"An Iraqi woman and her son"

[cp#]

Saw this on reddit, comes from photojournalism.com (http://www.photojournalism.org/2007%20images/web/contest/singles/source/spot_news1.htm)

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/978/spotnews1yp2.jpg (http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spotnews1yp2.jpg)

It is truly tragic that there are dozens if not hundreds of Iraqis dying every day over there... and for what?

[Evil Avatar]

Saw this on reddit, comes from photojournalism.com (http://www.photojournalism.org/2007%20images/web/contest/singles/source/spot_news1.htm)


It is truly tragic that there are dozens if not hundreds of Iraqis dying every day over there... and for what?

The question you should ask is how many thousands more will die if we pull our troops out of there and leave the place to the slaughter.

[Johan]

The question you should ask is how many thousands more will die if we pull our troops out of there and leave the place to the slaughter.

Actually, the question he should ask is "how many were dying prior to our troops being there, prior even to UN sanctions and the first Gulf War, and why didn't anyone care then?"

Or, we could just ask, "what else is Bush to blame for?" I hear he controls and directs virtually every bad event in the world currently. Really.

[Deadend]

The question you should ask is how many thousands more will die if we pull our troops out of there and leave the place to the slaughter.

The question you should ask is how many thousands more would be alive if we never put our troops there in the first place and left it alone.

[Evil Avatar]

The question you should ask is how many thousands more would be alive if we never put our troops there in the first place and left it alone.

Significantly less than are alive now. Our being there has saved counless lives. Don't forget, their own leader was slaughtering them by the thousands before we got involved. He was even using chemical weapons on them.

[Johan]

Significantly less than are alive now. Our being there has saved counless lives. Don't forget, their own leader was slaughtering them by the thousands before we got involved. He was even using chemical weapons on them.

Immaterial. One word refutes any possible horrors visited upon the Iraqis prior to the Gulf wars...

Bush.

[cp#]

Significantly less than are alive now. Our being there has saved counless lives. Don't forget, their own leader was slaughtering them by the thousands before we got involved. He was even using chemical weapons on them.

Buy why?

They were being killed before, are being killed now, and will continue to be killed. Tragedy

[IrishWhiskey]

Significantly less than are alive now. Our being there has saved counless lives. Don't forget, their own leader was slaughtering them by the thousands before we got involved. He was even using chemical weapons on them.Umm, (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/2007/) No. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338362,00.html)

As many as 100,000 more Iraqi civilians have died in the 18 months since the US-led invasion last year than would have been expected in the period before the war, a study claimed today.

Researchers said the chances of a violent death were 58 times higher after the invasion than before it. Civilian death estimate range from the hundreds of thousands, to over a million. Millions more have fled the country. Iraq is less stable and the murder rate is higher than under Saddam in 2002.

While I agree that we should have done something to help the Iraqi people, I don't think that was our motivation to start the war, nor was it what resulted.

[Deadend]

Significantly less than are alive now. Our being there has saved counless lives. Don't forget, their own leader was slaughtering them by the thousands before we got involved. He was even using chemical weapons on them.

The gas attack in 1988? A little late for that.

Saddam was a terrible man, but was not slaughting like he did pre-gulf war.
And since there was no IMMEDIATE NEED to attack, maybe Bush should have waited until Afghanistan was secured, and have a competent plan for Iraq that covered various scenarios. Instead of going in cocky with a best-case plan and declaring it over 3 weeks later while totally fucking the country up along the way.

[Beelzebud]

Significantly less than are alive now. Our being there has saved counless lives. Don't forget, their own leader was slaughtering them by the thousands before we got involved. He was even using chemical weapons on them.

Oh bullshit. When we invaded nothing like that was going on. 20 years ago he gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq for working with the Iranians, using chemicals he bought from US. When we invaded there were not thousands of Iraqis dieing every day, but there are now. When we invaded there weren't terrorist bombings in Iraq every day, but there is now.

Don't pretend like you care about the Iraqi people, because if you did, you would have been against attacking a country that hadn't done anything to provoke a war with us.

People who were all for invading Iraq didn't seem to give a shit about the Iraq people when it was Shock and Awe time.

[Evil Avatar]

Immaterial. One word refutes any possible horrors visited upon the Iraqis prior to the Gulf wars...

Bush.

I see. So, it is Ok for Saddam to invade foreign countries and slaughter his own people, but when Bush tries to put a stop to it and put a major crimp in international terrorism, he is at fault for everything.

That is certainly one interesting viewpoint you have there.

And if you think it is bad now... imagine how much worse it will be in the months after we pull our troops out of there. That will be one for the record books.

[Talon-]

I see. So, it is Ok for Saddam to invade foreign countries and slaughter his own people, but when Bush tries to put a stop to it and put a major crimp in international terrorism, he is at fault for everything.

That is certainly one interesting viewpoint you have there.

And if you think it is bad now... imagine how much worse it will be in the months after we pull our troops out of there. That will be one for the record books.

There is no evidence to prove that Saddam was in dealings with terrorism.

[Evil Avatar]

Oh bullshit. When we invaded nothing like that was going on. 20 years ago he gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq for working with the Iranians, using chemicals he bought from US. When we invaded there were not thousands of Iraqis dieing every day, but there are now. When we invaded there weren't terrorist bombings in Iraq every day, but there is now.

How do you know? Were you there? Under Saddam people were probably executed every day.

And we aren't the ones killing those people, so we aren't to blame no matter how you want to slice it.

[cp#]

Not it isn't OK for Bush to have invaded Iraq. It is a war based solely on lies. It is undeclared by the Congress. Mother fucker needs to be outed for it but it is not going to happen. Bush wasn't trying to "put a stop" to the killings or else we'd be in Burma by now.

[Johan]

I see.

Perhaps not. My cup runneth over with sarcasm today. :)

[IrishWhiskey]

And if you think it is bad now... imagine how much worse it will be in the months after we pull our troops out of there. That will be one for the record books.That could be true. On the other hand, those troops could save many more lives in Kenya, Darfur and Burma. When the purpose of our presence is to buy time for a political reconciliation, when does it stop being our job to shepard their democracy? Why do those innocents who are dying of an ongoing genocide not deserve help?

[Evil Avatar]

There is no evidence to prove that Saddam was in dealings with terrorism.

No evidence other than the fact that our soldiers fight hand to hand with Al Qaeda on a daily basis. What... did you think that the Al Qaeda forces just said, "Hey, lets pack up our gear and move to Iraq now the the US is there. It's a party. Bring beer."

No, they were already there.

Think, McFly, think. I can't turn in my homework in your handwriting.

[Deadend]

I see. So, it is Ok for Saddam to invade foreign countries and slaughter his own people, but when Bush tries to put a stop to it and put a major crimp in international terrorism, he is at fault for everything.

That is certainly one interesting viewpoint you have there.

And if you think it is bad now... imagine how much worse it will be in the months after we pull our troops out of there. That will be one for the record books.

Bush didn't put a stop to it. He knocked Iraq out of Kuwait, saved the oil, and turned and went home.

Yeah, its terrible in Iraq now, because we fucked up. We didnt plan it right, we didn't make the right steps (debaathifaction was terribly stupid, but seemed like a good idea at the time.) Your stance that it doesn't matter that THINGS SUCK IN IRAQ BECAUSE OF AMERICAN ACTIONS because THEY WILL BE WORSE WHEN WE LEAVE is fairly terrible.

It would be like stabing someone with a knife, and going "man, you know, if you pull that knife out, your gonna fucking bleed to death. Your so lucky I was there to put that knife in you and stop the bleeding." as you had stuck the knife near an old scar from a previous knife wound.

[Beelzebud]

How do you know? Were you there? Under Saddam people were probably executed every day.

And we aren't the ones killing those people, so we aren't to blame no matter how you want to slice it.

Oh the irony. You ask me how I know, ask me if I was there, and then you say "Under Saddam people were PROBABLY executed every day."

Yeah and they probably had WMD.

And they probably have ties to international terrorism.

How many times can a group of idealogues be wrong and still be listened to?

The fact is that Saddam Hussein was not working with the 9/11 attackers, and he had no WMD, and Iraq was not a bloody mess like it is now.

[IrishWhiskey]

How do you know? Were you there? Under Saddam people were probably executed every day.According to Human Rights Watch between 1992-2002 Saddam had 50,000 people killed in Iraq. The invasion deaths alone in the first year rival that figure.

[Deadend]

No evidence other than the fact that our soldiers fight hand to hand with Al Qaeda on a daily basis. What... did you think that the Al Qaeda forces just said, "Hey, lets pack up our gear and move to Iraq now the the US is there. It's a party. Bring beer."

No, they were already there.

Think, McFly, think. I can't turn in my homework in your handwriting.

No, really, our evidence says they came AFTER the US was there. They set up a fucking franchise and turned Iraq into a terrorism testbed.

[Evil Avatar]

That could be true. On the other hand, those troops could save many more lives in Kenya, Darfur and Burma. When the purpose of our presence is to buy time for a political reconciliation, when does it stop being our job to shepard their democracy? Why do those innocents who are dying of an ongoing genocide not deserve help?

Don't talk to me about it. I'm all for having our troops bust some heads in some of those places. I think there should be a McDonald's on every corner just like here in the USA.

Now, just try to convince the Democrats to let you spend the money on the troops. They weren't spending the money back in the 90's to save those people and I doubt they will go for it now.

[Johan]

Yeah and they probably had WMD.

You have seen the photos of the chemical attacks he initiated, right? And the chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war?

You're kidding, right?

He had them. The only question is when he got rid of them, and how. The documentation was destroyed by his own people. They couldn't risk letting Iran know they were unarmed in terms of WMDs...

[Beelzebud]

No evidence other than the fact that our soldiers fight hand to hand with Al Qaeda on a daily basis. What... did you think that the Al Qaeda forces just said, "Hey, lets pack up our gear and move to Iraq now the the US is there. It's a party. Bring beer."

No, they were already there.

Think, McFly, think. I can't turn in my homework in your handwriting.

Oh nonsense. We aren't even fighting Al Quaeda there, we're fighting insurgents that want us out of their country!

Al Quaeda means "The Base" in Arabic. It's what the Mujahadeen called Afghanistan.

[pirateTITAN]

Saw this on reddit, comes from photojournalism.com (http://www.photojournalism.org/2007%20images/web/contest/singles/source/spot_news1.htm)

It is truly tragic that there are dozens if not hundreds of Iraqis dying every day over there... and for what?

Politics bullshit aside, that's really fucked up. I know it happens in scores all around the world, mothers holding their dying/dead sons, but it's still really disturbing. Which is good. It should always be disturbing.

[Beelzebud]

I think there should be a McDonald's on every corner just like here in the USA.

Why? It's worth invading a country so they can have a McDonald's on every corner?

This perfectly illustrates the kind of thinking that got us in this mess, and keeps us in this mess.

Did it ever occur to you that they don't want McDonald's on every corner?

Wow....

[IrishWhiskey]

Now, just try to convince the Democrats to let you spend the money on the troops. They weren't spending the money back in the 90's to save those people and I doubt they will go for it now.You mean like the genocide intervention in Bosnia under Clinton? Or Somalia? The ones that the Republicans roundly criticized and opposed?

I won't claim Democrats are good at humanitarian interventions or putting morality before self-interest in foreign policy. But I'm also sure the Republicans aren't any better.

Did it ever occur to you that they don't want McDonald's on every corner?

Wow....Thats just crazy talk. Who doesn't like McDonalds?

[Whimbrel]

This thread is pretty disturbing evidence that some people need to spend much less time on gaming websites and listening to Rush Limbough.

Even if you wanted to justify the initial invasion, which killed very few Iraqis and overthrew Hussein immediately, there is no justification for the several hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens who have died while we were responsible for protecting them.

[Beelzebud]

You have seen the photos of the chemical attacks he initiated, right? And the chemical attacks during the Iran-Iraq war?

You're kidding, right?

He had them. The only question is when he got rid of them, and how. The documentation was destroyed by his own people. They couldn't risk letting Iran know they were unarmed in terms of WMDs...

First off, mustard gas isn't a WMD. Second, they did that 20 years ago, while we were friends with them. Back then Don Rumsfeld was bringing Saddam gifts of golden spurs for his boots and shaking his hand.

Third we know exactly what happens to mustard gas when it sits around for 20 years. Science. I know it's not your friend.

[torrefaction]

Hell, people forget, but Bush ran on a platform of non-intervention.

