll see peace...whoopee, another Northern Ireland :rolleyes:

The war will not fail.

True, but my point is that the effects & damages of war should be about so much more than just US soldiers. While our government only tracks & reports deaths and injuries of US soldiers, it is at least as important to consider what's happening to all the people who actually live in the cities & towns where the war is taking place. Most of those people didn't exactly volunteer to be in the military & risk being thrown into a war. They just had it foisted on them.


I understand and agree with what you are saying.

The war will not fail.

The war already HAS failed. All of the original reasons for going to war (If anyone remembers, they were pretty specific) were unfounded piles of crap, we've managed to get even MORE people to hate the US, resistance to the US occupation has increased. We're stuck in a quagmire, and it's our poor boys and girls who are taking it in the ass because of it.

The war will not fail.

And the Third Reich will last a thousand years.

Wow, refutation and Godwin in 10 words!

The war already HAS failed. All of the original reasons for going to war (If anyone remembers, they were pretty specific) were unfounded piles of crap, we've managed to get even MORE people to hate the US, resistance to the US occupation has increased. We're stuck in a quagmire, and it's our poor boys and girls who are taking it in the ass because of it.

+1

By the way, in the war, over 11 thousand U.S. soldiers were killed,

The number of US soldiers killed is less than 2,000.

US 1862
UK 93
Other 101
Total 2056

Source; http://icasualties.org/oif/

The war already HAS failed. All of the original reasons for going to war (If anyone remembers, they were pretty specific) were unfounded piles of crap, we've managed to get even MORE people to hate the US, resistance to the US occupation has increased. We're stuck in a quagmire, and it's our poor boys and girls who are taking it in the ass because of it.

The war has not failed.

The number of US soldiers killed is less than 2,000.

US 1862
UK 93
Other 101
Total 2056

Source; http://icasualties.org/oif/

Less than 2000?

OH THANK GOD!

That's absolutely acceptable, what with 20-30 casualties being added bi-weekly. If we can finish this all up within 12 weeks, it just might stay below 2000! That's nothing at all! Who cares about the half million-ish Iraqis who've bitten the dust since the early 90's. Fuck foreigners.

How many americans lost theyre life for freedom from Britain? Seems like a small price to pay for freedom from tyranny that made the red coats look like candy stripers. Seems like a small price to pay for the begining of democracy in a Islamic nation. Who decided to pay the price? It was the Americans in both cases. Iraqis never got to decide.

Seems like a small price to pay for what may actually be peace in the middle east. Might as opposed to was. There was relative peace before the invasion and there is no peace now. The fact that there might be peace is not a valid arguement for going to war.
The only person that should be afraid of success is anti-americans, of which it seems like we have no shortage here...Yeah, whatever. If you can't deal with dissent, then maybe discussions aren't something good for you.

If you can't deal with dissent, then maybe discussions aren't something good for you.


ZING! Absolutely.

As Carlin, Black, and lord knows how many other geniuses besides myself have said: If you're against the war, it does NOT mean you're FOR the OTHER SIDE!

Patriotism does NOT mean agreeing with the president. In fact, this country was built because people didn't want to listen to the Man.

I wouldn't consider 11,000 casualties & 1,850 dead US soldiers best. That doesn't even start to consider the thousands & thousands of Iraqis who've died. How have things ended up best for them and their families?

We've killed more Iraqi citizens "liberating" Iraq than Saddam killed.

Err, right....and it doesn't matter that there are attacks all over the rest of the world? London, Madrid, Cairo, Bali etc etc spring to mind....surely eventually the US will be hit again through sheer numbers of attacks being on the increase...

Tell me what the right answer is. Leave them alone? Pull are infantry divisons back home and seal the borders and forget the rest of the world is there. Some times I think the only reason that the world has not destroyed its self is that good people will not let it. We seem to be running lower and lower on those people.

We've killed more Iraqi citizens "liberating" Iraq than Saddam killed.


Yes, but we did it in a humanitarian way.

We've killed more Iraqi citizens "liberating" Iraq than Saddam killed.

I really hope thats not true. Where did you get that info?

Less than 2000?

OH THANK GOD!

That's absolutely acceptable, what with 20-30 casualties being added bi-weekly. If we can finish this all up within 12 weeks, it just might stay below 2000! That's nothing at all! Who cares about the half million-ish Iraqis who've bitten the dust since the early 90's. Fuck foreigners.

While the loss of just one soldier is regrettable, please remember we are at war. Also, name one war that was fought for as long as we have been fighting this one that has had fewer casualties.

Tell me what the right answer is. Leave them alone? Pull are infantry divisons back home and seal the borders and forget the rest of the world is there. Some times I think the only reason that the world has not destroyed its self is that good people will not let it. We seem to be running lower and lower on those people.

Good people don't start wars that lead to the deaths of thousands. Simple as that.

Good people don't start wars that lead to the deaths of thousands. Simple as that.

You are absolutely correct. Bad people start wars and the good people have to stop them.

Since the Iraq war isn't failing, I have to question CNN's motive in this case.

As to the question, I'll support Bush because he is actually leading the country. We will not fail in Iraq. We're not even close to failing there. THis is nothing but a media trick to try to sensationalize the terror attacks there to make it look like we are losing when in fact, it is the polar opposite.

Good job CNN, I'll no longer watch your network because of this idiotic move.

Tell me what the right answer is. Leave them alone? Pull are infantry divisons back home and seal the borders and forget the rest of the world is there. Some times I think the only reason that the world has not destroyed its self is that good people will not let it. We seem to be running lower and lower on those people.The correct answer is and was not to go into Iraq in the first place. It's kind of hard to expect us to give advice on how to pull a car from a muddy ditch when most people agree on the solution to it. You'd still give the person that put it in there hell for the rest of the ride home, though... :D

Good people don't start wars that lead to the deaths of thousands. Simple as that.

I understand your point. But you still have not told me what the right answer is.

While the loss of just one soldier is regrettable, please remember we are at war. Also, name one war that was fought for as long as we have been fighting this one that has had fewer casualties.


If you're only considering American deaths and discounting casualties, and foreign deaths and casualties, then you need to get off your pedastal and realize that we are not the only people that matter.

As for the amount of casualties, no doubt this isn't as bad (yet) as Vietnam or such, but it isn't over yet, and there is no end in sight. The fact that we have even 1 regrettable death is too much, this war should never have happened. However many people die or get injured on both sides when this war is over, it will be that many too much.

By the way, in the war, over 11 thousand U.S. soldiers were killed, but only 176 non-U.S. soldiers... So, how the hell did we have a "coalition"?

I would like to see proof of that number. Last I heard, we've suffered under 2,000 combat deaths in Iraq, not 11,000.

You are absolutely correct. Bad people start wars and the good people have to stop them.Celtlund, as much as I respect you, your statements are pretty hollow. Please add to them so we don't have to interpret anything into them which would insult you.

Since the Iraq war isn't failing, I have to question CNN's motive in this case.

As to the question, I'll support Bush because he is actually leading the country. We will not fail in Iraq. We're not even close to failing there. THis is nothing but a media trick to try to sensationalize the terror attacks there to make it look like we are losing when in fact, it is the polar opposite.

Good job CNN, I'll no longer watch your network because of this idiotic move.


Your right, we've accomplished all our major objectives.

