NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't think it matters right now if going to Iraq was a right desision or not, I think what matters now is that the US should stay in Iraq. It doesn't matter if it was a mistake sending troops to Iraq, what matters is that the US should stay in Iraq.
To back up my statements, I'll use this analogy. The situation in Iraq is simalar to what happened in the south after the Civil War. After the Confederacy was lost, and the Union was preserved, Northern soldiers occupied the southern states. Part of their duty was to protect the African Americans that had just been liberated. After a while, what people are saying about our troops in Iraq were being said about the soldiers in the south after the Civil War.
After a while, the northern government got tired of the complaints and withdrew from the south, but at the cost of African American safety. Because the soldiers left prematurely, blacks were skrewed for the next 100 years.
In the same way, if the US leaves now, the Iraqi people will probobly be skrewed in the same way the blacks were. It doesn't matter if Bush made a mistake sending troops to Iraq, now that they are there, they must stay there.
If you disagree, post your thoughts, but I stand by my opinion.

Why do you ask questions you already know the awsners?
-from x-men movie-



:eek: :mp5:

Why do you ask questions you already know the awsners?
-from x-men movie-



:eek: :mp5:

No question mark. Korea may be guilty of something, but not that.

We (the US) should either establish a protectorate and get Iraq's ass in gear for them, or give up and get out. They've had a hell of a long time to decide things, and if they can't make up their mind, I'm bloody tired of seeing my countrymen pay the toll in blood. Iraq needs order, laws, police, courts, highway patrols, sealed borders, a crackdown on hate-preachers, and a national defence force to keep those borders sealed. It does not need to have the American army sitting their sucking up American dollars and watering the desert with American blood any more. If it needs help, it should ask the UN. That's what the UN is for.

There is a notable difference between the Southern US and Iraq. The South was a colony siezed in war. Iraq is a liberated foreign nation. Liberation works by going in, killing people, breaking things, destroying the government, and keeping order for long enough for the people to get off their damned asses and do something for themselves. If they can't manage that after months of bickering, it's time to change plans.

We (the US) should either establish a protectorate and get Iraq's ass in gear for them, or give up and get out. They've had a hell of a long time to decide things, and if they can't make up their mind, I'm bloody tired of seeing my countrymen pay the toll in blood. Iraq needs order, laws, police, courts, highway patrols, sealed borders, a crackdown on hate-preachers, and a national defence force to keep those borders sealed. It does not need to have the American army sitting their sucking up American dollars and watering the desert with American blood any more. If it needs help, it should ask the UN. That's what the UN is for.

There is a notable difference between the Southern US and Iraq. The South was a colony siezed in war. Iraq is a liberated foreign nation. Liberation works by going in, killing people, breaking things, destroying the government, and keeping order for long enough for the people to get off their damned asses and do something for themselves. If they can't manage that after months of bickering, it's time to change plans.
The Iraqi people are doing a pretty good job of defending their nation against the terrorists. Its just that they are dependent on the US military cause we have weapons and tech that the Iraqis don't.

Hasn't this topic been done to death already?

I don't think it matters right now if going to Iraq was a right desision or not, I think what matters now is that the US should stay in Iraq. It doesn't matter if it was a mistake sending troops to Iraq, what matters is that the US should stay in Iraq.
To back up my statements, I'll use this analogy. The situation in Iraq is simalar to what happened in the south after the Civil War. After the Confederacy was lost, and the Union was preserved, Northern soldiers occupied the southern states. Part of their duty was to protect the African Americans that had just been liberated. After a while, what people are saying about our troops in Iraq were being said about the soldiers in the south after the Civil War.
After a while, the northern government got tired of the complaints and withdrew from the south, but at the cost of African American safety. Because the soldiers left prematurely, blacks were skrewed for the next 100 years.
In the same way, if the US leaves now, the Iraqi people will probobly be skrewed in the same way the blacks were. It doesn't matter if Bush made a mistake sending troops to Iraq, now that they are there, they must stay there.
If you disagree, post your thoughts, but I stand by my opinion.
Yeah, we're fucked. Comparing Iraq to the Civil War isn't very good though. That had a noble cause, this doesn't. Hopefully, though, Iraqis will manage their democracy and we'll be out of there sometime in the next millenia.

The Iraqi people are doing a pretty good job of defending their nation against the terrorists. Its just that they are dependent on the US military cause we have weapons and tech that the Iraqis don't.

Just guessing, I think Korea was referring less to defense vs. terror and more defense of Kurds/Sunnis vs. Shiites.

Just guessing, I think Korea was referring less to defense vs. terror and more defense of Kurds/Sunnis vs. Shiites.
Ahhh... ok, then.

This has been done to death and we all know it won't change until at least after the 2008 elections. But a comparison to the civil war is absurd. The south had a culture similiar to the north. Not a tribal system totally foreign to a republican form of government. Although there were a few pockets of guerilla war still going on, the south had surrendered and the people agreed that the war was over. (NOTE: the winner does not say when a war is over; the loser says when the war is over) The north wasn't a foreign power. It was a civil war within an established nation. I can really see few comparisons.
A better comparison is Vietnam. A nation engaged in a civil war, where a foreign nation injected itself to try to make the obvious losers the winners. A plan was developed called "Vietnamization" The plan: 1. establish a government. 2. train an army so they can defend themselves. 3. arm them to the teeth. 4. have an honorable withdrawl. The plan for Bushnam: 1. establish a government. 2. train an army so they can defend themselves. 3. arm them to the teeth. 4. have an honorable withdrawl. Remember what happened in the end? When the tanks came south the Viets didn't fly into battle. They flew to American carriers. So many brand new helicopters landed on the carriers they were thrown overboard to make room for more. Siagon fell with almost no shots fired in defense. That wonderful army striped naked of their uniforms and ran.

guys ... its a simple equation....

terrorrists are in iraq to kick the US out
if the US gets out the terrorist will see themselves as winners, then peace and stability will come again to iraq...

The United States started this mess and must see it through. We have a responsibility to Iraq now, but didn't before. That's what makes me mad. Maybe next time my fellow countrymen will be less anxious to start another war. Maybe the United States will get its shit together after the mess that is Iraq. I don't want to hang out in Canada, so I really hope the U.S. gets back on a more peaceful path.

guys ... its a simple equation....

terrorrists are in iraq to kick the US out
if the US gets out the terrorist will see themselves as winners, then peace and stability will come again to iraq...
Let's see---Israel waas established in 1948 by invaders from Europe. They fought terrorists for how long before they found peace? They lost how many before their was aceptance of their rule?

guys ... its a simple equation....

terrorrists are in iraq to kick the US out
if the US gets out the terrorist will see themselves as winners, then peace and stability will come again to iraq...
peace and stability will not come to iraq. a big-ass civil war will because there would be a power vacuum.

more terrorism would come to the US because the terrorist would have won, gained prestige in the radical moslem world and will know for sure that whenever we move in militarily, all they have to do is wait us out. that we dont have the guts for the long haul fight.

we need to stay and make sure that iraq becomes a stable country and that its people are better off than they were before we went in. its our mess, we need to clean it up.

peace and stability will not come to iraq. a big-ass civil war will because there would be a power vacuum.

more terrorism would come to the US because the terrorist would have won, gained prestige in the radical moslem world and will know for sure that whenever we move in militarily, all they have to do is wait us out. that we dont have the guts for the long haul fight.

