NationStates Jolt Archive

I posted the following in response to another thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9999269&postcount=17

Maybe it's because the choice we were offered by the left for president is a guy who demonstrated in a way that demoralized our troops and supported our enemies in Nam. Also take into account that Bush has turned a recession inherited from the Clinton (Democratic) presidency into a growing economy, went to war in Iraq based on faulty intel from almost every "ally" government in the world, and turned the lemons into lemonaide by committing and sacrificing to enable Iraq to build a people's choice democracy, that he has been accused of being a stupid ignorant "cowboy" while on the other hand whining "he lied to me and fooled me" (OK, if he is so stupid was does that say about you that he tricked you?), who has managed to juggle the 9/11 attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the hurricane Katrina damage as well as leading the country in support and recovery aid to the tsunami and Kashmir quake victims, sponsoring fair and legal elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention leading the push for a constituion in in Iraq molded by 3 headstrong Muslim factions and acceptable for ratification by over 2/3 of the Iraqi people , some kind of peace in the Irsaeli/Palestine conflict so that children can some day hope to walk around without fear of being blown into hamburger, to just generally make the world aware of the the growing hostility with the radical Muslim factions and to take the first steps necessary to end their reign of terror. Come on...Clinton couldn't even manage to keep his cum off a chippy's dress and Gore foams at the mouth every time he gives a speech. Instead of focusing on the things that have gone wrong, try looking at the all that has gone right. Do this...go talk to an Iraq vet if you really want to know the truth. Then you will find out why the media says we are losing in Iraq but the re-enlistment numbers are over 80% and our vets are excited telling stories of all the good that is going on over there. Ask our troops who are living and dying overseas why they voted for Bush by over 80%. Turn off your TVs and go talk to a vet if you really want to know what is going on. Instead of listening to the likes of Sheehan, Michael Moore, Streisand, and Ted Kennedy why don't you listen to the message and legacy of Sheehan's son? What makes the mother's message of grief so much more viable than the committment and actions of her son who died for his beliefs? Why don't you listen to the vets who have been rebuilding schools, and Mosques, and lending support to the Iraqi people who are reshaping a government that represents all the people, who have worked to bring specialized medical care that wasn't available under Saddam, who have put their life on the line to help other people achieve the same rights we all take for granted, who have taught American sports such as football to Iraqi children so that they are not cowered like cattle for slaughter but have the self confidence to know that they can change the course of their lives through action...ask the over 80% of Iraq and Afghanistan troops who voted for Bush and rejected the principals of the liberal left. Then, after you have talked to our sons and daughters serving overseas, I think you will be able to answer your own question. No matter the social correctness of your rhetoric, sometimes you have to back your words with action. The "right" is just frustrated with the liberal agenda of "If I don't recognize it, it doesn't exist." Just as I prompted during the 04 elections, I ask that you do the same now. Go talk to our vets, our military, our people who know what is really going on. Otherwise, you're a political drone.

I posted the preceeding in response to another thread. I pose the following question to you. What do you know and how do you know it that negates the opinions, beliefs, and determination of the troops on the ground in Iraq? Keep in mind that that the Phillipines pulled their troops out of the coalition in Iraq and had to endure the public protest of those troops. What insight and information makes you more knowledgeable of the situation there, sitting in front of your TV and posting media opinions on the internet, than the men and women who are there and giving their all, voted overwhelmingly for Bush and have over an 80% reinlistment rate?

I posted the following in response to another thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9999269&postcount=17



I posted the preceeding in response to another thread. I pose the following question to you. What do you know and how do you know it that negates the opinions, beliefs, and determination of the troops on the ground in Iraq? Keep in mind that that the Phillipines pulled their troops out of the coalition in Iraq and had to endure the public protest of those troops. What insight and information makes you more knowledgeable of the situation there, sitting in front of your TV and posting media opinions on the internet, than the men and women who are there and giving their all, voted overwhelmingly for Bush and have over an 80% reinlistment rate?

Why are they the only ones whose opinions matter?

They have more limited access to objective information and more inundation with propoganda than we do.

Also, where do you get your numbers about the voting of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? How could you possible know that?

EDIT: Your fallacious appeals to authority and to popularity are also noted.

I only needed to read the first sentence of what you "posted in another thread" before knowing where this thread was going quick, fast, and in a hurry.