Destroy the unity the country had after 9/11? Check

Alienate our allies? Check

Encourage Muslims to hate the west and become terrorists? Check

Get almost 2,000 Americans killed? Check

Get over 25,000 Iraqis killed? Check

Get many soldiers and civilians from other countries killed? Check

Bring a nation to the edge of cival war? Check

Yep, we've won the war! Iraq, America, and the rest of the world is a better place. Lets celebrate our victory in Vietnam next.

T'was a good debate all, thanks for the intelligent discussion.

I'm off now.

I would like to see proof of that number. Last I heard, we've suffered under 2,000 combat deaths in Iraq, not 11,000.Please read through the whole thread for Pete's sake! The issue has been addressed over and over and over again with the same link posted at least twice.

I'm Republican but not Pro as in I follow them with my life. I've been opposed of the Iraqi War since it started because there was no reason to be there. At least the Iraqi people will be free though...for now at least? Now for the war in Afganistan yea I support it....the thing is Osama helped plan 9/11 and that was why we went there but yet all we ever here about is Iraq. :confused:

I don't like the title:

If the Iraq war fails, would you still support Bush?

If? If? The war has been a catastrophic failure. From start to...now.

I have to call bullshit here. It has gone surprisingly well and with lower casualties than I was anticipating.

How is it an utter catastrophy when their people are free to choose for themselves who to lead them into the future?

You have no idea what the hell our troops have been doing over there. You don't know the good things that's taking place. You know next to nothing except what you see on TV.

I'm Republican but not Pro as in I follow them with my life. I've been opposed of the Iraqi War since it started because there was no reason to be there. At least the Iraqi people will be free though...for now at least? Now for the war in Afganistan yea I support it....the thing is Osama helped plan 9/11 and that was why we went there but yet all we ever here about is Iraq. :confused:I don't oppose war in Afghanistan. That's where terrorist training camps were actually located. I don't think I would have opposed a war in North Korea either, since they did turn out to be a threat and it seems like they used the time we bought them with Iraq wisely.

Your right, we've accomplished all our major objectives.

Destroy the unity the country had after 9/11? Check

Alienate our allies? Check

Encourage Muslims to hate the west and become terrorists? Check

Get almost 2,000 Americans killed? Check

Get about half a million Iraqis killed? Check

Get many soldiers and civilians from other countries killed? Check

Bring a nation to the edge of cival war? Check

Yep, we've won the war! Iraq, America, and the rest of the world is a better place. Lets celebrate our victory in Vietnam next.

:rolleyes:

Half a million Iraqis? Come again tango-delta-whisky-foxtrot? I beleive this needs a WTF? Cat photo.

I beleive the goals for iraq were...

Set up a new iraqi goverment
Set up a new Military and Police
Destroy Saddam's military and goverment
Find WMDs

All have been accomplished except getting the Military and police setup.

I will always love BUSH!!!

I have to call bullshit here. It has gone surprisingly well and with lower casualties than I was anticipating.

How is it an utter catastrophy when their people are free to choose for themselves who to lead them into the future?

You have no idea what the hell our troops have been doing over there. You don't know the good things that's taking place. You know next to nothing except what you see on TV.

And all the people said AMEN!

I have to call bullshit here. It has gone surprisingly well and with lower casualties than I was anticipating. You pessimist you :p

How is it an utter catastrophy when their people are free to choose for themselves who to lead them into the future?Not quite true. Freedom requires security. They can't vote without having to fear being attacked, so they are not technically free to choose.
You have no idea what the hell our troops have been doing over there. You don't know the good things that's taking place. You know next to nothing except what you see on TV.True. We don't see the schools and the water plants or any of the good stuff because there's no blood involved. A valid point.

Bush is a great man and President

And some people said AMEN!
I corrected it for you...

The war already HAS failed.

Bullshit. The people I've talked to that have actually been there says differently. It has not failed at all. Its only failed in your mind.

All of the original reasons for going to war (If anyone remembers, they were pretty specific) were unfounded piles of crap, we've managed to get even MORE people to hate the US, resistance to the US occupation has increased.

Bullshit again. The terrorism charge still sticks since he was supporting terror in the region. The oppression charges still hold too. The Humanitarian reasons also stick as well. The only one that I can think of is the WMD but that was based on very bad Intelligence. Something that is now currently being rectified.

We're stuck in a quagmire, and it's our poor boys and girls who are taking it in the ass because of it.

We are not in a quagmire. I suggest you stop listening to the Press since they only broadcast the bad news and not any good news. The good news far outstrips the bad news.

I beleive the goals for iraq were...

Set up a new iraqi goverment
Set up a new Military and Police
Destroy Saddam's military and goverment
Find WMDs

All have been accomplished except getting the Military and police setup.Wrong. The bold part isn't right. It was "find Saddam's WMDs" and not "find generic WMDs".

The war will not fail.

Why not?

What do you all think it would take to show just as much good on the news as bad? CNN or FOX

We've killed more Iraqi citizens "liberating" Iraq than Saddam killed.

HAHAHA! No we haven't. Saddam has killed far more civilians than we have as has the terrorists that are trying to drive us out. OH THIS IS SO RICH! I'm dying of laughter. Thanks.

We are not in a quagmire. I suggest you stop listening to the Press since they only broadcast the bad news and not any good news. The good news far outstrips the bad news.

Who should we go to for our news, then, if not the press? The government?

I hope God honors Bush for the great work he has done on earth!

Bullshit again. The terrorism charge still sticks since he was supporting terror in the region. That wasn't the arguement, though. The arguement was that he supported terror that hit the American mainland.
The oppression charges still hold too. The Humanitarian reasons also stick as well. They were never part of the arguement. Congress would never have supported a simple humanitarian mission.

If you're only considering American deaths and discounting casualties, and foreign deaths and casualties, then you need to get off your pedastal and realize that we are not the only people that matter.

As for the amount of casualties, no doubt this isn't as bad (yet) as Vietnam or such, but it isn't over yet, and there is no end in sight. The fact that we have even 1 regrettable death is too much, this war should never have happened. However many people die or get injured on both sides when this war is over, it will be that many too much.

Sorry but as someone who has retired from the American military after 26 years of service, I can not agree with what you are saying. Freedom has never and never will be free. Thank God, we have men and women who understand that and are willing to fight and die for our freedom and the freedom of others.

What do you all think it would take to show just as much good on the news as bad? CNN or FOXPity that Fox is as reliable as Michael Moore, huh? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Half a million Iraqis? Come again tango-delta-whisky-foxtrot? I beleive this needs a WTF? Cat photo.

I beleive the goals for iraq were...

Set up a new iraqi goverment
Set up a new Military and Police
Destroy Saddam's military and goverment
Find WMDs

All have been accomplished except getting the Military and police setup.

First of all, I was being sarcastic with the goals. That is what I believe the war has achomplished. I should have stated it better.

I was wrong on casulties too. It isn't even close to that amount but it is still alot.

As for what you say the goals are we have set up a new government but it is unstable. True, its only been in action for a year, but it doesen't look like it can last without US aid at anytime in the forseable future. Basiclly we'll be in Iraq for a loooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggggg time when before the invasion it was said it would be a very quick war.

Saddams government is gone, but his military or Iraqis who at least served in it seem pretty active...

If by finding out there were no WMDs we have found them then yes, we've achomplished that.

What I'm trying to say is this war has done very little good and alot of harm. Saddam was a horrible dictator and should have been removed, but we picked the wrong time to remove him, the wrong reasons to remove him, and the wrong way.