How is it that Israel's hardline stance on terrorism hasn't prevented terrorists from coming to them? Surely no one thinks Israel doesn't have the guts for a long haul fight?

we need to stay and make sure that iraq becomes a stable country and that its people are better off than they were before we went in. its our mess, we need to clean it up.

This is a little like the notion that a rapist, having made a criminal error in committing rape, still has the obligation to stick around and raise the kid that results from the pregnancy. His mess, he cleans it up!

Just guessing, I think Korea was referring less to defense vs. terror and more defense of Kurds/Sunnis vs. Shiites.
such a scenario is unlikely to happen in Iraq. The most you'll see on that front is what we Americans call political argument in the Iraqi parliament over what their govt's policy should be.

All the fighting is against the terrorists.

guys ... its a simple equation....

terrorrists are in iraq to kick the US out
if the US gets out the terrorist will see themselves as winners, then peace and stability will come again to iraq...
that's wrong

peace and stability will not come to iraq. a big-ass civil war will because there would be a power vacuum.

more terrorism would come to the US because the terrorist would have won, gained prestige in the radical moslem world and will know for sure that whenever we move in militarily, all they have to do is wait us out. that we dont have the guts for the long haul fight.

we need to stay and make sure that iraq becomes a stable country and that its people are better off than they were before we went in. its our mess, we need to clean it up.
an Iraqi civil war is unlikely now. Especially since all the Iraqis have a common enemy in the terrorists and foreign fighters and the fact that Coalition troops and the Iraqi government have seizing private weapons caches and in some places gun ownership has been outlawed.

How is it that Israel's hardline stance on terrorism hasn't prevented terrorists from coming to them? Surely no one thinks Israel doesn't have the guts for a long haul fight?



This is a little like the notion that a rapist, having made a criminal error in committing rape, still has the obligation to stick around and raise the kid that results from the pregnancy. His mess, he cleans it up!
That's very offensive. And it is incorrect comparison. You can't equate the US military intervention in Iraq to rape. That is not what we are doing there.

That's very offensive. And it is incorrect comparison. You can't equate the US military intervention in Iraq to rape. That is not what we are doing there.

Why... was she asking for it?

This is a little like the notion that a rapist, having made a criminal error in committing rape, still has the obligation to stick around and raise the kid that results from the pregnancy. His mess, he cleans it up!

I couldn't agree more with what you've just said here.

People also seem to forget that there weren't ANY terrorists in Iraq until America invaded, so if there are terrorists there now and we know there is, who's fault is it? America's fault, that's who!

I couldn't agree more with what you've just said here.

People also seem to forget that there weren't ANY terrorists in Iraq until America invaded, so if there are terrorists there now and we know there is, who's fault is it? America's fault, that's who!
You forget the terrorist known as Saddam Hussein and his little gang of terrorists known the Baath Party.

You forget the terrorist known as Saddam Hussein and his little gang of terrorists known the Baath Party.

No, he was an elected President and the Baath party was a political party. Now they may of done some rather nasty thing to some of their people, but then again so do a lot of countries and their leaders. What people fail to understand is that Iraq didn't do a damn thing to the United States. Thus the United States never had a right nor did they ever have the high ground in invading Iraq. More innocent Iraqi's have died since March 19th 2003 than would of probably ever died under Saddam.


Now you may think Saddam is a terrorist if you wish, and I may think Bush is a world terrorist, I suppose it's up for speculation and is quite subjective.

You forget the terrorist known as Saddam Hussein and his little gang of terrorists known the Baath Party.

Generally terrorism is unlawful, not just bad-man-doing-stuff. If you choose to call Hussein a terrorist, you have to acknowledge that anyone who even uses the THREAT of force to coerce anyone is also a terrorist. Meaning all governments are terrorist organizations.

No, he was an elected President and the Baath party was a political party. Now they may of done some rather nasty thing to some of their people, but then again so do a lot of countries and their leaders. What people fail to understand is that Iraq didn't do a damn thing to the United States. Thus the United States never had a right nor did they ever have the high ground in invading Iraq. More innocent Iraqi's have died since March 19th 2003 than would of probably ever died under Saddam.


Now you may think Saddam is a terrorist if you wish, and I may think Bush is a world terrorist, I suppose it's up for speculation and is quite subjective.
LMAO. :D :D :D
"he was an elected President". LMAO.
Well I guess you could argue that overthrowing your President and killing all his supporters counts as an election. Though, this is the first time I've seen people try to do that.
And I guess the fact that the Bathists tortured and executed people on their climb to power makes them a legit political party.
"Iraq never did a damn thing to the United States". Let's see, Saddam tried to kill the President of the US while he was in Saudi. Saddam also aided the Serbians in the balkan war. Saddam attacked 2 key US allies in the region.

Over 300,000 Iraqis died under Saddam's brutal regime. That's much higher than even the liberals inflated casualty figures.

Generally terrorism is unlawful, not just bad-man-doing-stuff. If you choose to call Hussein a terrorist, you have to acknowledge that anyone who even uses the THREAT of force to coerce anyone is also a terrorist. Meaning all governments are terrorist organizations.
What you need to understand is that Saddam was Satan incarnate. He was the worst despot on the planet. And the fact is that he was causing all the wars in the region.

To whoever said about Saddam Hussein:

'No, he was an elected President and the Baath party was a political party. Now they may of done some rather nasty thing to some of their people, but then again so do a lot of countries and their leaders. What people fail to understand is that Iraq didn't do a damn thing to the United States. Thus the United States never had a right nor did they ever have the high ground in invading Iraq. More innocent Iraqi's have died since March 19th 2003 than would of probably ever died under Saddam.


Now you may think Saddam is a terrorist if you wish, and I may think Bush is a world terrorist, I suppose it's up for speculation and is quite subjective.'

In 1933 the Nazi party was democratically elected. Hitler was Germany's democratically elected leader. No, he wasn't a terrorist, but he did kill millions of people in just a few years before he was stopped. Now if no-one had fought against Germany, what would have happened? There would have been peace eventually... after Poland, Russia, France, maybe England were all under German occupation. The situation is different, Saddam Hussein concentrated on killing Iraqis not everyone else as well (except Israelis), so does that mean Saddam shouldn't have been taken out of power? Tell that to a Jew, a Gipsy, a Pole, a Frenchman, a Russian, an Englishman, amongst many others. You can't let these people get away with it.

What you need to understand is that Saddam was Satan incarnate.

