NationStates Jolt Archive

Not my words. And not Nazz's, CanuckHaven's, Wanderjar's, nor anyone else who can think for themselves on this forum, either (apologies for not naming you all personally :) ).
Nope.
Just the words of a senior US state department official.
But no doubt he's a dirty stinkin' freedom-hating terrorist-hugging Liberal who knows nothing about what's going on in Iraq, nor all the 'successes' there.

US 'arrogant and stupid' in Iraq

A senior US state department official has said that the US has shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq.

Alberto Fernandez made the remarks during an interview with Arabic television station al-Jazeera.

The state department says Mr Fernandez was quoted incorrectly - but BBC Arabic language experts say Mr Fernandez did indeed use the words.

It comes after President George W Bush discussed changing tactics with top US commanders to try to combat the unrest.

Mr Fernandez, an Arabic speaker who is director of public diplomacy in the state department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, told Qatar-based al-Jazeera that the world was "witnessing failure in Iraq".

"That's not the failure of the United States alone, but it is a disaster for the region," he said.


I think there is great room for strong criticism, because without doubt, there was arrogance and stupidity by the United States in Iraq
Alberto Fernandez

"I think there is great room for strong criticism, because without doubt, there was arrogance and stupidity by the United States in Iraq."

He also said that the US was now willing to speak to any insurgent group except al-Qaeda in an effort to reduce sectarian bloodshed in Iraq.

"We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the solution to the hell and the killings in Iraq is linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation."
US 'arrogant and stupid' in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6074182.stm)

We were too over-confident and made some mistakes. I don't think there's any debate about that anymore. However, we had the correct comprehensive strategy and we did what was generally right -- we just didn't allow for the fact that Iraqis were so twisted that instead of embracing freedom, they went and slaughtered people not of their religious sect.

we just didn't allow for the fact that Iraqis were so twisted that instead of embracing freedom, they went and slaughtered people not of their religious sect.


Yeeeeah. It's their fault.

Finally someone has enough balls to actually speak out against the administration who's a republican state department official.

You notice how the state department quickly said "they had quoted him wrong". Once someone speaks out against their policies, someone who actually has power to bring the Bush administrtion to their knees, they can't do anything but lie.

Go Alberto Fernandez. I hope other top government officials follow his footsteps, and all others who the Bush administration is now failing to scare.

We were too over-confident and made some mistakes. I don't think there's any debate about that anymore. However, we had the correct comprehensive strategy and we did what was generally right -- we just didn't allow for the fact that Iraqis were so twisted that instead of embracing freedom, they went and slaughtered people not of their religious sect.

:rolleyes:

Not you again!

Warning to others: PLEASE don't feed the troll!

To the OP: The US didn't have any business there to begin with, so why did we go? :headbang:

We were too over-confident and made some mistakes. I don't think there's any debate about that anymore. However, we had the correct comprehensive strategy and we did what was generally right -- we just didn't allow for the fact that Iraqis were so twisted that instead of embracing freedom, they went and slaughtered people not of their religious sect.

Yeah - I simply could never have predicted that people in a fairly uneducated and religious country who have spent the last 20-odd years under a brutal dictatorship would ever resort to violence. I mean, that sort of thing has never happened before, has it?:rolleyes:

We were too over-confident and made some mistakes. I don't think there's any debate about that anymore. However, we had the correct comprehensive strategy and we did what was generally right -- we just didn't allow for the fact that Iraqis were so twisted that instead of embracing freedom, they went and slaughtered people not of their religious sect.Don't get me wrong - I like the cut of your gibberish.
But one thing bothers me:
How do you come up with these posts?
Do you just d/l all of Snowjob's speeches and cut'n'paste them into NS?

-- we just didn't allow for the fact that Iraqis were so twisted that instead of embracing freedom, they went and slaughtered people not of their religious sect.

Yeah, they thought they would greet us as "liberators" and there would be no problems after Bush declares "mission accomplished". Sounds like the exact definition of arrogant and stupid to me.

I prefer to blame Bush

We were too over-confident and made some mistakes. I don't think there's any debate about that anymore. However, we had the correct comprehensive strategy and we did what was generally right -- we just didn't allow for the fact that Iraqis were so twisted that instead of embracing freedom, they went and slaughtered people not of their religious sect.

Yeah, it's all the Iraqis fault! Why they didn't accept all these bombs for destroying WMD, ehm I mean these bombs for bringing freedom? Why they didn't like a US-puppet government? Why there have to be three different nations which never liked the others very much, in one state? They are so stupid!

Well, to see the arrogance of the US - you only have to read things written by MTAE!

we just didn't allow for the fact that Iraqis were so twisted that instead of embracing freedom, they went and slaughtered people not of their religious sect.

Uhh.. yeah. That's why 52,000 + Iraqis have died in this war, because they are killing themselves for "Allah", right?

WRONG!

Islam is a religion of peace (if you don't know that, start learning to think for yourself). Therefore, Iraqis (who are Muslims, or "the religious sect" to you) don't kill themselves. Rather, civil war has started between Saddam Hussein supporters/"terrorists" and the Iraqi people.

This is a proxy war. The U.S. started the Iraqi Civil War, and now everyone's dieing. Italians, British, Iraqis, Americans, all people fighting against these people.

No, the Muslim EXTREMISTS aren't right. But who caused them to rise and start killing everyone in Iraq?

Yes, the Bush Administration and Congress, who supported him.

Iraqis aren't twisted, rather, the Bush administration is for starting a Civil War.

"Let's blame the Iraqis because they don't want 'liberation'. Why can't they just accept death and the Bush administration changing the Iraqi government the way the he likes it, in turn killing tens of thousands of people, maybe even hundreds of thousands."

To the OP: The US didn't have any business there to begin with, so why did we go?

Because getting rid of Saddam Hussein would "benefit" the American government.

Think about it.

1) Bush would've been seen as a hero to the Iraqis.

2) Bush would've been seen as a hero to us.

3) Oil, oil, oil!

4) Saddam Hussein was blocking our access to this better-than-gold substance known as oil.

5) Revenge (remember the George H. W. Bush assassination plan by Saddam Hussein?)


I remember way back when this war had popular support, Bush said "He tried to kill my father" (or somethign along those lines) in a question-answer type conference.

Well this is interesting.

5) Revenge (remember the George H. W. Bush assassination plan by Saddam Hussein?)


I remember way back when this war had popular support, Bush said "He tried to kill my father" (or somethign along those lines) in a question-answer type conference.

Err... no, I don't remember it. If it was during Daddy Bush's reign... I mean, term in office, then it may hav been before I was born or perhaps when I was a baby. *shrug*

"And in other top holiday destinations, too!"

Err... no, I don't remember it. If it was during Daddy Bush's reign... I mean, term in office, then it may hav been before I was born or perhaps when I was a baby. *shrug*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klxIHSzshKQ

Well this is interesting.
Considering the comments last week by the UK commander returning from Afghanistan, it is very interesting.
I wonder whether things are reaching a bit of a crisis point within the Administration. People from within, with a lot to lose, being openly critical is a new development. And not a particularly positive one - for either the Bush Admin, nor the peoples of Iraq or America.
I wonder if this is just the start of a flood.

We were too over-confident and made some mistakes. I don't think there's any debate about that anymore. However, we had the correct comprehensive strategy and we did what was generally right -- we just didn't allow for the fact that Iraqis were so twisted that instead of embracing freedom, they went and slaughtered people not of their religious sect.

hahahahaha

Cut to house with white picket fence, and American flag, pristine, snapping in the breeze....

"Why do they hate freedom, mommie?"
"Because they don't accept Jesus, Son"

O thats good that is....

hahahahaha

Cut to house with white picket fence, and American flag, pristine, snapping in the breeze....

"Why do they hate freedom, mommie?"
"Because they don't accept Jesus, Son"

O thats good that is....
Right now, it'll be more likely:

"Why do they hate freedom, mommie?"
"Because they want the DEMOCRATS to win, Son"

Right now, it'll be more likely:

"Why do they hate freedom, mommie?"
"Because they want the DEMOCRATS to win, Son"
This raises a good point in my mind -

Are there any parties more fascist than the Republicans (don't take it as hyperbole, I mean 'more right wing') and more vaguely socialist than the Democrats to vote for in the US?

Right now, it'll be more likely:

"Why do they hate freedom, mommie?"
"Because they want the DEMOCRATS to win, Son"

Yup, strategy sounds simple to me. A vote for a Democrat is a vote for terrorism. Some people actually listen to that garbage. Pitiful.

Right now, it'll be more likely:

"Why do they hate freedom, mommie?"
"Because they want the DEMOCRATS to win, Son"

With the yanks, the two ideological concepts seem remarkably interchangable.

Backtowards the topic, they are now saying hes been misquoted.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1022/iraq.html

Arrogant, stupid, grandeous and dellusional.

Fancy ignoring everything any and every military expert in US employ had to say, throwing away the bible of army logistics, intentionally going in under-resourced because you believe (so strongly you make no plan, nor will hear of any plan, as a back-up in the event your fantasies dont materialise) the populice will fall down in gratidude and throw flowers before your feet to make a path of blossums leading to Baghdad...

The mission was planned on a complete fantasy....Georgie and the Man with the Plan were going to show us the 'New 21st Century Modern Military Force', largely consisting of an old-style force except serverly under-resourced and completely lacking in logistical support. This would be stupid in any case, but in the case of the US, it's a farce - the one thing Americans are known for in the military world is turning up well supplied, it's the one thing they consistently excell at...no longer thanks to the Man with the Plan...

With the yanks, the two ideological concepts seem remarkably interchangable.

Backtowards the topic, they are now saying hes been misquoted.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/1022/iraq.html
Ah!,
but BBC Arabic language experts say Mr Fernandez did indeed use the words.
Which makes me think they're desperately trying to cover their asses here.

Yeah - I simply could never have predicted that people in a fairly uneducated and religious country who have spent the last 20-odd years under a brutal dictatorship would ever resort to violence. I mean, that sort of thing has never happened before, has it?:rolleyes:

We gave them every opportunity to build a stable, prosperous, free state. We deposed a horrible dictator responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of his own people, we installed democracy in Iraq and allowed them to vote in free and open elections, and we combated those who stood against liberty. And what did they do with this chance? They squandered it by bickering amongst themselves and then progressing on to massacring those of a different religious sect. Is it out fault? Hell, no. It's theirs. And if you think unifying three different regions is hard, look at the US after the Revolutionary War. We unified 13 different regions into a powerful and democratic country without resorting to any kind of violence. It's very easy to do, but Iraqis are too blood-thirsty and violent to allow their country to fluorish.

We gave them every opportunity to build a stable, prosperous, free state.
No, you didn't.
We deposed a horrible dictator responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of his own people
The same dictator who kept the whole country as one unified state.

Here's where the stability fails.
we installed democracy in Iraq
That's exactly what you did. Installed it. Not let people choose whether they wanted Saddam back, or wanted another reasonably benevolent dictator in charge.

Here's where the freedom fails.
and allowed them to vote in free and open elections
But didn't allow them to get their constitution passed when part of it stated that all oil in Iraq was the property of Iraq and Iraq alone.

There's where the prosperity fails.
and we combated those who stood against liberty
And killed a fair few bystanders also.
And what did they do with this chance? They squandered it by bickering amongst themselves and then progressing on to massacring those of a different religious sect. Is it out fault? Hell, no. It's theirs.
Ever hear about 'divide and conquer'?

The US isn't going to do a damned thing about the Shi'ites and the Sunni killing each other, because every death caused by it is one less person that the US has to fight...

That's why it's continuing.
And if you think unifying three different regions is hard, look at the US after the Revolutionary War. We unified 13 different regions into a powerful and democratic country without resorting to any kind of violence.
Other than the whole war before thing... plus the circumstances are rather different. In the US, people were divided more by their previous owners of the land, but were all really the same - Europeans, with some form of pretty similar Christianity, and quite similar cultures.

In Iraq, you have a whole selection of people from around its borders, with very different forms of Islam, and with very different cultures. The Kurds for example, are basically bandits of the highest order, and will never get on with anyone else living in Iraq, which is pretty much why they got gassed.

The Sunnis and Shi'ites are not getting on due to some pretty large religious differences (think Europe of the 16th century, with Catholics and Protestants going at it hammer and tongs).

And everyone there is going to fight off invaders, other than the Kurds who are quite happy to leave them alone as long as they are left alone.
It's very easy to do, but Iraqis are too blood-thirsty and violent to allow their country to fluorish.
Sweeping statement of the fucking century here.

We gave them every opportunity to build a stable, prosperous, free state. We deposed a horrible dictator responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of his own people, we installed democracy in Iraq and allowed them to vote in free and open elections, and we combated those who stood against liberty. And what did they do with this chance? They squandered it by bickering amongst themselves and then progressing on to massacring those of a different religious sect. Is it out fault? Hell, no. It's theirs. And if you think unifying three different regions is hard, look at the US after the Revolutionary War. We unified 13 different regions into a powerful and democratic country without resorting to any kind of violence. It's very easy to do, but Iraqis are too blood-thirsty and violent to allow their country to fluorish.

Oh man, this guy is priceless. Does he do after dinner speeches? He could earn a bob or two as an object-of-ridicule-for-hire.

We gave them every opportunity to build a stable, prosperous, free state. We deposed a horrible dictator responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of his own people, we installed democracy in Iraq and allowed them to vote in free and open elections, and we combated those who stood against liberty. And what did they do with this chance? They squandered it by bickering amongst themselves and then progressing on to massacring those of a different religious sect. Is it out fault? Hell, no. It's theirs. And if you think unifying three different regions is hard, look at the US after the Revolutionary War. We unified 13 different regions into a powerful and democratic country without resorting to any kind of violence. It's very easy to do, but Iraqis are too blood-thirsty and violent to allow their country to fluorish.
But in deposing Saddam we also took out a strong local leader, one who opposed the terrorists.
We have given them no "liberty" - because democracy depends on the will of the people, we cannot force it on them, so "installing democracy" in Iraq means nothing in the way of liberty.
Oh yes, blame the Iraqis for being "too violent" for us to take control of the situation. We won the Revolutionary War and organised the United States because it was our country and we knew what the hell we were doing then. And even then, sometimes we didn't. Ever read about the Articles of Confederation? Yeah, piece of shit. Thing is, we didn't unite 13 different states with the military. We beat back Britain, but that doesn't make us united. As for Iraq, how can you say that they're too "blood-thirsty and violent to allow their own country to flourish"? They were faring OK with Saddam, despite the atrocities. Besides, it isn't the Iraqis who are attacking US forces, it's the fundies who want Iraq to rebuild the Muslim Empire, or whatever - the ones that, like I said, we let in (*gasp* - yes, we did) by invading.
If you really believe the bullshit that the US failure in Iraq is caused by the Iraqi people, you are in need of a serious reality check.

Oh man, this guy is priceless. Does he do after dinner speeches? He could earn a bob or two as an object-of-ridicule-for-hire.

My family would love him! :)

Not my words. And not Nazz's, CanuckHaven's, Wanderjar's, nor anyone else who can think for themselves on this forum, either (apologies for not naming you all personally :) ).
Nope.
Just the words of a senior US state department official.
But no doubt he's a dirty stinkin' freedom-hating terrorist-hugging Liberal who knows nothing about what's going on in Iraq, nor all the 'successes' there.


US 'arrogant and stupid' in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6074182.stm)

So the guy is sane and made a good point....and guess what the US was arrogant AND stupid in Iraq and it would be a disaster for not only the US but the region and the world if Iraq failed to live up to its chance at Democracy and national reconciliation.

But the Iraqi GOVERNMENT that was elected by its people to do a job has so far been unable or unwilling to live up to its responsibility.

The US is not running Iraq Iraq is. As Despite all the success it is up to the Iraqi government to make peace with itself and get the militias under controll.
All the US AND THE REST OF THE WORLD when ever they get around to it can do is support the effort.

So now its a crime to recognise somethings not working and to change tactics to try to fix it ? Its a FAULT to admit it honestly ? And part of this new tactic and changes couldnt POSSIBLY include being honest with and Arab Audience in an attempt to gain some time and support and understanding from the Arab street.

Yep you fella's sure do understand politics all right....



The same dictator who kept the whole country as one unified state.

By using rape torture and imprisonment and by using chemical weapons on his OWN population ..intimidation and mass graves...And his army and secret police to kill anyone who dissented along with their entire extended family after torturing them . Exterminating WHOLE villiages .
And etc. etc.

BUT AT LEAST THE FUCKING TRAINS RAN ON TIME .

THAT FUCKING BEATS DEMOCRACY ANY FUCKING DAY .


Total unmitigated BULLSHIT

But didn't allow them to get their constitution passed when part of it stated that all oil in Iraq was the property of Iraq and Iraq alone.

Ah!,

Which makes me think they're desperately trying to cover their asses here.

And now this brave voice of 'heresy' has recanted.
"Alberto Fernandez, who made the remarks during an interview with Arabic TV station al-Jazeera, said he had "seriously misspoken". "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6075934.stm

'mispoken' by speaking the truth, perhaps.

And if you think unifying three different regions is hard, look at the US after the Revolutionary War. We unified 13 different regions into a powerful and democratic country without resorting to any kind of violence. It's very easy to do, but Iraqis are too blood-thirsty and violent to allow their country to fluorish.

The population of which were largely protestant and anglo-saxon, speaking english as their first language. We won't mention the fact that large numbers fled to canada or England during and following the war.
Or the slaves. Or that the few bones of contention led to a very violent civil war 100 years later.....

In the name of God, the most merciful, the most compassionate

We have honored the sons of Adam.

We are the people of the land between two rivers, the homeland of the apostles and prophets, abode of the virtuous imams, pioneers of civilization, crafters of writing and cradle of numeration. Upon our land the first law made by man was passed, the most ancient just pact for homelands policy was inscribed, and upon our soil, companions of the Prophet and saints prayed, philosophers and scientists theorized and writers and poets excelled.

Acknowledging God's right over us, and in fulfillment of the call of our homeland and citizens, and in response to the call of our religious and national leaderships and the determination of our great (religious) authorities and of our leaders and reformers, and in the midst of an international support from our friends and those who love us, marched for the first time in our history toward the ballot boxes by the millions, men and women, young and old, on the thirtieth of January two thousand and five, invoking the pains of sectarian oppression sufferings inflicted by the autocratic clique and inspired by the tragedies of Iraq's martyrs, Shiite and Sunni, Arabs and Kurds and Turkmen and from all the other components of the people and recollecting the darkness of the ravage of the holy cities and the South in the Sha'abaniyya uprising and burnt by the flames of grief of the mass graves, the marshes, Al-Dujail and others and articulating the sufferings of racial oppression in the massacres of Halabcha, Barzan, Anfal and the Fayli Kurds and inspired by the ordeals of the Turkmen in Basheer and as is the case in the remaining areas of Iraq where the people of the west suffered from the assassinations of their leaders, symbols and elderly and from the displacement of their skilled individuals and from the drying out of their cultural and intellectual wells, so we sought hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder to create our new Iraq, the Iraq of the future free from sectarianism, racism, locality complex, discrimination and exclusion.

Accusations of being infidels, and terrorism did not stop us from marching forward to build a nation of law. Sectarianism and racism have not stopped us from marching together to strengthen our national unity, and to follow the path of peaceful transfer of power and adopt the course of the just distribution of resources and providing equal opportunity for all.

We the people of Iraq who have just risen from our stumble, and who are looking with confidence to the future through a republican, federal, democratic, pluralistic system, have resolved with the determination of our men, women, the elderly and youth, to respect the rules of law, to establish justice and equality to cast aside the politics of aggression, and to tend to the concerns of women and their rights, and to the elderly and their concerns, and to children and their affairs and to spread a culture of diversity and defusing terrorism.