Pity that Fox is as reliable as Michael Moore, huh? :rolleyes:

agreed

As to the question, I'll support Bush because he is actually leading the country. We will not fail in Iraq. We're not even close to failing there. THis is nothing but a media trick to try to sensationalize the terror attacks there to make it look like we are losing when in fact, it is the polar opposite.


Yes...and the rising death toll is also a "media trick"...you may be surprised to learn that outside the US, CNN is viewed as very heavily biased towards the "pro-war" agenda, so if even they're saying the war is being lost....well i suppose it took them long enough.....

You pessimist you :p

No if I ws a pessimist, I be like these morons at CNN. I'm an optimistic that we'll begin to pull out sometime next year.

Not quite true. Freedom requires security. They can't vote without having to fear being attacked, so they are not technically free to choose.

Yes they do have the freedom to choose. They brave those attacks and go out and vote for the constitutional convention that is going on right now. They have agreed on all but 2 points in less than a year. That's not bad. Yes, they are a free nation.

True. We don't see the schools and the water plants or any of the good stuff because there's no blood involved. A valid point.

Thank you. :)

I'd like to mention that the poll has picked up in favor of Bush. I do not want to make a judgement, but I take it that the American time zones are now entering peak NationStates time, since the other time zones would have a more negative view of Bush.

I think some of you who are getin f***ing angry over why the troops should not be here and start being happy for the good work the troops are doing and when they all die (either at war or natural death) they will all go to heaven and be loved by God.

Pity that Fox is as reliable as Michael Moore, huh? :rolleyes:

Not quite. Micheal Moore is a good person to ask if you are interested in who makes the best hot-dogs. Fox is utter bullshit.

Who should we go to for our news, then, if not the press? The government?

Start digging. You'll find more good news than bad news. I listen to people that have been over there. I'm hearing nothing but good things. Yes there are attacks, no denying it but if you really listen to the good we do there, you'll wonder at just why everyone is trying to make it look worse than it really is. My father just got back from his 6th tour over there and he sees the good we're doing. We are doing more good over there than what is being reported.

I think some of you who are getin f***ing angry over why the troops should not be here and start being happy for the good work the troops are doing and when they all die (either at war or natural death) they will all go to heaven and be loved by God.

Which one?

That wasn't the arguement, though. The arguement was that he supported terror that hit the American mainland.
They were never part of the arguement. Congress would never have supported a simple humanitarian mission.

I see someone didn't catch Bush's September 2002 speech at the UN when he started off with the humanitarian reasons. Also read up on the Iraq Resolution passed by Congress.

They can't vote without having to fear being attacked, so they are not technically free to choose.

But they did vote with the fear of being attacked. Remember all the purple fingers? They were free to choose and they did. They also chose freely to defy the insurgents, and they will do so again when they vote on the constitution.

I think some of you who are getin f***ing angry over why the troops should not be here and start being happy for the good work the troops are doing and when they all die (either at war or natural death) they will all go to heaven and be loved by God.

It's gonna be mighty crowded up there.....what with all those iraqi's and US troops killing each other to go to heaven......what'll happen when they all get there? Continue an allmighty angel battlefest? :p

Not quite. Micheal Moore is a good person to ask if you are interested in who makes the best hot-dogs. Fox is utter bullshit.

Tell me. How do you know that FOX is bs and CNN is right?

Yes they do have the freedom to choose. They brave those attacks and go out and vote for the constitutional convention that is going on right now. They have agreed on all but 2 points in less than a year. That's not bad. Yes, they are a free nation.I have to disagree vehemently. Without security, there is no real freedom. While I'm willing to admit that the situation is getting better, civilians still have to fear for their lives because they don't know whether they'll be next. I'm sure that anyone that has family will think twice about making some choices that would either risk the life the person whose bringing home food or the rest of the family. If you want to be optimistic, then you could argue that most of the Sunni Arabs didn't go vote because they feared reprisals from militants in their neighborhood and not because they followed the boycott. They may be freer under the American martial law, but not free in the traditional sense.

Yes...and the rising death toll is also a "media trick"...you may be surprised to learn that outside the US, CNN is viewed as very heavily biased towards the "pro-war" agenda, so if even they're saying the war is being lost....well i suppose it took them long enough.....

Name me one war that has seen less than 2000 war dead after 2 years worth of fighting.

Tell me. How do you know that FOX is bs and CNN is right?

No idea about CNN....but FOX is well-known to have piss-poor journalistic integrity....they basically broadcast whatever news suits Rupert Murdoch's viewpoint at the time......

Start digging. You'll find more good news than bad news. I listen to people that have been over there. I'm hearing nothing but good things. Yes there are attacks, no denying it but if you really listen to the good we do there, you'll wonder at just why everyone is trying to make it look worse than it really is. My father just got back from his 6th tour over there and he sees the good we're doing. We are doing more good over there than what is being reported.

The reason the good stuff is ignored is because it is not sensational enough. The news companies who do not care about the sensationality of a story are either anti-war, or do not want to report the good stuff for fear of been seen as unreliable, or ridicuoulsy pro-war. Shame.

(Just a guess, mind you)

Freedom requires security.

P.S. Security is a result of freedom. Only when people become free can they become secure.

Start digging. You'll find more good news than bad news. I listen to people that have been over there. I'm hearing nothing but good things. Yes there are attacks, no denying it but if you really listen to the good we do there, you'll wonder at just why everyone is trying to make it look worse than it really is. My father just got back from his 6th tour over there and he sees the good we're doing. We are doing more good over there than what is being reported.

Give me a break, kid. If you're going to rely on the word of your father and other soldiers who have been over there as an authentic account of the war, then don't start accosting people who rely on the media for their account.

Name me one war that has seen less than 2000 war dead after 2 years worth of fighting.

The Falklands war.

But they did vote with the fear of being attacked. Remember all the purple fingers? They were free to choose and they did. They also chose freely to defy the insurgents, and they will do so again when they vote on the constitution.

Correct Celtlund. These people on here have no clue except what they see on Television.

I think some of you who are getin f***ing angry over why the troops should not be here and start being happy for the good work the troops are doing and when they all die (either at war or natural death) they will all go to heaven and be loved by God.

Although I imagine if you asked them they probably enlisted for the purpose of protecting the US rather than Iraq and would've preferred to have a good long life with their families instead of die in a pointless war that will not help America at all.

No idea about CNN....but FOX is well-known to have piss-poor journalistic integrity....they basically broadcast whatever news suits Rupert Murdoch's viewpoint at the time......

What is your opinion of CNN?

Tell me. How do you know that FOX is bs and CNN is right?

Actually, did I ever say CNN was right?

But they did vote with the fear of being attacked. Remember all the purple fingers? They were free to choose and they did. They also chose freely to defy the insurgents, and they will do so again when they vote on the constitution.The Sunnis didn't vote, for a large part. I'm willing to wager that a lot of them feared reprisals more than they were willing to participate in the boycott.

Correct Celtlund. These people on here have no clue except what they see on Television.

Oh please, I used to go to the British school in Saudia Arabia growing up, and was there during the first Gulf War, and still have plenty of arab friends, including Iraqis. Generalisations never work.

I have to disagree vehemently. Without security, there is no real freedom. While I'm willing to admit that the situation is getting better, civilians still have to fear for their lives because they don't know whether they'll be next. I'm sure that anyone that has family will think twice about making some choices that would either risk the life the person whose bringing home food or the rest of the family. If you want to be optimistic, then you could argue that most of the Sunni Arabs didn't go vote because they feared reprisals from militants in their neighborhood and not because they followed the boycott. They may be freer under the American martial law, but not free in the traditional sense.