Here's a reminder that Ron Paul is basically running on Bush's 2000 policies...he just believes in them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MpTNdcM_e0

[GrinR]

I am proud of our liberation of Iraq. If there's anything I'm ashamed of is how many Americans resist and sometime outright thwart the entire process. I see pictures like the OP and far worse and think, "this might have been avoided if we'd done a better job. It's too bad we have to fight our own people tooth and nail to do what's right."

I typically ask people who are crying for the victims of Iraq's struggle - what are you doing to help? Here, do something about it. (http://spiritofamerica.net/)

[Oxonian]

Don't pretend like you care about the Iraqi people, because if you did, you would have been against attacking a country that hadn't done anything to provoke a war with us.

People who were all for invading Iraq didn't seem to give a shit about the Iraq people when it was Shock and Awe time.
I'm kind of curious how you know how I felt about Shock and Awe, since you didn't know me and I don't believe I've ever made any comment about it around here. But I will point out that the ostensible purpose of "Shock and Awe" was to create a massive spectacle of destruction to frighten the Iraqi Army into fleeing the battlefield; in other words, it was supposed to be so scary that the Iraqi Army would surrender without fighting, so we wouldn't have to kill them. I'm not sure why you think this is incompatible with caring about Iraqis.

By the way, where do you get the statistic that "thousands of Iraqis are dieing [sic] every day"? The IBC estimates that perhaps as many as 65 Iraqi civilians died from violence every day on average in 2007 -- not good, but a bit different from the statistic you quote.

[Talon-]

No evidence other than the fact that our soldiers fight hand to hand with Al Qaeda on a daily basis. What... did you think that the Al Qaeda forces just said, "Hey, lets pack up our gear and move to Iraq now the the US is there. It's a party. Bring beer."

No, they were already there.

Think, McFly, think. I can't turn in my homework in your handwriting.

We know for a fact that northern Saudi Arabia is a huge base for Al Qaeda operations. We know that what they do is feed on the poor who have lost everything and bring them into their "cause" against the "oppressors." We know that half a dozen Senate and CIA reports have shown that there was no outright link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. We know that these sources we relied upon were defectors under one hood called the INC, whose legitimacy has been put into major question.

There have been lengthy pieces written about the "insurgents" that show how many of these people are citizens that feel like they have to fight for their land and nation, now (akin to how Southerners went to arms in our Civil War).

If we leave, will it become a Civil War? Yes, but there's no need for us to unnecessarily lose American lives in a war in which we should not be involved.

Are we going to leave? I don't know. I hope that we can put aside our hubris and realize our mistakes, but I just frankly don't know.

[Oxonian]

First off, mustard gas isn't a WMD.
What is it, a condiment? It does seem to be prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Protocol (http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/keytext/genprot.htm).

[Beelzebud]

What is it, a condiment? It does seem to be prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Protocol (http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/keytext/genprot.htm).

That doesn't make it a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Do you honestly think mustard gas is on par with a nuclear bomb?

[GrinR]

http://i26.tinypic.com/31355bb.jpg

Here's another pic that might expand your view a bit.

And the story behind it. (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/little-girl.htm/)

Mosul

Major Mark Bieger found this little girl after the car bomb that attacked our guys while kids were crowding around. The soldiers here have been angry and sad for two days. They are angry because the terrorists could just as easily have waited a block or two and attacked the patrol away from the kids. Instead, the suicide bomber drove his car and hit the Stryker when about twenty children were jumping up and down and waving at the soldiers. Major Bieger, I had seen him help rescue some of our guys a week earlier during another big attack, took some of our soldiers and rushed this little girl to our hospital. He wanted her to have American surgeons and not to go to the Iraqi hospital. She didn’t make it. I snapped this picture when Major Bieger ran to take her away. He kept stopping to talk with her and hug her.

[Johan]

First off, mustard gas isn't a WMD...Science. I know it's not your friend.

Reality...apparently it's not something you associate with:

What is it, a condiment? It does seem to be prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Protocol (http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/keytext/genprot.htm).

Also, Beelzestupid:

Saddam used sarin NERVE GAS on the Kurds. (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9553/#3)

Reality AND science seem to dispute you, Beelzedummy.

That doesn't make it a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Definition of WMD...for people who need an education, such as yourself. (http://www.nti.org/f_WMD411/f1a1.html)

[Evil Avatar]

Why? It's worth invading a country so they can have a McDonald's on every corner?

This perfectly illustrates the kind of thinking that got us in this mess, and keeps us in this mess.

Did it ever occur to you that they don't want McDonald's on every corner?

Wow....

People living under a terrorist dictatorship often don't know that they could have it better somewhere else. Hell, that is probably the reason half the Middle East hates us is that their own government hides from them the fact that we have this super high standard of living and we live in a country of enormous freedoms.

I suspect that if you started yanking those people out of their slums and putting them up in a nice house here in the USA with a decent job, clean water and good food that not a lot of them will go, "Gee, this sucks. I'm going back to disentary and poverty because I hate McDonalds."

[Beelzebud]

http://i26.tinypic.com/31355bb.jpg

Here's another pic that might expand your view a bit.

You know what I see there?

Two people caught up in a bullshit war started by people who didn't have a clue what they were getting into. People with no combat experience who thought we'd be there for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w67Bk9xAAT8

[Talon-]

Here's another pic that might expand your view a bit.

GrinR, I don't think anybody's saying that we're raping and murdering the Iraq people. Hell, no. Every person here to a man supports our troops and believes that they are trying their best to do good over there.

What we're questioning is the righteousness from the top in going into Iraq. What we're questioning is are we there for Iraq's interests or our own.

[Lima Beans]

Here's another pic that might expand your view a bit.

not sure why thats supposed to be view expanding, seems to be the exact same view as the pic in the OP. View reinforcing, sure.

But, seriously thanks for the posting the pic though, and the story behind it, hadnt heard of it before =(

[Beelzebud]

Reality...apparently it's not something you associate with:



Also, Beelzestupid:

Saddam used sarin NERVE GAS on the Kurds. (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9553/#3)

Reality AND science seem to dispute you, Beelzedummy.



Definition of WMD...for people who need an education, such as yourself. (http://www.nti.org/f_WMD411/f1a1.html)

Sarin gas AND mustard gas, neither of which are WMD.

Your name calling is childish. Get a life. Go pad your post count elsewhere.

[torrefaction]

People living under a terrorist dictatorship often don't know that they could have it better somewhere else. Hell, that is probably the reason half the Middle East hates us is that their own government hides from them the fact that we have this super high standard of living and we live in a country of enormous freedoms.

I suspect that if you started yanking those people out of their slums and putting them up in a nice house here in the USA with a decent job, clean water and good food that not a lot of them will go, "Gee, this sucks. I'm going back to disentary and poverty because I hate McDonalds."

While I believe this is partially true, this is certainly not the entire reason. It's about indoctrination. What you're saying is equivalent to saying you could do the same thing with the Amish, and that it'd work out just fine. A long string of very rich muslims (Osama was one of these at one point. Dude's family ain't exactly poor.) strongly believe in the extremely conservative version of Salafism that leads to extremist actions.

[IrishWhiskey]

Saddam used sarin NERVE GAS on the Kurds. (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9553/#3)

Reality AND science seem to dispute you, Beelzedummy.That actually isn't contradicting what he said. He said that Saddam used chemical weapons on people 20 years ago, and that mustard gas isn't a WMD. Even if that had contradicted him, I'm not sure what point is being made.

[GrinR]

GrinR, I don't think anybody's saying that we're raping and murdering the Iraq people. Hell, no. Every person here to a man supports our troops and believes that they are trying their best to do good over there.

What we're questioning is the righteousness from the top in going into Iraq. What we're questioning is are we there for Iraq's interests or our own.

And while you're questioning, the reality is ignored. You can continue to question the decisions of the past while at the same time vigorously supporting the efforts we're making in the present. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Johan]

Sarin gas AND mustard gas, neither of which are WMD.

You're an idiot.

It defines WMD as "any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of - (A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors; (B) a disease organism; or (C) radiation or radioactivity."

Another link. (http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh97.htm)

Traditional International Legal Approaches to WMD

In security and foreign policy analyses, "weapons of mass destruction" is a term that generally encompasses nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with radiological weapons occasionally included.

[cp#]

All you people calling mustard gas a WMD/chemical weapon in this thread are full of shit. I specifically remember starting a thread on how we were using chemical weapons in Iraq and I got yelled at about how it was NOT a WMD/chemical weapon. So make up your fucking minds.

[Evil Avatar]

While I believe this is partially true, this is certainly not the entire reason. It's about indoctrination. What you're saying is equivalent to saying you could do the same thing with the Amish, and that it'd work out just fine. A long string of very rich muslims (Osama was one of these at one point. Dude's family ain't exactly poor.) strongly believe in the extremely conservative version of Salafism that leads to extremist actions.

Didn't I read a story not that long ago about the Amish having problems getting their young women to fall for the brainwashing because more and more they are able to get exposed to the outside?

[IrishWhiskey]

People living under a terrorist dictatorship often don't know that they could have it better somewhere else. Hell, that is probably the reason half the Middle East hates us is that their own government hides from them the fact that we have this super high standard of living and we live in a country of enormous freedoms.

I suspect that if you started yanking those people out of their slums and putting them up in a nice house here in the USA with a decent job, clean water and good food that not a lot of them will go, "Gee, this sucks. I'm going back to disentary and poverty because I hate McDonalds."I agree. Which is part of the reason why I think its a good thing to expose these people to our society, rather than fear and persecute those immigrants who do come over to make a better life. And we should be helping promote education and freedoms in the Middle East. I'm just don't believe:
A. That was the primary intent of the political planners of this war
B. That was the primary effect
C. That we are being at all consistent with that belief in our relations with other countries.

[Lima Beans]

Didn't I read a story not that long ago about the Amish having problems getting their young women to fall for the brainwashing because more and more they are able to get exposed to the outside?

Been reading a lot of stories about Mormons like that recently anyways yeah, although I personally havnt seen an Amish one.

[DaXIthR]

Evil, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're being as sarcastic as Johan in this thread...

Lest we forget, Madeline Albright (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084).

That's 500,000 children in the first five years of sanctions. Sanctions that prevented the acquisition of water purification tools and supplies. Come on, man...

You're going to tell me those deaths weren't preventable? Or that Saddam was directly responsible for them? You're going to tell me the those half a million kids in five years and the millions since were the ones being saved?

[Johan]

All you people calling mustard gas a WMD/chemical weapon in this thread are full of shit. I specifically remember starting a thread on how we were using chemical weapons in Iraq and I got yelled at about how it was NOT a WMD/chemical weapon. So make up your fucking minds.

This is the first time I've ever mentioned it, and as a chemical weapon, IT IS A WMD.

Idiots. Seriously. How the FUCK can a discussion take place if people can't even figure out the fucking definitions for terms?

Idiots.

[Havelic]

There is no evidence to prove that Saddam was in dealings with terrorism.

Clarity: there hasn't been any evidence found to prove he had anything to do with 9/11. He most certainly was involved with terror attacks in Israel (payments to suicide bomber families) and had training camps in-country (Salman Pak, Samarra, Ramadi) for various groups. There's also the diplomatic support given to Abu Abbas and other individuals who committed terrorist acts. Whether or not you feel that's valid cause for the invasion is something else entirely.

[torrefaction]

And while you're questioning, the reality is ignored. You can continue to question the decisions of the past while at the same time vigorously supporting the efforts we're making in the present. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I think I'm in that exact boat. But what I question is the execution of the past. It seems in retrospect that Bush ignored all the reasons his father didn't take Baghdad, and went in with an even worse plan. Also, unfortunately, I've begun to wonder if Bush's motivations where the same as mine for wanting to go in, and the same as he claimed. A lot of times, it doesn't seem that way.

That being said, in many ways I'm glad Paul was a non-starter as a nominee, because I'm terribly afraid of people looking back on us the way they now look at Britain's historical actions. We need to be there to help those people...but I'm also of the opinion that if their government doesn't step up, there needs to be a motivational stick to beat them with. This is taking entirely to long on their part.

[cp#]

Hell, people forget, but Bush ran on a platform of non-intervention.

Here's a reminder that Ron Paul is basically running on Bush's 2000 policies...he just believes in them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MpTNdcM_e0

Wow that is simply epic

"Maybe I'm missing something here"

[Beelzebud]

You're an idiot.

And you're now on my ignore list. Anyone who can't just have a debate about something without resorting to childish name-calling isn't worth my time.

Have a nice life.

*hint* Significant

[Virtuoso]

No evidence other than the fact that our soldiers fight hand to hand with Al Qaeda on a daily basis. What... did you think that the Al Qaeda forces just said, "Hey, lets pack up our gear and move to Iraq now the the US is there. It's a party. Bring beer."