:rolleyes:

Satan wasn't so bad. He didn't feel like worshipping God and giving him a blowjob every five seconds. He felt for humanity, instead of mindlessly obeying God's orders (you know, the kind of whim that got Jesus crucified, or allowed all evil to exist in the world cuz some bitch named Eve ate an apple). If you're trying to appeal to my sense of Judao-Christian religious morality by using the "Satan" moniker, it's backfiring.

Well I guess you could argue that overthrowing your President and killing all his supporters counts as an election. Though, this is the first time I've seen people try to do that.
And I guess the fact that the Bathists tortured and executed people on their climb to power makes them a legit political party.
"Iraq never did a damn thing to the United States". Let's see, Saddam tried to kill the President of the US while he was in Saudi. Saddam also aided the Serbians in the balkan war. Saddam attacked 2 key US allies in the region.

Over 300,000 Iraqis died under Saddam's brutal regime. That's much higher than even the liberals inflated casualty figures.

Well he was elected the first few times around, but he was basically brought to power with the help of the CIA and the American government. So make of that what you will. If Saddam is guilty so is the United States.

As for me saying more people have died since March 19th 2003 then ever would of died under Saddam, I was talking about since March 19th 2003 and that 300,000 number is also highly inflated even for the most conservative claim. I have never heard that Saddam helped the Serbs and would like you to source that. As for him trying to kill a US president there has never been any proof of that, only speculation and it's not like they weren't trying to kill him. Let us also not forget that the United States has the death penalty too and the United States also tortured people since this war has started. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

What you need to understand is that Saddam was Satan incarnate. He was the worst despot on the planet. And the fact is that he was causing all the wars in the region.

There were no wars in the region when America attacked Iraq.

In 1933 the Nazi party was democratically elected. Hitler was Germany's democratically elected leader. No, he wasn't a terrorist, but he did kill millions of people in just a few years before he was stopped.

I invoke Godwin's law. You lose!

I invoke Godwin's law. You lose!
If you say that, both sides lose.

Hmmmm, I need to check.

EDIT: Nope, I'm wrong.

weather or not they leave or stay there could be a royal fuk up either way, so mabe americans should only stay until they have secured the oil supplies and built there neccesary pipelines etc etc, or perhaps they can stay in iraq for ever and always protect them from their otherwise inevitable chance of being dominated by a dictator, i think that not going to war until there was a plan and a reason (wmd is a silly reason as is alquida being there, as for removing an evil dictator why start with iraq?) pull out, let the iraqis suffer again(if they arnt already) and never make the same mistake again thats my plan

Yay, let's leave the Iraqis to suffer so we can sleep safe at night!

That's very offensive. And it is incorrect comparison. You can't equate the US military intervention in Iraq to rape. That is not what we are doing there.
You may find it offencive, but those who say they dont like americas war in iraq(the majority) see this as a perfect comparison

Yay, let's leave the Iraqis to suffer so we can sleep safe at night!

The Iraqi's were safer than they are now, had the United States not invaded. While Saddam might of been a real SOB, he would not of killed as many as have been killed since the start of the war. Further, they had better services, women had rights, they could even run for office, it was a secular country and not bothering anyone at the time of invasion. Oh and didn't have WMD either.

Yay, let's leave the Iraqis to suffer so we can sleep safe at night!
how about you impose trade sanctions on third world countries so you can eat cococrunchies for breakfast after you have woken up

No, he was an elected President and the Baath party was a political party. Now they may of done some rather nasty thing to some of their people, but then again so do a lot of countries and their leaders. What people fail to understand is that Iraq didn't do a damn thing to the United States. Thus the United States never had a right nor did they ever have the high ground in invading Iraq. More innocent Iraqi's have died since March 19th 2003 than would of probably ever died under Saddam.


Now you may think Saddam is a terrorist if you wish, and I may think Bush is a world terrorist, I suppose it's up for speculation and is quite subjective.

You see.. thos there are many falsehoods in this statement which indicate to me that you have little knowledge of Saddams history, or the history of Iraq. As such your not really qualified to make this kind of argument.

Saddam killed more people in one year during the height of his power then all the iraqi's and americans that have died in the past 4. Through saddams corruption of the oil for food program its esimated some quarter million children died from starvation as he built more palaces to hide in. Refering to the elections in Iraq pre-war is a joke at best. It is like saying Stalin was democratically elected. All this while covering our eyes to the reality that there was only one canidate and that if you didn't vote you "disapeared".

Who really constitues what the "right" to invade is. Most would say the UN.. but given its failed mission in the past 12 years as Iraq ignored countless resolutions against it (and other nations like Israel as well) it is clear the UN has no legitimacy. The international law it imposes is backed by nothing more then empty words and threats. Nations and leaders follow the UN when it is convient to them. And so as the only world power, it is our duty to act in the interest of international security whether or not the rest of the world realizes the threat.

And as far as I am concerned, Iraq using WMD is more then enough justification to remove that government even if it happend 12 years ago. It was an act not born from self defense or in the face of a threat, but for pure genocide.

Well he was elected the first few times around, but he was basically brought to power with the help of the CIA and the American government. So make of that what you will. If Saddam is guilty so is the United States.

As for me saying more people have died since March 19th 2003 then ever would of died under Saddam, I was talking about since March 19th 2003 and that 300,000 number is also highly inflated even for the most conservative claim. I have never heard that Saddam helped the Serbs and would like you to source that. As for him trying to kill a US president there has never been any proof of that, only speculation and it's not like they weren't trying to kill him. Let us also not forget that the United States has the death penalty too and the United States also tortured people since this war has started. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Saddam has was never elected. Not even the first time around.

There were no wars in the region when America attacked Iraq.
There was a war in the west bank. There was terrorism going on in Saudi Arabia and kuwait.

weather or not they leave or stay there could be a royal fuk up either way, so mabe americans should only stay until they have secured the oil supplies and built there neccesary pipelines etc etc, or perhaps they can stay in iraq for ever and always protect them from their otherwise inevitable chance of being dominated by a dictator, i think that not going to war until there was a plan and a reason (wmd is a silly reason as is alquida being there, as for removing an evil dictator why start with iraq?) pull out, let the iraqis suffer again(if they arnt already) and never make the same mistake again thats my plan
Iraq is not the first place we've removed dictators.
There was Hitler, Mussolini, Noriega, Raul Cejas, Slobadon Milosevic, Mullah Omar, among others.

The Iraqi's were safer than they are now, had the United States not invaded. While Saddam might of been a real SOB, he would not of killed as many as have been killed since the start of the war. Further, they had better services, women had rights, they could even run for office, it was a secular country and not bothering anyone at the time of invasion. Oh and didn't have WMD either.