We the people of Iraq of all components and shades have taken upon ourselves to decide freely and with our choice to unite our future and to take lessons from yesterday for tomorrow, to draft, through the values and ideals of the heavenly messages and the findings of science and man's civilization, this lasting constitution. The adherence to this constitution preserves for Iraq its free union, its people, its land and its sovereignty.

SECTION ONE: FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

Article 1:

(The Republic of Iraq is a single, independent federal state with full sovereignty. Its system of government is republican, representative 61/27Parliamentary63/47 and democratic. This Constitution is the guarantor of its unity)

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

B. No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established.

C. No law that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this constitution may be established.

Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans.

Article 3:

(Iraq is a country of many nationalities, religions and sects and is a founding and active member of the Arab League and is committed to its covenant. Iraq is a part of the Islamic world.)

Article 4:

First: The Arabic language and Kurdish language are the two official languages of Iraq. The right of Iraqis to educate their children in their mother tongue, such as Turkmen, Syriac and Armenian, in government educational institutions in accordance with educational guidelines, or in any other language in private educational institutions, is guaranteed.

Second: The scope of the term official language and the means of applying the provisions of this article shall be defined by law which shall include:

A. Publication of the official gazette, in the two languages;

B. Speech, conversation and expression in official settings, such as the Council of Representatives, the Council of Ministers, courts, and official conferences, in either of the two languages;

C. Recognition and publication of the official documents and correspondences in the two languages;

D. Opening schools that teach the two languages, in accordance with the educational guidelines;

E. Use of both languages in any settings enjoined by the principle of equality such as bank notes, passports and stamps.

(Third: The federal institutions and agencies in the Kurdistan region shall use the Arabic and Kurdish languages.)

Fourth: The Turkmen language and Syriac language are two other official languages in the administrative units in which they represent density of population.

Fifth: Each region or governorate may adopt any other local language as an additional official language if the majority of its population so decide in a general referendum.

Article 5: The law is sovereign. The people are the source of authorities and its legitimacy, which the people shall exercise in a direct general secret ballot and through their constitutional institutions.

Article 6:

Transfer of authority shall be made peacefully through democratic means as stipulated in this Constitution.

Article 7:

First: No entity or program, under any name, may adopt racism, terrorism, the calling of others infidels, ethnic cleansing, or incite, facilitate, glorify, promote, or justify thereto, especially the Saddamist Baath in Iraq and its symbols, regardless of the name that it adopts. This may not be part of the political pluralism in Iraq. This will be organized by law.

Second: The State shall undertake combating terrorism in all its forms, and shall work to protect its territories from being a base or pathway or field for terrorist activities.

Article 8:

Iraq shall observe the principles of a good neighborliness, adhere to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, endeavor to settle disputes by peaceful means, establish relations on the basis of mutual interests and reciprocity, and respect its international obligations.
ETC.
SECTION TWO: RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES

CHAPTER ONE: RIGHTS

FIRST: Civil and Political RightsFIRST: Civil and Political Rights

Article 14:

Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination based on gender, race, ethnicity, origin, color, religion, creed, belief or opinion, or economic and social status.

Article 15:

Every individual has the right to enjoy life, security and liberty. Deprivation or restriction of these rights is prohibited except in accordance with the law and based on a decision issued by a competent judicial authority.

Article 16:

Equal opportunities are guaranteed for all Iraqis. The state guarantees the taking of the necessary measures to achieve such equal opportunities.

Article 17:

First: Every individual shall have the right to personal privacy, so long it does not contradict the rights of others and public morals.

Second: The sanctity of the homes is inviolable and homes may not be entered, searched, or put in danger, except by a judicial decision, and in accordance with the law.

Article 18:

(First: Iraqi nationality is the right of every Iraqi and shall be the basis of his citizenship.)

(Second: An Iraqi is any person born to an Iraqi father or mother. This will regulated by law.)

Third:

A. An Iraqi citizen by birth may not have his nationality withdrawn for any reason. Any person who had his nationality withdrawn shall have the right to reclaim it, and this will be stipulated by law.

B. The Iraqi nationality shall be withdrawn from the naturalized in the cases stipulated by law.

Fourth: An Iraqi may have multiple nationalities. Everyone who assumes a senior, security sovereign position must abandon any other acquired nationality. This will be organized by law.

Fifth: Iraqi citizenship shall not be granted for the purposes of the policy of settling people that cause an imbalance in the population composition of Iraq.

Sixth: A law shall regulate the provisions of nationality. The competent courts shall consider the suits resulting from it.

Article 19:

First: The judiciary is independent and no power is above the judiciary except the law.

Second: There is no crime or punishment except by a stipulation. The punishment shall only be for an act that the law considers a crime when perpetrated. A harsher sentence than the applicable sentence at the time of the offense may not be imposed.

Third: Litigation shall be a safeguarded and guaranteed right for all.

Fourth: The right to a defense shall be sacred and guaranteed in all phases of investigation and trial.

Fifth: The accused is innocent until proven guilty in a fair legal trial. The accused may not be tried on the same crime for a second time after acquittal unless new evidence is produced.

Sixth: Every person has the right to be treated with justice in judicial and administrative proceedings.

Seventh: The proceedings of a trial are public unless the court decides to make it secret.

Eighth: Punishment is personal.

Ninth: A law does not have a retroactive effect unless the law stipulates otherwise. This exclusion shall not include laws relating to taxes and fees.

Tenth: Criminal law does not have a retroactive effect, unless it is to the benefit of the accused.

Eleventh: The court shall delegate a lawyer at the expense of the state for an accused of a felony or misdemeanor who does not have a defense lawyer.

Twelfth:

A. (Unlawful) detention is prohibited.

B. detention or arrest is prohibited in places not designed for it, pursuant to prison regulations covered by health and social care and subject to the scrutiny of the law.

Thirteenth: The preliminary investigative documents must be submitted to the competent judge in a period not to exceed twenty-four hours from the time of the arrest of the accused. It may be extended only once and for the same period.

Article 20:

The citizens, men and women, have the right to participate in public affairs and to enjoy political rights including the right to vote, to elect and to nominate. Article 21:

First: No Iraqi shall be surrendered to foreign entities and authorities.

Second: A law shall regulate the right of political asylum to Iraq. No political refugee shall be surrendered to a foreign entity or returned forcibly to the country from which he fled.

Third: No political asylum shall be granted to a person accused of committing international or terrorist crimes or any person who inflicted damage on Iraq.

SECOND: Economic, social and cultural liberties

Article 22:

First: Work is a right for all Iraqis so as to guarantee them a decent living.

Second: The law regulates the relationship between employees and employers on economic basis and with regard to the foundations of social justice.

Third: The State guarantees the right of forming and joining professional associations and unions. This will be organized by law.

Article 23:

First: Personal property is protected. The proprietor shall have the right to benefit from, exploit and utilize personal property within the limits of the law.

Second: No property may be taken away except for the purposes of public benefit in return for just compensation. This will be organized by law.

Third:

A. Every Iraqi has the right to own property throughout Iraq. No others may possess immovable assets, except as exempted by law.

B. Owning property for the purposes of population change shall be prohibited.

Article 24:

The State guarantees freedom of movement of Iraqi manpower, goods and capitals between regions and governorates. This will be organized by law.

Article 25:

The State guarantees the reform of the Iraqi economy in accordance with modern economic principles to ensure the full investment of its resources, diversification of its sources and the encouragement and the development of the private sector.

Article 26:

The state guarantees the encouragement of investments in the various sectors. This will be organized by law.

Article 27:

First: Public property is sacrosanct, and its protection is the duty of each citizen.

Second: The provisions related to the protection of State properties and its management and the conditions for its disposal and the limits under which none of these properties can be relinquished shall all be regulated by law.

Article 28:

First: No taxes or fines may be imposed, amended, exempted or pardoned from, except in accordance with law.

Second: Low wage earners shall be exempted from taxes in a manner that ensures the upholding of the minimum wage required for survival. This will be organized by law.

Article 29:

First:

A. The family is the foundation of society; the State preserves its entity and its religious, moral and patriotic values.

B. The State guarantees the protection of motherhood, childhood and old age and shall care for children and youth and provides them with the appropriate conditions to further their talents and abilities.

Second: Children have right over their parents in regard to upbringing, care and education. Parents shall have right over their children in regard to respect and care especially in times of need, disability and old age.

Third: Economic exploitation of children shall be completely prohibited. The State shall take the necessary measures to protect them.

Fourth: All forms of violence and abuse in the family, school and society shall be prohibited.

Article 30:

First: The state guarantee to the individual and the family -- especially children and women -- social and health security and the basic requirements for leading a free and dignified life. The state also ensures the above a suitable income and appropriate housing.

Second: The State guarantees the social and health security to Iraqis in cases of old age, sickness, employment disability, homelessness, orphanage or unemployment, and shall work to protect them from ignorance, fear and poverty. The State shall provide them housing and special programs of care and rehabilitation. This will be organized by law.

Article 31:

First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The state takes care of public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and medical institutions.

Second: Individuals and institutions may build hospitals or clinics or places for treatment with the supervision of the state and this shall be regulated by law.

Article 32:

The State cares for the handicapped and those with special needs and ensure their rehabilitation in order to reintegrate them into society. This shall be regulated by law.

Article 33:

First: Every individual has the right to live in a safe environment.

Second: The State undertakes the protection and preservation of the environment and biological diversity.

Article 34:

First: Education is a fundamental factor in the progress of society and is a right guaranteed by the state. Primary education is mandatory and the state guarantees to eradicate illiteracy.

Second: Free education is a right for all Iraqis in all its stages.

Third: The State encourages scientific research for peaceful purposes that serve man and supports excellence, creativity, invention and the different aspects of ingenuity.

Fourth: Private and public education is guaranteed. This shall be regulated by law.

CHAPTER TWO: LIBERTIES

Article 35:

First:

A. The liberty and dignity of man are safeguarded.

B. No person may be kept in custody or interrogated except in the context of a judicial decision.

C. All forms of psychological and physical torture and inhumane treatment shall be prohibited. Any confession coerced by force, threat, or torture shall not be relied on. The victim shall have the right to compensation in accordance with the law for material and moral damages incurred.

Second: The State guarantees the protection of the individual from intellectual, political and religious coercion.

Third: Compulsory service (unpaid labor), serfdom, slave trade (slavery), trafficking of women and children, and the sex trade is prohibited.

(Fourth: The State will promote cultural activities and institutions in a way that is appropriate with Iraq's civilizational history and culture. It will take care to depend on authentic Iraqi cultural trends.)

Article 36:

The state guarantees in a way that does not violate public order and morality:

A. Freedom of expression, through all means.

B. Freedom of press, printing, advertisement, media and publication.

C. Freedom of assembly and peaceful demonstration. This shall be regulated by law.

(D. Every Iraqi has the right to engage in sports, and the State should encourage its activities and promotion and will provide its necessities)

Article 37:

First: The freedom of forming and of joining associations and political parties is guaranteed. This will be organized by law.

Second: It is prohibited to force any person to join any party, society or political entity or force him to continue his membership in it.

Article 38:

The freedom of communication, and mail, telegraphic, electronic, and telephonic correspondence, and other correspondence shall be guaranteed and may not be monitored, wiretapped or disclosed except for legal and security necessity and by a judicial decision.

Article 39:

Iraqis are free in their commitment to their personal status according to their religions, sects, beliefs, or choices. This shall be regulated by law.

Article 40:

Each individual has freedom of thought, conscience and belief.

Article 41:

First: The followers of all religions and sects are free in the:

A. Practice of religious rites, including the Husseini ceremonies (Shiite religious ceremonies)

B. Management of the endowments, its affairs and its religious institutions. The law shall regulate this.

Second: The state guarantees freedom of worship and the protection of the places of worship.

Article 42:

First: Each Iraqi enjoys the right of free movement, travel, and residence inside and outside Iraq.

Second: No Iraqi may be exiled, displaced or deprived from returning to the homeland.

Article 43:

First: The State shall seek to strengthen the role of civil society institutions, to support, develop and preserve its independence in a way that is consistent with peaceful means to achieve its legitimate goals. This will be organized by law.

Second: The State shall seek the advancement of the Iraqi clans and tribes and shall attend to their affairs in a manner that is consistent with religion and the law and upholds its noble human values in a way that contributes to the development of society. The State shall prohibit the tribal traditions that are in contradiction with human rights.

Article 44:

There may not be a restriction or limit on the practice of any rights or liberties stipulated in this constitution, except by law or on the basis of it, and insofar as that limitation or restriction does not violate the essence of the right or freedom.

SECTION THREE: FEDERAL POWERS

Article 45:

The federal powers shall consist of the legislative, the executive and the judicial powers. They exercise their specialization and tasks on the basis of the principle of separation of powers.




Article 79:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101201450.html

THIS IS WHAT REPLACED SADDAM .

This is what the Iraqi people are fighting for .

This is what liberals DO NOT SUPPORT .

They would rather have SADDAM in power than this . Its much too untidy and its causing fighting...better to have a dictator...

Left wing ? Liberal ? Since when didn't a free people become part of that world ?

Haider Ajina passes along a translation of an article in the Arabic newspaper Alsharq Alausat, with the results of a poll conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning:

72.4 % of all of those polled said they would participate in the elections. [Ed.: If so, Iraqi voting will vastly outstrip participation here in the U.S., where 56% of eligible voters contributed to a record turnout in 2004.]
97% of Iraqis in Kurdistan said they would participate in the elections.

96% of Iraqis in the southern provinces (mainly Shiite areas) said they would participate in the elections.

33% of Iraqis in the central provinces (Sunni Area) said they would participate in the elections.

10% of Iraqis in Central provinces (Sunni Area) said they have not yet made their mind if they were going to vote or not.

62.1% of those polled said that the elections will be neutral and free.

17.8% said elections will not be neutral and free.

66% said that the elections must take place under current circumstances.

53.3% said the security is good in their area..

21.7% said that security was average in their area.

25% said that security was bad in their area.


Interesting: 75% of Iraqis say security where they live is either "good" or "average." Not exactly the impression you would get from the American press.



This is what the terrorist and sectarian violence has been working to destroy .

This and your lack of support .

Not my words. And not Nazz's, CanuckHaven's, Wanderjar's, nor anyone else who can think for themselves on this forum, either (apologies for not naming you all personally :) ).
Nope.
Just the words of a senior US state department official.
But no doubt he's a dirty stinkin' freedom-hating terrorist-hugging Liberal who knows nothing about what's going on in Iraq, nor all the 'successes' there.


US 'arrogant and stupid' in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6074182.stm)
He is only echoing what a lot of people think about this war, and have thought about this war for a long time.

THIS IS WHAT REPLACED SADDAM .

This is what the Iraqi people are fighting for .

This is what liberals DO NOT SUPPORT .

They would rather have SADDAM in power than this . Its much too untidy and its causing fighting...better to have a dictator...

Left wing ? Liberal ? Since when didn't a free people become part of that world ?
Quit spamming the forum. A link would suffice?

your whole arguement of big government guy talking bad about our strategy has now been removed. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/23/fernandez.statement/index.html

So the guy is sane and made a good point....and guess what the US was arrogant AND stupid in Iraq and it would be a disaster for not only the US but the region and the world if Iraq failed to live up to its chance at Democracy and national reconciliation.

But the Iraqi GOVERNMENT that was elected by its people to do a job has so far been unable or unwilling to live up to its responsibility.

The US is not running Iraq Iraq is. As Despite all the success it is up to the Iraqi government to make peace with itself and get the militias under controll.
All the US AND THE REST OF THE WORLD when ever they get around to it can do is support the effort.

So now its a crime to recognise somethings not working and to change tactics to try to fix it ? Its a FAULT to admit it honestly ? And part of this new tactic and changes couldnt POSSIBLY include being honest with and Arab Audience in an attempt to gain some time and support and understanding from the Arab street.

Yep you fella's sure do understand politics all right....
I'm a tad confused here.
Isn't this the same Ultraextreme Inanity who was calling Liberals idiots for saying the US is arrogant and stupid in Iraq NOW calling Liberals idiots for pointing out that senior members within the Bush Admin and State Dept also share the same view?


wow.

just wow.

Gotta be careful there, old man. Doing such amazing back flips(flops) and twisting yourself round 180 is going to cause ya a whole passle of trubble at your age.


Heaven forbid that you might actually have to admit you were wrong or anything.

Sure if you read it...in this case a link WONT suffice. It needed to be plain as day.

The two main parties in Iraq, the mainly-Shia United Iraqi Alliance, and the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan are

ethnic parties -- but they're the most vanilla ethnic parties you could imagine. The Kurdish alliance is a fusion of two

parties who once fought a civil war against each other. With the exception of Allawi's Iraqi List, these coalitions pretty

much include everyone of a particular ethnicity. This holds true even for the parties beyond the top three -- for instance,

President Al-Yawer's coalition of Sunnis, which finished fourth at 1.78%, the Iraqi Turkmen Front coming in fifth, and the

National Rafidain List, representing Assyrian Christians, which turned out a huge vote in U.S. overseas voting.

If the Shia coalition is so illiberal and pro-Iran, why then did it relatively well among Iraqi-Americans who have known

democracy most of their lives -- and where, coincidentally, Prime Minister Allawi's bloc fared poorly (4.23%)? In the U.S.,

the Shia list narrowly edged the Assyrian Christian bloc 31.7% to 28.8%, with the Kurds taking 16.9%. The ethnic parties

dominated, moreso than even in Iraq.

Going province by province, 70%+ majorities for the Shia coalition were the norm throughout the South, but if you buy the

notion that this group is particularly pro-Iran, you'd expect it to do even better in the provinces bordering Iran (similar

to the effect seen in Ukraine, where the provinces bordering Russia were the most anti-Yushchenko). In fact, the map shows

the United Iraqi Alliance doing worse and the Allawi bloc doing better in the Misan and Basra provinces bordering the Islamic

Republic.

Belying the image of a restive population electing anti-American leaders, the Allawi bloc actually did best in the regions

where the insurgency ran strongest, picking up nearly 25% in Baghdad, 21% in Karbala, and an outright win with 38% among the

brave few who turned out in Anbar province. In rural precincts where the U.S. presence was more distant, the Shia felt more

free to vote their religion.

The regional results also show hopeful signs that the Sunni boycott was not as complete as previously thought; Al-Yawer's The

Iraqis received a strong 28% showing in Ninewa, home to Mosul, another insurgent hotbed. The Sunni list did well in

Salahuddin with 12% of the vote, and received over 25,000 votes in Baghdad.

Whatever the colors up on that map, democracy is a beautiful thing.



You cant see the forrest for the tree's THIS IS WHAT THE IRAQI'S are fighting for

.http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/02/the_iraqi_elect.php

Take a good fuckin look at the map .

A MINORITY of radicals and disaffected militia and other factions are seeking to OVERTHROW a democracy...

Where is the liberal out rage !

Where is the LIBERAL support for the people of Iraq who are fighting and dying so they can live freely under a constitution

?

What is wrong with you ?

You hate Bush so much ...you would take it out on the Iraqi's ?

And you wonder why a Democrat cant become president ?


Look in the mirror...there's your reason .

You get so lost in Bush hating you forget people are fighting and dying and what they are fighting and dying for we take for granted.

your whole arguement of big government guy talking bad about our strategy has now been removed. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/10/23/fernandez.statement/index.html
First they said he was misquoted, now they say he didn't mean it. Yet still you follow and accept whatever they say.

Heaven forbid you entertain the idea that he may have been put under a tonne of pressure to come out and recant his statements. That could never happen now, could it?

You hate Bush so much ...you would take it out on the Iraqi's ?