No, they were already there.


Actually thats almost exactly what happened. Iraq became a rallying cause, a symbol, hence the reason why most of the Al Qaeda members in Iraq aren't even from Iraq. Do you watch alot of fox news or something evil?

Edit: Add to that, Bin Laden didn't like Hussein at all (http://www.harpers.org/subjects/OsamaBinLaden/SubjectOf/Event), and referred to him as a bad muslim (a big deal when you are fighting a religious war).

[Johan]

Anyone who can't just have a debate about something without resorting to childish insults isn't worth my time.

You're a dumbass.

Let me remind you of WHICH ONE OF US OPENED UP THE CAN OF INSULTS.

YOUR POST:

Science. I know it's not your friend.

Yeah...nicely played. Idiot. You want to get your rocks off poking your finger in my eye? Don't be shocked when I poke back. Especially when you're STUPIDLY WRONG.

[torrefaction]

Wow that is simply epic

"Maybe I'm missing something here"

People forget this. The same assholes who call republicans idiots for voting for Bush the first time, forget the platform he ran on is not the platform he executed.

Many of us (Republicans) were unhappy with the job he was doing as of '04, but thought he deserved to see it through. I hope just a few people pick up on this and remember that the way he got the country fired up initially was by running on a truly conservative platform.

I miss that Bush. He DESTROYED Gore in the debates.

[IrishWhiskey]

This is the first time I've ever mentioned it, and as a chemical weapon, IT IS A WMD.

Idiots. Seriously. How the FUCK can a discussion take place if people can't even figure out the fucking definitions for terms?

Idiots.Um. Regardless of swearing and anger, isn't it true that not every chemical weapon is a weapon of mass destruction? Wouldn't that make tear gas and pepper sprays WMDs?

[Evil Avatar]

Actually thats almost exactly what happened. Iraq became a rallying cause, a symbol, hence the reason why most of the Al Qaeda members in Iraq aren't even from Iraq. Do you watch alot of fox news or something evil?

Lord no. Please accuse me of being a racist or an idiot or a war mongering oil baron, but just don't accuse me of watching Fox News.

[LongStepMantis]

I'm not trying to get involved with this argument, but after seeing the images in this thread and thinking about it, what the fuck difference does it make now?

I mean, we have a picture of a mother holding her dying son, and everyone is arguing about what is and isn't a WMD...for fuck's sake people. That is all.

[Johan]

"any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people

shortshort

[IrishWhiskey]

People forget this. The same assholes who call republicans idiots for voting for Bush the first time, forget the platform he ran on is not the platform he executed.

I miss that Bush. I also miss this Cheney

6BEsZMvrq-I

[Oxonian]

That doesn't make it a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
Perhaps you are using some funny definition of WMD. I know Pennsylvania defines a "weapon of mass destruction" as "a bomb, biological agent, chemical agent or nuclear agent," and further defines "chemical agent" as including "mustard (H), sulfur mustard (HD)... [or] sulfur mustard (HN-3)." 18 Pa.C.S. 2715(d).

Do you honestly think mustard gas is on par with a nuclear bomb?
No, but I think the term "weapon of mass destruction" is kind of a misnomer: even thermonuclear weapons aren't necessarily more destructive than conventional weapons. If anything, mustard gas is far worse than a nuclear bomb: many of the people killed in a nuclear explosion die instantly or nearly so, but mustard gas causes horrible lingering pain and disfigurement in everyone it touches. In any event, the phrase "weapon of mass destruction" apparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction) was employed long before nuclear weapons were even invented, so I don't think it's very persuasive to argue that the phrase includes only nuclear weapons.

[Virtuoso]

Didn't I read a story not that long ago about the Amish having problems getting their young women to fall for the brainwashing because more and more they are able to get exposed to the outside?


No, because part of Amish tradition is that they are required to leave the collective for a year, and if they want to they can come back. So you didn't read that. At all.

[torrefaction]

I also miss this Cheney

6BEsZMvrq-I

That's exactly what I was referring to about Bush not following his father's reasoning about Baghdad.

[ÜberJumper]

I'm trained to fight on an NBC battlefield. Anyone who thinks that a chemical weapon isn't a weapon of mass destruction has never trained in NBC (nuclear biological and chemical) operations. Chemical Weapons (including Sarin, Mustard Gas, and any other blood, nerve or blistering agent) are WMDs. You Are Wrong if you think otherwise.

Now that that's out of the way, the US can't leave Iraq until the country's stable.

I believed Colin Powel when he said Iraq had WMDs, I believe he quit because he was embarrassed that he helped sell the lie to the world.

I don't believe that the organization Bin Laden's a part of was operating in strength in Iraq before the Americans invaded (they probably saw it coming and started up operations, but I don't think they were there as guests of Iraq prior to that). I do believe they are now, or at least people calling themselves part of that organization. There are a lot of insurgents there, often foreign fighters from other nations that are there fighting American imperialism. There's also a lot of nutjobs that love guns and violence. There's interesting stories about fighters being lured in to be tricked into being suicide bombers without their consent.

Anyway, it's a nasty situation that can't be left in this state. If the American's leave now, MORE will die. What's done is done, now it needs to be fixed.

[GrinR]

not sure why thats supposed to be view expanding, seems to be the exact same view as the pic in the OP. View reinforcing, sure.

But, seriously thanks for the posting the pic though, and the story behind it, hadnt heard of it before =(

The difference is the context. The original picture shows a terrible sight of a child injured and a guardian lamenting, yet the poster asserts that the cause of the suffering in this picture is American without any supporting evidence. It is suppose to suffice to see suffering and assume it is American born.

The picture I post shows similar suffering, however it offers meaningful context in the form of identifying who is responsible for the injury and the compassionate American response to it. The enemy is not us, it is not Iraqis, it is the terrorist organizations who thrive and benefit from committing ever greater horrors in order to evoke the repulsed response from civilized westerners like the original poster.

The original poster is behaving precisely as the terrorists intend. Ignore who actually shot the child, who blew up a schoolyard, who chopped those heads off, and focus on the inevitable, ultimate root cause - The Great Satan America. Ignore who runs to help the victims of the bomb. Ignore who is trying to bring food, medicine, and municipal services to a shattered nation. Ignore any attempt to bring justice under the law.

Focus on the blood, they say. Focus on the blood and tremble, as you have brought this on yourself. You made me do it! YOU are responsible for the battered bodies! YOU are responsible for the bombs I plant! YOU make me saw my knife back and forth across a reporters head, back and forth like cutting a turkey hearing the screams and gurgles and blood jetting across the floor - YOU are the one who thought of this horror and force me to do it!

That's what they say, and far too many believe it. I don't. And it's photos and stories such as the one I posted that illustrate why.

[H1PO]

People living under a terrorist dictatorship often don't know that they could have it better somewhere else. Hell, that is probably the reason half the Middle East hates us is that their own government hides from them the fact that we have this super high standard of living and we live in a country of enormous freedoms.

I suspect that if you started yanking those people out of their slums and putting them up in a nice house here in the USA with a decent job, clean water and good food that not a lot of them will go, "Gee, this sucks. I'm going back to disentary and poverty because I hate McDonalds."
No, Phil, they do not hate us because we have it better than them; they hate us because we've been messing with their shit since WWII. The Allies split up the Middle East, and just pissed people off. We recognized Israel as a country in a matter of hours, and we can't keep our faces out of their oil.
We were great friends with those dictators. We put the former dictator of Iran into his throne. We defend Israel, the state that almost all Muslims hate.
Frankly, the hate toward the US that Muslims see is almost justified. The killing however, is not. Right now the Middle East is a fucked up place. There really is no solution to it besides leaving them alone and trying to break ourselves from our oil addiction and find some fuel we can supply ourselves with and support our economy.

That right there was pretty much just the essay I have to write on Monday. Sweet.

[Evil Avatar]

That's what they say, and far too many believe it. I don't. And it's photos and stories such as the one I posted that illustrate why.

Am I getting senile or did GrinR just make sense?

[Virtuoso]

People living under a terrorist dictatorship often don't know that they could have it better somewhere else. Hell, that is probably the reason half the Middle East hates us is that their own government hides from them the fact that we have this super high standard of living and we live in a country of enormous freedoms.

I suspect that if you started yanking those people out of their slums and putting them up in a nice house here in the USA with a decent job, clean water and good food that not a lot of them will go, "Gee, this sucks. I'm going back to disentary and poverty because I hate McDonalds."

I also have to disagree with this. We really don't (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html) have (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/13/national/main838207.shtml) a super (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4772049.stm) high (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html) standard (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/01/29/fema.trailers.ap/) of living (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2994924.stm) here.

I'm not saying its terrible, but there are alot of much better places. The US isn't the pinnacle of progress like it was 50 or 60 years ago.

[Rifter]

GrinR, I don't think anybody's saying that we're raping and murdering the Iraq people. Hell, no. Every person here to a man supports our troops and believes that they are trying their best to do good over there.


The left's version of supporting our troops is patting them on the back with their right hand, as they slip the knife in the back with their left.

[Talon-]

You can believe that the leadership led us into Iraq for the good of the people, but you know as well as anyone that every powerful nation chooses to help a country for specific reasons.

Why did Clinton not go to Rwanda? Why are we not in the Sudan, the Congo, etc.? Why do we sit by quietly as China executes thousands, many of those for choosing to practice a religion?

Are we helping in Iraq? I can't honestly say that we are. Are our soldiers doing everything they can to help in Iraq? Absolutely.

Colin Powell's testimony came from information fed to the CIA and the Press by the INC. There are Iranian ties to the INC, and some go as far as believing that the INC was pushed with information by Iran. You can read the full article here (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44043).

[GrinR]

Am I getting senile or did GrinR just make sense?

Both .

[torrefaction]

The left's version of supporting our troops is patting them on the back with their right hand, as they slip the knife in the back with their left.

Someday all the partisan bullshit will stop. That day will be nice. You realize they still have been voting for funding right? Congress COULD have put a stop to the war, solely through the budget. They didn't. Give them some credit there, even if the reason they didn't was so they wouldn't be seen as not supporting the troops. I'm sure at least half of them did it because they didn't WANT to leave the troops empty handed.

People on the left are not bad people, so give it a rest.

[Virtuoso]

The left's version of supporting our troops is patting them on the back with their right hand, as they slip the knife in the back with their left.

The left? Where are you from, Ida...oh.......

How are things in the nobody cares about use because we are so ass backwards state?

Edit: Cozy Shack tapioca pudding is great!

[bKangy]

In my view the Iraq War was a clear mistake. It's not that I'm a total pacifist, I believe we should be sending the SAS to take down Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe for example. I just think it's made things far, far worse in the "War against Terror". It's destroyed infrastructure all over Iraq and they've had to reboot all power structures. Insurgency, poverty etc have taken lives that, while horribly oppressed under Saddam, would not have died otherwise.

That's not to say I support or deny Saddam's crimes in any way, either. If someone had suggested just dropping a smart bomb on him one day, I'd not be too fussed if they could justify it. I just don't think we achieved anything, and that both the soldiers on the ground, the airmen in accidents and the Iraqi civilians have been fucked longterm for no gain, actually making everything far worse due to the onset of genuine problematic poverty there. It's a shame that global views have completely switched due to it since 2001, as it was very clear the public in the US, Britain and even France etc considered Afghanistan a positive war for the good of the world. Iraq, not so much at all.

[Johan]

Chemical Weapons (including Sarin, Mustard Gas, and any other blood, nerve or blistering agent) are WMDs. You Are Wrong if you think otherwise.

I'm sorry, but you've been clearly contradicted by someone who knows better...:D

Beelzepoopie.

[Whimbrel]

I suspect that if you started yanking those people out of their slums and putting them up in a nice house here in the USA with a decent job, clean water and good food that not a lot of them will go, "Gee, this sucks. I'm going back to disentary and poverty because I hate McDonalds."

EA has a good and valid point. We should preemptively invade and disrupt every country in which some people have a lower standard of living than we have. Once they witness a few thousand of their countrymen and family members get bombed to shit, they will start to appreciate the freedoms they have that their former government kept from them. In fact, once we dissolve all order and government in these new free countries, they will really appreciate our freedoms and the sacrifices of the American people willing to die in order to bring more death to those poor people in the middle east who used to hate us for the wrong reasons, but now love us and appreciate our freedoms now that we have killed their children.