"he would not of killed as many as have been killed since the start of the war" ???? Did you forget about the kurds... the mustard gas... the two prior wars he waged. Who are you to make this assumption given his history. The only thing stopping him from continuing were sanctions. Sanctions he even was able to corrupt so his people starved while he built palaces. And those sanctions thanks to the french were set to be removed if no WMD were found. Yes, people wouldn't have died at such a rate.. but while these people today die for a better future for their children... people under saddam had no future to look forward to, except poverty and oppression.

And if he had no WMD... why play games with the inspectors, as they themselves identified. Perhaps becuase he himself didn't even know he didn't have WMD. Documentation has revealed his own advisors were lying to him about their capabilities for fear of retribution.

The reason to stay in Iraq reminds me so much of something.

BURNINATING THE COUNTRYSIDE
BURNINATING ALL THE PEASANTS

....
AND THE THATCHED_ROOF COTTAGES!!!!!!!!!




GWB the BURNINATOR!!!

The Iraqi's were safer than they are now, had the United States not invaded. While Saddam might of been a real SOB, he would not of killed as many as have been killed since the start of the war. Further, they had better services, women had rights, they could even run for office, it was a secular country and not bothering anyone at the time of invasion. Oh and didn't have WMD either.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Saddam was going around and killing and torturing his own people. That's a documented fact.
Better services? Iraq's infrastructure and ability to care for its people was greatly crippled because Saddam was siphoning the oil for food money into his own pocket.
Women's rights? When Uday Hussein was going around raping and brutalizing women and the women had no right to oppose him? Is that what you call women's right? Women were not allowed to run for public office unless they were personally approved by Saddam.
Iraq had bio weapons. Its had them since the 70's and not all of them were destroyed by inspectors.
Being a secular country does not automatically give a nation brownie points.

Why do you ask questions you already know the awsners?
-from x-men movie-
Good rule for debate: never ask a question the answer to which you don't already know. :D

Saddam has was never elected. Not even the first time around.
You know ... statements like the one to which you wrote this response always make me wonder just what sort of hidden agenda is being advanced. Some of the statements that people make totally amaze me. :headbang:

Here is another question: How long do we stay? I remember watching FOX news and one of the comentators saying: "We shouldn't be like Great Britian and pull out before they are ready." To which I blew up, "Great Britian was there from 1918 to 1931, how much longer than 13 years are you planning on keeping us there?"

So to reask the question, how long do you think should be our uppertime limit? 10 years? 15 years? 50 years? Forever?

I don't know the history of Saddam??? Please! It would appear all of you with either short memories or I'll give if you were not old enough to remember.

I said he was elected, that I was wrong and can admit, it was actually a CIA United States backed coup. But he has held elections..

However if you think you know so much about Saddam, you're probably wrong.. If Saddam is guilty then so is the United States.

A Brief History Of Saddam (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)

I'm bush like. Your dang right we should stay in iriq, with all that precious "earl", shit, "tourism" threats its become a breading ground for people who pray to a different invisible man that Americans do. The war in "Iriq" is going really well. We've got a lot of "earl" now, damn it, I mean were helping oppressed people, who have oppression. Thats the right thing to do. After were done with "Iriq" we can go to "Irin" and Syria to spread freedom abroad. God bless America and no place else.

Here is another question: How long do we stay? I remember watching FOX news and one of the comentators saying: "We shouldn't be like Great Britian and pull out before they are ready." To which I blew up, "Great Britian was there from 1918 to 1931, how much longer than 13 years are you planning on keeping us there?"

So to reask the question, how long do you think should be our uppertime limit? 10 years? 15 years? 50 years? Forever?
Difference is that britain was there with the intent of turning Iraq into a colony. We are there to teach the Iraqis to take of themselves.

Difference is that britain was there with the intent of turning Iraq into a colony. We are there to teach the Iraqis to take of themselves.

Yes, and who better than the Americans to show a country how to take care of themselves, they can't even take care of American's.. Katrina anyone?

Difference is that britain was there with the intent of turning Iraq into a colony. We are there to teach the Iraqis to take of themselves.

Actually the Brits and French created Iraq (previouisly part of the Ottoman Empire) with the intent of leaving it when they were able to govern itself (as they did in 1932)

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/Gilgamesh/1918.html

We're pretty much doing the exact same thing as the British except they did it with a Constitutional Style Monarchy and we're doing it with a Republic. (Funny how each country is fond of their own style of government)

I don't know the history of Saddam??? Please! It would appear all of you with either short memories or I'll give if you were not old enough to remember.

I said he was elected, that I was wrong and can admit, it was actually a CIA United States backed coup. But he has held elections..

However if you think you know so much about Saddam, you're probably wrong.. If Saddam is guilty then so is the United States.

A Brief History Of Saddam (http://www.bushflash.com/thanks.html)

way to provide hard unbias evdience to support your position. IT only shows how little your really know.. other then what bias sources you read. I too can read hardline conservative viewpoints making the US look like Gods smiting satan (saddam).. but im more realistic then that. I hope someday you also will join this club.

elections are meaningless if your the only one running... and i hold a gun up to your head saying vote for me .. If thats what you think democracy is... fret not. The world is on the right path :rolleyes:

Here is a little more unbias history of IRaq for you to review.. rather then that dribble your passing off..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq#The_Republic

I suggest you read it. May open your eyes to a couple of things, like Iraq's position on Kwait, thier OWN development of WMD outside of what arms they received from outside nations, their suppression of the Kurdish rebellion etc...etc....etc...etc.. etccc

you really do know little on this subject

Yes, and who better than the Americans to show a country how to take care of themselves, they can't even take care of American's.. Katrina anyone?

ho ho ho.. you ARE a whitty one arn't you. never mind the fact that 90% of all democracies base their constitutions closely on the American one >.<

ho ho ho.. you ARE a whitty one arn't you. never mind the fact that 90% of all democracies base their constitutions closely on the American one >.<

Can you source that claim? Just so we know.

It's "witty" by the way.

Here is another question: How long do we stay? I remember watching FOX news and one of the comentators saying: "We shouldn't be like Great Britian and pull out before they are ready." To which I blew up, "Great Britian was there from 1918 to 1931, how much longer than 13 years are you planning on keeping us there?"

So to reask the question, how long do you think should be our uppertime limit? 10 years? 15 years? 50 years? Forever?

as they elluded to... not a day before Iraqis are ready

you really do know little on this subject

I know more about it then the Bush minions and Fox "news" watchers as they swallow whole all the bullshit propaganda being fed to them by the Bush administration. That's for freaking sure!


Oh and do you happen to know who wrote the wikipedia entires? Probably not. It's not like it's a REAL encyclopedia you do know that right? Anyone can write anything they like.

I know more about it then the Bush minions and Fox "news" watchers as they swallow whole all the bullshit propaganda being fed to them by the Bush administration. That's for freaking sure!


Oh and do you happen to know who wrote the wikipedia entires? Probably not. It's not like it's a REAL encyclopedia you do know that right? Anyone can write anything they like.