And I could die while crossing the street. I could die while falling down a flight of stairs. I can injury myself by slipping in the bathtub and die there too if I hit my head right.

You can die from any causes and not just by terrorism. Nothing will be 100% secure. That is impossible to do. The people in Iraq are free and I'm tired of people saying that they are not.

Correct Celtlund. These people on here have no clue except what they see on Television.

And you two do because you've been over there?

That wasn't the arguement, though. The arguement was that he supported terror that hit the American mainland.


As I recall, the argument was that "he supported terror" not just terror that hit the American mainland.

The Falklands war.

Did that last 2 years? Nope it didn't

The Falklands war.

The Falklands War lasted about 2 months.

In 3 years the War of 1812 killed 2,260 Americans. That might be less then the number dead in Iraq so far, but that number is growing rapidly.

War happens people. It's the continuation of politics by another means when peaceful reason has failed. Whether you liked it or not, peaceful reason failed in America, the U.N. and yes, even in Europe. Whether the war was right or not, it's happened. So, here's to the folks in this thread who actually have their heads on straight and listen to friends and relatives who are fighting that war (it's not so bad as it might appear in the news). I'll continue to go on supporting Bush (though I probably wouldn't vote for him again) simply because I like to think that we're all susceptible to mistakes. Feel free to rant on about whether the reasons for war were mistakes or some brilliantly deceptive machivellian plan that succeeded long enough to draw us into war. Honestly, that's democracy, people on different sides of the issues. Anywho, I'm pretty sure I've heard plenty of Iraqis thank us and enough that abhor what's occurred, that's life and, yet again, democracy.

What is your opinion of CNN?

I'm not overly impressed with them, they seem pretty sensationalist too. I always feel the need to verify their news stories by checking all the other news channels too.

You can die from any causes and not just by terrorism. Nothing will be 100% secure. That is impossible to do. The people in Iraq are free and I'm tired of people saying that they are not.

I agree with most of this.

Although I do belive that whilst the Iraqis are free to a large degree, true freedom will come when the last coalition soldier leaves, never to return.

Actually, did I ever say CNN was right?

You said you had know idea about CNN. You are so sure about FOX, why not CNN. I like to watch both and then try and figure out what the real story is.

Oh please, I used to go to the British school in Saudia Arabia growing up, and was there during the first Gulf War, and still have plenty of arab friends, including Iraqis. Generalisations never work.

And I have family friends that were in both GW 1 and in GW2! I get my information from them and I'm hearing nothing but good things. Yes bad things are happening but not in the numbers seen when this whole thing started. We have done more good things in 2 years than the terrorist thugs have done bad things.

What I'm trying to say is this war has done very little good and alot of harm. Saddam was a horrible dictator and should have been removed, but we picked the wrong time to remove him, the wrong reasons to remove him, and the wrong way.

So, when would you have removed him, why would you have removed him, and how would you have removed him?

And you two do because you've been over there?

I haven't been over there myself no however, I had family and family friends that were.

Actually, did I ever say CNN was right?
But CNN is right (from center). :D

War happens people. It's the continuation of politics by another means when peaceful reason has failed. Whether you liked it or not, peaceful reason failed in America, the U.N. and yes, even in Europe. Whether the war was right or not, it's happened. So, here's to the folks in this thread who actually have their heads on straight and listen to friends and relatives who are fighting that war (it's not so bad as it might appear in the news). I'll continue to go on supporting Bush (though I probably wouldn't vote for him again) simply because I like to think that we're all susceptible to mistakes. Feel free to rant on about whether the reasons for war were mistakes or some brilliantly deceptive machivellian plan that succeeded long enough to draw us into war. Honestly, that's democracy, people on different sides of the issues. Anywho, I'm pretty sure I've heard plenty of Iraqis thank us and enough that abhor what's occurred, that's life and, yet again, democracy.

Very well written and accurately so. Keep it up Hutong.

I haven't been over there myself no however, I had family and family friends that were.

So have I, and amazingly, I have a different opinion than you, based on things that they've said. So maybe your assinine generalizations that me and people who believe like I do "have no clue except what they see on Television" could stop?

The people in Iraq are free and I'm tired of people saying that they are not.I'd wait until they decide upon their constitution first, before I'll say anything about the Iraqi people being free. If they do in fact use this opportunity to create another oficial islamic state in the middle east, (as everything so far indicates) then they will not be free.

In fact they would've had more religious freedom before the invasion with the tyrant Saddam in place then with the new constitution.

You said you had know idea about CNN. You are so sure about FOX, why not CNN. I like to watch both and then try and figure out what the real story is.

Did I?

No idea about CNN....but FOX is well-known to have piss-poor journalistic integrity....they basically broadcast whatever news suits Rupert Murdoch's viewpoint at the time......

And I could die while crossing the street. I could die while falling down a flight of stairs. I can injury myself by slipping in the bathtub and die there too if I hit my head right.

You can die from any causes and not just by terrorism. Nothing will be 100% secure. That is impossible to do. The people in Iraq are free and I'm tired of people saying that they are not.Ah, and how many of the above will occur because you wanted to go vote? How likely are you to survive them if you don't go vote? The chances don't change with your examples, but they certainly do in Iraq for people that want to go vote. They are not free, though the Americans are not oppressing them. Just because you might not give a damn about your life being over for any random reason doesn't mean someone else agrees.

So have I, and amazingly, I have a different opinion than you, based on things that they've said. So maybe your assinine generalizations that me and people who believe like I do "have no clue except what they see on Television" could stop?

Let me guess, your friends or family or both more than likely served in the Sunni Triangle or the 4 provinces that are Sunni dominated that have seen the most terror attacks?

Did you know that out of 18 provinces in Iraq that only 4 are the trouble spots whereas the other 14 provinces have been very quiet?

Ah, and how many of the above will occur because you wanted to go vote?

All of them. I can injury myself taking a shower or die taking the shower as I clean myself to get dressed to go vote. I can kill myself falling down a flight of stairs. Or kill myself going up the stairs to the voting place.

The Falklands war.

It didn't last 2 years.

Let me guess, your friends or family or both more than likely served in the Sunni Triangle or the 4 provinces that are Sunni dominated that have seen the most terror attacks?

Did you know that out of 18 provinces in Iraq that only 4 are the trouble spots whereas the other 14 provinces have been very quiet?

Let me guess, that doesn't matter. Your continued assertions that you know more than I do because your daddy served are ridiculous. Now, maybe, if you'd stop making excuses and sign up yourself, you could maybe pull that bullshit line on me, but until then, you only know what other people, people with agendas of their own, are telling you. And until then, you only know what other people let you know. So you don't know what it's "really" like any more than I do.

Ah, and how many of the above will occur because you wanted to go vote? How likely are you to survive them if you don't go vote? The chances don't change with your examples, but they certainly do in Iraq for people that want to go vote. They are not free, though the Americans are not oppressing them. Just because you might not give a damn about your life being over for any random reason doesn't mean someone else agrees.

Thank You for your opinions tonight. Good By

As I recall, the argument was that "he supported terror" not just terror that hit the American mainland.And not that there was a link between Al Qaeda (the guys that killed thousands of innocent Americans in New York) and the dictator of Iraq? I thought I'd heard President Bush say otherwise.