Once we disrupt electricity, create massive unemployment, and motivate terrorists to invade and fight in the streets, our mission of education and charity will be complete. This new society of death and chaos will always love their American liberators and appreciate our efforts to teach them how great our lifestyle really is.

[Church42]

No evidence other than the fact that our soldiers fight hand to hand with Al Qaeda on a daily basis. What... did you think that the Al Qaeda forces just said, "Hey, lets pack up our gear and move to Iraq now the the US is there. It's a party. Bring beer."

No, they were already there.


Just like those WMDs that were already there.

[GrinR]

You can believe that the leadership led us into Iraq for the good of the people, but you know as well as anyone that every powerful nation chooses to help a country for specific reasons.

Why did Clinton not go to Rwanda? Why are we not in the Sudan, the Congo, etc.? Why do we sit by quietly as China executes thousands, many of those for choosing to practice a religion?

Are we helping in Iraq? I can't honestly say that we are. Are our soldiers doing everything they can to help in Iraq? Absolutely.

I am less interested in analyzing why we're not more involved in the examples you cite (and more) and more interested in doing everything I can to make sure we get involved. As a neocon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism), that's half my credo.

Can I count on your support when the next liberation proposal happens? If we decide to send forces into the Sudan or back to Ethiopia, can I count on you to support those actions? Keep in mind there's plenty of oil to be gained from those countries. Will the necessary involvement of Halliburton slow your support?


Editor, The Weekly Standard

It's bigger than Iraq, and it's bigger than the Middle East. I mean, the world is a mess. And, I think, it's very much to Bush's credit that he's gotten serious about dealing with it. But, Iraq's not going to be the end of it.

Obviously, there are exercises of American power that could be unwise. But, on the biggest question, is the great danger too little an exercise, too mean an exercise of American power, or too great, too forward leaning an exercise of American power? I think that's an easy question to answer. The danger is American withdrawal, American timidity, American slowness. The danger is not that we're going to do too much. The danger is that we're going to do too little.

[SirKnightXCX]

Anyone who thinks that the invasion of Iraq has been positive for the citizens of United States or Iraq has not picked up a newspaper or any news source for the past few years. Perhaps he watches too much FNC. It has been good for China, that's for sure.

[Church42]

No evidence other than the fact that our soldiers fight hand to hand with Al Qaeda on a daily basis. What... did you think that the Al Qaeda forces just said, "Hey, lets pack up our gear and move to Iraq now the the US is there. It's a party. Bring beer."

No, they were already there.

Think, McFly, think. I can't turn in my homework in your handwriting.

We also heard about all the Sunnis sawing Shiites heads off and vice versa and daily suicide, roadside, and market-place bombings there before the war right? Right?!!?

I won't deny that Saddam gassed the Kurds and killed alot of people (mostly Shiites and dissenters), but I'd say on the whole, more civilians have been killed since we got into that hell-hole than before.

[torrefaction]

I'm curious GrinR...you did vote for Bush in 2000, right? Because he ran against these types of policies. Was it September 11th that changed your world view on nation building and liberal use of American power?

I ask these questions because I'm wrestling a bit with my own personal philosophy to some extent, and I'm curious where you stand. My response to your earlier post expounds on my personal feelings just a bit.

[Rifter]

The left? Where are you from, Ida...oh.......

How are things in the nobody cares about use because we are so ass backwards state?

Edit: Cozy Shack tapioca pudding is great!

Wow... I just had an Okie tell me I am from an ass backwards state. THERE is irony.

[Virtuoso]

I am less interested in analyzing why we're not more involved in the examples you cite (and more) and more interested in doing everything I can to make sure we get involved. As a neocon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism), that's half my credo.

Neocon.... that when sunlight burns you and you can't step on holy ground without erupting into flames, right?

I kid, but neoconservativism is neither new nor conservative. The only place its new is in which countries we target for "democrafication" and the only place its conservative is in how much we actually help our own citizens.

[Talon-]

Can I count on your support when the next liberation proposal happens? If we decide to send forces into the Sudan or back to Ethiopia, can I count on you to support those actions? Keep in mind there's plenty of oil to be gained from those countries. Will the necessary involvement of Halliburton slow your support?

What can be done in Africa? I'm not sure we can save it. Unless we go back in time and bomb the shit out of Europe, so that they don't wind up dividing Africa into states where 2 or dramatically opposed communities are forced to coexist in the same nation.

It's not simply an issue of invading and consolidation control. If we go in, we need to get rid of these "ultranationalist' tribes, completely rebuild the infrastructure, and then find the proper leadership within those countries. We may even need to redraw these borders. It's going to take more than this country. It's going to take the continent of Europe (I'm looking at you, too, Denmark) to suck it up, realize that they have ruined an entire continent, apologize, and put as many resources as they can into it.

Is this going to happen? Not in my lifetime, I don't think.

[Virtuoso]

Wow... I just had an Okie tell me I am from an ass backwards state. THERE is irony.

Yeah, I know. That must make you feel REALLY bad about where you live mister 4 electoral votes.

[Oxonian]

I kid, but neoconservativism is neither new nor conservative. The only place its new is in which countries we target for "democrafication" and the only place its conservative is in how much we actually help our own citizens.
Hmmm... so a term that was originally coined by liberals as an insult is a misnomer? Shocking.

[Church42]

Um. Regardless of swearing and anger, isn't it true that not every chemical weapon is a weapon of mass destruction? Wouldn't that make tear gas and pepper sprays WMDs?

Additionally, if you want to criticize Iraq for possibly, and probably having, at some point, WMDs, what do you say when the US could, arguably, be using a WMD in Iraq right now.

What WMD you say? Depleted uranium shells. If you want to criticize and say its not a WMD, I invite you to go ahead and spend some time hanging out with depleted uranium and tell me, with a straight face, that you're cool about hanging around uranium.

[Church42]

I also don't know what the problem is with, instead of invading Iraq, we concentrate solely on rooting out Al-Qaeda & the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. At least heroin addicts will get their fix on the cheap since we haven't taken care of Afghanistan.

[Rifter]

Someday all the partisan bullshit will stop. That day will be nice. You realize they still have been voting for funding right? Congress COULD have put a stop to the war, solely through the budget. They didn't. Give them some credit there, even if the reason they didn't was so they wouldn't be seen as not supporting the troops. I'm sure at least half of them did it because they didn't WANT to leave the troops empty handed.

People on the left are not bad people, so give it a rest.

QYf4ihTTq2M John Murtha is a high-level democrat, and led the charge with the knife in the back. He then gave it a few good wacks to make sure it was in and deep. I beleive that most of the men have been cleared so far, if not all of them. Yet, Murtha did not ONCE oppolgize for shoving his foot in his mouth, and giving our ENEMIES public relations ammo against us. That is aiding the enemy.

[Oxonian]

If you want to criticize and say its not a WMD, I invite you to go ahead and spend some time hanging out with depleted uranium and tell me, with a straight face, that you're cool about hanging around uranium.
Uranium emits alpha particles, which are blocked by clothing or the skin. So, as long as we're talking about a solid block of elemental uranium (as opposed to aerosolized uranium which would enter the lungs, or toxic uranium compounds like uranium fluoride), you can place it in my lap if you like.

[Virtuoso]

Hmmm... so a term that was originally coined by liberals as an insult is a misnomer? Shocking.

Right..... the term was coined in the 60s because the policies they supported conflicted with liberal ideology, of which they claimed to belong to. And just curious, but why does that matter? Neoconservativism is a joke, and as the last 8 years have illustrated, a very unsuccessful, expensive, deadly joke that the american people are very tired of.

[Church42]

I believe we should be sending the SAS to take down Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe for example.

Saaahweeet, US invented a mind control device that allows us to tell foreign governments what they should do with their armed forces? ;)

[torrefaction]

John Murtha is a high-level democrat, and led the charge with the knife in the back. He then gave it a few good wacks to make sure it was in and deep. I beleive that most of the men have been cleared so far, if not all of them. Yet, Murtha did not ONCE oppolgize for shoving his foot in his mouth, and giving our ENEMIES public relations ammo against us. That is aiding the enemy.

What the hell kind of argument is this? It'd be just as unfair to judge republicans as a whole based on George Bush, or Senator Ted Stevens, or DeLay for that matter. Saying things like "the left" is partisan, weak, and close-minded. It ignores the valid points people on the other side of the political fence have, by classifying them as "troop haters"

[Johan]

Uranium emits alpha particles, which are blocked by clothing or the skin. So, as long as we're talking about a solid block of elemental uranium (as opposed to aerosolized uranium which would enter the lungs, or toxic uranium compounds like uranium fluoride), you can place it in my lap if you like.

In fact, a PIECE OF PAPER can block the alpha particles.

The real problem comes from the possibility of the depleted uranium burning (can get in the lungs as uranium oxide dust, but it settles quickly, I believe) or, without regard to uranium at all, unexploded ordinance (cluster bombs are a cluster fuck).

[Rifter]

Yeah, I know. That must make you feel REALLY bad about where you live mister 4 electoral votes.

You know, not having tons of people living in a state, isn't a BAD thing. I live in the capitol, yet have places to snowmobile and ski, within 1 hour. Within a couple of hours, I can go to places that have world class skiing. In the summer, there are thousands of miles of wilderness to explore, and some of the best white water rafting in the US. Right, from a political point of view, we do not have that much, though, Obama stopped by for a rally last weekend. But, that which makes you look down on us, is our greatest strength. You are seriously grasping here.

[Oxonian]

And just curious, but why does that matter?
I'm not really sure. Why did you bring it up?

[Church42]

Uranium emits alpha particles, which are blocked by clothing or the skin. So, as long as we're talking about a solid block of elemental uranium (as opposed to aerosolized uranium which would enter the lungs, or toxic uranium compounds like uranium fluoride), you can place it in my lap if you like.

Okay, that may be true. I know though that many people suffering Gulf War Syndrome think its related to the depleted shells we've been firing off or exposure to the rounds after firing. Just saying.

You mention aerosolized uranium entring the lungs, so I guess the question is couldn't firing these rounds be both polluting the land they're fired & disposed on and polluting the lungs of the soldiers firing these rounds?

[51|RandoM]

When it comes to killing Iraqis Saddam doesn't hold a candle to George W. Bush.

If only somebody would discover vast amounts of oil in Darfur, we could go over there and punish them for 9/11... err I mean hunt for WMDs... err, I mean remove an evil despot from power... err, I mean give them the gift of democracy.

If I were a political cartoonist I'd make a cartoon with George Bush on Wheel of Fortune where each slice of the wheel was an answer for "Why are we in Iraq?".

[Rifter]

What the hell kind of argument is this? It'd be just as unfair to judge republicans as a whole based on George Bush, or Senator Ted Stevens, or DeLay for that matter. Saying things like "the left" is partisan, weak, and close-minded. It ignores the valid points people on the other side of the political fence have, by classifying them as "troop haters"

He was heavily BACKED by other democrats. One loon is one thing... one ass hole backed by a bunch of others in the party, is the reason I have my view.

[Havelic]

What WMD you say? Depleted uranium shells. If you want to criticize and say its not a WMD, I invite you to go ahead and spend some time hanging out with depleted uranium and tell me, with a straight face, that you're cool about hanging around uranium.

Uranium dust from shells that have exploded or been otherwise pulverized on contact could be harmful to lungs/kidneys if ingested in a significant quantity. (You can say that about a lot of dust, of course.) Depleted uranium in its solid form is no more radioactive than dirt.

[Johan]

If only somebody would discover vast amounts of oil in Darfur, we could go over there and punish them for 9/11... err I mean hunt for WMDs... err, I mean remove an evil despot from power... err, I mean give them the gift of democracy.

First: You do realize that Darfur (southern Sudan) is loaded with oil, yes? :rolleyes: I wonder why Bushy hasn't invaded? :rolleyes:

Second: You do realize the reason the regime in Khartoum is intent on driving out the residents of Darfur isn't just because they're black, right? If not, see my first point about oil.

Third: Did you write this? (http://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0807-Darfur.html)

[CES]

Sarin gas AND mustard gas, neither of which are WMD.

Your name calling is childish. Get a life. Go pad your post count elsewhere.

Sarin gas is in fact nerve agent chemical weapon and as such falls under the definition of a WMD as defined by the UN and Resolution 687, created shortly after the first Gulf War.

What do you know, found that out from less than 5 minutes with Google. Funny what research does for an argument, right?

[Church42]

Either way, Iraq may have been easier to take care of with 3 bullets (1 for Saddam & 1 for each of his sons) from a sniper's rifle, but America bristles at the idea of political assassination.

[Church42]

And if you think political assassination hasn't been done by the US, I may say you're right, but I'm sure we've done it by proxy.