And Wikipedia is worse than the utter SHIT bushflash.com puts out? :rolleyes:

The Land of The Free has more restrictions than the worst dictatorship... "homeland security"..are you serious? sounds like a KGB Soviet Cold War times type of scheme. Kids can't drink till they are 21(but they can shoot guns, go to war and kill people), curfews are enforced everywhere, and you can't even fart without getting a ticket, in some states its even illegal to drive a bike drunk, not to mention driving beneath the speed limit?????? what happened to common sense? beats me. The people are so naive and gullible that the government tells them what to do and think in their controlled media and they follow blindly without asking questions or even wondering why the world is against their warmongering. Later, when all is done, they ask themselves: "why does everybody has something against us :eek: ?" The answer...... they don't :p ; unless you go in :mad: , kill their women and children, bomb their houses and destroy their lifes in a moments bliss :sniper: without even stopping to find out if they were guilty of anything except of the fact that they were on the wrong side of ....guess what...... American interests(not even terrorism related, the 911 bombers were Saudis, has a single bomb ever been dropped in Saudi Arabia? no, why? OIL, OIL, OIL, OIL and money ;) ....ooops, desert storm was paid entirely by the Saudi Governement...figures... double standards). During operation Iraqui Freedom the only real and truthfull information you could find was from european sources, as media was so biased that it was unwatchable, even English media(England coparticipated in the operation) was far more reliable than any media on this side of the atlantic. The result of this genocidal massacre in IRAQ!!!....... that the real culprit, Mr. Osama was never found, remains at large plotting agains the world, neither were the relationships or nothing and the world is not any more safer than it was were before. I hope this is a lesson for Warmongering Superpowers (now that Iraq has soured beyond belief), should all learn from the grief of retarded decisions. :headbang:

ho ho ho.. you ARE a whitty one arn't you. never mind the fact that 90% of all democracies base their constitutions closely on the American one >.<

That's pretty funny.. I think far more are actually based on the Parliamentary style of democracy, but just to be sure why don't you go check on wikipedia. *LOL*

May open your eyes to a couple of things, like Iraq's position on Kwait, ...


I must comment on Iraq position on Kuwait. One of the major problems with the middle East is how it was divided up. (Mainly France and England said, "Let's create a jigsaw puzzle with no regard to religious, cultural, or ethnic differances." Thus the only reason why Iraq and Kuiwait are different countries is because France and Britain said they were. It about akin to China taking control of the US and saying: Illinois, Missouri and Arkansas and Wisconsin are one country, Tennessee, Kentuky, Indiana and Michigan are another, etc.

Not I am not deffending Iraq actions toward Kuiwait, I'm just saying that one of the major issues in the region is that all the borders are made by a third party without any regard to the reality on the ground.

And Wikipedia is worse than the utter SHIT bushflash.com puts out? :rolleyes:

Unlike wikipedia the BushFlash site actually sources where they got the info, like Frontline and UPI. :rolleyes:

I want to know what goal must be met for the US to pull troops out. Not a date. A goal. What will it look like on that day. What goal will have been reached. As I stated above, everything we are doing parallels Vietnamization. 1. build a government. 2. Build and army. 3. Arm them to the teeth. 4. Let them defend themselves. How is this not de javu? How is the plan different? How will the result not be different? The arguement: "We've spent this much, we can't quit now." (Seems like what every adicted gambler says as he thows good money after bad.) Or is it good blood after bad? Just this week we took a town in the west-----BUT we didn't HOLD it--How is this different? The US can TAKE any square foot of ground anywhere on earth--We could take Red Square if we wanted--But we don't HOLD anything--How is this different? How is enemy in Cambodia and Laos different than enemy in Syria, Jordan and Iran?

as they elluded to... not a day before Iraqis are ready

That's all well and good, but I don't think Bush and company explained that our troops would be required there for 15, 25 maybe even 50 years there before we started the war.

Anyway, it's been fun as usual playing in the sandbox, but I have other things that require my attention here in the real world.. so I must jet. I hope everyone has a nice day/evening.

Peace - out.

Anyway, it's been fun as usual playing in the sandbox, but I have other things that require my attention here in the real world.. so I must jet. I hope everyone has a nice day/evening.

Peace - out.

Buh- bye!

Hey, wait, you took my Bucket! Give it back!

Can you source that claim? Just so we know.

It's "witty" by the way.

Acutally I can't.. sorry for that. Its something you'll learn in comparative politics. 90% of course was an exaduration, but on a whole you'll find most major constitutions throughout Europe, South america and Asia have by and large been based on the United States Constitution (it being the first established and successful).

And yes, it seems I did mispell witty, but then I never really cared about my spelling on internet forums anyway! My ability to spell in no way impacts the validity of the information I'm putting out. Anything beyond this is an assumption on your part, and we all know what assumptions do.

Acutally I can't.. sorry for that. Its something you'll learn in comparative politics. 90% of course was an exaduration, but on a whole you'll find most major constitutions throughout Europe, South america and Asia have by and large been based on the United States Constitution (it being the first established and successful).

And yes, it seems I did mispell witty, but then I never really cared about my spelling on internet forums anyway! My ability to spell in no way impacts the validity of the information I'm putting out. Anything beyond this is an assumption on your part, and we all know what assumptions do.

Watch out for Grammar Nazis.

Watch out for Grammar Nazis.

No!

SPELLING NAZI.

I can live with bad grammar. As Hemingway said "when i split an infinitive, it damn well stays split"

History of Iraq:


1940 Iraq allies with Germany in World War II

1941 Britain defeats Iraq

1945 Iraq joins the arab league

1958 General Kassem overthrows monarchy and establishes anti west republic.

1961 First Kurdish revolt and demand for autonomy.

1963 General Kassem is assassinated by Col. Aref who purges the Baath party from the government.

1968 The Baath party ousts the government in a bloody coup and seizes control of Iraq.

1970 The Kurds gain self rule under an agreement with the government

1973 Iraq supports oil boycott against US and declares war on Israel.

1975 War between the government and the Kurds again breaks out as Kurds demand independence.

1979 Al-Bakr ousted by Saddam Hussien who then kills all political rivals.

1980 Saddam Hussien orders the illegal invasion of Iran to seize Iran.

1988 Saddam Hussein slaughters the kurds and uses chemical weapons in the process.

1990 Iraq invades Kuwait. Saddam declares Kuwait to be a province of Iraq

1991 Saddam Hussein gets his ass handed to him by George HW Bush. Saddam massacres thousands of shiites. Saddam committs environmental terrorism by dumping millions of barrels worth of oil into the gulf and setting oil wells ablaze.

1990's Iraq refuse to disclose full extent of its WMD program and continues to hinder UN inspections.

1992 Iraq attempts to kill George HW Bush in Kuwait

1994 Saddam commits third act of environmental terrorism by draining the southern marsh in preparation to massacre more shiites.