I only needed to read the first sentence of what you "posted in another thread" before knowing where this thread was going quick, fast, and in a hurry.

Exactly

I posted the following in response to another thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9999269&postcount=17



I posted the preceeding in response to another thread. I pose the following question to you. What do you know and how do you know it that negates the opinions, beliefs, and determination of the troops on the ground in Iraq? Keep in mind that that the Phillipines pulled their troops out of the coalition in Iraq and had to endure the public protest of those troops.
This is a democracy. One opinion/belief/determination does not "negate" another. I have my opinion, you have yours, and the two are not mutually exclusive. Ideally popular opinion determines policy, and right now that opinion is that the war was a mistake and we should get out.


What insight and information makes you more knowledgeable of the situation there, sitting in front of your TV and posting media opinions on the internet, than the men and women who are there and giving their all, voted overwhelmingly for Bush and have over an 80% reinlistment rate?
First explain to me how giving it your all, voting for Bush, and having an 80% re-enlistment rate makes one knowledgeable. Does doing those things magically impart knowledge to people? Do I have to witness the explosions and smell the dead corpses, then vote GOP in the next election to have knowledgeable opinions on these things?

Why are they the only ones whose opinions matter?

They have more limited access to objective information and more inundation with propoganda than we do.

Also, where do you get your numbers about the voting of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? How could you possible know that?

What limited access and exposure to propoganda could you be referring to? They do not have daily access 24/7 to our to our partisan bickering. They could care less. They are in the midst of doing what they have to do to survive while assisting a cause they believe in.

How could I know the stats on our deployed troops in the last election? Hells bells, it is common knowledge and the theory expressed in some of the threads on here that the troops were forced to vote pro-Bush. Conversely, I haven't seen any debates on pressure to force our troops to re-up for Iraq duty.

Not to put too fine a hair on it, but we just got a tornado warning alert on our cable tv service. Excuse me while I stick my head between my legs, and I'll get back to you ASAP.

What limited access and exposure to propoganda could you be referring to? They do not have daily access 24/7 to our to our partisan bickering. They could care less. They are in the midst of doing what they have to do to survive while assisting a cause they believe in.

How could I know the stats on our deployed troops in the last election? Hells bells, it is common knowledge and the theory expressed in some of the threads on here that the troops were forced to vote pro-Bush. Conversely, I haven't seen any debates on pressure to force our troops to re-up for Iraq duty.

Not to put too fine a hair on it, but we just got a tornado warning alert on our cable tv service. Excuse me while I stick my head between my legs, and I'll get back to you ASAP.

1. You admit the troops have no perspective on the consequences of their actions. Thus they are not the best judge of those actions.

2. "Common knowledge" is a euphemism for "I don't know."

There are a few serious questions about Iraq that need to be answered. I don't think the troops on the ground/air are in the best position to do the answering. They surely know if they are being successful in accomplishing the missions that they are assigned, but I doubt that the battalion level or lower troops know what kind of strategic importance is placed on their missions.

I'd like to see some answers to the following questions come from the Administration or from the Department of Defense.

1. What does "winning" in Iraq mean?

2. When will Iraqis be able to defend their own turf?

3. Why do we still have troops in stable areas?

4. Who will do the long term peacekeeping that will be needed to keep Iraq from dissolving into a number of states after a civil war?

1. You admit the troops have no perspective on the consequences of their actions. Thus they are not the best judge of those actions.

2. "Common knowledge" is a euphemism for "I don't know."

In all fairness we all know Zooke lives in Little Rock and if you have any access to weather information you know she's apt to be blown away to Kansas right now. I'll answer your questions. The troops have no perspective other than being there and seeing what their efforts have enabled. They don't give a shit about international political pundit's negative reports. They know what they see. They see a people struggling to create a government fair to all and they are willing to put their lives on the line to help them do that. The consequences to their actions if they are sucessful is one more country in the middeast where the citizens rule and are not devoted to obliterating the western world culture. Common knowledge does not = I don't know. If Jolt's search function worked you would eat that remark. I remember the post-election threads? Why don't you?

What, no defence of your position? Or are you only willing to argue with someone who has to shut down due to bad weather? Zooke is right. Put up or shut up. Defend your opinions as opoosed to the men and women who are in Iraq.