It didn't last 2 years.

I do belive that point has been established.

Tell me. How do you know that FOX is bs and CNN is right?I've been told by someone that knows his shit on international politics and knows how things are in both the states and in Europe. Get it into your head: You have no two sides of the story! CNN is about as leftist as my right thumb. Fox just happens to be even further right, giving you the illusion of a balanced coverage.

So, when would you have removed him, why would you have removed him, and how would you have removed him?

I would remove him after we were done hunting down Osama. I would do it when we had the world on our side after showing them the facts of why Saddam had to be removed.

I would remove him to help Iraq. They don't deserve to have him, and should be free. Plus if we had a stable Iraq as an ally we would gain more leverage in the middle east.

I would reach out to Sunnies better. Many of them felt alienated and joined the insurgency. I would have been more carefull about who we kill. Several tribal leaders who supported the US died due to bombings and their followers became insurgents. I would plan for a long turm occupation. Bush kept saying it would be quick, and his planning shows that. We had to keep sending over troops which only made the Iraqis think we were more hostile. If they were all their at the biggining it wouldn't seem like we were sending over more troops to occupy them.

And I would tell peope our true motivations. Bush said we'd remove WMDs when most intellegence said there were none. In short, he just used it as an excuse.

maybe bush shouldnt have attacked iraq, but at least those ppl will be free... parents r repubs and i dotn know if bush is the best, but everything always ends up the best
:upyours: :mp5: :sniper:


Come on, this is just a troll, ignore him.

Although I imagine if you asked them they probably enlisted for the purpose of protecting the US rather than Iraq and would've preferred to have a good long life with their families instead of die in a pointless war that will not help America at all.

You don't know many Americans who are in the military do you? They enlist for a variety of reasons including patriotism, education, job training, etc. They are willing to protect the freedom of all Americans and defend the freedom of people other than Americans. Of course, they would like to have a long life with their families, but few feel they might die in a pointless war. Few view Iraq as a pointless war.

Did that last 2 years? Nope it didn't

Well, i thought you were asking for low casualty wars....sort of an oxymoron really, since if one side has low casualties, then the other side is likely to have high casualties...e.g during the "original" Iraq war in 1920 involving Britain...only 9 British casualties occurred, compared with 9000 Iraqi casualties....so I suppose that would qualify for a low-casualty war by your definition, since only western deaths count? Or the Algerian War, where the French claimed 1300 dead, but it was likely to have been more....or how about Northern Ireland? In the first two years, casualties were low (~1000 i think), but as the resistance grew, casualty numbers rapidly rocketed......

And not that there was a link between Al Qaeda (the guys that killed thousands of innocent Americans in New York) and the dictator of Iraq? I thought I'd heard President Bush say otherwise.

Well, I think you're right in insinuating there are no hard and fast facts that Saddam supported Al Qaeda. However, there is hard and fast evidence that a certain Syrian terrorist fled Afghanistan to Iraq after being injured and was afforded medical care with the explicit permission of Saddam and his cronies. Now, if I remember correctly, the fact that the Taliban had aided and abetted Osama was reason enough for the world to support a coalition toppling that government. So . . . in summation . . . Iraq had no clear link to Al Qaeda; but, it did harbor a terrorist, which was, whether you agree with the policy, a stipulation Bush made in a speech against terror . . . something about "if you aid a terrorist your government will be considered hostile." So I dunno, "discuss amongst yourselves." Seems reason enough to me

The Sunnis didn't vote, for a large part. I'm willing to wager that a lot of them feared reprisals more than they were willing to participate in the boycott.

They had the freedom to choose not to vote. Most of the restest of the country voted and they also faced possible reprisals.

You don't know many Americans who are in the military do you? They enlist for a variety of reasons including patriotism, education, job training, etc. They are willing to protect the freedom of all Americans and defend the freedom of people other than Americans. Of course, they would like to have a long life with their families, but few feel they might die in a pointless war. Few view Iraq as a pointless war.

How do you know how many soldiers view it as a pointless war?

And you two do because you've been over there?

I think he was talking about the people here on NS, not the people in Saudi.

the news is all about sucking up to the right, normally good but not in this case there are no real republicans in congress or in most of america for that matter people have in the last few years decided hey im and idiot lets join the right. us true conservatives are about fiscal responsibility,and states rights to name a few things but back to my point republicans own fox and aol owns most of time warner including cnn :upyours: and in times of conflict the news media must report the ruling parties information. the best way to have handled the iraq situation would have been to carpet bomb all of saddam's palaces at the same time :sniper: then just walked away the war was purely for oil and well as bill maher said "i would have more respect for the man if he had said now its a texas thang, now he tried to kill my daddy and i cant sit at the dinner table untill i have his head on a stick in the middle of baghdad , or as it will be named the galleria at halliburton square."

And I have family friends that were in both GW 1 and in GW2! I get my information from them and I'm hearing nothing but good things. Yes bad things are happening but not in the numbers seen when this whole thing started. We have done more good things in 2 years than the terrorist thugs have done bad things.

Well, you hear from one side of the story. I hear from the other side (including ex-pats), and things are not at all rosy.

I think he was talking about the people here on NS, not the people in Saudi.

I know who he was talking about. But he presumes to know more than those who disagree with him, with no good reason.

It appears that now we're in a debate over whether or not things are good over in Iraq.

I would venture to guess that, since there's a WAR going on, that it isn't really good. As for how it's going when compared to other wars, it sure isn't any Battle of the Bulge.

So what is the true measure for how a war is going? Some say if people are dying, it's bad. Some say if people aren't dying as much as other wars, it's good.

But as with any of us, we all have hearsay to tell us how it's going. Some soldiers aren't seeing shit. Some soldiers have seen their entire platoon blown to shit. The soldiers are seeing varied quantities of shit. So those stories are going to fall both ways.

As for the media -- I generally use BBC because it's well-respected, but I do not hesitate to check the New York Times, Guardian, CNN, NBC, Al Jezeera. There so many sources, many with a bias in one direction or another. Take the biases of one side, with the biases of the other, and the average is probably closer to the truth than any one standing alone.

I think it's kind of comical, however, that the liberals would say that the conservatives believe everything they see on TV, and the conservatives would say that the liberals believe everything they see on TV. Corneliu would be the conservative there, I probably the liberal (but I bloody hate using the labels, for myself, or anyone).

Perhaps the media isn't so slanted after all, and that we are all so far to our own sides, that it seems to disagree with us.

Perhaps the media is slanted, and we listen to different sources, and have different ideas about where the slant is.

I for one will judge how it went when we all look at it in retrospect. Hind-sight is 20/20.

So, when would you have removed him, why would you have removed him, and how would you have removed him?

During the first Gulf War, for invading Kuwait and by not walking up to Baghdad and turning away at the last second. The UN were behind the US at that point, and they had already promised to help the Iraqi population overthrow Saddam, but abandoned them at the last moment.

Let me guess, that doesn't matter.

Actually it does matter. Matters quite alot. How come I only here them mention 4 out of 18 provinces?

Your continued assertions that you know more than I do because your daddy served are ridiculous.

I never made that assertion. I made an assertion that those that have been over there and those that know them, know far more than the people that don't and only get their info from the TV which sensationalizes everything.

Now, maybe, if you'd stop making excuses and sign up yourself, you could maybe pull that bullshit line on me, but until then, you only know what other people, people with agendas of their own, are telling you.