1996 Saddam refuses to accept the oil for food program

1997 UN declares that Saddam has been concealing WMD's
Iraq expels American members of UN inspection team

1998 Saddam expels UN inspectors. US launches military strikes targeted at suspected locations of Iraqi WMD's.

1999 US led airstrikes aim at loosening Saddam's tight grip on power.


2001 Saddam declares national holiday to celebrate the deaths of Americans on 911. Declares Osama Bin Laden a national hero.
Saddam makes agreements with various terrorist groups to get their support in event of US invasion of Iraq.


2002 Iraq becomes part of Axis of Evil.
The UN fails to enforce its own rulings against Iraq.
Congress authorizes Bush to use force against Iraq unless Saddam leaves power.
UN Security Council unanimously approves resolution 1441 imposing tough new arms inspections on Iraq and precise, unambiguous definitions of what constitutes a "material breach" of the resolution. Should Iraq violate the resolution, it faces "serious consequences," which the Security Council would then determine.
Iraq claims to have no WMD's. Bush begins sending troops to the middle east.
2003 UN inspectors find undeclared WMD"s in Iraq.
Head inspector Hans Blix states that Iraq is refusing to give up WMD's.
Bush declares that US will invade Iraq without a UN mandate.
Hans Blix states that Iraq is not fully cooperating
People supportive of Saddam stage "peace" demonstrations around the world.
Iraq discovered to have illegal missiles.
US, Britain and Spain note Iraq has refused to give up WMD's and submit proposal to use force. Pro Saddam government in France attempts to block resolution.
Fearing a US military invasion Saddam orders destruction of the illegal Al Samoud missiles.
March 17, 2003 Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to step down from power and leave Iraq or the US will invade.
March 19, 2003 The United States declares war on Iraq.
March 20, the war begins with US led air strikes on targets in Iraq. Terrorists rally to Saddam's cause.

That's all well and good, but I don't think Bush and company explained that our troops would be required there for 15, 25 maybe even 50 years there before we started the war.

They also never suggested we'd be in and out in 1 year or less. I fail to see how the lengh of our deployment would effect a decision based on, what at the time was seen as indisputable evidence to a threat of our security.

Would you not invade a foe you belived ready to nuke you, even though you know your victory was assured, simply because deployment would last for many years ?

Acutally I can't.. sorry for that. Its something you'll learn in comparative politics. 90% of course was an exaduration, but on a whole you'll find most major constitutions throughout Europe, South america and Asia have by and large been based on the United States Constitution (it being the first established and successful).

And yes, it seems I did mispell witty, but then I never really cared about my spelling on internet forums anyway! My ability to spell in no way impacts the validity of the information I'm putting out. Anything beyond this is an assumption on your part, and we all know what assumptions do.

Well, judging by Europe...i don't think so. The Scandinavian countries have their own tradition of democracy - dating back pre the British Parliamentary model (oh, by the way, the first established democracy in the modern sense was probably the Althing of Iceland, way back at the beginning of the second millennium, so you are a bit out there. Then you have the British model, to boot. Neither of those were perfect, but then neither was the original American democracy, slavery anyone?). The Benelux countries - Holland, Belgium etc - are more akin to the British model. France has similarities to America and differences. And so on...

Similarly, the ex-British empire states with democracy tend to have a more British style government - parliamentary, leaders of parties being Prime Minister etc - than they do American style. Ex French states may have constitutions similar to the American, but they were based on the French model, not the American.

I could go on...

Spelling is important. I'm sorry, i don't buy the concept that if you chose to come onto a forum where the method of communication is primarily through that of the written word, you don't then show respect for said item. Just me.

They also never suggested we'd be in and out in 1 year or less. I fail to see how the lengh of our deployment would effect a decision based on, what at the time was seen as indisputable evidence to a threat of our security.

Would you not invade a foe you belived ready to nuke you, even though you know your victory was assured, simply because deployment would last for many years ?

The fact that the evidence the Governments of both the UK and the USA provided regarding the WMDs was manufactured, and known to be manufactured by the very people who used it slightly deflates your second paragraph, i feel.

Here's how I see it for everyone who supports UN backing.

After Saddam was pushed out of Kuwait in 1990 the UN passed sixteen resolutions on Iraq. The fact that we were still debating if he had WMDs in 2002 shows their complete and utter failure as a world organization. Obviously we were wrong about the WMDs, but the fact that we uncovered the UN oil for food scandal is well worth it. It shows how corrupt this body is, and how it should not even be legitimate. There's even countries that get to participate in the "World Democracy" but don't even hold democratic elections in their own countries.

If you think Bush lied about the WMDs, you're full of it. It was an intelligence failure. He acted correctly the way I see it. Saddam played game with inspectors for 12 years, Bill Clinton said he had WMDs, the French said it, the British said it, the Russians said it, hell even the UN believed he still did. Bush decided he wasn't going to wait on the UN to pass another SIXTEEN resolutions while Saddam played games. We were right, simple enough. I hate when people say he didnt have WMDs. He didnt when we got there, but he did have them at one point. Trust me I've seen the pics of the Kurds that got mustard gas dropped on them.

http://www.kdp.pp.se/bad0080.jpg
http://www.kdp.pp.se/1.jpg
http://www.kdp.pp.se/1.jpg

Nope, no WMDs here...


http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

even though you know your victory was assured,
This is the problem--Just as any sports team can beat any other team on a given day---Any time you start a war, there is no asurance that you will win.---The problem is--The winner does not say when a war is over, The loser says when a war is over---You can win a war without ever winning a battle. In Vietnam, the allies did NOT LOSE one major battle.---Winning is not being the most powerful. Winning is being the last one to quit.

They also never suggested we'd be in and out in 1 year or less. I fail to see how the lengh of our deployment would effect a decision based on, what at the time was seen as indisputable evidence to a threat of our security.

Would you not invade a foe you belived ready to nuke you, even though you know your victory was assured, simply because deployment would last for many years ?

The length of deployment effects the decision because as long as we're tied up there we can't do jack with N. Korea (another counrty we believe ready to nuke us) except huff and puff at them. The question of deployment is important because of the type of War being fought; will we be able to win this war? The longer we are there for the more propaganda is being generated by our enemies and the more likely another country ready to nuke us (Iran maybe) will do so. I have not seen (for obvious reasons) the hard evidence used in making decisions on the existance of WMDs. However, considering how the admistration treated dissidents, for example the whole Valerie Plame incident, it appears they were spun for all they were worth. In addition, going to war because of Inteligence that appeared turned out to be faulty would not be a reason to give the CIA Director the Medal of Freedom, but that is what happened.

The length of deployment effects the decision because as long as we're tied up there we can't do jack with N. Korea (another counrty we believe ready to nuke us) except huff and puff at them. The question of deployment is important because of the type of War being fought; will we be able to win this war? The longer we are there for the more propaganda is being generated by our enemies and the more likely another country ready to nuke us (Iran maybe) will do so. I have not seen (for obvious reasons) the hard evidence used in making decisions on the existance of WMDs. However, considering how the admistration treated dissidents, for example the whole Valerie Plame incident, it appears they were spun for all they were worth. In addition, going to war because of Inteligence that appeared turned out to be faulty would not be a reason to give the CIA Director the Medal of Freedom, but that is what happened.