This is a troll thread to begin with, everyone take ten steps back and stop tossing the troll food.

There are a few serious questions about Iraq that need to be answered. I don't think the troops on the ground/air are in the best position to do the answering. They surely know if they are being successful in accomplishing the missions that they are assigned, but I doubt that the battalion level or lower troops know what kind of strategic importance is placed on their missions.

I'd like to see some answers to the following questions come from the Administration or from the Department of Defense.

1. What does "winning" in Iraq mean?

2. When will Iraqis be able to defend their own turf?

3. Why do we still have troops in stable areas?

4. Who will do the long term peacekeeping that will be needed to keep Iraq from dissolving into a number of states after a civil war?

Easy. Winning in Iraq means we support the Iraqi troops in maintaining peace in stable areas, help them gain peace in unstable areas, and pull out when they can do it by themselves. If you have a crystal ball then we will all know when the Iraqis will reach this point. this isn't about "after a civil war" but "instead of a civil war". If we turn tail now a civil war is guaranteed and with the influence of Syria and Iran it is guaranteed we won't like the outcome. If you doubt that Iraq can become a democracy then look at Afghanistan's progress. It's far from perfect but its a damn site better than it was.

This is a troll thread to begin with, everyone take ten steps back and stop tossing the troll food.

While I do take offence at Zooke being called a troll, this thread most certainly is.

What, no defence of your position? Or are you only willing to argue with someone who has to shut down due to bad weather? Zooke is right. Put up or shut up. Defend your opinions as opoosed to the men and women who are in Iraq.

Put up the proof about the views of those in Iraq first. Calling it "common knowledge" is just avoiding the question.

My head hurts from all the speculation in this thread. :headbang:

This is a troll thread to begin with, everyone take ten steps back and stop tossing the troll food.
Coming from you, I find this to be hilarious. If we followed your advice, you’d starve.
I posted the preceeding in response to another thread. I pose the following question to you. What do you know and how do you know it that negates the opinions, beliefs, and determination of the troops on the ground in Iraq? Keep in mind that that the Phillipines pulled their troops out of the coalition in Iraq and had to endure the public protest of those troops. What insight and information makes you more knowledgeable of the situation there, sitting in front of your TV and posting media opinions on the internet, than the men and women who are there and giving their all, voted overwhelmingly for Bush and have over an 80% reinlistment rate?
I can assure you that I am far better informed than any man or women willing to throw their lives away for barbarians abroad and politicians at home. I live in Texas and have known many people who have enlisted. They don’t tend to be very bright and a few are downright pitiful examples of humanity. There are, of course, exceptions, but they are few and far between.

While I do take offence at Zooke being called a troll, this thread most certainly is.

I agree with you. Zooke always seems to call them as she sees them and asks questions that makes others really look at their opinions in order to defend them. I dont see this as a troll thread. She seems to be asking people to provide proof that they know more than the troops servng in Iraq.

Does anyone know where Zooke lives in Arkansas? I just saw a thing on the weather channel where Garland County is under a tornado warning.

I agree with you. Zooke always seems to call them as she sees them and asks questions that makes others really look at their opinions in order to defend them. I dont see this as a troll thread. She seems to be asking people to provide proof that they know more than the troops servng in Iraq.

While at the same time having no idea herself what the troops think, or why their opinion matters more than that of others. It's a very "rah, rah, trash Clinton and the left a bit with punditry soundbites, the troops are better than us, how dare you question the opinion I have projected on them" trollish thread.

While at the same time having no idea herself what the troops think, or why their opinion matters more than that of others. It's a very "rah, rah, trash Clinton and the left a bit with punditry soundbites, the troops are better than us, how dare you question the opinion I have projected on them" trollish thread.
As opposed to your "I have no proof of anything myself, so I'll just make accusations and trash everyone elses posts" trollish posts? Your a pitiful person.

As opposed to your "I have no proof of anything myself, so I'll just make accusations and trash everyone elses posts" trollish posts? Your a pitiful person.

Nice flame. Care to cut it out and address the topic?

While at the same time having no idea herself what the troops think, or why their opinion matters more than that of others. It's a very "rah, rah, trash Clinton and the left a bit with punditry soundbites, the troops are better than us, how dare you question the opinion I have projected on them" trollish thread.