Due to me being under the ADA, I am ineligible to sign up for any branch of the military unfortunately otherwise I would be in uniform right now and probably in Iraq.

And until then, you only know what other people let you know. So you don't know what it's "really" like any more than I do.

No. I ask the questions. I don't want it sugercoated and I never get my info sugercoated. I get the straight scope.

Well, you hear from one side of the story. I hear from the other side (including ex-pats), and things are not at all rosy.

I know things aren't rosy. Never stated that they were rosey.

The only news show that is reletivly trustwothy is the Daily Show :) . And thats fake news...

the news is all about sucking up to the right, normally good but not in this case there are no real republicans in congress or in most of america for that matter people have in the last few years decided hey im and idiot lets join the right. us true conservatives are about fiscal responsibility,and states rights to name a few things but back to my point republicans own fox and aol owns most of time warner including cnn :upyours: and in times of conflict the news media must report the ruling parties information. the best way to have handled the iraq situation would have been to carpet bomb all of saddam's palaces at the same time :sniper: then just walked away the war was purely for oil and well as bill maher said "i would have more respect for the man if he had said now its a texas thang, now he tried to kill my daddy and i cant sit at the dinner table untill i have his head on a stick in the middle of baghdad , or as it will be named the galleria at halliburton square."

Bush said we'd remove WMDs when most intellegence said there were none. In short, he just used it as an excuse.

Beg your pardon but most intelligence including British and Russian thought Saddam had WMDs.

the news is all about sucking up to the right, normally good but not in this case there are no real republicans in congress or in most of america for that matter people have in the last few years decided hey im and idiot lets join the right. us true conservatives are about fiscal responsibility,and states rights to name a few things but back to my point republicans own fox and aol owns most of time warner including cnn :upyours: and in times of conflict the news media must report the ruling parties information. the best way to have handled the iraq situation would have been to carpet bomb all of saddam's palaces at the same time :sniper: then just walked away the war was purely for oil and well as bill maher said "i would have more respect for the man if he had said now its a texas thang, now he tried to kill my daddy and i cant sit at the dinner table untill i have his head on a stick in the middle of baghdad , or as it will be named the galleria at halliburton square."


Stop repeating yourself.

sry my wireless internet was bogging up its my neighbors signal though :headbang:

How do you know how many soldiers view it as a pointless war?

Because I served 26 years in the military and know our soldiers.

Beg your pardon but most intelligence including British and Russian thought Saddam had WMDs.

About 30% of the US intellegence survice said there were WMDs. 70% said no. I have no idea the percentages for other nations, but most probebly decided there weren't any for instead of being called a "coalition" they were called "the rest of the world"

Actually it does matter. Matters quite alot. How come I only here them mention 4 out of 18 provinces?


No, it does not matter where my brother served.


I never made that assertion. I made an assertion that those that have been over there and those that know them, know far more than the people that don't and only get their info from the TV which sensationalizes everything.


Don't play the semantics game with me, Corny. You said:

Correct Celtlund. These people on here have no clue except what they see on Television.

clearly implying that you and Celtlund know more than others here about the situation in Iraq. Many, many people here know people who have served in Iraq, and many of these people have opinions that are different than yours.


Due to me being under the ADA, I am ineligible to sign up for any branch of the military unfortunately otherwise I would be in uniform right now and probably in Iraq.


Is the ADA the one that says you can't sign up because your father is in the military, or is it the one that says you can't sign up because of medical problems? I have trouble remembering.


No. I ask the questions. I don't want it sugercoated and I never get my info sugercoated. I get the straight scope.

You get your information from sources just as biased as the ones that you accost others of relying on. You really need to get off this whole idea that you're somehow more informed than the rest of us. You aren't.

Beg your pardon but most intelligence including British and Russian thought Saddam had WMDs.

Correction: British Intelligence said they thought it likely that he had them, but advised against going to war based on the evidence as it was too weak a premise....which later came out that Blair ignored.....

Because I served 26 years in the military and know our soldiers.

But have you spoken to the majority of them? As you said earlier, the US military is big...

I know this thread is basically about how we got into the war and it's legality and legitimacy; but, at this point what would be a really interesting debate would be to see what you guys think is the best exit strategy. I mean, what should the pullout look like? What sort of timetable should the coalition adhere to? What measure of success is necessary for a pullout? Anywho, I know I shouldn't be interrupting a debate; but, I'm interested to see what you guys think. I don't think any of us are policy makers so it should be interesting to see what people from around the world believe.

During the first Gulf War, for invading Kuwait and by not walking up to Baghdad and turning away at the last second. The UN were behind the US at that point, and they had already promised to help the Iraqi population overthrow Saddam, but abandoned them at the last moment.

I must agree.

"The media should always report who is saying what, not support any side."

Ah, but what it should do and what it really does are never quite the same.

Is the ADA the one that says you can't sign up because your father is in the military, or is it the one that says you can't sign up because of medical problems? I have trouble remembering.

Apparently you odn't know what the ADA is otherwise you'd never have to ask the double question. ADA=American Disabilities Act.

[qutoe]You get your information from sources just as biased as the ones that you accost others of relying on. You really need to get off this whole idea that you're somehow more informed than the rest of us. You aren't.[/QUOTE]

No I get my sources from the front lines in this war.

About 30% of the US intellegence survice said there were WMDs. 70% said no. I have no idea the percentages for other nations, but most probebly decided there weren't any for instead of being called a "coalition" they were called "the rest of the world"

Don't know where you got those figures, but it's past time to go eat. I'll check back in later.

Now, if I remember correctly, the fact that the Taliban had aided and abetted Osama was reason enough for the world to support a coalition toppling that government. If I may say so, the reason the world didn't oppose had more to do with the fact that the Taliban were not the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan and Afghanistan was THE place that contained terrorist training camps.

"The media should always report who is saying what, not support any side."

Ah, but what it should do and what it really does are never quite the same.

Don't I know it.

The same goes for anyone really. Media, politicians, mechanics, catholic priests.

(I don't think I'm going to let that priest thing die ever. It's just too funny)

I know this thread is basically about how we got into the war and it's legality and legitimacy; but, at this point what would be a really interesting debate would be to see what you guys think is the best exit strategy. I mean, what should the pullout look like? What sort of timetable should the coalition adhere to? What measure of success is necessary for a pullout? Anywho, I know I shouldn't be interrupting a debate; but, I'm interested to see what you guys think. I don't think any of us are policy makers so it should be interesting to see what people from around the world believe.

We should be gradully replacing coalition troops with Iraqi ones. That has been what we've been trying to do, but only about 3 Iraqi divisions are ready. We need to give them better training and take longer doing it. Even if it means spending years in Iraq training troops, it still will take less time then repedidly asking ourselves "Why can't these Iraqis master the 5 day lessons we've been giving them?"

I know this thread is basically about how we got into the war and it's legality and legitimacy; but, at this point what would be a really interesting debate would be to see what you guys think is the best exit strategy. I mean, what should the pullout look like? What sort of timetable should the coalition adhere to? What measure of success is necessary for a pullout? Anywho, I know I shouldn't be interrupting a debate; but, I'm interested to see what you guys think. I don't think any of us are policy makers so it should be interesting to see what people from around the world believe.

Pair up US soldiers with Iraqi women, intermingle the gene pool until people lose sense of THEM and US.....make love, not war :D

No I get my sources from the front lines in this war.With all due respect to you and the men and women in uniform, I personally doubt that they can be considered "unbiased" in their reporting.