And probably not just political assassinations either but assassinations in general.

[Oxonian]

Okay, that may be true. I know though that many people suffering Gulf War Syndrome think its related to the depleted shells we've been firing off or exposure to the rounds after firing. Just saying.
Lots of people think they're getting messages from the space aliens through their fillings. I'm not sure what that proves, except that lots of people are wrong.

You mention aerosolized uranium entring the lungs, so I guess the question is couldn't firing these rounds be both polluting the land they're fired & disposed on and polluting the lungs of the soldiers firing these rounds?
That's theoretically possible, although diesel fumes from the tank's engines probably pose a far greater risk than any miniscule amount of uranium vapor released by the rounds. A soldier in Iraq is in far greater danger of getting skin cancer from the Iraqi sun than he is to be injured from DU. Frankly, the lead used in ordinary bullets is probably a lot more dangerous than DU rounds are.

[Rifter]

When it comes to killing Iraqis Saddam doesn't hold a candle to George W. Bush.

If only somebody would discover vast amounts of oil in Darfur, we could go over there and punish them for 9/11... err I mean hunt for WMDs... err, I mean remove an evil despot from power... err, I mean give them the gift of democracy.

If I were a political cartoonist I'd make a cartoon with George Bush on Wheel of Fortune where each slice of the wheel was an answer for "Why are we in Iraq?".

Ok, lets look at things another way.

You have 2 countries.
Each one has had genocide on a mass scale
Each one has a dictator causing it, and casing pain and suffering to his people.
Each one can be removed fairly quickly with our hardware.

One lives in land that doesn't have any natrual resources
One lives in a land that has rich natural resources we NEED.

Do you go for the one that has no redeeming quality, or the one with the resources? All things being equal, the resources puts one ahead.

Remember, too. Sadam had fired on our planes in the no-fly zone. Sadam was exploiting the oil for food program, and getting rich off of it, and flaunted dozens of U.N. resolutions that said do what we say, or ELSE... and nothing was done.

[Church42]

Frankly, the lead used in ordinary bullets is probably a lot more dangerous than DU rounds are.


Unless you're hit by a DU round, which tends to come from much bigger guns ;)

[Church42]

Again though, Iraq's Saddam problem was easier solved via a smart bomb or sniper shot than a ground war.

[Wonda Mic]

When posting disturbing pictures, especially involving people, can you do an off site link?

[GrinR]

I'm curious GrinR...you did vote for Bush in 2000, right? Because he ran against these types of policies. Was it September 11th that changed your world view on nation building and liberal use of American power?

I ask these questions because I'm wrestling a bit with my own personal philosophy to some extent, and I'm curious where you stand. My response to your earlier post expounds on my personal feelings just a bit.

I did not. I was in London at the time and I frankly thought that Gore was a lock. I sat there watching telly and goggling as Bush won. It was like seeing a cow drive and win NASCAR National.

Seeing my home town get blown to pieces changed everything. Absolutely everything. Wondering if my father and sister were safe, wondering how many other sites were being struck (only one, successfully) and wondering whether or not this was going to spark a nuclear armageddon or not completely changed me in the blink of an eye.

I was born and raised in NYC and I remember the first WTC bombing. I remember when the Cole was bombed. I recall my conservative (right-wing) friends saying a war was coming and cursing Clinton for doing nothing about it and being a coward (something I'm not agreeing with, just reporting). So much came together for me that morning.

I don't think I've spent as much time in my life on anything as much as I have on researching Al Qaida, the impact of non-local terrorist actors, global politics in general, modern history, and US foreign policy.

It's my belief that the time of Nations and their physical borders is coming to an end. The porous and shrinking world we currently live in is only becoming more so, and so just as the isolationists of the previous century were left behind by time, so are the "league of nations/balance of power" people of today being left behind. There cannot be a balance of power when there are fertile grounds for global terrorism, or any remaining evidence that terrorism is profitable (and works).

It's always been my belief that cultural and intellectual relativism has been an unwitting and degenerate disease on the modern man. "Everything is relative" is true except for the statement itself, which is held as absolute. Nonsense, and children shouldn't play with tools they don't understand how to use or they will hurt themselves. I am not afflicted in this way. I know that modern culture is better - that's right, better - than ancient, tribal, primitive culture. I am not confused by it being different, and I respect different cultures as much as they are to be respected, based on their output. "My culture is better than theirs" is something I believe because I see people from my culture accidentally step into theirs and get their heads chopped off, whereas people from their culture come here by the millions to enjoy the freedoms my culture represents.

My culture doesn't mean the USA, it includes anyplace that is generally anglospheric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere)in nature. You want success? Follow a model of success. You want failure? Don't.

So in concert the result is my generally neocon beliefs. We are better than the enemy. The enemy can grow and develop many, many places on Earth. Safety and security cannot be gained by defensive measures. If we must leave our home to root out the enemy elsewhere, why not kill two birds with one stone and bring our superior culture to the locations we're liberating? Note: I am not suggesting forcing our culture on others; I am heartily endorsing bringing opportunities (the best thing our culture has to offer) to to join our culture voluntarily.

[IrishWhiskey]

John Murtha is a high-level democrat, and led the charge with the knife in the back. He then gave it a few good wacks to make sure it was in and deep. I beleive that most of the men have been cleared so far, if not all of them. Yet, Murtha did not ONCE oppolgize for shoving his foot in his mouth, and giving our ENEMIES public relations ammo against us. That is aiding the enemy.From the Wiki On 23 August, the investigating officer recommended charges against Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum be dropped as well[9] but on October 19th, his commanding officer decided the charges should be lowered to involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault.[10]On October 3, 2007, the Article 32 hearing investigating officer recommended that Staff Sgt. Wuterich be tried for negligent homicide in deaths of two women and five children, and that charges of murder be dropped.[11]"He responded instinctively, assaulting into the room and emptying his pistol," Ware wrote. "Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, LCpl Sharratt's actions were in accord with the rules of engagement."The fact that civilians were killed isn't in dispute. What is in dispute is the cause of the killings and whether the soldiers acted appropriately according to the rules of engagement. Blithely dismissing it like that isn't appropriate.

More importantly, your main point is insane. If his statements had been "aiding the enemy", then it wouldn't matter if it was accurate, just that they it helped Al-Qaeda. But if you censor political criticism so as not to provide our enemies with anything to criticize us about, then you tear down democracy and REALLY "aid the enemy".

[CES]

Either way, Iraq may have been easier to take care of with 3 bullets (1 for Saddam & 1 for each of his sons) from a sniper's rifle, but America bristles at the idea of political assassination.

The American armed forces just arent geared to that style of attack. The US forces are built around a doctrine of overwheming force at key tactical points (see: Tomahawk and other long range tactical weapons) and a focus on having the eye of god (UAV, sattelites) on the battlefield. A good doctrine if you go up against a conventional army, not so when the enemy is unseen for the most part. This to me is what's causing the quagmire in Iraq, the American army (not any of the coalition armies) are properly trained to counter the urban warfare used by the terrorists in Iraq. As such what the armies do seems ham-fisted and crude.

[IrishWhiskey]

First: You do realize that Darfur (southern Sudan) is loaded with oil, yes? :rolleyes: I wonder why Bushy hasn't invaded? :rolleyes:Because they have huge amounts of oil. No really.

Sudan is a major supplier of oil to China, which also supplies them with arms, and with close links to Russia. Part of there reason there aren't peacekeepers in there is because we want the oil, and sanctions or military intervention would cause us to lost a valuable source of that, and strengthen Khartoum's relationship with China.

[Johan]

Duh. They have oil. A ton. Tell RandoM. I already know.

Seeing my home town get blown to pieces changed everything. Absolutely everything. Wondering if my father and sister were safe, wondering how many other sites were being struck

I agree. New York was my home for 18 years of my life, and still is a big part of it (family still there). My brother is/was just a few blocks from the Towers on Pine Street (he works in NYC) and my mom was as well.

I was quite freaked and concerned for both of them, as well as for the people I didn't know. It changed everything.

Until people forgot, stopped caring, and took to blaming Bush for everything in the world. Now? Nobody gives a fuck any more.

[GrinR]

What can be done in Africa? I'm not sure we can save it. Unless we go back in time and bomb the shit out of Europe, so that they don't wind up dividing Africa into states where 2 or dramatically opposed communities are forced to coexist in the same nation.

It's not simply an issue of invading and consolidation control. If we go in, we need to get rid of these "ultranationalist' tribes, completely rebuild the infrastructure, and then find the proper leadership within those countries. We may even need to redraw these borders. It's going to take more than this country. It's going to take the continent of Europe (I'm looking at you, too, Denmark) to suck it up, realize that they have ruined an entire continent, apologize, and put as many resources as they can into it.

Is this going to happen? Not in my lifetime, I don't think.

The history of Africa is no different from any other continent, barring their slow adaption of science and technology. It didn't take outsiders to bring war and horror to their country, Africans have just as long and illustrious a history of slaughter and war as anyone else all by themselves.

I am less interested in the past than what is to be done today. I think it's to Europe's great shame, barring Poland and the UK, that their participation in these global necessities is at best the bare minimum and at worst outright resistance.

[Whimbrel]

The question of whether or not we were justified in invading Iraq is really irrelevant. We weren't. But the problem this administration has never taken responsibility for, apologized for, or fixed in any way is the complete and total mismanagement of the occupation. Instead of fewer terrorists and being closer to victory, now theer are more terrorists. Instead of being closer to a stable democracy, we are still mired in tribal chaos. Instad of an international coalition cooperating to stabilize the region, all of our allies agree that we have created an international disaster and want no part of it. Our administration has caused far more harm to far more people than the alleged terrorists we were fighting. How many people died in 9/11? How many have died ineffectively protecting us from it ever happening again? This would be like trying to avoid a traffic accident by plowing head on into every car you ever saw coming down the road. Your reasoning? It gives you the best chance of hitting first whichever car might have hit you next.

[Church42]

The American armed forces just arent geared to that style of attack. The US forces are built around a doctrine of overwheming force at key tactical points (see: Tomahawk and other long range tactical weapons) and a focus on having the eye of god (UAV, sattelites) on the battlefield. A good doctrine if you go up against a conventional army, not so when the enemy is unseen for the most part. This to me is what's causing the quagmire in Iraq, the American army (not any of the coalition armies) are properly trained to counter the urban warfare used by the terrorists in Iraq. As such what the armies do seems ham-fisted and crude.

While true, putting spies in place and arranging a high altitude fly-over and subsequent missile strike from said plane could have taken out Saddam, his kids, and some top generals effectively halting the country's army.

If you're able to bring political change via such methods, why not? Less time consuming & hopefully less dirty. I realize establishing a spy network is easier said than done & the world frowns upon assasinations, but at this point, does America really have a moral high ground to be kicked off of by our actions? We've done a good enough job losing the moral high ground on our own.

[Oxonian]

But if you censor political criticism so as not to provide our enemies with anything to criticize us about, then you tear down democracy and REALLY "aid the enemy".
Really? Lots of democracies, including the US, have imposed wartime censorship during various crises. To take just the U.S., there was the Alien & Sedition Act, Lincoln's censorship of Copperheads, Wilson's Sedition Act, and Roosevelt's Office of Censorship. Most of these instances of wartime censorship were removed after the end of hostilities. I suppose you could argue that, in some abstract way, "American democracy" was harmed by this censorship, but it probably did help the war effort and it doesn't seem to have weakened modern America's penchant for freewheeling and vitriolic political discourse. I'm not advocating that we adopt the Sedition Act again, but it seems kind of facile to claim that censorship "aids the enemy."

[bKangy]

Until people forgot, stopped caring, and took to blaming Bush for everything in the world.

Everyone still cares. People rarely blame Bush for Afghanistan, and until the Iraq War it was a popular war worldwide. It got good press because the people of Afghanistan were genuinely backwards even for their location. Iraq changed that, and the argument is that it was poorly planned, needless and has ultimately solved nothing and possibly created more resentment amongst the people who need to be converted to "our" side. That's what people blame Bush for, the fact that it's forced the west to reconsider the values they left 9/11 with.

[GrinR]

The question of whether or not we were justified in invading Iraq is really irrelevant. It is my belief that we weren't, and so everything else that has happened since the moment the invasion started is our fault. Everything.

Fixt .