Haven't I read that she lives in a town that houses a military post of some kind and that most of her neighbors are military? Seems to me like she would know something about whats up.

As opposed to your "I have no proof of anything myself, so I'll just make accusations and trash everyone elses posts" trollish posts? Your a pitiful person.

Fass and Zooke seem to get along ok so you're out of line here.

Haven't I read that she lives in a town that houses a military post of some kind and that most of her neighbors are military? Seems to me like she would know something about whats up.

It does make you wonder, though... how does someone justify the assertion that a group of people who are being held in a form of confinement, with no access to the regular avenues of information, and only subjective information supplied as the powers-that-be see fit.... going to be 'better acquainted' with what is 'going on' than any other person?

Does logic not imply the contrary?

Haven't I read that she lives in a town that houses a military post of some kind and that most of her neighbors are military? Seems to me like she would know something about whats up.

Meh. I live in San Diego, near Miramar Air Force Base. Most of my neighbors are military.

Does that mean I know more or less than Zooke about "what the troops think'?

No one has yet provided any evidence of the troops' opinions, voting records, etc, that are the premise of Zooke's argument.

No one has responded to the problem of the troops' lack of perspective.

Meh. I live in San Diego, near Miramar Air Force Base. Most of my neighbors are military.

Does that mean I know more or less than Zooke about "what the troops think'?

No one has yet provided any evidence of the troops' opinions, voting records, etc, that are the premise of Zooke's argument.

No one has responded to the problem of the troops' lack of perspective.

I don't know and she seems to be more conerned with the weather. Guess we'll have to wait for her to get back. Seems to me that the troops would know better how the wind blows over there since they live there.

Nice flame. Care to cut it out and address the topic?
Sure. She makes excellent points. I would trust the word of people who are in Iraq, have talked to Iraqi troops and citizens, and are the ones building the schools and sewage and water systems over some shmuck politician anyday.

The troops are seeing it first hand. They know whether or not the majority of Iraqis think we are full of good intentions or whether we are slaughtering civilians for oil.

My sister was a U.S. Marine (1st FSSG) and was in Bahgdad 2 years ago. She DID have thousands of Iraqis lining the streets waving and smiling and throwing a few flowers too! They did treat us as liberators, not occupiers. The only difference between then and now is the amount of suicide bombers who have blownthemselves up in crowds of innocent Iraqis.

Who do I trust? Troops who have no other agenda other than doing their jobs and coming home or a bunch of coniving greedy politicians? (on BOTH sides)

I trust the troops. And I trust my sister. So Zooke, in my opinion, made a great post. And then all the people with nothing constructive to post all started calling her a troll. And that makes THEM the trolls. And I hate trolls. So I am not polite to them.

How's that?

Fass and Zooke seem to get along ok so you're out of line here.
Why am I out of line?
Fass accused Zooke of making a rah rah bash Clinton thread.
Fass bashed the thread without giving any proof of anything.
Fass is (in my opinion) a pitiful person.

All facts, as far as I see.

Haven't I read that she lives in a town that houses a military post of some kind and that most of her neighbors are military? Seems to me like she would know something about whats up.

That still doesn't get you away from the anecdotal nature of it. What she says can only be taken as a representation of the people she's spoken to, and they are bound for several reasons not to be representative.

Fass and Zooke seem to get along ok so you're out of line here.

Me and Zooke are pals and this won't change because I found a post of her trollish - she tells me the same thing from time to time. We respect each other, and really can tell the difference between comments about posts and the person who made them. Not like this person who seems to think flaming and personal attacks will get him somewhere in a discussion. As it is a demonstrated pattern in him to indulge in such puerility, just ignore him.

Maybe it's because the choice we were offered by the left for president is a guy who demonstrated in a way that demoralized our troops and supported our enemies in Nam.
I didn't know that saving their lives was 'demoralizing our troops'. Evidently you would still have them there getting shot at?