No I get my sources from the front lines in this war.

And it's impossible that they're not telling you the whole story? Or are liberals the only ones who have agendas?

If I may say so, the reason the world didn't oppose had more to do with the fact that the Taliban were not the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan and Afghanistan was THE place that contained terrorist training camps.

Also the fact that everyone was still shellshocked after 9-11 and just wanted something, ANYTHING to be done or seen to be done as action against terrorism...

With all due respect to you and the men and women in uniform, I personally doubt that they can be considered "unbiased" in their reporting.

Actually, I get both types of news from them so no, I don't consider them unbiased.

Pair up US soldiers with Iraqi women, intermingle the gene pool until people lose sense of THEM and US.....make love, not war :D

Great way to end racism too.


I won't begin to speculate on how to pull out. I don't know that sort of strategy. Replacing the troops would go without saying, but how to do that, over what period of time, I don't know.

And it's impossible that they're not telling you the whole story? Or are liberals the only ones who have agendas?

I actually get the whole story.

I actually get the whole story.


I seriously doubt that.

I would say the same if it had been someone against the war saying that as well.

None of us can possibly get the whole story.

Don't know where you got those figures, but it's past time to go eat. I'll check back in later.

Senetor Joe Biden said it. He is respected by both parties for his work on national security and WMDs fall in to that catagory...

No I get my sources from the front lines in this war.

And isn't it likely that the front lines are the least likely to want to reveal and uneasiness/anxieties among the troops which may damage overall troop morale if they aired those views publically? Would they have told you about the torturing of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib? I imagine they're encouraged to be as optimistic as possible by their commanders for morale purposes.

You don't know many Americans who are in the military do you? They enlist for a variety of reasons including patriotism, education, job training, etc. They are willing to protect the freedom of all Americans and defend the freedom of people other than Americans. Of course, they would like to have a long life with their families, but few feel they might die in a pointless war. Few view Iraq as a pointless war.

not true untill recently i lived in panama city florida b tyndall afb with many military freinds and they all thought it was worhtless b.s. and the supposed connection between bin laden and saddam is an erroneous statement made by intellectually depraved individuals who are unaware of the political stances of the two one hates capitalism thus america and the other takes things form his people to build large monuments and palaces while his people suffer yeah im sure they're best buds :) :)

I seriously doubt that.

I would say the same if it had been someone against the war saying that as well.

None of us can possibly get the whole story.

Ok I can agree with you. Let me say that I get most of the whole story. I get both sides from our soldiers both the good and the bad.

I actually get the whole story.

How do you get the whole story but the rest of us don't? We have relatives who tell us what it's like in Iraq, too? Or are you just that arrogant?

Because I served 26 years in the military and know our soldiers.If its any consolation to you, my experiences with the military lead me to the same conclusion you reached.

How do you get the whole story but the rest of us don't? We have relatives who tell us what it's like in Iraq, too? Or are you just that arrogant?

I listen to everybody.

I listen to everybody.

You sure as hell aren't listening to me right now, or you'd actually answer my questions. What makes you think we don't listen to everybody, too?

I listen to everybody.

It's tough to listen to the opinions of dead soldiers.....they might have a different viewpoint....

Soldiers from many view points join up. Some probebly think the war is the most richious since WWII. Some might think its horrible. Some might have views in between.

The point is no one can speak for all our soldiers. You can speak for all the ones who've told you their view, but not all.

You sure as hell aren't listening to me right now, or you'd actually answer my questions. What makes you think we don't listen to everybody, too?

I'll answer your questions when in fact you do ask a question that I haven't already answered somewhere else on these boards.

I'll answer your questions when in fact you do ask a question that I haven't already answered somewhere else on these boards.

You expect me to have memorized everything you've said on the entire forum? That's absurd.

It the Iraq war fails will you still suport Bush?

If equal rights fails would you still support MLK?

If WW2 had failed would you still support Roosevelt?

If communism fails would you still support Marx?

If NAFTA fails would you still support Clinton?

If Oil for Food fails would you still support the UN?

etc etc etc.

Lame point.

I listen to everybody.

Best joke today mate, best joke today.

If equal rights fails would you still support MLK?Equal rights people didn't cost the lives of innocent bystanders.
If WW2 had failed would you still support Roosevelt?Considering the consequences of losing WW2, I wouldn't have been alive.
If communism fails would you still support Marx?How about, if Marxism fails, would you still support Marx
If NAFTA fails would you still support Clinton?What makes you think NAFTA is good?
If Oil for Food fails would you still support the UN?Oil for food isn't the biggest thing the UN's been doing

Are you going to respond or resort to your usual tactics?

LMAO...and you base your hypothesis of success on what exactly? The last 2.5 years have been a chaotic bloodbath....the past tends to dictate the future....maybe in 50years time we'll see peace...whoopee, another Northern Ireland :rolleyes:

The past dictates the future? How very *European* of you! :p

Sorry but the most the past does is to deal the cards you play. How they are played is still up to you. You should know this by English history. Nothing in the past dictated the invention of the steam engine. Nothing in the past dictated Isaac Newton's writing of Principia Mathematica. Technology always breaks the molds.

Cheap of you to take refuge in cynicism, the final refuge of the lazy and the unthinking, but the future belongs to those who build it. :)

Best joke today mate, best joke today.

Who said I was joking?

Not quite true. Freedom requires security. They can't vote without having to fear being attacked, so they are not technically free to choose.

Actually, it's worth noting that in spite of the terrorists' best efforts to close down the polls the Iraqi people *did* get to vote and in the end were able to give the purple finger to anyone who tried to stop them. ^-^

http://instapundit.com/archives/020837.php

"But if the insurgents wanted to stop people in Baghdad from voting, they failed. If they wanted to cause chaos, they failed. The voters were completely defiant, and there was a feeling that the people of Baghdad, showing a new, positive attitude, had turned a corner."

The past dictates the future? How very *European* of you! :p

Sorry but the most the past does is to deal the cards you play. How they are played is still up to you. You should know this by English history. Nothing in the past dictated the invention of the steam engine. Nothing in the past dictated Isaac Newton's writing of Principia Mathematica. Technology always breaks the molds.

Cheap of you to take refuge in cynicism, the final refuge of the lazy and the unthinking, but the future belongs to those who build it. :)

You obviously missed the point....I never said one can't change the future, only that the recent past has a significant influence on it......in any case....Nothing in the the past dictated the invention of the steam engine? Err hello? What about every scientific discovery up till that point which enabled its invention? And as for Newton...he was "standing on the shoulders of giants"...using the work of previous scientists such as Kepler to develop his knowledge and allow him to make advances......a buildup of knowledge and information breaks moulds.....and for that you need the past.

Actually, it's worth noting that in spite of the terrorists' best efforts to close down the polls the Iraqi people *did* get to vote and in the end were able to give the purple finger to anyone who tried to stop them. ^-^

http://instapundit.com/archives/020837.php

"But if the insurgents wanted to stop people in Baghdad from voting, they failed. If they wanted to cause chaos, they failed. The voters were completely defiant, and there was a feeling that the people of Baghdad, showing a new, positive attitude, had turned a corner."

Indeed, but I'm sure there were some Iraqis who wanted to vote but were too afraid to risk their lives....also, are terrorists allowed to vote?

Indeed, but I'm sure there were some Iraqis who wanted to vote but were too afraid to risk their lives....also, are terrorists allowed to vote?