And you wonder why a Democrat cant become president ?
No, I don't.
Not when there's people around that are so mindless and incapable of rational thought they hate anything and anyone that is even vaguely critical of Bush - to the extent of abusing them for holding certain opinions only to then later adopt those same opinions and abuse them even further.


Like someone, oh as a random eg, yelling insults at people for saying the war in Iraq is going badly and asserting it's not at all.
And then when senior State dept members also say this, countering with assertions that they've known all along that things are going badly and further abusing the same people for not supporting Bush, even though it's his admin's policies that have caused the mess.

Oh, and then twisting it around (in a desperate attempt I can only assume to achieve cognitive dissonance) by accusing the people who have been saying the US-Iraq strategy is a blocked toilet that they must therefore hate Iraqis and want them dead. Never mind the fact that tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of people have been killed there over the last 5 years due to stupid and arrogant US policy - the exact same policy that my example person has been trumpeting as valid for months, up until recently. Never mind, also, that the people who have been mindlessly supporting the war for the prior 5 years have delighted in the tales and pictures of US killing Iraqis and dismissed the thousands upon thousands of civilian deaths as 'collateral damage'.
But of course, they ones against all this 'hate' Iraqis, don't they?

Just as an example, mind. Good thing we don't know anyone on this board like that, eh?

Not my words. And not Nazz's, CanuckHaven's, Wanderjar's, nor anyone else who can think for themselves on this forum, either (apologies for not naming you all personally ).
Nope.
Just the words of a senior US state department official.
But no doubt he's a dirty stinkin' freedom-hating terrorist-hugging Liberal who knows nothing about what's going on in Iraq, nor all the 'successes' there.


Quote:
US 'arrogant and stupid' in Iraq

A senior US state department official has said that the US has shown "arrogance and stupidity" in Iraq.

Alberto Fernandez made the remarks during an interview with Arabic television station al-Jazeera.

The state department says Mr Fernandez was quoted incorrectly - but BBC Arabic language experts say Mr Fernandez did indeed use the words.

It comes after President George W Bush discussed changing tactics with top US commanders to try to combat the unrest.

Mr Fernandez, an Arabic speaker who is director of public diplomacy in the state department's Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, told Qatar-based al-Jazeera that the world was "witnessing failure in Iraq".

"That's not the failure of the United States alone, but it is a disaster for the region," he said.


I think there is great room for strong criticism, because without doubt, there was arrogance and stupidity by the United States in Iraq
Alberto Fernandez

"I think there is great room for strong criticism, because without doubt, there was arrogance and stupidity by the United States in Iraq."

He also said that the US was now willing to speak to any insurgent group except al-Qaeda in an effort to reduce sectarian bloodshed in Iraq.

"We are open to dialogue because we all know that, at the end of the day, the solution to the hell and the killings in Iraq is linked to an effective Iraqi national reconciliation."

US 'arrogant and stupid' in Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6074182.stm)

I'm a far FAR rightist, for future reference.

I absolutely agree that the US was arrogant and stupid in regards to this war.

The problem is that we were not arrogant ENOUGH, and that it was exceedingly stupid of us not to break Iraq into it's component "ethnic" regions and, if they didn't OBEY our (temporary) rules of law, destroy utterly their infrastructure and allow them to live as they, as proven savages, wish to live in squaller and self-inflicted death.

More US arrogance would have insisted that they (the governing entities of the smaller regions) behave, and do what is right, or be punished for their nonsensical savagery.

Current US policy is to allow "the bad guys" to travel freely around the country (disguised as "normal people"), instead of locking down ALL transport in Iraq, and instituting a sensible method of allowing ONLY "good guy" transport of goods and services.

The US doesn't have the guts to arrogate to itself the power to do what actually needs to be done to "pacify" Iraq.

That LACK of arrogance is the cause of the violence in Iraq, and the reason that Iraq WILL go through a breakup and civil war (soon).

The Iraqis are stupid children, who see an opportunity to, one way or another, "seize power" for "their gang".

The US is stupid not to treat them AS stupid children.

I'm a tad confused here.
Isn't this the same Ultraextreme Inanity who was calling Liberals idiots for saying the US is arrogant and stupid in Iraq NOW calling Liberals idiots for pointing out that senior members within the Bush Admin and State Dept also share the same view?


wow.

just wow.

Gotta be careful there, old man. Doing such amazing back flips(flops) and twisting yourself round 180 is going to cause ya a whole passle of trubble at your age.


Heaven forbid that you might actually have to admit you were wrong or anything.


demented one I have been saying the administration has not done a very good job of dealing with Iraq since they deposed saddam...WHAT part of that have you missed ?

BUT I have also POINTED out all the GOOD things that go along with the BAD unlike others..who keep missing the fact that there are IRAQIS who voted for and are fighting and dying for a Constitution and a democracy and THEY represent the MAJORITY...not the 20,000 to 50,000 Insurgents / militia / terrorist / criminals / opportunist that are trying to destroy the country.

So what the fuck was I wrong about exactly ?

Please point me at it so I can correct myself .

Sure if you read it...in this case a link WONT suffice. It needed to be plain as day.

You cant see the forrest for the tree's THIS IS WHAT THE IRAQI'S are fighting for

.http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/02/the_iraqi_elect.php

Take a good fuckin look at the map .

A MINORITY of radicals and disaffected militia and other factions are seeking to OVERTHROW a democracy...

Where is the liberal out rage !

Where is the LIBERAL support for the people of Iraq who are fighting and dying so they can live freely under a constitution

?

What is wrong with you ?

You hate Bush so much ...you would take it out on the Iraqi's ?

And you wonder why a Democrat cant become president ?

Look in the mirror...there's your reason .

You get so lost in Bush hating you forget people are fighting and dying and what they are fighting and dying for we take for granted.
Ummmm, the US invaded Iraq looking for non-existent WMD, and a hot bed of non-existent Al-Quedas?

Ummmm, you bomb the crap out of their country and they are not too happy about it? Killed lots of people, destroyed the infastructure, and have been unable to maintain the peace. I am sure a piece of paper is not exactly what the Iraqis had in mind when you invaded them?

Ohhh, and a Constitution based on Islamic religion. Nice touch. I know Bush was pleased. :rolleyes:

Sure if you read it...in this case a link WONT suffice. It needed to be plain as day.



You cant see the forrest for the tree's THIS IS WHAT THE IRAQI'S are fighting for

.http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/02/the_iraqi_elect.php

Take a good fuckin look at the map .

A MINORITY of radicals and disaffected militia and other factions are seeking to OVERTHROW a democracy...

Where is the liberal out rage !

Where is the LIBERAL support for the people of Iraq who are fighting and dying so they can live freely under a constitution

?

What is wrong with you ?

You hate Bush so much ...you would take it out on the Iraqi's ?

And you wonder why a Democrat cant become president ?


Look in the mirror...there's your reason .

You get so lost in Bush hating you forget people are fighting and dying and what they are fighting and dying for we take for granted.

Watch and weep.
There are strong arguments for the US not withdrawing from Iraq.
There are strong arguments for the US making huge sacrifices to honour their promise of freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people.

There are no excuses for the president and the party which did this stupid thing. Harping on the "stay the course" vs "cut and run" completely fails to distract attention from the fact that intervening in Iraq was a policy decision ... and it ... was ... wrong.
If you believe in "freedom and democracy," if you want to support US interests abroad, and support your troops, you will prepare yourself to support a Democratic president (and possibly a Democratic Congress!) as they defend the indefensible: US occupation of Iraq.

But of course you won't do that. It will be "Democrats lost the war in Iraq. Bush was doing fine, but when things got rough, those wimpy Democrats weren't willing to increase troop numbers, or consider the nuclear option. We were winning!"

News flash. We aren't winning. Democracy is not taking root in Iraq. It's on hydroponics, and dropping leaves. At the risk of Godwinning myself, it's Vietnam again.

I'm a far FAR rightist, for future reference.

I absolutely agree that the US was arrogant and stupid in regards to this war.

The problem is that we were not arrogant ENOUGH, and that it was exceedingly stupid of us not to break Iraq into it's component "ethnic" regions and, if they didn't OBEY our (temporary) rules of law, destroy utterly their infrastructure and allow them to live as they, as proven savages, wish to live in squaller and self-inflicted death.

More US arrogance would have insisted that they (the governing entities of the smaller regions) behave, and do what is right, or be punished for their nonsensical savagery.

Current US policy is to allow "the bad guys" to travel freely around the country (disguised as "normal people"), instead of locking down ALL transport in Iraq, and instituting a sensible method of allowing ONLY "good guy" transport of goods and services.

The US doesn't have the guts to arrogate to itself the power to do what actually needs to be done to "pacify" Iraq.

That LACK of arrogance is the cause of the violence in Iraq, and the reason that Iraq WILL go through a breakup and civil war (soon).

The Iraqis are stupid children, who see an opportunity to, one way or another, "seize power" for "their gang".

The US is stupid not to treat them AS stupid children.

Last I looked around THAT was exactly the type of thing the US was fighting against .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demented Hamsters
I'm a tad confused here.
Isn't this the same Ultraextreme Inanity who was calling Liberals idiots for saying the US is arrogant and stupid in Iraq NOW calling Liberals idiots for pointing out that senior members within the Bush Admin and State Dept also share the same view?


wow.

just wow.

Gotta be careful there, old man. Doing such amazing back flips(flops) and twisting yourself round 180 is going to cause ya a whole passle of trubble at your age.


Heaven forbid that you might actually have to admit you were wrong or anything.



demented one I have been saying the administration has not done a very good job of dealing with Iraq since they deposed saddam...WHAT part of that have you missed ?

BUT I have also POINTED out all the GOOD things that go along with the BAD unlike others..who keep missing the fact that there are IRAQIS who voted for and are fighting and dying for a Constitution and a democracy and THEY represent the MAJORITY...not the 20,000 to 50,000 Insurgents / militia / terrorist / criminals / opportunist that are trying to destroy the country.

So what the fuck was I wrong about exactly ?

Please point me at it so I can correct myself .

Ult,.. DemHam, like all leftists, is OBSESSED with seeing and pointing out what they perceive as "inconsistencies" (contradictions) within the words of people with which they don't agree.

That way, they can simply ignore what you say as a "meaningless unthinking drone" who isn't clever enough to see the "inherent flip-floppery" in your way of thinking.

They are a very simple, "black or white", no subtlety, unless subtlety suits them as a tactic of confusion and obfiscation, group of people.

Don't ask them questions of them with the word "F__" in it, as OTHER PEOPLE (you) using that word is a sign of your defeat, as you were reduced to "being rude",.. while if THEY use the "F" word it's a sign of "righteous indignation" and fully justified to show they're "fighting back against the vast rightwing conspiracy", ala BJ Clinton.

My suggestion,.. make them talk, and make fools of themselves, by asking simple questions, as that's all they can handle.

Last I looked around THAT was exactly the type of thing the US was fighting against .

What part of "THAT" is the US fighting against?

Would it be wise, or not, to try to bring a sensible government to a people that we've freed from an evil ruler?

Would it be wise, or not, to make "the bad guys" as ineffective as possible?

Would it be wise, or not, to create an environment where there are motivations for "doing the right and humane thing" as opposed to disincentivizing good behavior?

Which parts of my "plan" do you disagree with, and why?

What part of "THAT" is the US fighting against?

Would it be wise, or not, to try to bring a sensible government to a people that we've freed from an evil ruler?

Would it be wise, or not, to make "the bad guys" as ineffective as possible?

Would it be wise, or not, to create an environment where there are motivations for "doing the right and humane thing" as opposed to disincentivizing good behavior?

Which parts of my "plan" do you disagree with, and why?


The arrogance of thinking we can just go in and impose our will ...just like the Russians did in Afghanistan for instance ?

If as the stated GOAL was to remove Saddam and create a Democratic society that the rest of the region could emulate , HOW can you justify using your methods ?

You simply CANT impose DEMOCRACY anymore than you can IMPOSE communism or anything else.

Why would IMPOSE a Balkanization on Iraq..one that thee people of Iraq are clearly NOT in favor of ?

Think about it...what you proposed seems remarkably to me like something that would have come from the soviet Union and something they have attempted and failed at .

If we are being honest when we turn the government over to the Iraqi people after they vote their government in ..what right do we have to then become dictators ?

How is that a democracy ? And how is that teaching the Iraqis how to be a democracy ...something they seem to think is a blood sport right now .

We had to accept the will of the Iraqi people by backing who they voted for..the guys in office SUCK at their jobs ..so far and have been unable to or unwilling to control the militia...we can make it worse by taking sides like we did in Lebanon and help fictionalize the country more or we can work on backing the Iraqi government and persuade them rather forcefully to start doing what they were elected for.

We are the ones who fucked up by not fully realizing the Sunni's would have to be brought into and assimilated for the government to be viable .
So now the Sunni are voting with bombs and AK 47's . They refuse to be screwed and I do not blame them . The current government has taken way too long to compromise and give them the assurances they need , to bring them into the fold..and the US should be doing more to put pressure on them to remove the KEY and the heart of the resistance by negotiation and diplomacy...they already know how to just beat people into submission and impose their will on them . We have to show them an alternative not more of the same .

We also are doing NOTHING about Iranian interference in southern Iraq and the destabilizing influence they have ..except on occasion ...pointing it out and then dropping the subject .

The only way to fix whats broke is to first admit it is broke . I was actually HAPPY to finally see someone with the balls to stand up and say " Hmmm we screwed up but we will work harder and fix whats wrong " .

Did you read the book by Illario Pantano ? It will give you some insight into all we have done wrong...from the beginning ,,when we had the opportunity to do what was needed to show we mean business we did not...and thats a huge mistake in the culture we are are trying to deal with and we will never get that back. So we have to do it another way...adapt and improvise .


150.000 troops in a country of 26 million.....sure that makes sense.
The time to take control was right after Saddam was in his hole and we had the MORAL and ETHICAL authority to stop the looting and provide security....

Tell me what we did ? We screwed the pooch now we got to fix it but the "shock and awe stage is over" we lost that opportunity .

Sure if you read it...in this case a link WONT suffice. It needed to be plain as day.

You cant see the forrest for the tree's THIS IS WHAT THE IRAQI'S are fighting for

.http://www.patrickruffini.com/archives/2005/02/the_iraqi_elect.php

Take a good fuckin look at the map .
A very pretty map indeed. Nicely drawn by Patrick Ruffini.

Until recently, Ruffini was webmaster for the Bush-Cheney '04 presidential campaign, proudly serving as part of the team that executed the most sophisticated online strategy in political history.

A MINORITY of radicals and disaffected militia and other factions are seeking to OVERTHROW a democracy...

Where is the liberal out rage !

Where is the LIBERAL support for the people of Iraq who are fighting and dying so they can live freely under a constitution
The liberal support for the Iraqis was BEFORE the Shock and Awe Show. The liberals said WAIT until the inspections are finished, but NO the Busheviks knew they would find no WMD, and they had no choice but to invade.

So, do ya wanna talk shit or do ya wanna understand that it was the Bush crowd that said Yehaw and started to blow the crap out of Iraq.

What is wrong with you ?

You hate Bush so much ...you would take it out on the Iraqi's ?

And you wonder why a Democrat cant become president ?

Look in the mirror...there's your reason .

You get so lost in Bush hating you forget people are fighting and dying and what they are fighting and dying for we take for granted.
See above.

BTW, it is not a matter of hating Bush, it is a matter of morals and doing the right thing. Apparently Bush had none and did the wrong thing. That is where the "arrogance and stupidity" comes in?

The arrogance of thinking we can just go in and impose our will ...just like the Russians did in Afghanistan for instance ?

That's my point.

What we SHOULD do is to give them a clear and simple choice: Behave or decend into utter chaos and "awfulness".

That is not imposing our will. That is giving them a choice as to what to do WITH their will that is much simpler and productive than what they are choosing to do with their will now.


If as the stated GOAL was to remove Saddam and create a Democratic society that the rest of the region could emulate , HOW can you justify using your methods ?

The stark choice to either become "sane" or lose everything (ALL infrastructure and ability to do ANYTHING with their territory short of collecting dirt) would prompt them to behave, and evolve into a sensible society.


You simply CANT impose DEMOCRACY anymore than you can IMPOSE communism or anything else.

That's absolutely true.

But you impose conditions on people all the time. That is how you influence them.

The more simple and stark the conditions, the more likely the influence to be potent.

We shouldn't IMPOSE "democracy",.. we should demand non-stupid-assed behaviors,.. and when stupid-assed behavior happens, we should impose the conditions that deincentivize those behaviors.


Why would IMPOSE a Balkanization on Iraq..one that thee people of Iraq are clearly NOT in favor of ?

If they want to get back together again, they will.

For now, the "ethnic" element should be minimized as a cause of strife.


Think about it...what you proposed seems remarkably to me like something that would have come from the soviet Union and something they have attempted and failed at .

They were weenies in that regard. They were also bad at it, and didn't have the "heart" to do what needed to be done because THEY didn't believe in their own system such that they "felt right" about imposing it on others.

If they imposed "communism" on their "subjects", they knew they'd have to support them indefinitely, which is NOT what they wanted to do.

If we imposed "democracy" on our "newly freed neighbor", we wouldn't have to support them because that's not the job of a "freer of free people".

But,.. if they take the opportunity that we present them and turn it into an excuse to be "bad" (non-free and market-troublesome), then it IS our job to neutralize their "badness", to give them another opportunity to learn the lesson they need to learn to become a productive member state of humanity.


If we are being honest when we turn the government over to the Iraqi people after they vote their government in ..what right do we have to then become dictators ?

They are children, when it comes to governance.

Do you give loaded guns to children?


How is that a democracy ? And how is that teaching the Iraqis how to be a democracy ...something they seem to think is a blood sport right now .

They don't know, or care, about what "democracy" is right now.

They are simply being little brats who are jockeying for power within the space that we allow them to play.

We give them WAY too much space to play.

Democracy (freedom) is learned by doing it. Not by being "instructed" in it's practice by "outsiders".

They need a "safe" playground in which to experiment with the game of democracy, such that they can play amongst themselves without being interfered with by malevolent outsiders.

We get to be the playground adult, keeping the perverts out of the yard.


We had to accept the will of the Iraqi people by backing who they voted for..the guys in office SUCK at their jobs ..so far and have been unable to or unwilling to control the militia...we can make it worse by taking sides like we did in Lebanon and help fictionalize the country more or we can work on backing the Iraqi government and persuade them rather forcefully to start doing what they were elected for.

The present Iraqi government is a fiction, written by gang leaders, for the benefit of those gang leaders, ruling over a fictional country.

Iraq is NOT a country. It is a collection of regions.

Until Iraq is broken up and made "safe" as separate playgrounds of democracy, there will be no sensible anything coming from "Iraq", ever.


We are the ones who fucked up by not fully realizing the Sunni's would have to be brought into and assimilated for the government to be viable .
So now the Sunni are voting with bombs and AK 47's . They refuse to be screwed and I do not blame them . The current government has taken way too long to compromise and give them the assurances they need , to bring them into the fold..and the US should be doing more to put pressure on them to remove the KEY and the heart of the resistance by negotiation and diplomacy...they already know how to just beat people into submission and impose their will on them . We have to show them an alternative not more of the same .

You don't use diplomacy and negotiation with children.

You set the conditions of the environment, and allow them to choose how they wish to behave (play).

When they "do the right thing", you reward them.

When they don't do the right thing, you punish them.

When they finally figure out that it's better to "play well" within their environment, they are on their way to becoming adults.


We also are doing NOTHING about Iranian interference in southern Iraq and the destabilizing influence they have ..except on occasion ...pointing it out and then dropping the subject .

All borders should be draconianly shut. Period. Agreed.