[Church42]

The question of whether or not we were justified in invading Iraq is really irrelevant. We weren't. But the problem this administration has never taken responsibility for, apologized for, or fixed in any way is the complete and total mismanagement of the occupation. Instead of fewer terrorists and being closer to victory, now theer are more terrorists. Instead of being closer to a stable democracy, we are still mired in tribal chaos. Instad of an international coalition cooperating to stabilize the region, all of our allies agree that we have created an international disaster and want no part of it. Our administration has caused far more harm to far more people than the alleged terrorists we were fighting. How many people died in 9/11? How many have died ineffectively protecting us from it ever happening again? This would be like trying to avoid a traffic accident by plowing head on into every car you ever saw coming down the road. Your reasoning? It gives you the best chance of hitting first whichever car might have hit you next.

Along the lines of what Whimbrel stated, Iraq was essentially a safer, more productive, and more economical country under Saddam. Saddam was powerful enough to quiet the tribal disparrities. The economy was stronger under Saddam, their quality of life was probably better under Saddam than now, etc al.

Now with him gone, we've put a representative government in place. The problem is there is no leader of this government strong enough to be a voice of the people. With this power vaccuum, deep seeded animosity between Shiites & Sunnis and rivalries between tribes took over which didn't exist under Saddam.

Democracy is great and all, but it has a hard time overpowering hundreds to thousands of years of religious and ethnocentric differences between power. When the power that kept those rivalling groups in lines disappears, violence takes over and democracy takes a very long and very slow approach to be able to overcome those differences.

[CES]

While true, putting spies in place and arranging a high altitude fly-over and subsequent missile strike from said plane could have taken out Saddam, his kids, and some top generals effectively halting the country's army.

If you're able to bring political change via such methods, why not? Less time consuming & hopefully less dirty. I realize establishing a spy network is easier said than done & the world frowns upon it, but at this point, does America really have a moral high ground to be kicked off of by our actions? We've done a good enough job losing the moral high ground on our own.

Iraq had a huge no fly zone, remember? Just imagine the political crap that would have happened if a cruise missile had been launched and missed Saddam, hello act of war, hello US hate machine getting up and running again (though in retrospect....)

What would do the coalition armed forces some good is learning from the Mossad. They work by infiltrating, undermining and if need be executing potential threats. Not nice, not civil and damn well not UN approved. Seems to work though.

[GrinR]

Along the lines of what Whimbrel stated, Iraq was essentially a safer, more productive, and more economical country under Saddam. Saddam was powerful enough to quiet the tribal disparrities. The economy was stronger under Saddam, their quality of life was probably better under Saddam than now, etc al.

Now with him gone, we've put a representative government in place. The problem is there is no leader of this government strong enough to be a voice of the people. With this power vaccuum, deep seeded animosity between Shiites & Sunnis and rivalries between tribes took over which didn't exist under Saddam.

Democracy is great and all, but it has a hard time overpowering hundreds to thousands of years of religious and ethnocentric differences between power. When the power that kept those rivalling groups in lines disappears, violence takes over and democracy takes a very long and very slow approach to be able to overcome those differences.

And it's your contention that a peaceful tyranny is better than a violent democracy? Apply that logic to our own revolution. Interesting.

[Talon-]

The history of Africa is no different from any other continent, barring their slow adaption of science and technology. It didn't take outsiders to bring war and horror to their country, Africans have just as long and illustrious a history of slaughter and war as anyone else all by themselves.

I am less interested in the past than what is to be done today. I think it's to Europe's great shame, barring Poland and the UK, that their participation in these global necessities is at best the bare minimum and at worst outright resistance.

Of course, not, but Europe perpetuated that strife (as they did so in many other territories) by carving up borders that fit their monetary advantage more so than what makes sense.

Europe, like the rest of the world, don't give a flying damn about a country if intervention doesn't result in something positive for them.

Frankly, I can't understand how you can believe that the Western system is the absolutely model of societal success. The Neo-Mercantilist states in east Asia stand in contrast to that. Our cultures are just plain and simply different. There is a greater sense of duty to the family unit in Japan and Korea. The pursuit of happiness ranks as 7th or 8th amongst the average Japanese man.

Part of our duty as people is to understand that people from different societies think differently. Our religions beliefs are different, our cultural beliefs are different.

Beyond all this, there are bigger issues in this country that we refuse to address. Domestic poverty is the big, dirty secret that we still ignore. We cannot toot our own horn when we have our very own problems. Race relations still are not where they should be (look locally).

[Oxonian]

Iraq was essentially a safer, more productive, and more economical country under Saddam. Saddam was powerful enough to quiet the tribal disparrities. The economy was stronger under Saddam, their quality of life was probably better under Saddam than now, etc al.
I'm not sure if I understand this argument. Saddam "quiet[ed] the tribal disparities" by killing and terrorizing anyone who spoke against him, sometimes even victimizing people who were unlucky enough to share ethnic traits with his political opponents. And you claim this was better than the current situation. Are you saying it would be better if the U.S. adopted a policy of terror, so long as it was effective?

I presume you aren't actually saying that. But then what's your point? Perhaps on some measures many Iraqis were better off under Saddam. But unless you're willing to say that we ought to adopt Saddam's policies, it seems you would agree that, on the really important measures, Iraq is better off today.

[Church42]

Iraq had a huge no fly zone, remember? Just imagine the political crap that would have happened if a cruise missile had been launched and missed Saddam, hello act of war, hello US hate machine getting up and running again (though in retrospect....).

Theoretically, the no fly zones & economic sanctions were a bloodless continuation of the Gulf War.

[IrishWhiskey]

Really? Lots of democracies, including the US, have imposed wartime censorship during various crises. To take just the U.S., there was the Alien & Sedition Act, Lincoln's censorship of Copperheads, Wilson's Sedition Act, and Roosevelt's Office of Censorship. Most of these instances of wartime censorship were removed after the end of hostilities. I suppose you could argue that, in some abstract way, "American democracy" was harmed by this censorship, but it probably did help the war effort and it doesn't seem to have weakened modern America's penchant for freewheeling and vitriolic political discourse. I'm not advocating that we adopt the Sedition Act again, but it seems kind of facile to claim that censorship "aids the enemy."In a case where we define the enemies as opposed to democracy, and we acknowledge that censorship of contrary political opinion (as opposed to military state secrets) harms democracy, I'd say the shoe fits.

Besides, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalists to censor Democratic-Republicans and prohibit "scandalous, and malicious writing" about their party officials (along with giving the President the power to deport citizens of countries we were at war with.) Is this a case of arguing for the sake of it, or do you actually believe the Sedition Acts were necessary to preserve the country?

[CES]

Of course, not, but Europe perpetuated that strife (as they did so in many other territories) by carving up borders that fit their monetary advantage more so than what makes sense.

Europe, like the rest of the world, don't give a flying damn about a country if intervention doesn't result in something positive for them.



Apply that MO to your country. And to the West. And the East. And the North. And wherever the hell else there is humanity on the planet. Did you think Istanbul was always Istanbul? Or that one of the greatest conqerors in history was from Mongolia, an asian country? Or how about Japan trying to claim a decent chunk of China. Or China claiming Tibet?
The list goes on and on, dont think it's limited to the big bad West.

[Johan]

Everyone still cares. People rarely blame Bush for Afghanistan, and until the Iraq War it was a popular war worldwide. It got good press because the people of Afghanistan were genuinely backwards even for their location. Iraq changed that

Afghanistan was "popular" until it started to require the help of our supposed "allies," of which most are just hangers-on that can't even solve their own damn problems in their backyard (see Yugoslavia, and the U.S. riding to the rescue IN EUROPE).

Iraq didn't change anything regarding Afghanistan...the reality of a toll in blood and money changed things. We have precious few true friends in the world who are even helping us there. I understand avoiding Iraq. Avoiding Afghanistan, or low-balling your efforts as much as possible? That's just an intolerable load of horseshit.

NATO is a load of bullshit, as is the UN.

[CES]

Wait, America did what in Yugoslavia during the conflict? Oh right, nothing. It was the British, Canadian and Dutch battalions of UNPROFOR that actually did some work in trying to keep the peace.

Edit: You'll also want to note that there was no commander of UNPROFOR that was american.

[Talon-]

Apply that MO to your country. And to the West. And the East. And the North. And wherever the hell else there is humanity on the planet. Did you think Istanbul was always Istanbul? Or that one of the greatest conqerors in history was from Mongolia, an asian country? Or how about Japan trying to claim a decent chunk of China. Or China claiming Tibet?
The list goes on and on, dont think it's limited to the big bad West.

I fail to see where you're going with this. I'm an American citizen, thank you very much, born and raised in metro Atlanta, Georgia. I don't know if I should be offended or not.

I also fail to see where you think I'm blaming the "big bad west" for all the wrongs in the world. Did the European Imperialist powers mess over Africa, yes or no?

[Church42]

I'm not sure if I understand this argument. Saddam "quiet[ed] the tribal disparities" by killing and terrorizing anyone who spoke against him, sometimes even victimizing people who were unlucky enough to share ethnic traits with his political opponents. And you claim this was better than the current situation. Are you saying it would be better if the U.S. adopted a policy of terror, so long as it was effective?

I presume you aren't actually saying that. But then what's your point? Perhaps on some measures many Iraqis were better off under Saddam. But unless you're willing to say that we ought to adopt Saddam's policies, it seems you would agree that, on the really important measures, Iraq is better off today.

Not so much. Yeah, this may sound horrible, but fear does quiet the masses. But I think we've somewhat seen what happens when a powerful figure loses the power. The status quo changes quickly. While Saddam was a Sunni and did execute many Shiites, he did however make sure it wasn't open season for Shiite killing. With him gone, the Shiites & Sunnis are doing tit-for-tat killings because of deeply seeded religious differences.

This policy wouldn't work in the US obviously. 1st, we established our democracy essentially at the birth of our nation. 2nd, we're a nation of immigrants and had to co-exist to flourish. 3rd, we've existed as a country for such a short time that fundamental differences in beliefs and culture haven't been able to sew into our fabric of collective beliefs, with maybe the exception of slavery which existed in the US for 100ish years, give/take 20-30 years...but we were able to unseed that belief.

However, Iraq, while maybe not as a nation having existed for a long time, have existed as a group of people for a longer time than our nation. Differences between Sunnism & Shiitism (made that up) have existed for 1000 years, clan life probably even as long or longer. Their belief & clan system are something we will never understand and therefore we have a hard time understanding why democracy doesn't work. That's because history overcomes change and thus democracy will take an extremely long time to unseed those historic differences.

Ultimately, Saddam realized by maintaining power, he had to keep the status quo the same...yeah, he had to quiet some dissenters in bad ways, but he ultimately feared losing his own power, thus did what it took to keep the general populace in line.

[CES]

Of course we did. It doesnt excuse your attempts at screwing with other parts of the world in an attempt to get a desired result. Doesnt excuse any attempt at messing with other countries by proxy.

[Johan]

Wait, America did what in Yugoslavia during the conflict? Oh right, nothing.

Hahahaha! Okay, I'll bite...good to see most of NATO return the favor in Afghanistan!

You would have been screwed in Yugoslavia if not for American airpower and political will/leadership.

:D

Fuck NATO. Bunch of useless pussies (excluding the British).

Australians rock, too.

[Talon-]

Of course we did. It doesnt excuse your attempts at screwing with other parts of the world in an attempt to get a desired result. Doesnt excuse any attempt at messing with other countries by proxy.

A) I'm not blaming the current European peoples for the wrongs of the past. That's foolish and wrong.

B) There's a difference between meddling for personal benefit and meddling for human rights.

C) I don't think we'll try to mend the damage in Africa at least not in my lifetime.

[CES]

Hahahaha! Okay, I'll bite...good to see most of NATO return the favor in Afghanistan!

You would have been screwed in Yugoslavia if not for American airpower and political will/leadership.

:D

Fuck NATO. Bunch of useless pussies (excluding the British).

Australians rock, too.

Where was that airpower when it was needed to knock out artillery/catch a sniper?

NATO by definition dont have any right or reason to be in Afghanistan since NATO were originally meant to operate in the eastern European theater.

What you want is the UN, the biggest, most bloated sack of crap on the world politics stage (sanctions, sanctions and more sanctions. But no bombs).

[GrinR]

Of course, not, but Europe perpetuated that strife (as they did so in many other territories) by carving up borders that fit their monetary advantage more so than what makes sense.

Europe, like the rest of the world, don't give a flying damn about a country if intervention doesn't result in something positive for them.

Frankly, I can't understand how you can believe that the Western system is the absolutely model of societal success. The Neo-Mercantilist states in east Asia stand in contrast to that. Our cultures are just plain and simply different. There is a greater sense of duty to the family unit in Japan and Korea. The pursuit of happiness ranks as 7th or 8th amongst the average Japanese man.