North Korea ? all we have in IRaq are ground troops.. Do you honestly think a ground invasion of North korea is fesible ? Never mind the fact that Soul would be buried under a thousand artilery shells before our men reach their beaches. They have a ground force one million strong. Far larger then our military force.

And would not propaganda exist without Iraq ? if not there, then it would be for our support for Israel, It has been reason enough all these years to oppose us, reason enough to cause 9/11. If anything, Iraq is a once and a life time opprotunity to show the muslim world that the West can do good for them. If in 5, 10 years Iraq is triving, every american life lost would have been worth it ten times over! If not, we would be no better off then we were right before 9/11. Dont be caught up in the here and now, think beyond the box as they say.

if not there, then it would be for our support for Israel, It has been reason enough all these years to oppose us, reason enough to cause 9/11.

Considering they have a legitimate elected government in the middle of a bunch of suppressive regimes, I think we should support them.

I know more about it then the Bush minions and Fox "news" watchers as they swallow whole all the bullshit propaganda being fed to them by the Bush administration. That's for freaking sure!


Oh and do you happen to know who wrote the wikipedia entires? Probably not. It's not like it's a REAL encyclopedia you do know that right? Anyone can write anything they like.
Wikipedia articles are peer reviewed for accuracy. So it is false to assume that you can just put up anything.

"Pro Saddam government in France attempts to block resolution."

"Saddam is the satan incarnate"

Well, seems like again, whittier has shown he is incapable of real argument.

Anyways, everyone talking abouit saddam's killings, etc, need to realize that his rule had different stages. Since the gulf war, he had killed from 60,000 to 100,000. Thats over 13 years, which means about 7,962 people killed a year since the gulf war. The lowest estimates in the gulf war, on the other hand, are 24-26,000. Yet, the lowest us estimates would say about 9,600 dead a year. And again, thats the lowest estimates, and doesnt count how many we are injuring in excess(If saddam wanted someone dead, he killed them).

Not only this, but all the bombings, etc in iraq are making the economy, infrastructure, etc ruined. So anyone saying its better in iraq, its not. Will it get better? Maybe, but at the cost of american lives and dollars. Something I'm not willing to give.

Considering they have a legitimate elected government in the middle of a bunch of suppressive regimes, I think we should support them.

whether it be right that we support them or not isn't even an issue.. but rather, that our support for them was a cheif cause of 9/11. That this up until now was reason enough for those uneducated muslims to be consumed by propaganda and brainwashed to hate America. I scarely see how being in Iraq makes such a dramatic change (other the the opprotunity it presents us with to reverse this trend)

"Pro Saddam government in France attempts to block resolution."

"Saddam is the satan incarnate"

Well, seems like again, whittier has shown he is incapable of real argument.

Anyways, everyone talking abouit saddam's killings, etc, need to realize that his rule had different stages. Since the gulf war, he had killed from 60,000 to 100,000. Thats over 13 years, which means about 7,962 people killed a year since the gulf war. The lowest estimates in the gulf war, on the other hand, are 24-26,000. Yet, the lowest us estimates would say about 9,600 dead a year. And again, thats the lowest estimates, and doesnt count how many we are injuring in excess(If saddam wanted someone dead, he killed them).

Not only this, but all the bombings, etc in iraq are making the economy, infrastructure, etc ruined. So anyone saying its better in iraq, its not. Will it get better? Maybe, but at the cost of american lives and dollars. Something I'm not willing to give.

Is your freedom worth more then theirs ? It is in the nature of America to fight for other peoples freedoms when they cannot fight themselves. From World War 2, Korea, Bosnia... You cannot claim to be humanitarian, if your not willing to fight for the freedoms you say ALL should have

whether it be right that we support them or not isn't even an issue.. but rather, that our support for them was a cheif cause of 9/11. That this up until now was reason enough for those uneducated muslims to be consumed by propaganda and brainwashed to hate America. I scarely see how being in Iraq makes such a dramatic change (other the the opprotunity it presents us with to reverse this trend)

This is true, they are brainwashed to hate Israel and America. I just hate seeing people say that we're the cause of this, because then you're excusing the terrorists for what they do, and thats just wrong.

Iraq is our chance to show the Muslim world what benefits democracy can bring.

North Korea ? all we have in IRaq are ground troops.. Do you honestly think a ground invasion of North korea is fesible ? Never mind the fact that Soul would be buried under a thousand artilery shells before our men reach their beaches. They have a ground force one million strong. Far larger then our military force.

WE have many bombers and support aircraft in the Gulf. What do you think we should do with North Korea a country with nuclear weapons and a dictator who would like nothing better than to see a mushroom cloud over LA, or NY or DC

And would not propaganda exist without Iraq ? if not there, then it would be for our support for Israel, It has been reason enough all these years to oppose us, reason enough to cause 9/11. If anything, Iraq is a once and a life time opprotunity to show the muslim world that the West can do good for them. If in 5, 10 years Iraq is triving, every american life lost would have been worth it ten times over! If not, we would be no better off then we were right before 9/11. Dont be caught up in the here and now, think beyond the box as they say.

Absolutely propaganda would exists. IF we managed to fix Iraq in 5-10 years, everything would be worth it and I would happily eat crow. However, the way things are going this does not look like it will happen. In addition, we should have used Aghanistan as our example instead of leaving that to go to seed and moving to Iraq. In addition, because of Iraq, the next 9-11 type attach might be a mushroom cloud not an airplane. there is a big difference between 3 thousand and 3 million dead.

WE have many bombers and support aircraft in the Gulf. What do you think we should do with North Korea a country with nuclear weapons and a dictator who would like nothing better than to see a mushroom cloud over LA, or NY or DC



Absolutely propaganda would exists. IF we managed to fix Iraq in 5-10 years, everything would be worth it and I would happily eat crow. However, the way things are going this does not look like it will happen. In addition, we should have used Aghanistan as our example instead of leaving that to go to seed and moving to Iraq. In addition, because of Iraq, the next 9-11 type attach might be a mushroom cloud not an airplane. there is a big difference between 3 thousand and 3 million dead.

Afghanistan is not in the middle east. It was not just muslims that Iraq is set to serve as an example for. The target audience is arabs.

Afghanistan is not in the middle east. It was not just muslims that Iraq is set to serve as an example for. The target audience is arabs.

I believe Afghanistan is considered the middle east. Besides can't Afghanistan be an example for the whole world? And what example are we setting letting that budding democracy go to seed and the coutryside revert to armed mob rule to go off and topple another country?

Afghanistan is not in the middle east. It was not just muslims that Iraq is set to serve as an example for. The target audience is arabs.