The only way to fix whats broke is to first admit it is broke . I was actually HAPPY to finally see someone with the balls to stand up and say " Hmmm we screwed up but we will work harder and fix whats wrong " .

Absolutely. But no one disagrees that we haven't been doing what works.

The rhetoric is all about "Let's make the President look bad!"

That is perfectly sensible politics, but meaningless otherwise.


Did you read the book by Illario Pantano ? It will give you some insight into all we have done wrong...from the beginning ,,when we had the opportunity to do what was needed to show we mean business we did not...and thats a huge mistake in the culture we are are trying to deal with and we will never get that back. So we have to do it another way...adapt and improvise .


150.000 troops in a country of 26 million.....sure that makes sense.
The time to take control was right after Saddam was in his hole and we had the MORAL and ETHICAL authority to stop the looting and provide security....

Tell me what we did ? We screwed the pooch now we got to fix it but the "shock and awe stage is over" we lost that opportunity .

So, do what's right!

Break it up, by force, and give them the choice of either behaving correctly or becoming savages in a wasteland.

Ult,.. DemHam, like all leftists, is OBSESSED with seeing and pointing out what they perceive as "inconsistencies" (contradictions) within the words of people with which they don't agree.

That way, they can simply ignore what you say as a "meaningless unthinking drone" who isn't clever enough to see the "inherent flip-floppery" in your way of thinking.

They are a very simple, "black or white", no subtlety, unless subtlety suits them as a tactic of confusion and obfiscation, group of people.

Don't ask them questions of them with the word "F__" in it, as OTHER PEOPLE (you) using that word is a sign of your defeat, as you were reduced to "being rude",.. while if THEY use the "F" word it's a sign of "righteous indignation" and fully justified to show they're "fighting back against the vast rightwing conspiracy", ala BJ Clinton.

My suggestion,.. make them talk, and make fools of themselves, by asking simple questions, as that's all they can handle.
So all leftists will make themselves look like fools if you ask them simple questions? :p

I am amazed by your superior reasoning skills. :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
Ult,.. DemHam, like all leftists, is OBSESSED with seeing and pointing out what they perceive as "inconsistencies" (contradictions) within the words of people with which they don't agree.

That way, they can simply ignore what you say as a "meaningless unthinking drone" who isn't clever enough to see the "inherent flip-floppery" in your way of thinking.

They are a very simple, "black or white", no subtlety, unless subtlety suits them as a tactic of confusion and obfiscation, group of people.

Don't ask them questions of them with the word "F__" in it, as OTHER PEOPLE (you) using that word is a sign of your defeat, as you were reduced to "being rude",.. while if THEY use the "F" word it's a sign of "righteous indignation" and fully justified to show they're "fighting back against the vast rightwing conspiracy", ala BJ Clinton.

My suggestion,.. make them talk, and make fools of themselves, by asking simple questions, as that's all they can handle.

So all leftists will make themselves look like fools if you ask them simple questions?

I am amazed by your superior reasoning skills.

Simple answer to your question: Yes. :)

My reasoning skills are not superior.

What's in my mind, is.


(( No ego here, eh..!!? :) ))

Simple answer to your question: Yes. :)

My reasoning skills are not superior.

What's in my mind, is.

(( No ego here, eh..!!? :) ))
Ah, a legend in your own mind.

You seemed to have expressed quite a few ideas as to how Iraq should be "pacified", and I think that your solutions would only make Iraq worse than it is.

Note to self: Why do I get a sense of "puppet wanking" going on here?

A very pretty map indeed. Nicely drawn by Patrick Ruffini.




The liberal support for the Iraqis was BEFORE the Shock and Awe Show. The liberals said WAIT until the inspections are finished, but NO the Busheviks knew they would find no WMD, and they had no choice but to invade.

So, do ya wanna talk shit or do ya wanna understand that it was the Bush crowd that said Yehaw and started to blow the crap out of Iraq.

See above.

BTW, it is not a matter of hating Bush, it is a matter of morals and doing the right thing. Apparently Bush had none and did the wrong thing. That is where the "arrogance and stupidity" comes in?


So you admit you do not support the people of Iraq and could care less about democracy because you dont like the way Bush went about it.

I see so fuck the Iraqis...its all Bush's fault anyway.

I see neoliberalism or something...I always saw Liberals as crusaders for human rights and democratic values...not leaving a country to be torn apart because they hate the President and do not like what he does or how he does it.

Thanks for clearing that up further for me .

Ah, a legend in your own mind.

You seemed to have expressed quite a few ideas as to how Iraq should be "pacified", and I think that your solutions would only make Iraq worse than it is.

Note to self: Why do I get a sense of "puppet wanking" going on here?

Actually it would turn it into a huge hell on earth battleground...but hey..why have a little war when you can have a huge one . It would certainly fix things in the region and advance the search for alternative energy as well as provide CNN with tons more propaganda footage sent by terrorist for them to broadcast .

Who knows it might be fun ....... To watch . And think how much further we can advance our war tech ! Plus we may even get the draft back...gotta have soldiers to swarm a country of 26 million and clamp down on Iran... I am sure the people of the US would be all for it.


BTW Insignificantia if they ever do get their shit in order the constitution allows for three semi autonomous regions that are under a central / federal government.
The Sunnis don't want to get screwed to death out of all the oil income they DON'T have NOW in their region..so what makes you think they would stand for a three separate sate Iraq ?
Its actually in their best interest to have a united Iraq.

And they are not children...thats arrogant and condescending to the extreme and illustrates why the US has never been very good at diplomacy .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignificantia
Simple answer to your question: Yes.

My reasoning skills are not superior.

What's in my mind, is.

(( No ego here, eh..!!? ))

Ah, a legend in your own mind.

You seemed to have expressed quite a few ideas as to how Iraq should be "pacified", and I think that your solutions would only make Iraq worse than it is.

Note to self: Why do I get a sense of "puppet wanking" going on here?

Heh he he he... :D If you can't be a legend in your own mind, who's going to think you a legend in theirs?

(( There's a whole "Don't be a victim!" motivational speech in there somewhere, but I'm not going to go there,.. right now. ))

I appreciate your wish for Iraq to go through this transition in a nice gentle way,.. or at least as gentle as possible. That's very humanitarian of you, and very nice, and shows you have great values.

My opinion,.. I'm just not that interested in treating people with kid-gloves who are so totally incapable of rational thinking that ANY act of kindness is seen as "weakness" and further encourages them to be nastier and meaner.

Until they lose that "Either under your boot or at your throat" attitude, they deserve to be treated like the psychotic children they are.

Tough-love.

That's what called for.



Other than that,.. we probably agree on EVERYTHING!

This should be fun if the server holds up.


BTW I noticed you claim to be ...FAR right....

We got a guy who they accuse of wanting to kill off all the Muslims .... I dont know about that being the truth but thats the claim.....

And a guy who wants to bring back slavery ...but only for people he considers stupid....


Lesse what else ???

I dont Know ...its a real mixed bag...everything from the I want communism back to Hitler was a Great leader..... to the age of consent should be lowered to 8 to ....well you name it...pedophiles necrophiles...Socialism is the greatest thing...anarchy is the best form of government....

hey go check out the lady who shot her baby thread ! They are arguing that it was a cool abortion..full term and all becuse the baby wasn't born yet ..

It took them this long to figure out how stupid and arrogant we were? I figured it out about 2 months after march of '03.:headbang:

you want insane go look at this ....http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503973&page=13:D

It took them this long to figure out how stupid and arrogant we were? I figured it out about 2 months after march of '03.:headbang:


I suspected it in the 80's but put it down to Raygunitis.

By using rape torture and imprisonment and by using chemical weapons on his OWN population
Please remind me, was it not the Iraqi government who was firing into Fallujah with MK79 and White Phosphorous, or were my eyes decieving me?
And his army and secret police to kill anyone who dissented along with their entire extended family after torturing them
Ah yes, the old "Halliburton Manouvre".
Exterminating WHOLE villiages
*does the Fallujah dance*
BUT AT LEAST THE FUCKING TRAINS RAN ON TIME .

THAT FUCKING BEATS DEMOCRACY ANY FUCKING DAY .
At least people weren't blowing each other up all day long... that sure as hell beats an installed democracy, which is nothing of the sort.
Total unmitigated BULLSHIT
Not really. They made the constitution require 2/3 of the population to vote and 2/3 of them to vote for it when it had the oil clause in.

They changed it after it was taken out.

So you admit you do not support the people of Iraq and could care less about democracy because you dont like the way Bush went about it.

I see so fuck the Iraqis...its all Bush's fault anyway.

I see neoliberalism or something...I always saw Liberals as crusaders for human rights and democratic values...not leaving a country to be torn apart because they hate the President and do not like what he does or how he does it.

Thanks for clearing that up further for me .
Don't twist my words. Liberals were very expressive about Iraq BEFORE the invasion. They marched in the streets by the millions. You didn't see that? Our government, a Liberal government, said NO to Bush and any invasion of Iraq, as long as inspectors were doing their job.

Liberals have been pushing the US to leave ever since the invasion. You must be blind or don't read the news? Even if the US left right now, the Iraqis would be better off in the long run.

And yeah, it is Bush's fault. All the way!! Iraq was not a threat to the US and should have let the inspectors finish their job.

Ever since I have been on these boards, most liberals have supported a withdrawal of US troops.

And if you don't think liberals haven't been crusading for "human rights" issues, then I would say that you are full of shit, because you have been in many threads where the cause of "human rights" has been championed by the center/left people here at NS.

You have staunchly defended Bush's Iraq policy, which has resulted in the devestation of that country. Don't blame liberals.

Heh he he he... :D If you can't be a legend in your own mind, who's going to think you a legend in theirs?

(( There's a whole "Don't be a victim!" motivational speech in there somewhere, but I'm not going to go there,.. right now. ))

I appreciate your wish for Iraq to go through this transition in a nice gentle way,.. or at least as gentle as possible. That's very humanitarian of you, and very nice, and shows you have great values.

My opinion,.. I'm just not that interested in treating people with kid-gloves who are so totally incapable of rational thinking that ANY act of kindness is seen as "weakness" and further encourages them to be nastier and meaner.

Until they lose that "Either under your boot or at your throat" attitude, they deserve to be treated like the psychotic children they are.

Tough-love.

That's what called for.



Other than that,.. we probably agree on EVERYTHING!

That's not "tough love"; that's just fucked up. If you really "love" them, and wanted them to become a democratic nation and the rest of that, you don't hold them at gunpoint and demand that they do what you say. Do you have kids? Because, no offense intended, I can assure you that if you treat them like that, they will grow to be "psychotic children".

Don't twist my words. Liberals were very expressive about Iraq BEFORE the invasion. They marched in the streets by the millions. You didn't see that? Our government, a Liberal government, said NO to Bush and any invasion of Iraq, as long as inspectors were doing their job.

Liberals have been pushing the US to leave ever since the invasion. You must be blind or don't read the news? Even if the US left right now, the Iraqis would be better off in the long run.

And yeah, it is Bush's fault. All the way!! Iraq was not a threat to the US and should have let the inspectors finish their job.

Ever since I have been on these boards, most liberals have supported a withdrawal of US troops.

And if you don't think liberals haven't been crusading for "human rights" issues, then I would say that you are full of shit, because you have been in many threads where the cause of "human rights" has been championed by the center/left people here at NS.

You have staunchly defended Bush's Iraq policy, which has resulted in the devestation of that country. Don't blame liberals.


Ten years ...you said inspectors were doing there job...so those were not cruise missile Clinton fired ? And all the Bluster and the tossing out of saddam of inspectors and the bullshit and the oil for food cash cow...ten years to enforce a cease fire agreement that should have taken a YEAR.

Bye bye Saddam and good riddance I supported the war from the beginning and still do because saddam was a threat and a cancer .And the US was stuck for ten years being a guard dog for the world while he fucked with whomever he pleased.

The debate over the war ended when the troops hit the ground...its a new debate now ..how do we fix what we broke ? And how do we leave Iraq as the becon of democracy it was intended to be ?

How do we HELP all those in Iraq that risk their lives every day to try to establish a democracy ? How do we support and protect them while they come toghether as a country and what can we do to help.

All I hear from liberals is how fast can we run and abandon them to their fate....THATS not what I expect from liberals...I expect the same reaction as to the Spanish Civil war and the Civil rights marches..
If you cant see the Iraqi's fighting for their freedom and their lives , against either another totalitarian Government or a Taliban syle love fest than I cant help you .

We leave Iraq and thats what you doom at least 12 million who Voted to , along with those that couldn't or were not able. BUT before that you get another balkans style debacle with live internet beheadings for the 24 hr news cycle ...think serbs with swords AND AK 47's.

But I can see you have this all well thought out and planned . Good luck,

NOT a fucking debate on how fast we can run and hide and leave them to whomever and whatever.

Saddam is one LESS Kim ILL BUNG amd President Islamaboob of IRAN that the world has to worry over.

We have to fix what we broke...debate the best way to do it and debate the best way to support the FREE Iraq that voted for a government and a constitution and is fighting for its life .

Ten years ...you said inspectors were doing there job...so those were not cruise missile Clinton fired ?
The inspectors were in Iraq, doing the job, they were ordered out of Iraq by Bush et al because they were not finding any active WMD programe, nor were they ever going to.

And all the Bluster and the tossing out of saddam of inspectors and the bullshit and the oil for food cash cow...ten years to enforce a cease fire agreement that should have taken a YEAR.
Irrelevent, no one with a well-balanced outlook is advocating an attack on Israel for their many and continuing refusals to abide by UN resolutions. The cited justification for war was never 'Saddam isnt being a good boy' it was the 'proven existence of WMD' - we now know this was a lie. The active WMD programes didnt exist, thus there could never have been any proof that they did exist, much less proof of their exact location as was claimed by Bush et al prior to the invasion...

Bye bye Saddam and good riddance I supported the war from the beginning and still do because saddam was a threat and a cancer.
Saddam wasnt a threat to the US, in fact he was a stabilising factor in the ME.

And the US was stuck for ten years being a guard dog for the world while he fucked with whomever he pleased.
The US was pursuing its own agenda, note the absence of the 'guard dog for the world' in Afghanistan when the Teliban executed its unlawful coup, note the absence in Darfur, note the absence during the troubles in Rawanda, note the absence when it isnt in the US's interests to not be absent... Is it wrong for the US to pursue self-interest? Of course not, but it is disingenious to try to pass off having done so as some kind of martydom for which the US ought to be accorded the moral high-ground.

The debate over the war ended when the troops hit the ground...
How convinient would that be? Certainly it appears to be what Bush et al banked on when they mislead the people of the US, their allies, the UN, and the people of the world...:rolleyes:

its a new debate now ..how do we fix what we broke ? And how do we leave Iraq as the becon of democracy it was intended to be ?
Probably by having people who actually give a damm about such things in charge of the operation instead of Bush et al who care not a whit for the Iraqis, nor for the US troops maimed or killed or risking their lives in Iraq as we type.

How do we HELP all those in Iraq that risk their lives every day to try to establish a democracy ? How do we support and protect them while they come toghether as a country and what can we do to help.
No one knows, which is part of the reason why people said 'dont do that' in the first place. Such arrogance to support tipping the milk over the floor and breaking the bottle then turning to those who said 'dont do that, getting the milk back into a broken bottle is something we cant figure out how to do, and we dont think you can either' and demanding they ignore the stupidity of spilling the milk and breaking the bottle in favour of trying to do the impossible.

The milk's on the floor, the bottle is broken, when you fuck up things so badly they cant be fixed, problem is they cant be fixed...that's why your support of this war was incredibly stupid. Anyone with good sense (or even common sense) could and did predict exactly what has happened...but no one on this earth can figure out how to fix it....that's why so many of us warned folk like you not to support it. We warned you there were no current WMD programes and Saddam's military capability was nothing to write home (much less invade) about. We warned you that Iraq would turn into a mess and that there was no exit plan in place nor any way to leave gracefully once in. We warned you that contrary to being a danger Saddam was a stabilising factor in the region. Now US troops are dying by the tank load, Iraqis are less safe than ever, and lookie next door, are they nukes in your pocket Iran or are you just pissed to included in the axis of evil?

All I hear from liberals is how fast can we run and abandon them to their fate....
I can only speak for myself, and I dont know if I meet the definition of liberal but frankly I neither support the withdrawal or the continuing presence in Iraq of US (and other invasion) troops. I'm looking at the milk on the floor, looking at the bottle and saying neither putting the shards of glass back in the fridge or leaving them on the floor will get the milk back in the bottle. I knew better than to make such a mess, but I have no clue how to set about cleaning it up, and more significantly neither do those who made or supported the making of the mess...

THATS not what I expect from liberals...I expect the same reaction as to the Spanish Civil war and the Civil rights marches..
If you cant see the Iraqi's fighting for their freedom and their lives , against either another totalitarian Government or a Taliban syle love fest than I cant help you .
I know all the armed insurgency and opposition was not taking place in Iraq before the invasion.

We leave Iraq and thats what you doom at least 12 million who Voted to , along with those that couldn't or were not able. BUT before that you get another balkans style debacle with live internet beheadings for the 24 hr news cycle ...think serbs with swords AND AK 47's.
The time for thinking was before the milk was thrown on the floor and the bottle smashed. At this point no amount of thinking will get the milk back into the now shattered bottle...:rolleyes:

But I can see you have this all well thought out and planned . Good luck,
Hang on, you supported this ill-conceived, ill-thought out idea of invading with its ill-concieved, planning-deficient military operation, and now you harp about planning and thinking things out? If you placed any value on these things whatsoever you wouldnt have supported the invasion since it was based on substituting fantasy for planning...

NOT a fucking debate on how fast we can run and hide and leave them to whomever and whatever.
Leave the kitchen and let the milk sour on the floor, or stay there and spread it about with every step you take...it's a friggen mess either way, and an easily predicted and avoded, but impossible to clean up mess at that.

Saddam is one LESS Kim ILL BUNG amd President Islamaboob of IRAN that the world has to worry over.
Saddam was not a threat to the US or its allies, he was a stabilising factor in the Middle East...

We have to fix what we broke...
'Have to' is silly rhetoric given what you claim has to be done cant be done.

debate the best way to do it and debate the best way to support the FREE Iraq that voted for a government and a constitution and is fighting for its life .
Yeah, debate how to get the spilled milk off the floor into a shattered bottle...:rolleyes:

Saddam was not threat to the US or its allies, he was a stabilising factor in the Middle East...

Kuwaiit and Iran ...the rest of your argument goes down hill from there.

Kuwaiit and Iran ...the rest of your argument goes down hill from there.

Well, he was good enough for the Republican Party when he was the right rottweiler to sic on the Ayatollah.

Kuwaiit and Iran ...the rest of your argument goes down hill from there.

Kuwait was a result of the U.S. pulling a Bay of Pigs on Saddam via April Glaspie when she said what happened between Iraq and Kuwait was none of America's business, and do you even read history books that aren't from FOX News? The reason Iraq was taken off the terrorism list and given access to all those chemical weapons were because Reagan was scared of the Ayatollah more than he was of Saddam, who was of course America's Pet Dictator Bitch ever since the CIA put him in power from Day One.

Your argument did a slalom from the peak of Mount Everest.

Well, he was good enough for the Republican Party when he was the right rottweiler to sic on the Ayatollah.


Sure was ..But he sic'd himself ..the US made the decision to help him enough so Iran didn't crush his fool ass ....so he rewarded our efforts at keeping the status quo in the region by attacking Kuwaiit....

And that leads directly to him being on TV cursing the judge and waiting for the hang man .

BTW that Carter guy was wonderfull with his efforts to keep American Hostages in Iran and for 444 or something days ? Who else could have accomplished that feat ! BTW thats what lead DIRECTLY to the " REPUBLICAN " in question being in power...in case you forgot .