Also take into account that Bush has turned a recession inherited from the Clinton (Democratic) presidency into a growing economy,

Errm...do you have any statistics to back up this claim? Let's see: a $200 billion annual surplus goes in five years to a $500 billion dollar deficet, I wouldn't call that exactly turning the U.S. into a growing economy. And what's all this about the recession inherited from Clinton? Clue us in please, I don't seem to remember one.

went to war in Iraq based on faulty intel from almost every "ally" government in the world,

So now it's France's fault? Whoops, never mind, they didn't like the war to start with. Maybe Germany then. Drat! Hmm...Spain? Nope. That basically leaves Great Britan. While they might have owned the world 100 years ago, that doesn't make them the world. Either they did it, we did it, or we both did it; make up your mind.

who has managed to juggle the 9/11 attacks, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the hurricane Katrina damage as well as leading the country in support and recovery aid to the tsunami and Kashmir quake victims

Okay I'll just go down the list here.
- The 9/11 Attacks: I wasn't aware that sitting in a school room for eleven minutes after receiving the news was 'juggling the 9/11 attacks'. Seems to me he didn't even care until an adviser told him he could get a nice photo op in NY.
- The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: I wonder how those got started?
- Recovery aid to the tsunami and Kashmir quake victims: Now this one is just ridiculous. Almost 100,000 people were killed in the quakes and many more left homeless, so we gave them what? Fifty million dollars! We spend more every day blowing up houses in Iraq, why do we need to be building them over in Kashmir? (sarcasm intended)

some kind of peace in the Irsaeli/Palestine conflict so that children can some day hope to walk around without fear of being blown into hamburger, to just generally make the world aware of the the growing hostility with the radical Muslim factions and to take the first steps necessary to end their reign of terror.

With what, his 'Roadmap for Peace'? Oh yeah, that worked. Maybe give some credit to Israel on this one for taking a step towards peace on their own, even though the early pullout was not required under the roadmap and ignoring the fact that the Palestinians still have failed to uphold their side of the bargain. The only contribution that Bush has made to the region is a stylish steel fence, and that one certainly isn't promoting peace.

Come on...Clinton couldn't even manage to keep his cum off a chippy's dress and Gore foams at the mouth every time he gives a speech. Instead of focusing on the things that have gone wrong, try looking at the all that has gone right. Do this...go talk to an Iraq vet if you really want to know the truth. Then you will find out why the media says we are losing in Iraq but the re-enlistment numbers are over 80% and our vets are excited telling stories of all the good that is going on over there. Ask our troops who are living and dying overseas why they voted for Bush by over 80%. Turn off your TVs and go talk to a vet if you really want to know what is going on. Instead of listening to the likes of Sheehan, Michael Moore, Streisand, and Ted Kennedy why don't you listen to the message and legacy of Sheehan's son? What makes the mother's message of grief so much more viable than the committment and actions of her son who died for his beliefs? Why don't you listen to the vets who have been rebuilding schools, and Mosques, and lending support to the Iraqi people who are reshaping a government that represents all the people, who have worked to bring specialized medical care that wasn't available under Saddam, who have put their life on the line to help other people achieve the same rights we all take for granted, who have taught American sports such as football to Iraqi children so that they are not cowered like cattle for slaughter but have the self confidence to know that they can change the course of their lives through action...ask the over 80% of Iraq and Afghanistan troops who voted for Bush and rejected the principals of the liberal left. Then, after you have talked to our sons and daughters serving overseas, I think you will be able to answer your own question. No matter the social correctness of your rhetoric, sometimes you have to back your words with action. The "right" is just frustrated with the liberal agenda of "If I don't recognize it, it doesn't exist." Just as I prompted during the 04 elections, I ask that you do the same now. Go talk to our vets, our military, our people who know what is really going on. Otherwise, you're a political drone.
I didn't know our vets were the only ones who get a vote in this country. After espousing such pleasure about the democratic elections in Iraq and Afghanistan, one would think that the same standard would be necessary at home, no? Oh wait, you mean you actually want liberals to get a vote?

Besides, if vets are the only ones who get a say in military matters, where does that put Bush? While he was busy drinking martinis in Texas, John Kerry got three purple hearts. Using this same standard, I believe our president has no room to talk on the issue.

I do agree with one thing though; let's weigh the President on what he has done. I'll make a small checklist.