Then those people are fools for letting their fear get to them giving the terrorist a victory.

As for thet terrorists voting, only if they are Iraqi and if they actually registered to vote.

Then those people are fools for letting their fear get to them giving the terrorist a victory.

As for thet terrorists voting, only if they are Iraqi and if they actually registered to vote.

Hmm, interesting.....if the number of insurgents continue to grow...they may be able to vote themselves in as a democratically elected government :D

Actually, it's worth noting that in spite of the terrorists' best efforts to close down the polls the Iraqi people *did* get to vote and in the end were able to give the purple finger to anyone who tried to stop them. ^-^Tell me, how does this refute the fact that the majority of the Sunni population didn't vote?

Then those people are fools for letting their fear get to them giving the terrorist a victory.I wouldn't consider someone who has several children to feed in a country without any working form of welfare should anything happen a fool.

Tell me, how does this refute the fact that the majority of the Sunni population didn't vote?

What do they matter? All we need is another Shi'ia Islamic state like Iran :D

Anway enough...sleep is upon me, goodnight all :)

You obviously missed the point....I never said one can't change the future, only that the recent past has a significant influence on it......in any case....Nothing in the the past dictated the invention of the steam engine? Err hello? What about every scientific discovery up till that point which enabled its invention?

What about it? That didn't mean squat. In point of fact the steam engine had been invented in Hellenistic times and lapsed again because the dimbulb who invented it that time couldn't think of any use for it other than as a toy for the Temple of Apollo to buy. The difference between then and Watt's day was that Watt *was* intelligent enough to think of something useful to do with it. But if the invention of the steam engine had needed any scientific discovery in order to happen it surely wouldn't have also been invented in Hellenistic times, right? Engineering trumps science. ^_~

And as for Newton...he was "standing on the shoulders of giants"...using the work of previous scientists such as Kepler to develop his knowledge and allow him to make advances......a buildup of knowledge and information breaks moulds.....and for that you need the past.

Yes and no. He doubtless made use of past astronomical data. But the invention of Newtonian physics and of the calculus he had to invent to describe those physics was pretty much his and there was nothing in the past that *dictated* he would do so anymore than anything dictated that the English would be smart where the Romans were dimwits.

That said, you do have a point that technology, science and engineering alike, require the reliable transmission of technique from one generation to the next in order to work. That's one reason why the Chinese inventions of gunpowder and the printing press never amounted to much because the Chinese let these inventions sort of lay like a lump and never really did anything *with* them. But even that was a matter of the decisions made on the spot rather than anything dictated by the past. I wonder though. Assuming reality intrudes in a way that those who illwish America would prefer to deny will those who said the Liberation of Iraq can't succeed suddenly say that they knew it was inevitable all along? So far Leftists in general are doing a good job of obeying Clarke's Axiom in this regard. ^_~

Edit: Good night to you as well Anser. I hope you have pleasent dreams! :)

Tell me, how does this refute the fact that the majority of the Sunni population didn't vote?

How does your question refute the fact that "the majority of the Sunni population" were never the majority of Iraq? o_O

I don't know if I'd support him or not. I do not believe, however, that at this point, the US is losing. Rather, I feel it is 50/50.
Anyhow, military details are of no interest to me. That should be left up to the generals as far as I'm concerned. What interests me are results. If it works out, yipee. If it doesn't, it depends. Iraq will spiral into a hellhole if this doesn't succeed, there's no question about that. But if its problems stay strictly internal, that's okay. It will be a failed oppritunity, but ultimatly, nothing was gained or lost. But other things can go wrong. Will its instability spread region wide, inciting lots of wars? Will it be a base for terrorists taking advantage of the anarchy? Will a new strongman fill the void there, and bring back the old regime? Worst yet, will this strongman be an al-Qaeda operative or ultranationalistic thug, and try to unite the Middle East under a new caliphate to wage a global jihad? If this happens, I can't like the Admin. the way I do now.

I already am against the POTUS. Iraq, casualty-wise, is no Vietnam, but objective-wise, it is creepily resembling it....

I dont support him now...why would I change my mind when/if he fails?

Equal rights people didn't cost the lives of innocent bystanders.
Considering the consequences of losing WW2, I wouldn't have been alive.
How about, if Marxism fails, would you still support Marx
What makes you think NAFTA is good?
Oil for food isn't the biggest thing the UN's been doing

Are you going to respond or resort to your usual tactics?

There is no point in responding when you've completely missed the point - in fact desperatly tried to avoid.

Soldiers from many view points join up. Some probebly think the war is the most richious since WWII. Some might think its horrible. Some might have views in between.

The point is no one can speak for all our soldiers. You can speak for all the ones who've told you their view, but not all.

If you are one of them and have worked, partied, ate, slept, and lived with them you know them and their views and the views of a majority. If you knew a few or had a few who were friends then you know the views of only those few.

Tell me, how does this refute the fact that the majority of the Sunni population didn't vote?

The Sunni were told not to vote by their religious leaders. Most of them choose not to vote. At least they had a choice and they ecercised the right to choose. Without freedom there would not have been a choice.

Hmm, interesting.....if the number of insurgents continue to grow...they may be able to vote themselves in as a democratically elected government :D
I think Anser's got it, more or less. I'm expecting the applecart of Iraqi democracy to be upset PDQ post the inevitable departure of coalition forces.

I wouldn't consider someone who has several children to feed in a country without any working form of welfare should anything happen a fool.

No but the minute you decide to let fear dictate your life, you've lost.

I already am against the POTUS. Iraq, casualty-wise, is no Vietnam, but objective-wise, it is creepily resembling it....

Oh how so? As far as I can see, outside of 4 provinces, its been relatively quiet. Also, Sunni Imams are trying to rally the sunnis to register to vote. That is good news to know.

On CNN, just now, they were speculating that, as a result of the Iraq war, Republicans are (and will be) distancing themselves from President Bush.

Some viewers wrote that the Republicans will NEVER abandon their own. While others said politicians always put themselves first... Another said that if Bush doesn't have it together by Christmas, then the Republicans will begin to abandon him. And finally, another said that Bush will announce in September that the Iraqis will all be trained and we'll start formally pulling back.

By the way, in the war, over 11 thousand U.S. soldiers were killed, but only 176 non-U.S. soldiers... So, how the hell did we have a "coalition"?

http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=470


I am just responding tot he title and this post essentially.

I voted for Bush--twice.
Yeah, yeah I know.
I dont support him--beyond I support my President and hope a brick will fail from the sky and knock some sense into him.

He let down a lot of people who did indeed have very high hopes for what he would do and get done.
In my conservative republican opinion he is a total failure.
In my opinion as an Evangelical Christian Born Again Baptist, he misused the faith of the Faithful, and peddled God to garner the Conservative Protestant Vote.
He is a liar on level that no one who opposed him from the very begining could understand.
You see he is not furthering the coservative-or Christian agenda either--I dont know what the feck he is doing. I just want him to stop.

So while you are out bashing the Bushman, please keep in mind--a lot of us who arent--still arent happy with him.

It wouldn't exactly make him the best strategist, but I still support his platform. In determining the worth of an individual, aptitude should never take precedence over morality.

It wouldn't exactly make him the best strategist, but I still support his platform. In determining the worth of an individual, aptitude should never take precedence over morality.
He isn't "the best strategist"?

Neo Rog, his war plans were written in crayons.