Kuwait was a result of the U.S. pulling a Bay of Pigs on Saddam via April Glaspie when she said what happened between Iraq and Kuwait was none of America's business, and do you even read history books that aren't from FOX News? The reason Iraq was taken off the terrorism list and given access to all those chemical weapons were because Reagan was scared of the Ayatollah more than he was of Saddam, who was of course America's Pet Dictator Bitch ever since the CIA put him in power from Day One.

Your argument did a slalom from the peak of Mount Everest.


Only in your version of alternate history universe cookbook .

Sure was ..But he sic'd himself ..the US made the decision to help him enough so Iran didn't crush his fool ass ....so he rewarded our efforts at keeping the status quo in the region by attacking Kuwaiit....

Kuwait was slant-drilling under the border into Iraqi oil. Saddam asked for permission to deal with Kuwait. April Glaspie said whatever happens is between you two. Saddam though he got the green light.

Saddam bought into the Bay of Pigs line from the United States the way the Cuban Exiles did, the Hungarians did, and the Kurds did as well.

Please.
:rolleyes:

Kuwaiit and Iran
What of them?

...the rest of your argument goes down hill from there.
Which explains your inability to answer a single point raised there-in...:rolleyes:

Saddam asked for permission to deal with Kuwait.

I see tranlated into Farsi that means invade.

And when saddam saw all the Planes and ships and tanks and soldiers and the UN ...it never occured to him he made a boo boo...


Ummm sure ok .

it meant again in Farsi " BUNKER DOWN " rape Kuwaiit and fight the world in the Mother of all battles " .


Sure I can see that.

Kind of explains why he didnt think he lost the war and screwed around for ten years until he got to hide in a hole ...

it also explains why he is on TV insisting he is the Leader of Iraq and is waiting for his rope to be finished.


I guesss it also explains why some country might think he was unstable enough to give a nuke to a terrorist just for shits and giggles .

I see tranlated into Farsi that means invade.

And when saddam saw all the Planes and ships and tanks and soldiers and the UN ...it never occured to him he made a boo boo...


Ummm sure ok .

it meant again in Farsi " BUNKER DOWN " rape Kuwaiit and fight the world in the Mother of all battles " .


Sure I can see that.

Kind of explains why he didnt think he lost the war and screwed around for ten years until he got to hide in a hole ...

it also explains why he is on TV insisting he is the Leader of Iraq and is waiting for his rope to be finished.


I guesss it also explains why some country might think he was unstable enough to give a nuke to a terrorist just for shits and giggles .
Only if that country was stupid enough to believe that he had a nuke, anyone with good sense knew very well that Saddam didnt have so much as a nuclear pea-shooter, in fact I suspect this knowledge was within the grasp of even those who are not characterised by good sense, which explains why the Bush admin figured invading was a safe bet...

Only if that country was stupid enough to believe that he had a nuke, anyone with good sense knew very well that Saddam didnt have so much as a nuclear pea-shooter, in fact I suspect this knowledge was within the grasp of even those who are not characterised by good sense, which explains why the Bush admin figured invading was a safe bet...

Which also shows that Ahmedinejad and Kim aren't idiots either. They knew Saddam didn't have actual nukes and thus Iraq was invaded. They're both working on nukes as a blank check more than an actual weapon to use for some madcap halfassed conquest.

But Ultraextreme Insanity is just a card-carrying Bushevik who screams about reality's liberal bias.

:D

What of them?


Which explains your inability to answer a single point raised there-in...:rolleyes:


Zagat bear with me here...I have answered them ad nauseum for almost 4 years. I Know I'm not going to change your mind and you wont change mine .

But you may be able to find my responses by looking under see post by.....

they may not have all been purged.

Suffice to say In short order ;

I support the war ..not the way its being waged.

I supported the overthrow of Saddam because of his actions of defiance for ten years against the US and the UN and because I found him to be Unstable and one of the biggest threats to US security in the world .
I also believe that a Democratic Iraq will help in the long fight against radical Islamic extremest that started with Russia's Invasion of Afghanistan . And will last until they are all dead or we are . At least if you believe what they say .
cant say they are not trying though .

I point directly to Kim Ill bunghole and Islamabob in iran and the quest for a nice nuclear winter to further drive home the threat . And Saddam had the resources and the knowhow if he lived long enough to put it toghether to make good on his threats to see the US destroyed...he being kinda pissed off at being the loser in a war or two and all .


We invaded we broke the country now we have to fix it . Short version .

Leaving iraq will be the biggest victory and largest recruiting tool since Osama proved the US to be very easy to attack and sot so super to every Jihadist in the world by not only attacking NY and destroying the world trade center but by attacking the Pentagon in washington...something entire nations and armys could not and cant do ...and survive...last I heard osama was alive and well . And still attacking . And having Iraq as a huge base to recruit and train and spread his version of paradise will be aa huge error for anyone who insnt a adherant to his form of Islam .

US prestige ..such as it is ..and influence will take a hit so hard it may never recover.

We broke it ...we fix it...the Iraqis got screwed over by the US after the first war when we thought they would do our job and overthrow SAddam..

They that believed in us then now fill mass graves.

12 million Iraqis believed in us enough to go vote under war time conditions..it is not in my make up to abandon them to chaos and total civil war by leaving Iraq...not again ...not before we finished what we started .

Thats not the America I live in.

Which also shows that Ahmedinejad and Kim aren't idiots either. They knew Saddam didn't have actual nukes and thus Iraq was invaded. They're both working on nukes as a blank check more than an actual weapon to use for some madcap halfassed conquest.

But Ultraextreme Insanity is just a card-carrying Bushevik who screams about reality's liberal bias.

:D

I'm a card carrying registered Democrat . Was registered Independent.

Anthing else you need to be made clear ?

Only if that country was stupid enough to believe that he had a nuke, anyone with good sense knew very well that Saddam didnt have so much as a nuclear pea-shooter, in fact I suspect this knowledge was within the grasp of even those who are not characterised by good sense, which explains why the Bush admin figured invading was a safe bet...


I could point out he was developing a nuclear capability in the 1970's but I wont bust your bubble....take some time and do a little research before you make such foolish statements .

The nuclear reactor the Israli's bombed ...that was a mirage....his scientist were all invisible men...Just like Kim Il in Korea didny have a nuke program in the 1980's......yep...you do really need to do some reading then come back .

How big of a bomb would it take to put in a truck and detonate inside a city ? Since buying and trading nuke tech is so lucrative ...see Pakistan...who can say what Saddam had planned ..you can say we didnt find any Nukes in Iraq...thats IT .

But dont make me laugh and say he did not have the means nor the motive nor the ability to make one . That is truly ludicrouse.

Not to mention how easy and fast it is to whip up chemical weapons...

Ask the Japanese about sarin gas in the subway...and they were amatuers.
Lucky mistakes stopped thousands from being killed by a few .

Sure saddam was a threat ...until he was pulled out of his spider hole .


http://www.payvand.com/news/03/oct/1015.html

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so98hamza

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons have disappeared from Iraq, the chief of the U.N.'s atomic watchdog agency has warned.

Satellite imagery shows entire buildings that once housed high-precision equipment that could be used to make nuclear bombs have been dismantled, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a letter to the Security Council.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/






so ????? All these facts are false or just some of them ?

Here's an interesting plan (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14451) for rebuilding Iraq, from George McGovern and William Polk. I imagine the site itself will piss some people off, but that wasn't my intention, it's just the first place I found a reasonably complete version of the plan on-line (it's way too big to paste into a Jolt posting). Anyway, they have some good ideas, I think.

Which also shows that Ahmedinejad and Kim aren't idiots either. They knew Saddam didn't have actual nukes and thus Iraq was invaded. They're both working on nukes as a blank check more than an actual weapon to use for some madcap halfassed conquest.
Absolutely, with their backs flat against the wall, they dont see they have anything to lose by going nuclear, fact is the position the Bush admin has put them in, they'd be idiots not to.

But Ultraextreme Insanity is just a card-carrying Bushevik who screams about reality's liberal bias.

:D
Who can blame Ultraextreme, it must be high annoying to find that reality is colluding with Bush-objectors just to make him and his supporters look bad.

Absolutely, with their backs flat against the wall, they dont see they have anything to lose by going nuclear, fact is the position the Bush admin has put them in, they'd be idiots not to.


Who can blame Ultraextreme, it must be high annoying to find that reality is colluding with Bush-objectors just to make him and his supporters look bad.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm

http://www.nci.org/02NCI/12/Stephanopoulos.htm

December 24 2000 London Sunday Times, MIDDLE EAST




Saddam builds new atom bomb


Marie Colvin, Amman





SADDAM HUSSEIN has ordered his scientists to resume work on a programme aimed at making a nuclear bomb, a defector warned yesterday.

The Iraqi dictator, whose efforts to make atomic weapons were thwarted by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf war in 1991, revived the plans two years ago, the defector said.

Scientists who had previously worked on the weapons programme were made to return to their duties in August 1998, four months before Saddam expelled the inspectors.

According to Salman Yassin Zweir, a design engineer who was employed by the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission for 13 years, the instruction came in a document marked "top secret" which identified a research centre on Al-Jadriya Street, Baghdad, as the headqarters of the new operation.

Zweir was arrested and tortured after refusing to go back to the programme. He escaped to Jordan, where he spoke for the first time last week after being reunited with his wife, who was also tortured, and their two sons, aged seven and six.

"Saddam is very proud of his nuclear team," said Zweir, 39. "He will never give up the dream of being the first Arab leader to have a nuclear bomb."




http://www.nci.org/s/sad-new-bomb-st-122400.htm


http://www.nci.org/iraq/iraq322.htm


Over the last few years, public concern about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction has focused primarily on Saddam’s chemical, biological and missile capabilities. This perception in large measure results from the IAEA’s finding that “Iraq’s known nuclear assets have been destroyed, removed or rendered harmless.” This is not, in fact, the case. While it is true that Iraq’s known nuclear facilities have been destroyed or were placed under monitoring (prior to December 1998), important questions about Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program remain unanswered. Key nuclear-bomb components and weapons designs that were known to exist were never surrendered by Iraq to UN inspectors.

Indeed, the threat from Iraq’s nuclear capability could be greater than its chemical, biological and missile efforts. Vital elements of Iraq’s nuclear-weapons program remain in place today. Over 200 nuclear PhDs continue their work on unknown projects, with no supervision by UN inspectors for more than a year. Iraq operates a worldwide network to procure foreign technology, and most trucks entering Iraq from Turkey are not even stopped for inspection.

The inspectors were in Iraq, doing the job, they were ordered out of Iraq by Bush et al because they were not finding any active WMD programe, nor were they ever going to.

Irrelevent, no one with a well-balanced outlook is advocating an attack on Israel for their many and continuing refusals to abide by UN resolutions. The cited justification for war was never 'Saddam isnt being a good boy' it was the 'proven existence of WMD' - we now know this was a lie. The active WMD programes didnt exist, thus there could never have been any proof that they did exist, much less proof of their exact location as was claimed by Bush et al prior to the invasion...

Saddam wasnt a threat to the US, in fact he was a stabilising factor in the ME.

The US was pursuing its own agenda, note the absence of the 'guard dog for the world' in Afghanistan when the Teliban executed its unlawful coup, note the absence in Darfur, note the absence during the troubles in Rawanda, note the absence when it isnt in the US's interests to not be absent... Is it wrong for the US to pursue self-interest? Of course not, but it is disingenious to try to pass off having done so as some kind of martydom for which the US ought to be accorded the moral high-ground.

How convinient would that be? Certainly it appears to be what Bush et al banked on when they mislead the people of the US, their allies, the UN, and the people of the world...:rolleyes:

Probably by having people who actually give a damm about such things in charge of the operation instead of Bush et al who care not a whit for the Iraqis, nor for the US troops maimed or killed or risking their lives in Iraq as we type.

No one knows, which is part of the reason why people said 'dont do that' in the first place. Such arrogance to support tipping the milk over the floor and breaking the bottle then turning to those who said 'dont do that, getting the milk back into a broken bottle is something we cant figure out how to do, and we dont think you can either' and demanding they ignore the stupidity of spilling the milk and breaking the bottle in favour of trying to do the impossible.

The milk's on the floor, the bottle is broken, when you fuck up things so badly they cant be fixed, problem is they cant be fixed...that's why your support of this war was incredibly stupid. Anyone with good sense (or even common sense) could and did predict exactly what has happened...but no one on this earth can figure out how to fix it....that's why so many of us warned folk like you not to support it. We warned you there were no current WMD programes and Saddam's military capability was nothing to write home (much less invade) about. We warned you that Iraq would turn into a mess and that there was no exit plan in place nor any way to leave gracefully once in. We warned you that contrary to being a danger Saddam was a stabilising factor in the region. Now US troops are dying by the tank load, Iraqis are less safe than ever, and lookie next door, are they nukes in your pocket Iran or are you just pissed to included in the axis of evil?

I can only speak for myself, and I dont know if I meet the definition of liberal but frankly I neither support the withdrawal or the continuing presence in Iraq of US (and other invasion) troops. I'm looking at the milk on the floor, looking at the bottle and saying neither putting the shards of glass back in the fridge or leaving them on the floor will get the milk back in the bottle. I knew better than to make such a mess, but I have no clue how to set about cleaning it up, and more significantly neither do those who made or supported the making of the mess...


I know all the armed insurgency and opposition was not taking place in Iraq before the invasion.


The time for thinking was before the milk was thrown on the floor and the bottle smashed. At this point no amount of thinking will get the milk back into the now shattered bottle...:rolleyes:

Hang on, you supported this ill-conceived, ill-thought out idea of invading with its ill-concieved, planning-deficient military operation, and now you harp about planning and thinking things out? If you placed any value on these things whatsoever you wouldnt have supported the invasion since it was based on substituting fantasy for planning...


Leave the kitchen and let the milk sour on the floor, or stay there and spread it about with every step you take...it's a friggen mess either way, and an easily predicted and avoded, but impossible to clean up mess at that.


Saddam was not a threat to the US or its allies, he was a stabilising factor in the Middle East...

'Have to' is silly rhetoric given what you claim has to be done cant be done.


Yeah, debate how to get the spilled milk off the floor into a shattered bottle...:rolleyes:
I was going to reply UltraEXTREME, but Zagat did such an excellent job, I will just add my signature to his reply. I bolded the especially important points that I hold dear.

*I am CanuckHeaven and I approve of this message!! :D

I was going to reply UltraEXTREME, but Zagat did such an excellent job, I will just add my signature to his reply. I bolded the especially important points that I hold dear.

*I am CanuckHeaven and I approve of this message!! :D

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm


The lesson from the Gulf is that the prevention of nuclear proliferation is cheaper than its cure. If nations do not stop the spread of the bomb while they can still do it peacefully, they may be forced to do it with blood. If the current embargo or something like it had been in effect during the latter half of the 1980s, the Iraqi nuclear question would not be posed today. Use of military force to stop Iraq's nuclear program bomb would risk America's blood to counter reckless exports. It is not moral to ask people to die because exporters were greedy and government officials did not do their jobs.

The world must learn from this mistake and turn the consensus that produced the embargo into a permanent system for stopping the spread of the bomb. Virtually every country in the world has agreed to sanctions against Iraq. These same countries should now agree to sanctions against the secret nuclear-bomb programs of other developing countries. Unless the world wants to face more Iraqs, it must raise the economic and political costs of the bomb so high the renegades cannot afford it. This is already being tried in a mild way with Brazil and seems to be working.

If American lives are lost to stop the spread of the bomb to Iraq, the world must insure that such a sacrifice is never required again.



From wayyyyyyy back in time...no lessons learned.

You still have those like you that deny a problem even exist .


http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...rq.centrifuge/

http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm

http://www.nci.org/02NCI/12/Stephanopoulos.htm


http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002303


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zagat
Only if that country was stupid enough to believe that he had a nuke, anyone with good sense knew very well that Saddam didnt have so much as a nuclear pea-shooter, in fact I suspect this knowledge was within the grasp of even those who are not characterised by good sense, which explains why the Bush admin figured invading was a safe bet...

Here's an interesting plan (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14451) for rebuilding Iraq, from George McGovern and William Polk. I imagine the site itself will piss some people off, but that wasn't my intention, it's just the first place I found a reasonably complete version of the plan on-line (it's way too big to paste into a Jolt posting). Anyway, they have some good ideas, I think.
WELL, lookey here!! A Democrat plan for withdrawal. UltraExtreme wanted a plan from the liberals to save the Iraqis and viola....like magic there is a plan.

There is a God!! :)

We broke it ...we fix it...the Iraqis got screwed over by the US after the first war when we thought they would do our job and overthrow SAddam..

They that believed in us then now fill mass graves.

12 million Iraqis believed in us enough to go vote under war time conditions..it is not in my make up to abandon them to chaos and total civil war by leaving Iraq...not again ...not before we finished what we started .

Thats not the America I live in.
Both wars courtesy of Bush the Elder and Bush the Lesser.

I see a problem, do you see a problem?

Zagat bear with me here...I have answered them ad nauseum for almost 4 years. I Know I'm not going to change your mind and you wont change mine .

But you may be able to find my responses by looking under see post by.....

they may not have all been purged.

Suffice to say In short order ;

I support the war ..not the way its being waged.
Right, like the two are divisible. The war had to fought without proper planning because it had to be done quick smart before it could be proven there were no WMD.

I supported the overthrow of Saddam because of his actions of defiance for ten years against the US and the UN and because I found him to be Unstable and one of the biggest threats to US security in the world .
Right, 10 years of predictable behavour=unstable.

I also believe that a Democratic Iraq will help in the long fight against radical Islamic extremest that started with Russia's Invasion of Afghanistan .
I fail to see that an event that hasnt and in the forseeable future wont eventuate as a result of the invasion is a reason for the invasion.

And will last until they are all dead or we are . At least if you believe what they say .
cant say they are not trying though .
And boy was the Iraq invasion a boon for them, if it had come with gift wrapping and a best wishes card from George himself, it couldnt have been a nicer present.

I point directly to Kim Ill bunghole and Islamabob in iran and the quest for a nice nuclear winter to further drive home the threat .
Then you are either being dishonest or fail to understand the role that the Iraq invasion played in motivating the fast-tracking of the nuclear ambitions of both these nations.

And Saddam had the resources and the knowhow if he lived long enough to put it toghether to make good on his threats to see the US destroyed...he being kinda pissed off at being the loser in a war or two and all .
No he didnt. He had the kind of resources that left him hiding in a friggen hole when the shit hit the fan. He was an old man getting older. He'd have pottered about his numerous mansions getting older and lamer, thinking back to his glory days when he actually was worth writing home to Mamma about.

We invaded we broke the country now we have to fix it . Short version .
But you cant fix it. As the years drag on, it gets more and more broken, it's more broken now than it was the day Bush declared victory, it's more broken now than a year after he declared victory and more broken now than two years after he declared victory....and so forth...with no sign of a reversal.

Leaving iraq will be the biggest victory and largest recruiting tool since Osama proved the US to be very easy to attack and sot so super to every Jihadist in the world by not only attacking NY and destroying the world trade center but by attacking the Pentagon in washington...
Actually there has already been a bigger recruiting tool since then, it's called the Iraq invasion...it's also a huge victory. Who'd a thought a rag-tag bag of terrorists could manipulate and trap the US into what it wanted with a few box cutters...aka stanley knives....astounding.

something entire nations and armys could not and cant do ...and survive...last I heard osama was alive and well .
That's right, he is still alive and well, and does Bush care? First he did (more than anything) then he didnt, since then I think he did again, but perhaps that's again changed so that he doesnt again...it's hard to keep track when it comes to Bush's flip flopping.