- The economy: Despite claims of a 'recession inherited from Clinton', if you look at the facts, we lost jobs under Bush and haven't gotten them back. The private sector lost out, the government lost about two trillion...I'd say this is a needs improvement.
- Civil Rights: Oh, those things. Yeah, people actually expect their president to care enough to go to an NAACP convention once in a while, maybe stick to the Geneva Convention while you're at it. When you have to go try and tell them media that 'America doesn't torture', you know you're in trouble in this area.
- Disaster Relief: Foreign disaster relief was absolutely pitiful in size, characterized by a refusal of the United States to even send over helicopters to help search for the dead in Pakistan and India (half a dozen isn't enough to count when you have hundreds based miles away). As for disaster relief inside the United States, I don't think the Bush-appointed FEMA crew did so well.
- Foreign Policy: Great job Georgey, the whole world hates us. On September 11th, even the Saudis were with us, and now your international poll ratings are worse than Arnold's in California. Here's a hint: that's not a good thing. If you want to talk about free trade, how about that conference down in South America last month? When the host country's president speaks at a protest rally outside, you know it didn't go very well.
- Everything I missed: Feel free to fill stuff in, because right now I'm not seeing too much.

Easy. Winning in Iraq means we support the Iraqi troops in maintaining peace in stable areas, help them gain peace in unstable areas, and pull out when they can do it by themselves. If you have a crystal ball then we will all know when the Iraqis will reach this point. this isn't about "after a civil war" but "instead of a civil war". If we turn tail now a civil war is guaranteed and with the influence of Syria and Iran it is guaranteed we won't like the outcome. If you doubt that Iraq can become a democracy then look at Afghanistan's progress. It's far from perfect but its a damn site better than it was.
I don't see evidence of us allowing the Iraqis to maintain peace in stable areas. I'd welcome some sort of indication that the Iraqis are anxious to do anything but sign up for training. It looks like we still spend a lot of effort on backing them up. Don't get me wrong, they're very determined to become policemen in spite of the terrorist attacks upon them, but they just don't seem to be given the responsibility for 'safe' areas.

I'm starting to look at Iraq as more similar to Yugoslavia. Or maybe Lebanon. It's a country made up of distinct factions that all hate each other. If we are going to be true to ourselves, we will need to realize that 'win' isn't really what we're after. What we want is stability. We still don't have that in Bosnia/Serbia after ten years. NATO is still providing peacekeepers and the UN still recognizes that there are numerous attacks on minorities in either region.

I doubt that we can make things work any better in Iraq. We are certainly acting as peacekeepers in Iraq. Abandoning them isn't the answer, but sharing the peacekeeping duties probably is. We need to find some inducement for the U.N. to move in and assume the nation building activities that we are burdened with.

Come on...Clinton couldn't even manage to keep his cum off a chippy's dress and Gore foams at the mouth every time he gives a speech.
I am sorry, but I think the above quote demonstrates exactly where your head is at in regards to this topic.

BTW, I do not believe that this thread is anywhere near the status of "ultimate debate" in regards to Iraq.

So what about the troops who have been over there and have come home to state that the war was a mistake?

Also, a recent poll notes that most of the people in Iraq want the US out, so does their opinion trump the troops? (The thing being that of course I'm going to smile and make nice with the nice people in the tank holding the guns).

And while the men and women who have served in Iraq do have first hand knowledge about the situtation there, it's also the situration that they saw, not the whole of the picture of which they might be ignorant.

In any case, being in the military does not make one holy or opinions sacrosant. They are people the same as anyone else, and Americans (for those who come from the US military), the same as all other Americans. The devloping opinion about how the military is somehow comprised of marked or better men than, and seperate of, the civilian population it is drawn from and protects is starting to scare me.

While the men and women in uniform (mostly) deserve my thanks for their job, they are no better than me, or anyone else.

This is a troll thread to begin with, everyone take ten steps back and stop tossing the troll food.

So a troll is anyone now who supports the war in Iraq?

To say the troops don't have access to information is complete bullshit, just look at all of their blogs. To the maker of the thread I say this: Don't care about what people say against you in this thread, most people on these forums seem to like Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and any other dictator better then the United States of America.

So a troll is anyone now who supports the war in Iraq?

To say the troops don't have access to information is complete bullshit, just look at all of their blogs. To the maker of the thread I say this: Don't care about what people say against you in this thread, most people on these forums seem to like Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, and any other dictator better then the United States of America.
I think you are way off base. I think most of the anti Iraq war posters are simply anti Bush foreign policy.