Part of our duty as people is to understand that people from different societies think differently. Our religions beliefs are different, our cultural beliefs are different.

Beyond all this, there are bigger issues in this country that we refuse to address. Domestic poverty is the big, dirty secret that we still ignore. We cannot toot our own horn when we have our very own problems. Race relations still are not where they should be (look locally).

I'm still pleased that our culture is graded in quality by its closeness to perfection, whereas the other cultures I'm calling inferior are graded by whether or not they've butchered X of each other this Y.

[Talon-]

I'm still pleased that our culture is graded in quality by its closeness to perfection, whereas the other cultures I'm calling inferior are graded by whether or not they've butchered X of each other this Y.

I'm still awestruck by how you can so arrogantly claim that any culture is better than the other.

Well, I guess Switzerland wins the worldwide fight, then.

[GrinR]

I'm still awestruck by how you can so arrogantly claim that any culture is better than the other.

Well, I guess Switzerland wins the worldwide fight, then.

For a culture centered on protecting a harsh terrain of cold mountains, I'd say they're doing a bit better than say, the Mongolians.

[cp#]

You all seem to be having fun with a big heated debate here! I can't read it all but I do fully agree with Whimbrels post:

The question of whether or not we were justified in invading Iraq is really irrelevant. We weren't. But the problem this administration has never taken responsibility for, apologized for, or fixed in any way is the complete and total mismanagement of the occupation. Instead of fewer terrorists and being closer to victory, now theer are more terrorists. Instead of being closer to a stable democracy, we are still mired in tribal chaos. Instad of an international coalition cooperating to stabilize the region, all of our allies agree that we have created an international disaster and want no part of it. Our administration has caused far more harm to far more people than the alleged terrorists we were fighting. How many people died in 9/11? How many have died ineffectively protecting us from it ever happening again? This would be like trying to avoid a traffic accident by plowing head on into every car you ever saw coming down the road. Your reasoning? It gives you the best chance of hitting first whichever car might have hit you next.

Anyone else think it's funny that John "Bomb bomb Iran" "In Iraq for a million years" McCain has a huge part of the anti-war vote?

[torrefaction]

In a case where we define the enemies as opposed to democracy, and we acknowledge that censorship of contrary political opinion (as opposed to military state secrets) harms democracy, I'd say the shoe fits.

Besides, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by the Federalists to censor Democratic-Republicans and prohibit "scandalous, and malicious writing" about their party officials (along with giving the President the power to deport citizens of countries we were at war with.) Is this a case of arguing for the sake of it, or do you actually believe the Sedition Acts were necessary to preserve the country?

I think he is arguing that they don't AID the enemy. They may not help, and potentially hinder, us...but clearly since the people who instigated those policies won, they didn't aid the enemy.

[Virtuoso]

What WMD you say? Depleted uranium shells. If you want to criticize and say its not a WMD, I invite you to go ahead and spend some time hanging out with depleted uranium and tell me, with a straight face, that you're cool about hanging around uranium.

This is the STUPIDEST fucking thing I have read in A LONG TIME.

Do you even know the purpose of a depleted uranium shell? Do you?

Its heavier. Thats it. Its heavier which means it hits harder when its shot. To call it a WMD just demonstrates your fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject.

[Oxonian]

In a case where we define the enemies as opposed to democracy, and we acknowledge that censorship of contrary political opinion (as opposed to military state secrets) harms democracy, I'd say the shoe fits.
I'm not certain who this "we" is that defines our enemies as those opposed to democracy. I thought our enemies were the people who wanted to kill Americans. If censorship thwarts the killing of Americans, it sounds like it hurts our enemies. Or at least my enemies.

Is this a case of arguing for the sake of it, or do you actually believe the Sedition Acts were necessary to preserve the country?
I'm a little ambivalent about my argument, but I really think I might have a point here. Even if the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 was not very useful (I'd probably have to agree), the Civil War censorship and the Sedition Act of 1918 quite possibly were crucial to our eventual success.

I think Lincoln's censorship is probably the strongest base upon which to rest this argument, so I will shamelessly focus on that. I think you can make a pretty strong argument that the CSA never really had much hope of defeating the US militarily: the disparities in population and industrial capacity made that unlikely in the long run, regardless of any fantasies about the "superior fighting spirit of the Southern man." Instead, the Confederacy hoped to do the same thing the United States did during the Revolution: make the war sufficiently bloody, expensive, and unpleasant that anti-war sentiment in the parent country would force a peace settlement. In this regard, the CSA was helped by a number of Northerners who opposed the war for a variety of reasons: ideological reasons, pacifism, etc. A number of newspaper editors actively tried to persuade their readership to oppose the war and Lincoln's Administration, and if we have any faith in the power of public debate at all, we must assume that they might have succeeded. Heck, the Democratic platform in the 1864 election called for immediate cessation of hostilities and peace negotiations -- basically, surrender. If not for the fortuitous capture of Atlanta just before the election, it's extremely plausible the Democrats would have captured the White House or at least Congress -- which would have meant we would have lost the Civil War. How can you possibly think censorship didn't help the war effort?

[GrinR]

I'm still awestruck by how you can so arrogantly claim that any culture is better than the other.

Well, I guess Switzerland wins the worldwide fight, then.

It is less a claim than an observation. You show me countries that have immigration problems on the scale we do, and I'll show you a country that millions of people are willing to risk everything to get to. Given the opportunity to go back to where they came from, they choose to stay here.

Don't call me arrogant for observing something as painfully obvious as the superiority of western culture.

[Mojopin]

I see. So, it is Ok for Saddam to invade foreign countries and slaughter his own people, but when Bush tries to put a stop to it and put a major crimp in international terrorism, he is at fault for everything.
You heard of Darfur? Oh thats right, NO OIL THERE, move along...

[Talon-]

It is less a claim than an observation. You show me countries that have immigration problems on the scale we do, and I'll show you a country that millions of people are willing to risk everything to get to. Given the opportunity to go back to where they came from, they choose to stay here.

Don't call me arrogant for observing something as painfully obvious as the superiority of western culture.

Does the United States provide opportunity that many countries don't offer? Yes, absolutely. This country doesn't put a ceiling over how high you can get somewhere. That doesn't make it the greatest place in the world to live.

To believe that we are the end-all, be-all culture of the world is myopic. Reasoning that follows your train of thought empowers somebody down the line deciding to "share our culture" with the rest of the world, and we know where that will wind up.

Clearly, we operate on completely different planes of existence, so we'll agree to disagree.

[GrinR]

You all seem to be having fun with a big heated debate here! I can't read it all but I do fully agree with Whimbrels post:

Anyone else think it's funny that John "Bomb bomb Iran" "In Iraq for a million years" McCain has a huge part of the anti-war vote?

The burden of actually reading a thread may be tiresome, but belching "me too!" in reference to a single notion magnifies and broadcasts that weight to its participants in a way that can only leave the reader futilely wondering why the author bothered to post at all.

[torrefaction]

You heard of Darfur? Oh thats right, NO OIL THERE, move along...

You completely failed at both reading the thread, and being educated.

http://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0807-Darfur.html

[Johan]

NATO by definition dont have any right or reason to be in Afghanistan since NATO were originally meant to operate in the eastern European theater.

You need to do some reading and get your ass out of the '50s.

NATO is a mutual defense treaty. The member states are mutually obligated to assist one another in the occasion of an attack upon a signatory state.

The United States was attacked to the tune of 3,000 dead by al-Qaeda and, by extension, its hosts in Afghanistan, who provided logistical support for al-Qaeda's activities to occur.

NATO is full of pansy-ass socialist-progressivist states that sit with their thumbs up their asses while WE DO THE HEAVY LIFTING for what THEY should be helping us do.

Britain and Australia are our staunchest supporters (despite both curtailing their presence in Iraq).

[H1PO]

Ok, lets look at things another way.

You have 2 countries.
Each one has had genocide on a mass scale
Each one has a dictator causing it, and casing pain and suffering to his people.
Each one can be removed fairly quickly with our hardware.

One lives in land that doesn't have any natrual resources
One lives in a land that has rich natural resources we NEED.

Do you go for the one that has no redeeming quality, or the one with the resources? All things being equal, the resources puts one ahead.

Remember, too. Sadam had fired on our planes in the no-fly zone. Sadam was exploiting the oil for food program, and getting rich off of it, and flaunted dozens of U.N. resolutions that said do what we say, or ELSE... and nothing was done.
No, actually, its quite simple, you invade NEITHER of the countries and find a fuel that doesn't fuck up earth (might I add it is the only earth we have), exist in our territory, and is renewable.
We don't NEED more oil, we need to break our addiction to it.
We don't NEED to force democracy on countries that don't use it. Thats completely against the point of democracy!

[Johan]

We don't NEED to force democracy on countries that don't use it. Thats completely against the point of democracy!

I'm especially disappointed with how that turned out for Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII! :D

[GrinR]

Does the United States provide opportunity that many countries don't offer? Yes, absolutely. This country doesn't put a ceiling over how high you can get somewhere. That doesn't make it the greatest place in the world to live.

To believe that we are the end-all, be-all culture of the world is myopic. Reasoning that follows your train of thought empowers somebody down the line deciding to "share our culture" with the rest of the world, and we know where that will wind up.

Clearly, we operate on completely different planes of existence, so we'll agree to disagree.

You are mistaking a country for a culture, or vice versa. I am not certain the USA is the best model of western civilization, nor am I certain if it is that it will always be. To suggest that I'm somehow projecting the best I see currently into the future and that to do so means I'm naturally projecting some form of fascist domination over the world is to confirm my concern that you have not read my words carefully.

The largest culture that seeks to kill or subjugate everyone in the world but their own is currently labeled Islamist. Islamists on the whole are run by wealthy, educated Muslims whose take on their religion is one of global domination through absolute violent means and propaganda. This culture is different, yes, but it is inferior to mine. Those who are attracted to it I have zero sympathy for, and I am not confused as to who is responsible when they choose to maim, murder, and destroy.

[torrefaction]

No, actually, its quite simple, you invade NEITHER of the countries and find a fuel that doesn't fuck up earth (might I add it is the only earth we have), exist in our territory, and is renewable.
We don't NEED more oil, we need to break our addiction to it.
We don't NEED to force democracy on countries that don't use it. Thats completely against the point of democracy!

Really? Ending tyranny is against the point of democracy? I completely disagree. Whether war is the solution is debatable, but some people only respond to force.

And...once again...there's goddamn oil in Darfur.

[CES]

You need to do some reading and get your ass out of the '50s.

NATO is a mutual defense treaty. The member states are mutually obligated to assist one another in the occasion of an attack upon a signatory state.

The United States was attacked to the tune of 3,000 dead by al-Qaeda and, by extension, its hosts in Afghanistan, who provided logistical support for al-Qaeda's activities to occur.

NATO is full of pansy-ass socialist-progressivist states that sit with their thumbs up their asses while WE DO THE HEAVY LIFTING for what THEY should be helping us do.

Britain and Australia are our staunchest supporters (despite both curtailing their presence in Iraq).

And if i recall, a good chunk of NATO alligned countries did follow you into Iraq and Afghanistan. NATO was never thought up as a way to counter terrorists with no real country of origin (other than a vague "Middle East" moniker) And the reason for the Brits and Austrailians "curtailing their presence" is because they got the god damn job done. I will admit that the Us has a rather larger slice of the pie to deal with but hey, you do the most damage, you do the most cleaning up.

The Brits and Aussies are still in Afghanistan, just for your pit of general knowledge.

[H1PO]

Really? Ending tyranny is against the point of democracy? I completely disagree. Whether war is the solution is debatable, but some people only respond to force.

And...once again...there's goddamn oil in Darfur.
No forcing democracy on a people is completely against the point of democracy. In a true democracy, everyone would have one vote. "Power to the People", right? If you're forcing freedom on a people, is it really freedom?

[H1PO]

I'm especially disappointed with how that turned out for Germany, Italy, and Japan after WWII! :D
Germany, Italy and Japan are not in the middle east. They aren't Islamic, and they weren't sitting on the most important resource to all of human kind.

[Oxonian]

No forcing democracy on a people is completely against the point of democracy. In a true democracy, everyone would have one vote. "Power to the People", right? If you're forcing freedom on a people, is it really freedom?
As I recall, the majority of Iraqis have repeatedly voted for parties that were pro-democracy. So whatever country you're talking about where the majority dislike freedom, it isn't Iraq.

[Gilius Thunderhead]

Germany, Italy and Japan are not in the middle east. They aren't Islamic, and they weren't sitting on the most important resource to all of human kind.