And still attacking .
Might that be because instead of getting down to business and justifiably tracking Osama in Afghanistan, until the job was done, Bush with your support left Osama to do what he would and set off chasing after sad-sack Saddam, the man found hiding in a friggen hole smaller than my toilet...? I think so.

And having Iraq as a huge base to recruit and train and spread his version of paradise will be aa huge error for anyone who insnt a adherant to his form of Islam .
Yup, as a sole result of the war you supported, Iraq has turned out to be a bigger asset to the terrorists than a handful of box-cutters.

US prestige ..
was flying high post 9/11, took a dive with the unjustified, unnecessary invasion of Iraq, and keeps going down, down, down, currently subterranean and still dropping...

such as it is ..and influence will take a hit so hard it may never recover.
Right, because an unprovoked war of aggression that has made the entire world a less safe place, been a gift to terrorists, along with a complete failure to catch a single, very ill man holed up in a cave has done wonders for the prestige and influence of the US...you know all the 'US bashing' you might like to dismiss under whatever pretext, wasnt rife like that before the invasion of Iraq, or before 9/11, and it sure as fuck wasnt like that directly after 9/11, or when the US was chasing after Osama in Afghanistan...it all went side-ways, then rapidly down-hill with the invasion of Iraq, and has only gotten worse as the obvious lies have become obvious even to those who dwell in denial, and as the US has let the terrorists win with the degradation of its liberty and...well basically anything and everything it ever stood proudly and bravely for.

We broke it ...we fix it...
Except you, Bush, and all the King's men dont have a clue how...:rolleyes:

the Iraqis got screwed over by the US after the first war when we thought they would do our job and overthrow SAddam..
Which is hardly a good reason to screw them again, I'd have thought.

They that believed in us then now fill mass graves.
Those that believed in Bush's unprovoked war of aggression when the US ought to have been chasing down Osama (instead of making it clear that with all the combined might of the US, it still cant catch a single unwell cave-man) fill the role of suckers.

12 million Iraqis believed in us enough to go vote under war time conditions..
They had hope, which isnt the same as believing in the US, and certainly isnt the same as supporting the invasion, nor the continued presence of the invaders.

it is not in my make up to abandon them to chaos and total civil war by leaving Iraq...not again ...not before we finished what we started .
Nice rhetoric, pity it's a load of crap aye...finish how?

Thats not the America I live in.
Oh dear...you dont actually believe this crap do you? The America you live has been changed forever by Bush who wasnt merely too weak to give Osama what he wanted, but who actively sought the same thing Osama did. When Osama attacked the US was not synomonous with concentration camps, torture, and a police state...it is now. With the assistance of Bush et al, the terrorists won already, what is there left to fight for?

Here's an interesting plan (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/14451) for rebuilding Iraq, from George McGovern and William Polk...

could somebody condense this plan for me please :fluffle:

I'll be the Monika Lewinsky to your Bill Clinton forever if you do :D

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm


Reagan and Bush the Elder, removed Iraq from the "terrorist nations" list and gave him support to fight against Iran.

Saddam had no nuclear program. It was shut down in 1991.

From wayyyyyyy back in time...no lessons learned.

You still have those like you that deny a problem even exist .
And who created any perceived problem?



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/11/iraq.nuclear/


From the above link:

The U.S. government prevented U.N. weapons inspectors from returning to Iraq -- thereby blocking the IAEA from monitoring the high-tech equipment and materials -- after the U.S.-led war was launched in March 2003.
If anything, this article is against your dearly beloved Mr. Bush. Ooopppps?



http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...rq.centrifuge/


The page cannot be found :p



http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm


This site caused my browser to close. :eek:



http://www.nci.org/02NCI/12/Stephanopoulos.htm


At the bottom of the above link:

DIRECTOR GENERAL MOHAMED EL-BARADEI

I think I can speak for the nuclear weapon program, George. I think I'm confident that if we do all the work we can do in Iraq, Iraq should, would be very difficult for Iraq to hide an entire nuclear weapon program. They might be able to hide a computer study on weaponization, for example, or a small R and D on centrifuge, these are possible, easily concealable items, but an entire weapon program, or an ability to develop nuclear weapon program, I think will be difficult if we do our job the way we intend to do it.
Hmmmmm.


Mohamed ElBaradei: Iraq should get 'one final chance' (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/28/cnna.access.elbaradei/index.html)

This AFTER the above link that you posted. The US decided NO DICE!!

What was it that Zagat was talking about earlier? Oh thats right spilt milk!!

Hmmmmm.

I could point out he was developing a nuclear capability in the 1970's but I wont bust your bubble....take some time and do a little research before you make such foolish statements .
Before you throw around cheap insults you might want to consider if the facts you think others are ignorant of are relevent. I could point out the Spanish were developing a naval capacity in the 1500's to invade England and kick Queen Elizabeth from her throne, but only an idiot would equate this with any current plan to make a maritime attack on Britain for the purpose of dethroning Elizabeth Windsor...
I repeat, anyone with any sense knew that Saddam despite his desires, ambitions and even his past actions, did not at the time of the invasion have so much as a nuclear pea shooter. If you want to further discredit yourself by arguing the contrary, by all means make a public fool of yourself, but dont say I didnt try to assist you in pulling your foot out of your mouth.


The nuclear reactor the Israli's bombed ...that was a mirage....his scientist were all invisible men...Just like Kim Il in Korea didny have a nuke program in the 1980's......yep...you do really need to do some reading then come back .

I think you ought to take your own advice. There have been a number of developments since the 1970's. It might interest you to know that in 2003, the US invaded Iraq and set about searching every nook and cranny for WMD including nuclear ones....they've since given up even looking for them, mostly because they dont exist.

How big of a bomb would it take to put in a truck and detonate inside a city ? Since buying and trading nuke tech is so lucrative ...see Pakistan...who can say what Saddam had planned ..you can say we didnt find any Nukes in Iraq...thats IT .
Who cares what he planned given his incapacity to carry out any such plans?

But dont make me laugh and say he did not have the means nor the motive nor the ability to make one . That is truly ludicrouse.
Suggestion to the contrary is ludicrous. He may have had the motive, but if he had the ability and the motive, then he'd have had them, and if he'd have had them, the invading US forces would have got a full face full of it....if he had them, he'd have used them when he was invaded, after all at that point he had nothing left to lose and he's not the kind of guy to hold back for the sake of playing nice. So either no motivation or no capacity. Proof is in the fact that the US forces waltzed in and no such weapons were deployed. If he wanted and could have them, he would have, and he'd have used them. He didnt use them, so he didnt have them, and if he didnt have them either he couldnt have them or didnt want them...it's a closed case.

Not to mention how easy and fast it is to whip up chemical weapons...
Which only makes your case weaker, you see Saddam knew the US was coming in, he knew that if he couldnt fight back and fight back hard it was all over for him. He didnt deploy such weapons so either he'd had a change of heart somewhere along the line and was above such things (as friggen if) or (as is no doubt the case) he lacked the capacity to produce even easy and fast to whip up chemical weapons...you really are not helping your cause.

Ask the Japanese about sarin gas in the subway...and they were amatuers.
Lucky mistakes stopped thousands from being killed by a few .

Sure saddam was a threat ...until he was pulled out of his spider hole .
No he wasnt. If facing invasion, loss of power and arrest, he couldnt pull anything out of the bag, despite plenty of advance warning, and thus had to retreat to a hidey-hole, there is the proof of his incapacity to threaten others.

so ????? All these facts are false or just some of them ?
If ever he could and would, he'd have done it when the US invaded, he didnt, case closed, however you might try to spin it otherwise.

Right, like the two are divisible. The war had to fought without proper planning because it had to be done quick smart before it could be proven there were no WMD.

Wrong ....miscalculations on troop levels and capability , the speed of the collapse was unexpected and the after war planning was astoundigly inept .

Right, 10 years of predictable behavour=unstable.

Your off your rocker copletely if you believe that..the only thing you could predict was he would be unpredictable ...ask Clinton.

I fail to see that an event that hasnt and in the forseeable future wont eventuate as a result of the invasion is a reason for the invasion.

Just another chapter in the war against radical islamic terrorist.

And boy was the Iraq invasion a boon for them, if it had come with gift wrapping and a best wishes card from George himself, it couldnt have been a nicer present.
Short term yes ..after they are destroyed in Iraq and fail to prevent a Demcracy and are hunted down ..like Al Zawquari by the Iraqi's themselves..( even though they let us curb stomp him ). It wont be much of a recruiting tool will it ?
In case you missed it The Sunni and the Shiite insurgency has more to do with killing each other and vying for power and political guarantees along with oil revenues than ridding the country of the US .
Al Queda in Iraq and Iran have reasons to see the US leave so they support those who will attack the US troops and foment civil war if at all posible.
The Sunni and the Kurds and most Iraqis benifit by having the US in Iraq as long as we can prove usefull.



Then you are either being dishonest or fail to understand the role that the Iraq invasion played in motivating the fast-tracking of the nuclear ambitions of both these nations.

On the contrary the nuclear programs of both countries were fast tracked LONG before the US invaded Iraq....want to read the history ?


No he didnt. He had the kind of resources that left him hiding in a friggen hole when the shit hit the fan. He was an old man getting older. He'd have pottered about his numerous mansions getting older and lamer, thinking back to his glory days when he actually was worth writing home to Mamma about. Bullshit he had what he had...no one knew that they would collapse as fast as they did or do you need a few hundred links to pre war estimates of casualties and of how long of a war it would be?
Thats a revisionist staement and intellectually dishonest.

But you cant fix it. As the years drag on, it gets more and more broken, it's more broken now than it was the day Bush declared victory, it's more broken now than a year after he declared victory and more broken now than two years after he declared victory....and so forth...with no sign of a reversal.
total horseshit . again you ignore EVERY POSITIVE STEP in Iraq and only concentrate on the 50,000 at most idiots trying to destroy a country of 26 million people by using mostly propaganda to fool those such as you.


Actually there has already been a bigger recruiting tool since then, it's called the Iraq invasion...it's also a huge victory. Who'd a thought a rag-tag bag of terrorists could manipulate and trap the US into what it wanted with a few box cutters...aka stanley knives....astounding.
It woke the US up and made them realise they actually had a war to fight.
Iraq is just a small battle in a global war . Again we win and they are margionalized.
You think of defeat and proclaim it as a gospel truth...it is you that are delusional .

That's right, he is still alive and well, and does Bush care? First he did (more than anything) then he didnt, since then I think he did again, but perhaps that's again changed so that he doesnt again...it's hard to keep track when it comes to Bush's flip flopping.

He cares enough not to screw up Pakistan by going in after Bin Laden ..knowing that destabilising the Pakistani government would create a much larger problem than Bin laden is worth while he is hiding in his hole in the mountains ...he 'll be caught just like most of all of his organization has been...or he will die of old age in a hole on or under a mountain.
Bush is very SMART not to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden ...give the consequences.

Might that be because instead of getting down to business and justifiably tracking Osama in Afghanistan, until the job was done, Bush with your support left Osama to do what he would and set off chasing after sad-sack Saddam, the man found hiding in a friggen hole smaller than my toilet...? I think so.

The US learned from the Russians that the Afghans wouldnt tolerate a large foriegn troop deployment for ANY reason ..so they relied on the Afghans to catch him...bad mistake ..but understandable if you look at the history of the region.

Yup, as a sole result of the war you supported, Iraq has turned out to be a bigger asset to the terrorists than a handful of box-cutters.
Actually it is not only keeping them occupied but we get to kill them in Iraq instead of someplace with less troops . An asset you say...they seem to think they are the battle of their lives according to the captured documents..and are attempting to change strategy by changing government policy in the US to give them breathing room .
Its more of a terrorist grave yard than an asset ...but hey thats what they want ...go to iraq and be a martyr .
We seem to be obliging them . Name one battle they have won against US forces...aside from the battle for CNN and your opinion ?


was flying high post 9/11, took a dive with the unjustified, unnecessary invasion of Iraq, and keeps going down, down, down, currently subterranean and still dropping...

Wrong ...actually with NATO in Afghanistan and Bush engaging the EU to deal with Iran and the 6 party talks to deal with Korea...he's show he learned a lesson. Success in Iraq will only bolster it further. Think back to the democracy movement in the middle east right around the time of the successfull Iraqi elections....now what will happen if Iraq pulls toghether with the help of the US and the rest of the free world ?

Right, because an unprovoked war of aggression that has made the entire world a less safe place, been a gift to terrorists, along with a complete failure to catch a single, very ill man holed up in a cave has done wonders for the prestige and influence of the US...you know all the 'US bashing' you might like to dismiss under whatever pretext, wasnt rife like that before the invasion of Iraq, or before 9/11, and it sure as fuck wasnt like that directly after 9/11, or when the US was chasing after Osama in Afghanistan...it all went side-ways, then rapidly down-hill with the invasion of Iraq, and has only gotten worse as the obvious lies have become obvious even to those who dwell in denial, and as the US has let the terrorists win with the degradation of its liberty and...well basically anything and everything it ever stood proudly and bravely for.

Your opinion and I disagree , Strongly .

Except you, Bush, and all the King's men dont have a clue how...:rolleyes: Wrong again...get the Sunni involved in the Government and guarantee them oil revenues..then unite against the internal shiite militia and then expell the foriegn terrorist you cant catch and kill .
And get this ..the Iraqi know this ...the terrorist know this ,,,the Iranians know this...but you dont .

Which is hardly a good reason to screw them again, I'd have thought.
Thats why we dont leave until we either get asked or we are finished supporting the democratic government of Iraq.

Those that believed in Bush's unprovoked war of aggression when the US ought to have been chasing down Osama (instead of making it clear that with all the combined might of the US, it still cant catch a single unwell cave-man) fill the role of suckers.

Who are all those strange bearded guys in gitmo in chains ? and whats Osama been up to lately ?

They had hope, which isnt the same as believing in the US, and certainly isnt the same as supporting the invasion, nor the continued presence of the invaders.
And as long as the US is their they can still have hope ...if we continue to be usefull . And adapt and work with the elected government to help the establish controll.

Nice rhetoric, pity it's a load of crap aye...finish how?

See aabove .


Oh dear...you dont actually believe this crap do you? The America you live has been changed forever by Bush who wasnt merely too weak to give Osama what he wanted, but who actively sought the same thing Osama did. When Osama attacked the US was not synomonous with concentration camps, torture, and a police state...it is now. With the assistance of Bush et al, the terrorists won already, what is there left to fight for?

Sorry but thats a load of horse shit and over the top nonsense .

This answers you nicely BTW but since you took the effort I didn't just leave the cut and paste and go do something productive like canvass Democrats for casey ..

Revisionist History
Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked.

BY PETER WEHNER
Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn:

The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war. "There is no question [the Bush administration] misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq," according to Ted Kennedy. Jimmy Carter charged that on Iraq, "President Bush has not been honest with the American people." And Al Gore has said that an "abuse of the truth" characterized the administration's "march to war." These charges are themselves misleading, which explains why no independent body has found them credible. Most of the world was operating from essentially the same set of assumptions regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities. Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.

Let's review what we know. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the intelligence community's authoritative written judgment on specific national-security issues. The 2002 NIE provided a key judgment: "Iraq has continued its [WMD] programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

Thanks to the bipartisan Silberman-Robb Commission, which investigated the causes of intelligence failures in the run-up to the war, we now know that the President's Daily Brief (PDB) and the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief "were, if anything, more alarmist and less nuanced than the NIE" (my emphasis). We also know that the intelligence in the PDB was not "markedly different" from that given to Congress. This helps explains why John Kerry, in voting to give the president the authority to use force, said, "I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security." It's why Sen. Kennedy said, "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." And it's why Hillary Clinton said in 2002, "In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program."

Beyond that, intelligence agencies from around the globe believed Saddam had WMD. Even foreign governments that opposed his removal from power believed Iraq had WMD: Just a few weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the U.S., said, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction."

In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded. It is not as if the WMD stockpile question was one that wasn't going to be answered for a century to come.

The Bush administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments. Earlier this year, Mr. Gore charged that "CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House . . . found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases." Sen. Kennedy charged that the administration "put pressure on intelligence officers to produce the desired intelligence and analysis."

This myth is shattered by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq. Among the findings: "The committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so." Silberman-Robb concluded the same, finding "no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's prewar assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." What the report did find is that intelligence assessments on Iraq were "riddled with errors"; "most of the fundamental errors were made and communicated to policy makers well before the now-infamous NIE of October 2002, and were not corrected in the months between the NIE and the start of the war."

Because weapons of mass destruction stockpiles weren't found, Saddam posed no threat. Howard Dean declared Iraq "was not a danger to the United States." John Murtha asserted, "There was no threat to our national security." Max Cleland put it this way: "Iraq was no threat. We now know that. There are no weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear weapons programs." Yet while we did not find stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, what we did find was enough to alarm any sober-minded individual.

Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), told the Senate: "I actually think this may be one of those cases where [Iraq under Saddam Hussein] was even more dangerous than we thought." His statement when issuing the ISG progress report said: "We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities" that were part of "deliberate concealment efforts" that should have been declared to the U.N. And, he concluded, "Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

Among the key findings of the September 2004 report by Charles Duelfer, who succeeded Mr. Kay as ISG head, are that Saddam was pursuing an aggressive strategy to subvert the Oil for Food Program and to bring down U.N. sanctions through illicit finance and procurement schemes; and that Saddam intended to resume WMD efforts once U.N. sanctions were eliminated. According to Mr. Duelfer, "the guiding theme for WMD was to sustain the intellectual capacity achieved over so many years at such a great cost and to be in a position to produce again with as short a lead time as possible. . . . Virtually no senior Iraqi believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution."

Beyond this, Saddam's regime was one of the most sadistic and aggressive in modern history. It started a war against Iran and used mustard gas and nerve gas. A decade later Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq was a massively destabilizing force in the Middle East; so long as Saddam was in power, rivers of blood were sure to follow.

Promoting democracy in the Middle East is a postwar rationalization. "The president now says that the war is really about the spread of democracy in the Middle East. This effort at after-the-fact justification was only made necessary because the primary rationale was so sadly lacking in fact," according to Nancy Pelosi.

In fact, President Bush argued for democracy taking root in Iraq before the war began. To take just one example, he said in a speech on Feb. 26, 2003: "A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. . . . The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. . . . A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region."

The following day the New York Times editorialized: "President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. . . . The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time."





These, then, are the urban legends we must counter, else falsehoods become conventional wisdom. And what a strange world it is: For many antiwar critics, the president is faulted for the war, and he, not the former dictator of Iraq, inspires rage. The liberator rather than the oppressor provokes hatred. It is as if we have stepped through the political looking glass, into a world turned upside down and inside out.

Revisionist History
Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked.

BY PETER WEHNER
Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

Mr. Wehner is deputy assistant to the president and director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives.

I love the smell of propaganda in the evening. :eek:

Al Queda in Iraq and Iran
Al Queda in Iran?

OMG, you are right for a change!! :eek:

Iran holds Al Qaeda's top leaders (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0728/p01s02-wome.html)

Tehran's custody of bin Laden's son and others is a blow to the terrorist organization.

WASHINGTON – While much of the world is focused on US soldiers closing in on Saddam Hussein in Iraq, a much less-noticed but possibly even more important roundup is taking place in Iraq's neighbor to the east, Iran.
The Tehran government is holding several top-level Al Qaeda operatives that, experts say, could lead to the biggest breakthrough in curtailing the organization since the fall of Afghanistan.

Though the Iranians haven't mentioned any names, intelligence officials and press reports indicate they've captured Saad bin Laden, Osama bin Laden's son, who has assumed a leadership role; Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, the Al Qaeda spokesman; and Saif al-Adel, the latest No. 3 who is believed to be in charge of military operations.
Hmmmmm.