I belive I had this discussion with someone else on this forum... What makes you think Afghanistan is not in the middle east ? The middle east is an undefined region of Asia made up only of the similarities and trends which those nations so share.... given this, Afgahistan, with its proximity to nations like Iran etc... in fact often in political sceince is included in the Middle East..

http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/me.htm

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middleeast_ref802640_99.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east.html&h=1854&w=1552&sz=329&tbnid=7HtJgRSsjdcJ:&tbnh=149&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmap%2Bmiddle%2Beast%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D&oi=imagesr&start=2

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Maps/Maps/MEast.htm

http://www.mideastweb.org/maps.htm


and so on...

2003 UN inspectors find undeclared WMD"s in Iraq.
Head inspector Hans Blix states that Iraq is refusing to give up WMD's.
Bush declares that US will invade Iraq without a UN mandate.
Hans Blix states that Iraq is not fully cooperating
People supportive of Saddam stage "peace" demonstrations around the world.
Iraq discovered to have illegal missiles.
US, Britain and Spain note Iraq has refused to give up WMD's and submit proposal to use force. Pro Saddam government in France attempts to block resolution.

You *really* should check your facts. "Pro Saddam government in France"? You're funny.

Hans Blix states that Iraq is refusing to give up WMDs? Hell, where do you get these "facts"?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/feb/14iraq1.htm
http://english.people.com.cn/200309/17/eng20030917_124443.shtml

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.

Speaking to the BBC's World Service, Mr Blix said he was more certain than ever that there was no WMD in Iraq.

"I doubt that he will reveal any WMD, because I think both we UN inspectors and the American inspectors have been looking around and come to the conclusion that there aren't any," Mr Blix said.

"Another matter and one of great significance is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction," Blix said.

While acknowledging that many governmental intelligence agencies are convinced that proscribed weapons, items and programmes exist in Iraq, Blix said the inspectors have to rely on hard evidence.

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix now believes Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago and that intelligence agencies were wrong in their weapons assessment that led to war.

Do you need more that this?

Is your freedom worth more then theirs ? It is in the nature of America to fight for other peoples freedoms when they cannot fight themselves. From World War 2, Korea, Bosnia... You cannot claim to be humanitarian, if your not willing to fight for the freedoms you say ALL should have

A. My freedom, and american freedom, is worth more to me. Just as Iraqi freedom should be worth more to iraq.

B. It is not in america's nature. WW2 was a war we were forced into. Korea was a war that had nothing to do with freedom. Bosnia, well, the 1990's have brought governments to be forced to things about genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. Regardless, for every dictator we have taken out, we have put in/supported multiple more.

C. Did I ever call myself humanitarian? I'm not. I'm an American. We should be striving to make ourselves better, not others.

D. I don't think there are any freedoms anyone should have. They are a nice thing, but not a nessecity, or a basic right.

A. My freedom, and american freedom, is worth more to me. Just as Iraqi freedom should be worth more to iraq.

B. It is not in america's nature. WW2 was a war we were forced into. Korea was a war that had nothing to do with freedom. Bosnia, well, the 1990's have brought governments to be forced to things about genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc. Regardless, for every dictator we have taken out, we have put in/supported multiple more.

C. Did I ever call myself humanitarian? I'm not. I'm an American. We should be striving to make ourselves better, not others.

D. I don't think there are any freedoms anyone should have. They are a nice thing, but not a nessecity, or a basic right.

If we were forced into WW2.. why did we advance on Europe before the more immentant threat of Japan ?

If Korea was not about freedom and democracy... what was it about ?

Why do we have to worry about genocide in Bosnia or Rwanda or Sudan for that matter ? if we dont care about these type of people and their human rights ?... These nations have nothing of importance to us..

The only thing I think: Iraq should be a state of the USA. I think Puerto Rico should also be a state...

If we were forced into WW2.. why did we advance on Europe before the more immentant threat of Japan ?

If Korea was not about freedom and democracy... what was it about ?

Why do we have to worry about genocide in Bosnia or Rwanda or Sudan for that matter ? if we dont care about these type of people and their human rights ?... These nations have nothing of importance to us..
Glad someone admitted we didn't go to Bushnam because Saddam was the worst, we went because he had "other things" "important to us".

If you check, you will find Germany preemptively declared war on the US the next day after Pearl Harbor. We didn't declare war on them preemptively. And we advanced on both fronts at the same time. We just happened to end Europe first.

Korea was to stop "communism". We did not leave S. Korea with a democratic government. They had a dictatorship for many years after the war. Can't remember when it changed but it was long after the war ended.

Glad someone admitted we didn't go to Bushnam because Saddam was the worst, we went because he had "other things" "important to us".

If you check, you will find Germany preemptively declared war on the US the next day after Pearl Harbor. We didn't declare war on them preemptively. And we advanced on both fronts at the same time. We just happened to end Europe first.

Korea was to stop "communism". We did not leave S. Korea with a democratic government. They had a dictatorship for many years after the war. Can't remember when it changed but it was long after the war ended.
86 or 88 somewhere around that time period.

I think you all got the wrong idea here. WHat I meant with this post was whether the US should stay in Iraq, not why the US went there.

I dont think its possible to make a thread remotely connected to Iraq without going into this discussion.

Meh, It's an unwritten rule of NS.

I think you all got the wrong idea here. WHat I meant with this post was whether the US should stay in Iraq, not why the US went there.
OK, we have four options:
1. Get out now. This would cause the whole thing to collapse. There would be a civil war. A strong man from one of the major parties would take over. A new Saddam would be born. The US would lose respect and more important oil. The new dictator would clean any other powers out of Bushnam. He would also realize that atomic power keeeps the West at bay. "Insurgents", now well trained, would spread out over the world.

2. Fight to win. There are two ways to win a guerilla war. A. Put in enough force that you can take the land one foot at a time and never retreat from what you've taken. Those areas that are held must have enough force to make sure they remain secure. Does the US have enough soldiers to do this? B. The second way is what Saddam did and what every successful war against a guerrilla force has done. Kill the support that houses and feeds the fighters. ie. Kill the women, children and old that keep them going. Anyone that gives aid and comfort to a fighter is the enemy and is killed. Does the US have the stomach for this?

3. Set interm goals that say X number of allies are pulled out when we reach this goal, that many more when we reach the next goal, etc. Such as: We pull out one allied soldier for every X number of Bushnam soldiers trained. If they want to fight they will. If they don't want to fight (as in Vietnam)---see option #1.

4. Stay forever or at least until the oil runs out. Death by a thousand cuts. Economic cost that will break the US as Afganistan broke the Soviets. Note: The winner doesn't say when a war is over, the loser says when a war is over. Note the culture of the area: USSR died this way in Afganistan; Palistinians continue to fight after almost 60 years; For 2000 years the Jews said "Next year in Jerusalem". Note: in American culture a year is forever. Who do you think will admit to losing first??