Wrong ....miscalculations on troop levels and capability , the speed of the collapse was unexpected and the after war planning was astoundigly inept .
Yeah it was astoundingly inept, yes they didnt wait long enough to get more troops together and better supply them, it's called a rush job. Note that you would have me believe that the resources needed to conduct the invasion were woefully underestimated, while simultaneously Saddam's ability to resist the invasion was woefully underestimated....just more of the self-contrary logic that is necessary to the beliefs you hold about the war.


Your off your rocker copletely if you believe that..the only thing you could predict was he would be unpredictable ...ask Clinton.
Well I'm not on a rocker, but then I dont have a rocker, so I can hardly be off it. Saddam was entirely predictable throughout the ten years concerned. He dragged his heels as much as he could and acted like a truculent child locked out of the cookie jar....year after year after year....
Whyever would I ask Clinton? Since when was Bimbo-Bill an expert on matters not related to the fulling of Monica's mouth?

Just another chapter in the war against radical islamic terrorist.
Way to use 10 words to say nothing whatsoever...

Short term yes ..after they are destroyed in Iraq
'After'? What evidence is there that they will be destroyed Iraq? All evidence is contrary to such an outcome, not only has the violence in Iraq steadily increased, but there is a resurgence of violence in Afghanistan. Things are worse now Iraq than they were a year ago, and they were worse a year ago than they were 2 years ago. We've been hearing all this talk about 'when the insurgency and violence is quelled' yet we've seen every sign that this wont be happening any time in the forseeable future. One might as well argue 'after the tooth fairy....'.

and fail to prevent a Demcracy and are hunted down ..like Al Zawquari by the Iraqi's themselves..( even though they let us curb stomp him ).
That's the same Al Zawquari that had become a liability and in all likliehood was never more than a distraction and a figure head (not withstanding his spectacular and awful crimes)?

It wont be much of a recruiting tool will it ?
Well if the miraculous happens and the toothfairy steps in to help quell the insurgency and violence in Iraq, will it cease to be a recruiting tool? No. Will the training that terrorists have received in Iraq cease to be useful to them in the commission of their despicable crimes? No. Will the damage end much less be undone? No. For all time Iraq can be pointed to by recruiters and fanatics as a 'proof' of the anti-muslim imperialism of the US and the West in general. Iraq was a boon for the terrorists and fanatics before it became clear what a quagmire and mess the US had created. Back when things looked like they were coming together, it was still the best gift Osama ever got. The huge fricken mess that has been made of the Iraqi people's country, the violence, the deaths and financial costs incurred by the invaders, the training ground for recruits, and the apparent impotence of the US in putting a stop to these things and completing their mission, all these things are icing on the cake - tasty icing, but still not the cake itself. The propaganda value of the attack on Iraq is a boon and would be without the mess that evolved out of it. The impotence of the US that Iraq and the failure to capture one single unwell caveman-criminal have made apparent to potential recruits are icing on the cake. No matter what happens now, the Iraq invasion will always remain a powerful propaganda tool for recruiters of terrorists and religious fanatics in the Middle East and around the world.

In case you missed it The Sunni and the Shiite insurgency has more to do with killing each other and vying for power and political guarantees along with oil revenues than ridding the country of the US .
In case you missed it, it doesnt matter if it's Sunnis and Shiites vying for power or the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy vying for the hearts and minds of potential chocolate eaters and cavity sufferers...

Al Queda in Iraq and Iran have reasons to see the US leave so they support those who will attack the US troops and foment civil war if at all posible.
Al Queda have every reason to want the US to stay in Iraq....certainly Osama appreciates the seeing the US troops come to tradegy in Iraq rather than having them out in full force chasing after his arse....as for Iran it's not necessarily true that they do want the US out of Iraq. I certainly can see why they wouldnt want the US to have an effective military force on it's border, but what you see in Iraq isnt an effective US military force. Further if the US is still bunkered down dealing with Iraq, then the US is likely to take military action against Iran...I note you cite not a single reason why Al Queda would want the US out, and given the 'bonus' propaganda value of the US not only invading Iraq but making a huge mess out of it, with daily pics on Al Jazeera tv of the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people, and the fact that sectarian violence has less propaganda value for Al Queda in the absence of a US presence, it seems once again reality is conspiring to make a mockery of your arguments.

The Sunni and the Kurds and most Iraqis benifit by having the US in Iraq as long as we can prove usefull.
The same is true of Al Queda, despite your nonsensical claim to the contrary.

On the contrary the nuclear programs of both countries were fast tracked LONG before the US invaded Iraq....want to read the history ?
Right, that explains why post-invasion Iran invited the UN to observe the breaking of the seals placed on buildings and infrastructure in order to prevent Iran from using them to further develop their nuclear capabilities...and more significantly why the seals were found to have not been breached or tampered with... If you think that extra resources were not pumped into the nuclear development programes of both nations as a result of the US citing them as being members in the 'axis of evil' (along with Iraq) and then invading one of the 3 'axis' members, then you really dont have much of a clue....The US was backing them into a corner and they've come out with their king-hits....it doesnt require nuclear science to work that out...:rolleyes:

Bullshit he had what he had...
Which was batshit, no nukes, no readily deployable WMD, no evidence that Saddam was aware of any WMD in Iraq to deploy, every indication that he knew of none.

no one knew that they would collapse as fast as they did or do you need a few hundred links to pre war estimates of casualties and of how long of a war it would be?
Let me guess this would be the same estimates that led to the underestimation of the number of troops and the kind of resources (not to mention money) needed to do the job....:rolleyes:

Thats a revisionist staement and intellectually dishonest.
Unless you are referring to your own self-contrary arguments, it's neither. The world's foremost expert (Mr Hans Blix) believed that Saddam didnt have nuclear capability, and that all indications (at the time the US demanded his withdrawal) were that no WMD programes were active in Iraq at the time. The US claimed to have proof of the where-abouts of WMD in Iraq, but refused to give this information to Hans Blix. Instead the more apparent it became that Hans would prove there were no such weapons, the more eager the US were to get him out of there, culminating in his withdrawal at the demand of the US. In went the troops. Saddam threw whatever he had at them, which was not much of anything. The search commenced, months passed, finally the search was called off. Even the Bush admin admitted there were no WMD (they blamed it on 'the intelligence'). You now take this set of facts and try to pass off assertions that Saddam had no active WMD programe and no WMD capabilities as being revisionist and intellectually dishonest. You do more to discredit your position than anyone opposed to it could!

total horseshit . again you ignore EVERY POSITIVE STEP in Iraq and only concentrate on the 50,000 at most idiots trying to destroy a country of 26 million people by using mostly propaganda to fool those such as you.
You are either being dishonest or are delluded. The violence is increasing, notice the increasing number of deaths not only of civillian Iraqis but also of US troops. Do you think those troops are all just falling dead of their own accord to help out the terrorists and their propaganda attempts? US troops have been reduced to hiding out in their barracks for the most part. Every single positive step doesnt not equal the negative downward slide. It is astonishing that you actually believe anyone will be impressed with such a transparent and silly attempt to obfuscate the facts of the matter. Reality isnt terrorist propaganda, it's just reality, try dealing with it.

It woke the US up and made them realise they actually had a war to fight.
That's a peculiar sleep, apparently buildings in their own nations being crashed into by airplanes doesnt wake them from it, but an off-shore invasion in a land most will never see in person does....mmm, I dont believe so, I call B.S. on that, much like the rest of your disengenious nonsense.

Iraq is just a small battle in a global war . Again we win and they are margionalized.
The same sentiments were expressed about Vietnam, how did that turn out? If the US had 'won' in the first instance the propaganda value would still have been in Al Queda's failure. For years the line of the recruiters has been that the US is imperialistice and interferes in the Middle East because of a combined greed for oil and contempt for muslims...the invasion of Iraq fits perfectly with this interpretation. As someone who has apparently fallen wholesale for propaganda, it's probably difficult for you to understand that it doesnt even have to be true to be useful. The fact is the Iraq invasion can be construed to be the fufilling of Al Queda's every prediction...you dont get a better propaganda gift than that...

You think of defeat and proclaim it as a gospel truth...it is you that are delusional .
Oh give yourself a break. You harp about victory in the face of no evidence it will ever occur and evidence to the contrary. How is it dellusional to make predictions consistent with the evidence but not dellusional to make predictions utterly inconsistent with the evidence. The fact that you think it is more realistic to make predictions contrary to the current evidence rather than consistent with is yet another blow for you credibility, or it would be if you hadnt already destroyed it.
As for the comments you actually made this response in the context of, they speak of proven facts. The terrorists attacked the US, hoping to draw the US into a messy, costly, preferably protracted propaganda boom of a conflict in the Middle East. That's exactly what the US obligingly did...case closed.

He cares enough not to screw up Pakistan by going in after Bin Laden
No he doesnt, as the US's unathorised attack within the Pakistan borders proved.
Never mind that in your desperation you are reduced to ignoring the well known fact that Osama was believed to be in Afghanistan when Bush dropped the ball to go chasing sad sack Saddam in Iraq...

..knowing that destabilising the Pakistani government would create a much larger problem than Bin laden is worth while he is hiding in his hole in the mountains
You and reality really just dont get along too well do you? The US has attacked targets within the Pakistan border without the consent of Pakistand, Osama was believed to be in Afghanistan when Bush took the heat off him to put it on Saddam and so far as anyone can determine that belief was correct.

...he 'll be caught just like most of all of his organization has been...or he will die of old age in a hole on or under a mountain.
So much for justice, so much for not resting untill they bring the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. So much for Bush giving a damm about the whole purpose of invading Afghanistan....and just as I suggest, so much for Bush giving a damm about Osama, and justice for the victims of 9/11..

Bush is very SMART not to go into Pakistan to get Bin Laden ...give the consequences.
Oh well then that would explain why the US launched air-raids in Pakistan without the consent, permission or prior-knowledge of Pakistan...er, hang on; oh that's right, Bush is rather well known for doing things that are not at all SMART...hence the dog's puked up breakfast that passed for 'pre-war planning' of the Iraq invasion, you know the planning that you agree yourself was less than smart....dont worry about your own constant self-contradictions, they are the necessary consequence of alienating oneself from reality.

The US learned from the Russians that the Afghans wouldnt tolerate a large foriegn troop deployment for ANY reason ..so they relied on the Afghans to catch him...bad mistake ..but understandable if you look at the history of the region.
You are off in fantasy land. The US took the heat off to go rampaging about after sad-sack Saddam.

Actually it is not only keeping them occupied but we get to kill them in Iraq instead of someplace with less troops .
It isnt keeping them occupied, it is generating them. For every single one killed you have an entire aggreived extended-clan of potential replacements. Further the circumstances in Iraq are heavily in favour of their kind of warfare and heavily weighted against the US's brand of warfare...Iraq isnt a battlefield, it's a warren. The earlier suits the US and similiar military forces, the latter perfectly suits terrorists, insurgents and gorilla warfarists...

An asset you say...they seem to think they are the battle of their lives according to the captured documents..and are attempting to change strategy by changing government policy in the US to give them breathing room .
Right, because only the clever US can engage in disinformation, the 'teh suxor' terrorists would never think of that...

Its more of a terrorist grave yard than an asset ...but hey thats what they want ...go to iraq and be a martyr .
As if. Iraq is better suited to insurgent, gorilla and terrorist fighters than to the US. Given all the hardware and the might of the US behind them, the troops in Iraq face greater casualities than ever...darn reality and her determination to thwart you at every turn.

We seem to be obliging them . Name one battle they have won against US forces...aside from the battle for CNN and your opinion ?
What has CNN got to do with my opinon? How non-sequitor of you. If you think for a single minute gorilla warefare is about winning battles, or even about battles at all, it is little wonder you are so thouroughly unqualified to produce useful commentary on the issue. Gorillas dont fight battles, they snipe, they blow things up, they terrify the enemy and whoever might offer the enemy solace. They lure tanks into narrow streets, blow up the lead and end tank to trap the enemy and pick them off from the comfort of the windows in the many floored buildings overlooking the slaughter alley before melting off back into the populice. They plant mines under the street and blow them up when tanks pass before melting back into the populice....ever wonder why US forces keep raping and murdering Iraqi civillians, because there really is no way to distinguish them from the insurgents and terrorists who just killed their buddies...

Wrong ...actually with NATO in Afghanistan and Bush engaging the EU to deal with Iran and the 6 party talks to deal with Korea...he's show he learned a lesson.
Not wrong, his stupidity has been reined in by the kick-back reality is giving him. The US is bogged down in Iraq, Bush's domestic approval ratings are low, as are the coffers that have taken a huge dent paying for his stupidity. You claim he's learned, whether or not he has learned, the lesson has cost the US and the fallout continues. Other nations work with the US because they have to, or they see that their interests will be served in doing so, or because their leaders personal interests are seen as being served. As the situation continues to worsen in Iraq, as the US was perceived as backing what was largely viewed internationally as the disporportionate (and possibly terrorist) actions of Israel against Lebanon, as the dangers of Bush's policy have been seen internationally to contribute to nuclear issues with Il nutty Jong and Iran, as US freedoms are seen to be further and further undermined by Bush's bizaare leadership, the reputation of the US continues to suffer. You might not like to face that fact and prefer to ignore it along with the rest of reality, but it remains true none-the-less. Chavez isnt the first anti-American of dubious sanity to address the UN, but he's the first one to call the US's leader the devil himself - significantly to much applause. Pre-Bush even if Chaves or someone else had dared to call the President of the United States of America the 'devil' in the UN, doing so wouldnt have recieved the same high level of enthusiastic applause...wow, reality sure is out to get you huh?

Success in Iraq will only bolster it further.
The tooth-fairy leaving 1 million dollars under my pillow for a mouldy old tooth would bolster my bank balance....now if we could return to reality....

Think back to the democracy movement in the middle east right around the time of the successfull Iraqi elections....
You mean how Lebanon finally got shift of Syria (only after an assasination of a popular political leader) and then got bombed back to the stone age by Israel....yeah that worked out well....if you're a saddist who loves to see civillian populations suffer.

now what will happen if Iraq pulls toghether with the help of the US and the rest of the free world ?
What would happen if the tooth fairy left a million dollars under my pillow...?

Your opinion and I disagree , Strongly .
Er, so Osama has been caught and it's only my opinion that he hasnt? The war that was premised on non-existent (as per the Bush administrations own admissions) was necessary and it's only my opinion that non-existent weapons dont necessitate a war? Or the well-acknowledged unprecedented post 9/11 support for the US only existed in my opinion and because I get along so much better with reality than you appear to, she kindly caused the whole world to act as though my opinion were a fact when it was not?
That you disagree with reality is no surprise, rather it's the necessary implication of just about everything you say...clearly it will surprise you to be informed that reality is more than a mere opinion, although a lot of people do base their opinions on reality, as alien as such a concept may be to you.

Wrong again...
Oh, I see, they know how but continue to waste money and US lives along with the lives of countless Iraqi civillians, not because they dont know how to do otherwise, but really just for shits and giggles...clearly if you truely believe as much, you have a lower opinion of Bush et al than I do...

get the Sunni involved in the Government and guarantee them oil revenues..then unite against the internal shiite militia and then expell the foriegn terrorist you cant catch and kill .
And get this ..the Iraqi know this ...the terrorist know this ,,,the Iranians know this...but you dont .
And get this, the mess in Iraq continues...and get this, I'll believe it when I see it, and get this, if it were as achievable as you'd have people believe then it'd have been done by now....unless Bush et al just like the mass slaughter as some form of entertainment. You might be prepared to believe the mess in Iraq continues because Bush et al think it's 'great fun' rather than because they cant clean it up, but I dont have that much of a low opinion of them.

Thats why we dont leave until we either get asked or we are finished supporting the democratic government of Iraq.
I dont believe so for a single moment.

Who are all those strange bearded guys in gitmo in chains ? and whats Osama been up to lately ?
For the latter who only knows - not in US custody as he ought to have been long ago that for damm sure.
For the former, people like the teenage relatives of suspected terrorists, people in the wrong place at the wrong time, and maybe even a few terrorists...the entire concentration camp populice is well under 1000, oh wow, what an acheivement...:rolleyes:

And as long as the US is their they can still have hope ...if we continue to be usefull .
I think you'll find one has to start something in order to continue it.

And adapt and work with the elected government to help the establish controll.
The 'elected' government who isnt the same government that was formed directly after the election?

See aabove .
Seeing is believing, as what you expect me to see above isnt being seen on the ground in Iraq...much like the tooth fairy.

Sorry but thats a load of horse shit and over the top nonsense .
Right, the Patriot Act (which was initiated as a temporary measure and has since become an accepted aspect of the US) didnt exist pre-9/11 yet somehow isnt a change, just to give a single off-hand example...you really ought to make some attempts to bridge this gulf between yourself and reality.

This answers you nicely
No it doesnt.

BTW but since you took the effort I didn't just leave the cut and paste and go do something productive like canvass Democrats for casey ..
Right....forgive me if neither a medal or a chest to pin it on are forthcoming...I checked my supplies and it turns out I'm using all mine, so even if I had a delivery address, I'm not able to oblige in provisioning you with either at this time...:rolleyes:

snip
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbup.gif

From the liberal rag the Washington Times :mp5:


http://washtimes.com/upi/20061023-091743-9067r.htm

From the liberal rag the Washington Times :mp5:


http://washtimes.com/upi/20061023-091743-9067r.htm
Did you set democracy?
if no then,who does implemente it?

An Arab source also told UPI that certain Arab countries were informed of the plan and requested to offer their help in convincing the former leaders of the deposed Baath Party regime residing in their countries to refrain from obstructing the move and stop violence"


i wonder wat is the move?

The proposed plan, according to the source, stipulates that the new Iraqi army, with the assistance of U.S. forces, will take control of power,

so to see you are not a liberal
And democrats and republican don't have a daily time

We were too over-confident and made some mistakes. I don't think there's any debate about that anymore. However, we had the correct comprehensive strategy and we did what was generally right -- we just didn't allow for the fact that Iraqis were so twisted that instead of embracing freedom, they went and slaughtered people not of their religious sect.

Is freedom really freedom if it is forced upon people? Its like compulsory democracy.

* snip*

Its as clear as day we live in different worlds and you have already been beaten and are waving the white flag of surrender .

I see See Red you see blue , I see see black you see white.

I can continue this circular you are wrong and you can continue to tell me how wrong I am.

And as I said in the beginning you will not change my views by being over the top and on the extreme pesimistic side of what is actually happening.

Its really a waste of time .


We will find out in a few years who was right.

Is freedom really freedom if it is forced upon people? Its like compulsory democracy.


It wasnt forced on them ...the removal of their dictator was forced on them ...they VOTED for the democracy ..or is that in question in your mind ?

Did you set democracy?
if no then,who does implemente it?



i wonder wat is the move?



so to see you are not a liberal
And democrats and republican don't have a daily time


Turn on the news ...now .

It wasnt forced on them ...the removal of their dictator was forced on them ...they VOTED for the democracy ..or is that in question in your mind ?

When?

* snip*

Its as clear as day we live in different worlds and you have already been beaten and are waving the white flag of surrender .

I see See Red you see blue , I see see black you see white.

I can continue this circular you are wrong and you can continue to tell me how wrong I am.

And as I said in the beginning you will not change my views by being over the top and on the extreme pesimistic side of what is actually happening.

Its really a waste of time .


We will find out in a few years who was right.

yes it is,and how are you so sure we will know who was right?

[snippage]
We will find out in a few years who was right.
Aha, did you give the exact same speach a few years ago, or did you have 'months' in place of where you now have 'years'?:rolleyes:

We dont live in different worlds, it's one and the same world, it just happens that you ignore the world you really live in for some far-fetched fantasy in which self contrary arguments are not self-evidently flawed...more joy to you, your candy-coated non-reality certainly seems cosier than the cold hard facts those of us who accept reality instead of denying it have to face...

Did you set democracy?
if no then,who does implemente it?



i wonder wat is the move?



so to see you are not a liberal
And democrats and republican don't have a daily time

the washington times is not nearly liberal in any sense of the word

the washington times is not nearly liberal in any sense of the word
Ah!From the liberal rag the Washington Times
you were sarcastic then
you were just giving information

It wasnt forced on them ...the removal of their dictator was forced on them ...they VOTED for the democracy ..or is that in question in your mind ?
No, they didn't. They didn't vote for a democracy, so it's not fair at all. Plus Saddam wasn't allowed to run for President, so it wasn't in the slightest bit democratic.

No, they didn't. They didn't vote for a democracy, so it's not fair at all. Plus Saddam wasn't allowed to run for President, so it wasn't in the slightest bit democratic.

Umm they didn't vote to be a democracy but they sure didn't have any problems in using the rights granted them under it to vote for the current leaders. Not only did they vote but they did so under threat that if they did they will get killed by terrorists. Adding to this they also turned out in huge numbers even when vehicals were banned from the streets so they needed to walk to the voteing booth and then walk home. So in my opinion the Iraqi people are not regecting Democracy in their country the outside influences that are the terrorists in Iraq are the only ones against it. To say that the terrorists in the country are all Iraqies is not a correct assumsion either. Reports are that only 5% of all terrorist killed in Iraq are current residents in Iraq. Meaning the mass majority of the Terrorists are imported from Iran and Serria and other non-democratic states that do not wish this process to succeed. Saddam was the problem in Iraq not allowed to run for president because he is not elligable do to being in jail for war-crimes. A vote took place Iraqies voted for their leaders and it is now a democracy.

Plus Saddam wasn't allowed to run for President, so it wasn't in the slightest bit democratic.

Last time i checked, criminals aren't allowed to run for President in any democracy.

Exactly!! :p :p :p :p :p :D :D :D :D :D

It woke the US up and made them realise they actually had a war to fight.
Iraq is just a small battle in a global war . Again we win and they are margionalized.
You think of defeat and proclaim it as a gospel truth...it is you that are delusional .


But there was no Jihadi terrorists motivated by the invasion of Iraq until the invasion of Iraq, so how could be a "small battle in a global war" when it had nothing to do with the NYC attacks in the first place?

Last time i checked, criminals aren't allowed to run for President in any democracy.

Convicted ones, you mean....

Last time i checked, criminals aren't allowed to run for President in any democracy.
And yet somehow Bush, who skipped National Service and took drugs, was allowed to run...

Convicted ones, you mean....

Or anyone on trial. Anyway, i'm sure somewhere in the iraqi constitution is something about only serving a certain number of terms which would also disqualify him.

Or anyone on trial. Anyway, i'm sure somewhere in the iraqi constitution is something about only serving a certain number of terms which would also disqualify him.
Did he ever serve under the title President?

And yet somehow Bush, who skipped National Service and took drugs, was allowed to run...

Oh great, now ur putting me in a position to defend Bush. He was never convicted or on trial so too bad.

Did he ever serve under the title President?

yes. He even had "elections"

Oh great, now ur putting me in a position to defend Bush.

Easy - just step to the side and point, while shouting "Shoot - now, before it changes form"

But there was no Jihadi terrorists motivated by the invasion of Iraq until the invasion of Iraq, so how could be a "small battle in a global war" when it had nothing to do with the NYC attacks in the first place?

Well lets see we had very reliable information that Saddam is a known instigator. He has been known to pay families of Palistinian terrorists that kill themselves bombing busses in Isreal, so what is to say that he would not give WMD's that we know he had to a terrorist that is coming over here. Oh yeah and something that is little talked about anymore is the FACT that when we had the anthrax attack on us after 9/11 that they were weapons grade and made in Iraq. So lets see a dictator that is willing toi fund terrorism and talk with them, And give them WMDs (anthrax) to use on use was no threat and was being nothing but an old guy. Whatever you guys need to check your facts before speaking here. The fact that this is a small battle in a larger war is a true one look all around the world and you will see that we are fighting terrorists every where not just in Iraq. Lets name a few. Great Britian, Indonisa, Phillipness, France, Lebenon, Isreal, Canada, and Spain just to name a few. So I guess there is alot more battles then just in Iraq. Also everyone needs to understand that we are not at war with Iraq anymore we won that war. We are fighting insurgents (who are imported terrorists from Iran Syria and elswhere very little of the terrorists are Iraqi citizens.) We fight in Iraq for Iraq and we were asked to by Iraqs voted for leaders we fight for it now not against it everyone should remember this.

yes. He even had "elections"
Oh... fair enough. But not under this constitution, so ner-ner-ner ner-ner and indeed :p



@ Whoever talked about the election turnout - it was a mere 58%... bit rubbish tbh

Well lets see we had very reliable information that Saddam is a known instigator. He has been known to pay families of Palistinian terrorists that kill themselves bombing busses in Isreal, so what is to say that he would not give WMD's that we know he had to a terrorist that is coming over here. Oh yeah and something that is little talked about anymore is the FACT that when we had the anthrax attack on us after 9/11 that they were weapons grade and made in Iraq. So lets see a dictator that is willing toi fund terrorism and talk with them, And give them WMDs (anthrax) to use on use was no threat and was being nothing but an old guy. Whatever you guys need to check your facts before speaking here. The fact that this is a small battle in a larger war is a true one look all around the world and you will see that we are fighting terrorists every where not just in Iraq. Lets name a few. Great Britian, Indonisa, Phillipness, France, Lebenon, Isreal, Canada, and Spain just to name a few. So I guess there is alot more battles then just in Iraq. Also everyone needs to understand that we are not at war with Iraq anymore we won that war. We are fighting insurgents (who are imported terrorists from Iran Syria and elswhere very little of the terrorists are Iraqi citizens.) We fight in Iraq for Iraq and we were asked to by Iraqs voted for leaders we fight for it now not against it everyone should remember this.
This based on the same intelligence that said that Iraq had WMDs, doesn't know where Osama bin Laden is, and doesn't even know if he's alive or not?

Trusty sources, eh?

But there was no Jihadi terrorists motivated by the invasion of Iraq until the invasion of Iraq, so how could be a "small battle in a global war" when it had nothing to do with the NYC attacks in the first place?

Oh... fair enough. But not under this constitution, so ner-ner-ner ner-ner and indeed :p



@ Whoever talked about the election turnout - it was a mere 58%... bit rubbish tbh

Yeah and what is the turn out in the US on a average election? Alot less more like 45%. And are we only able to walk to the voting booths? And are we under the threat of death if we do vote? Answers are no for both so that means the turn out was greater then our own elections. So by saying it wasnt true Democracy because of that would say we dont have a democracy here.

This based on the same intelligence that said that Iraq had WMDs, doesn't know where Osama bin Laden is, and doesn't even know if he's alive or not?

Trusty sources, eh?

And do any of the Democrates that are in office today in the congress or in the Senate know the answers to these either yet they all voted to give Bush the right to go to war and agreed on the WMDs read Clintons speach about Saddam in 1993 this was after Saddam should have destroied all his WMDs and Clinton himself admits that he knows Sadam has WMDs. If this was not true then why did all the dems vote to grant Bush the right to go to war if they didnt believe the intelligence. What the Dems cannot get over is that Republicans are doing something about terrorism instead of boinking our interns and ignoring the Kole bombing and the numerous US embasy bombings done on his watch. So because they ignored it we have a bigger mess to deal with now.

Yeah and what is the turn out in the US on a average election? Alot less more like 45%. And are we only able to walk to the voting booths? And are we under the threat of death if we do vote? Answers are no for both so that means the turn out was greater then our own elections. So by saying it wasnt true Democracy because of that would say we dont have a democracy here.
45% is a really crap turn out. And yes, there isn't proper democracy in the US.

It's electoral college, which is like bastardised first-past-the-post combined with the Eurovision Song Contest for points, instead of Proportional Representation, plus McCarthyism wiped out anyone to the left of centre-right.

Well lets see we had very reliable information that Saddam is a known instigator. He has been known to pay families of Palistinian terrorists that kill themselves bombing busses in Isreal, so what is to say that he would not give WMD's that we know he had to a terrorist that is coming over here..

He had no link with Al Qaeda. He had no WMD, and your own government, subsequent to an investigation conducted with the Brits and Australians, has conceded this fact.


Oh yeah and something that is little talked about anymore is the FACT that when we had the anthrax attack on us after 9/11 that they were weapons grade and made in Iraq...

Then why is the lead suspect in the case American, and the Iraq statement disavowed as misinformation of no worth?


So lets see a dictator that is willing toi fund terrorism and talk with them,
...

No al Qaeda links....


And give them WMDs (anthrax) to use on use
...

He didn't.


was no threat and was being nothing but an old guy.
...

According to the chief ally of the US in July of 2002 - "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_2,00.html

They do remain silent on his status as an "old guy" however.


Whatever you guys need to check your facts before speaking here.
...

See above re anthrax and the 'threat'.


The fact that this is a small battle in a larger war is a true one look all around the world and you will see that we are fighting terrorists every where not just in Iraq. Lets name a few. Great Britian, Indonisa, Phillipness, France, Lebenon, Isreal, Canada, and Spain just to name a few. .

The British were attacked by young men radicalised by the attacks on Iraq. Indonesia and the Phillipines have long running internal difficulties. Canada and Spain have fallen afoul of global jihadis further bolstered by the effects of the US war of aggression in Iraq. Israel has brought many of its woes upon itself with its occupation of the West Bank and Arab East Jerusalem.

And do any of the Democrates that are in office today in the congress or in the Senate know the answers to these either yet they all voted to give Bush the right to go to war and agreed on the WMDs read Clintons speach about Saddam in 1993 this was after Saddam should have destroied all his WMDs and Clinton himself admits that he knows Sadam has WMDs. If this was not true then why did all the dems vote to grant Bush the right to go to war if they didnt believe the intelligence
Because they thought that a war in Iraq would finally end Bush's unpopular first term and Kerry would get into power because of that?
What the Dems cannot get over is that Republicans are doing something about terrorism
Increasing the risks from it, yes...
instead of boinking our interns
Consenting, legal age interns.

Better than Foley attracting the attention of young girls, no?
and ignoring the Kole bombing and the numerous US embasy bombings done on his watch
Ever heard of starving terrorist groups of the oxygen of publicity?

A much better way to combat it than shooting people in Iraq.
So because they ignored it we have a bigger mess to deal with now.
Yes... that would be why Bush is in a terrible mess... Clinton...

Wait one second Bush has not ignored Terrorist attacks on us!! Clinton however did. So how did Clinton ignoring the problem or as you say starving the oxygen of publicity from the terrorist groups work? Obviously it didnt. Oh yeah by the way your buddy Clinton was only out of office 8 months before the terrorists attacked on 9/11. He had 8 years and many signs to act on but instead starved the terrorists of oxygen by ignoring them and then he leaves the country in a resession and setup for the worst terrorist attack in history. ok so its all Bushes fault and the Dems are innocent bystanders that knew nothing even though they had alot more time and actually were attacked by terrorists (Cole). Yet they claim it was all Bushs fault even though he had been in office exactly 8 months before 9/11 and there were no warning signs regardless of the misinformation the Dems like to spew.

Wait one second Bush has not ignored Terrorist attacks on us!!
Indeed, far from it, he's causing more problems for you in the Middle East.
Clinton however did. So how did Clinton ignoring the problem or as you say starving the oxygen of publicity from the terrorist groups work?
No, starving groups of the oxygen of publicity and "ignoring it" are two different things.

It works by not showing the actions of terrorist groups so that their message isn't spread and so their time and money is wasted. See the Provos in Northern Ireland.
Obviously it didnt.
Obviously it did...
Oh yeah by the way your buddy Clinton was only out of office 8 months before the terrorists attacked on 9/11. He had 8 years and many signs to act on but instead starved the terrorists of oxygen by ignoring them and then set us up for the worst terrorist attack in history.
8 months was easily enough to stop it.
he leaves the country in a resession
If by "recession", you mean "best bit of economic growth in the US for years, yes!
ok so its all Bushes fault and the Dems are innocent bystanders that knew nothing even though they had alot more time and actually were attacked by terrorists (Kole). Yet they claim it was all Bushs fault even though he had been in office exactly 8 months before 9/11 and there were no warning signs regardless of the misinformation the Dems like to spew.
Actually, there was (and I'd imagine 'is') an "Al-Qaeda" section of the CIA, which told Condi about what might occur (i.e. September 11th) but she brushed it off.

She was really the one that set the whole thing up to be honest.

Ok so what your saying is if Bush would have just brushed off 9/11 na did nothing and showed no news footage of the attacks then the terrorists would have lost? By the way the starving groups of terrorists of oxygen thing didnt work with the Cole. There was all sorts of news coverage of it and the message was out that "Al-Qaeda" was at war with the USA the only people that were oxygen starved was the Clinton administration or at least they acted like it. If 8 months was enough for Bush to stop 9/11 then the 7 years prior to the USS Cole attack should have been stopped by Clinton or dont the same standards apply. Let alone the response to it was the lamest thing any elected offical has done in the history of the US. Clinton completely ignored the fact we were even attacked and then when he knew who did it he sat there on his lazy rearend and did nothing so I guess starving them of the publicity really didnt work if they then attacked the WTC on 9/11 because according to you this is all you need to do to win is starve them of publicity. Yet Clinton did that for 8 years and they still attacked us here so your wrong again.

Ok so what your saying is if Bush would have just brushed off 9/11 na did nothing and showed no news footage of the attacks then the terrorists would have lost? By the way the starving groups of terrorists of oxygen thing didnt work with the Cole. There was all sorts of news coverage of it and the message was out that "Al-Qaeda" was at war with the USA the only people that were oxygen starved was the Clinton administration or at least they acted like it. If 8 months was enough for Bush to stop 9/11 then the 7 years prior to the USS Cole attack should have been stopped by Clinton or dont the same standards apply. Let alone the response to it was the lamest thing any elected offical has done in the history of the US. Clinton completely ignored the fact we were even attacked and then when he knew who did it he sat there on his lazy rearend and did nothing so I guess starving them of the publicity really didnt work if they then attacked the WTC on 9/11 because according to you this is all you need to do to win is starve them of publicity. Yet Clinton did that for 8 years and they still attacked us here so your wrong again.


Get used to banging your head into a wall .

You will get the same results and your head wont hurt as much .

Get used to banging your head into a wall .

You will get the same results and your head wont hurt as much .

Results are measured only when there is somthing to gauge them from if the debate doesn't occur then the results can never be discovered.

Reports are that only 5% of all terrorist killed in Iraq are current residents in Iraq.
Your proof on this figure?

Meaning the mass majority of the Terrorists are imported from Iran and Serria and other non-democratic states that do not wish this process to succeed.
It appears that most of the "terrorists" are from outside Iraq, but the majority of the "insurgents" are Iraqis:

Among Insurgents in Iraq, Few Foreigners Are Found (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/16/AR2005111602519.html)

Iraqis may have voted in a democratic fashion, but in reality, the Constitution is based on Islam, which makes Iraq more of a "theocracy" then a "democracy".

At the present time, the Iraqi government has very little power since the US controls country with the military, and much of the business is controlled by US corporations.

Ok so what your saying is if Bush would have just brushed off 9/11 na did nothing and showed no news footage of the attacks then the terrorists would have lost?
Where and when did that get said, because prior to your quoted statement above,it sure hasnt been said in this thread.

By the way the starving groups of terrorists of oxygen thing didnt work with the Cole. There was all sorts of news coverage of it and the message was out that "Al-Qaeda" was at war with the USA the only people that were oxygen starved was the Clinton administration or at least they acted like it. If 8 months was enough for Bush to stop 9/11 then the 7 years prior to the USS Cole attack should have been stopped by Clinton or dont the same standards apply.
The application of the same set of standards in entirely different circumstances doesnt always result in the same assessment.
9/11 (unlike the Cole) occurred after the Cole brought the dangers of Osama and his network of naughty nasties to the attention of the US. Further it is much more difficult to control what happens outside one's borders beyond the range of one's authority, than within those borders. 9/11 didnt happen in someone else's country where the US must depend on the good-will and come cap in hand in order to exercise their authority. It happened in the US, it happened in the very place where the US had the most ability to exercise its authority in order to protect itself.

Another key difference is that no one had set up a task force for Clinton whose sole task was addressing the danger Osama presented to the US, where-as Bush inherited such a task force from Clinton and chose to de-prioritise it and its activities.

When Clinton left office he was very much aware of the danger Osama presented and he made every reasonable effort to ensure that Bush was informed of these same dangers and left him a number of tools with which to attempt to accomplish the task. If Bush had accurately assessed the danger and had made reasonable efforts to overt it, and the attacks had happened despite all reasonable measures having been taken to avoid them, it would be an entirely different issue. That isnt the case.

The fact is despite all reasonable generalised warnings about Al Queada, despite specific warnings about the actual attack at issue, and having de-prioritised and underminded the effectiveness of the taskforce Clinton put in place and left to Bush, Bush didnt take the threat seriously; no matter how capable he might have been of stopping the attacks, his unwillingness to do so was the first and foremost barrier to his having done so.

Clinton took the risk seriously, he took action, that puts him leagues ahead of Bush in that regard. It's worth noting that 9/11 didnt happen on Clinton's watch, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the timing of the attack isnt related to Bush's dismissal of the danger and his consequentially negligent approach to guarding against the real and present danger concerned.

Let alone the response to it was the lamest thing any elected offical has done in the history of the US. Clinton completely ignored the fact we were even attacked and then when he knew who did it he sat there on his lazy rearend and did nothing
No, he put together a task force whose sole purpose was to neutralise the threat and if possible to bring the perpetrators to justice. He made every effort to ensure that Bush was informed of the dangers and left him tools for the purpose of guarding against it. Bush chose to dismiss the dangers out of hand. Even when specific warnings of an imminent attack, right down to the likely kind of attack came in, Bush did not take reasonable steps to address the threat. Unlike Clinton, post Cole Bush failed to understand the danger, and he failed to guard against. Unlike Clinton, prior to 9/11 Bush appears to not only have failed to do anything to protect against the dangers presented by Osama, he actually undermined the tools already in place to guard against the dangers concerned.

so I guess starving them of the publicity really didnt work if they then attacked the WTC on 9/11 because according to you this is all you need to do to win is starve them of publicity.
No one has stated in this thread that all that is needed to win is to starve an entity, group or individual of publicity.

Yet Clinton did that for 8 years and they still attacked us here so your wrong again.
9/11 didnt occur until after Clinton left office...there is no evidence that this wasnt a result of it being 'too hard' prior to Bush coming to office. 8 months seems a reasonable time-frame in which to realise the heat is off, the cat's away and it's time for the rats to come out and play. There is no evidence that this wasnt a long held plan that was opportunistically enacted when Bush provided the opportunity by taking the heat of Osama and co...unlike Clinton Bush never ordered anyone to kill Osama if the chance arose. Unlike Clinton Bush never took the threat seriously, Bush failed to act to protect the US and actually undermined the actions of those wiser than himself.

Clinton may have failed or he may have held Al Queada at bay (so far as a massive attack on US soil of the magnitude of 9/11 is concerned). We dont know, but we do know that Bush did a much worse job than Clinton, both in terms of performance and the outcome.

No matter how you cut it, Bush did a worse job than Clinton. If Clinton's performance constitutes a failure, then Bush's constitutes worse than a failure.