Ah, then, we have finally reached it: Are you suggesting that Democracy and Islam are mutually exclusive?

[Johan]

And if i recall, a good chunk of NATO alligned countries did follow you into Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm not talking about Iraq, which I can't blame any nation for wanting to exit.

In Afghanistan, NATO's numbers are lower than we've requested, AND they're AVOIDING the real work...the dangerous areas. (http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-02-07-voa1.cfm)

NATO was never thought up as a way to counter terrorists with no real country of origin

Don't give me that bullshit. I'm talking about 9-11 and Afghanistan. It was PAINFULLY clear where the attacks on 9-11 were staged from (unless you're stupid and believe Cheney that they were staged from, like, everywhere in the world!), and the Taliban government refused to turn over the ones responsible, which was an act of war in itself.

As for Britain and Australia, I keep bringing them up as staunch supporters and the best of the best; what is your major malfunction? Can you read?

Germany, Italy and Japan are not in the middle east. They aren't Islamic, and they weren't sitting on the most important resource to all of human kind.

I thought water, air, and food were the most important resources to all of human kind.

Tell you what. I'll go without ANY oil for a month (I'll turn out the lights, turn off the heat, walk everywhere, etc.). You go without water, air and food for a month. Let's figure this out.

[Oxonian]

Ah, then, we have finally reached it: Are you suggesting that Democracy and Islam are mutually exclusive?
Don't be ridiculous. Democracy and swarthiness are mutually exclusive.

[GrinR]

No forcing democracy on a people is completely against the point of democracy. In a true democracy, everyone would have one vote. "Power to the People", right? If you're forcing freedom on a people, is it really freedom?

http://i31.tinypic.com/funf5l.jpg

[H1PO]

As I recall, the majority of Iraqis have repeatedly voted for parties that were pro-democracy. So whatever country you're talking about where the majority dislike freedom, it isn't Iraq.I'd like to see those numbers. I'd like to see them very much.

[Talon-]

On the point of Germany, Italy, and Japan, you Econ heads will know that Germany and Japan are two very special cases.

Western Germany's recovery is considered a miracle, even by the Germans. They benefited from a relative stable infrastructure that remained plus the coalition between labor, the big firms, and the government.

Japan was able to recover so quickly because of their neo-mercantilist policies that provided protection for their interior industries, and a coalition that was driven by a strong, intelligent bureaucracy that essentially decided what industries they would pursue and how to make them grow.

The dominance of Japan's automobile industries (and the reason Detroit decided to focus on horsepower rather than efficiency) can actually be traced back to a voluntary export restraint between the US and Japan in the early 80's. What that did was basically force Japan to abandon their highly successful economical cars in America and move to cars with more options and, thus, higher prices.

Free trade is overrated.

[H1PO]

I thought water, air, and food were the most important resources to all of human kind.

Tell you what. I'll go without ANY oil for a month (I'll turn out the lights, turn off the heat, walk everywhere, etc.). You go without water, air and food for a month. Let's figure this out.
Hah. You're pretty funny. I like how you just completely avoided my point to make a joke about how I didn't take that into consideration. I must admit I'm in hysterics over here on my end. :rolleyes:

[Whimbrel]

Grinr, your comments seem to come from the "ignorance is bliss" camp. Obviously, people below a certain intelligence will always believe whatever they want because they can not differentiate between subjective opinion and objective evaluation of fact. Nevertheless, a few quick points, the American revolution was not an invasion of the colonies by a foreign nation in order to overthrow local government in favor of somebody else's view of "freedom." If you applied your insipid analogy to Iraq, the Iraqis trying to kill American troops are doing exactly what the colonists did in trying to wrest the colonies from England.

Secondly, it is not my "personal belief" that the war was not justified. If you examine the top three justifications given for the war, they are all invalid. Attacking Iraq and committing our troops and dollars to a lengthy occupation has not made America safer nor has it protected us from terrorism. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, nor was it trying to build them. The policy of containment had been working and Iraq's ability to develop weapons had been effectively destroyed years before the invasion. Our invasion has not stabilized the region nor has it led to a stable democracy. The Iraqi people want us to leave and continually state that they are worse off now than prior to the invasion. Presumably the several hundred thousand dead Iraqis, their orphaned children and remaiining family members also think the benefits of liberation were perhaps overstated by the Bush administration.

There is no excuse for the faulty planning of the occupation. Unlike the weapons of mass destruction, for which evidence was confusing, the information about what was necessary to stabilize Iraq was crystal clear and was simply ignored by idiots. We will all continue to pay the price for this inexcusable stupidity while the elite few like Grinr feel a jingoistic need to pretend it was good. Pathetic.

[Johan]

Hah. You're pretty funny. I like how you just completely avoided my point to make a joke about how I didn't take that into consideration. I must admit I'm in hysterics over here on my end. :rolleyes:

You had a point?

Oh, yeah...the one about people of a darker complexion being averse to democracy?

Yeah. I avoided that. Let's talk about it, though, if you'd like. What is it about them that makes democracy impossible, if you wouldn't mind sharing?

Please, do go on! :D

[CES]

As for Britain and Australia, I keep bringing them up as staunch supporters and the best of the best; what is your major malfunction? Can you read?


I thank you for believing that when a good number of other people dont.
Do i like the way things are done right now? Hell no, i'd rather kick the doors in on any country that was even suspected of hiding the scum.

You want to know why NATO wont give you the numbers you require? Because most of the NATO countries have a significant population of muslim people (the most vocal of which are in France which oddly enough was one of the main anti-US led war countries at the time) If these countries were to stomp in with you and kick the hell out of everything big and bad there'd be all out civil war. I mean, we get the Muslim Council of Britain crying out and playing the race card if anything even stinks of coming near a supposed "muslim" way of life. Those guys, with a radical element in this country? I dread to think of it.

[H1PO]

You had a point?

Oh, yeah...the one about people of a darker complexion being averse to democracy?

Yeah. I avoided that. Let's talk about it, though, if you'd like. What is it about them that makes democracy impossible, if you wouldn't mind sharing?

Please, do go on! :D
I'd love to. It's something kinda important to Islamics. It's called the Ku'ran. Now I know you're a teacher, so you must know something about it, so I'll skip the lesson plan. The lifestyle described by the Ku'ran (and what they attempt to live by) doesn't make democracy impossible, they would just rather live in their theocracy's. It worked perfectly for hundreds of years. When dictators came to power/were installed after WWII is when they began to get angry at the west.

[torrefaction]

I'd love to. It's something kinda important to Islamics. It's called the Ku'ran. Now I know you're a teacher, so you must know something about it, so I'll skip the lesson plan. The lifestyle described by the Ku'ran (and what they attempt to live by) doesn't make democracy impossible, they would just rather live in their theocracy's. It worked perfectly for hundreds of years. When dictators came to power/were installed after WWII is when they began to get angry at the west.

Jordan says hello. Egypt too, even if they've had some slides backwards.

[Oxonian]

I'd like to see those numbers. I'd like to see them very much.
Your wish is my command.
In December 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election,_December_2005), the top two lists (United Iraqi Alliance and the Democratic Patriotic Alliance of Kurdistan) received 62.9% of the vote. The UIA's platform (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/election/2004/1231overview.htm) called for a "A constitutional, pluralistic, democratic and federally united Iraq" and an "Iraq that respects human rights, that does not discriminate on the grounds of sects, religions, or ethnicities, and that preserves the rights of religious and ethnic minorities and protects them against persecution and marginalization." According to the BBC, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4511450.stm#ka) "It wants freedom, democracy, and further political and constitutional gains for all Iraqi citizens irrespective of their ethnic, political, or religious affiliations." The Iraqi National List drew a further 8% of the vote. Again according to the BBC, the INL "wants to build a democratic, secular and modern Iraq, with strong security forces and good relations with its neighbours."

So, those three lists, which all at least claim to support liberal democracy, drew over 70% of the vote.

Back in January 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_legislative_election%2C_January_2005), the picture was even starker: the UIA and the DPAK took nearly 75% of the vote even before counting the other pro-democracy parties.

I guess Iraqis hate democracy.

[Johan]

I'd love to. It's something kinda important to Islamics. It's called the Ku'ran.

The Koran/Quran/Ku'ran is not incompatible with democratic government. Particular interpretations of it are incompatible with democratic government (which happen to be the most commonly held interpretations, but not throughout the Middle East!).

[Oxonian]

Western Germany's recovery is considered a miracle, even by the Germans. They benefited from a relative stable infrastructure that remained
Germany had a relatively stable infrastructure after the Second World War?

[Dag-Sabot]

Rent "No end in sight".

[Schnoogs]

According to Human Rights Watch between 1992-2002 Saddam had 50,000 people killed in Iraq. The invasion deaths alone in the first year rival that figure.

So you're going on record as saying that Iraq would be better off with Saddam in charge?

Just like in WWII it takes the deaths of thousands and millions to ensure that far more can live in peace down the road.

It's the classic "well it's gonna be tough so let's just not try at all"

[Schnoogs]

They benefited from a relative stable infrastructure that remained plus the coalition between labor, the big firms, and the government..

http://www.assassinworks.com/**********

[GrinR]

Grinr, your comments seem to come from the "ignorance is bliss" camp. Obviously, people below a certain intelligence will always believe whatever they want because they can not differentiate between subjective opinion and objective evaluation of fact. Nevertheless, a few quick points, the American revolution was not an invasion of the colonies by a foreign nation in order to overthrow local government in favor of somebody else's view of "freedom." If you applied your insipid analogy to Iraq, the Iraqis trying to kill American troops are doing exactly what the colonists did in trying to wrest the colonies from England.

Secondly, it is not my "personal belief" that the war was not justified. If you examine the top three justifications given for the war, they are all invalid. Attacking Iraq and committing our troops and dollars to a lengthy occupation has not made America safer nor has it protected us from terrorism. Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, nor was it trying to build them. The policy of containment had been working and Iraq's ability to develop weapons had been effectively destroyed years before the invasion. Our invasion has not stabilized the region nor has it led to a stable democracy. The Iraqi people want us to leave and continually state that they are worse off now than prior to the invasion. Presumably the several hundred thousand dead Iraqis, their orphaned children and remaiining family members also think the benefits of liberation were perhaps overstated by the Bush administration.

There is no excuse for the faulty planning of the occupation. Unlike the weapons of mass destruction, for which evidence was confusing, the information about what was necessary to stabilize Iraq was crystal clear and was simply ignored by idiots. We will all continue to pay the price for this inexcusable stupidity while the elite few like Grinr feel a jingoistic need to pretend it was good. Pathetic.

Your post is interesting, but only from the perspective of counting unsupported assertions. Your saying it's so don't make it so. Same for me, only I like pictures and first-hand stories.

[Bingley Joe]

A few things that are worth thinking about here:



Before the first Gulf War, Iraq had the highest standard of living in the Middle East.

There was free healthcare, free education, and the literacy rate was about 80%.

University students of both genders received scholarships to study at home and abroad.

There was clean water available.

Most of this was due to Saddam's restructuring of the economy with initiatives such as the nationalization of the oil industry in 1972, which - not surprisingly - was most definitely not something that pleased the US government who had put him in power in order to stop the Iraqi revolution.. which he did by conducting the massacres that so many like to point to when vilifying him (which is fair enough -- the man was certainly no saint, but that doesn't change the fact that the country was actually doing quite well before the first Gulf War).

During the first Gulf War, the amount of explosives dropped on the country was more than double the combined Allied air offensive or World War II.

Within the first few days, there was no running water.

More than 90 percent of Iraq’s electrical capacity was destroyed. Its telecommunication systems, including television and radio stations, were demolished, as were its flood control, irrigation, sewage treatment, water purification, and hydroelectic systems.

U.S. planes burned wheat and grain fields with incendiary bombs, and hit hundreds of schools, hospitals, rail stations, bus stations, air-raid shelters, mosques, and historic sites.

Because of the extensive use of laser-guided depleted-uranium missiles, some 900 tons of radioactive waste were spread over much of Iraq. In 2000, the childhood leukemia rate in Iraq was the highest in the world.

In addition to the 200,000 Iraqis killed during the first Gulf War, an additional 1.5 million died there as a result of the sanctions, many from normally treatable/curable diseases. Of those, 600,000 were children under 5.


I could go on, but it's all too fucking depressing.

[torrefaction]

You're really going to say the first Gulf War was unjustified? Really? So we should just let him gas the kurds all day long? Kuwait be damned? You really don't care about their lives, at all?

[Talon-]

Germany had a relatively stable infrastructure after the Second World War?

It was called an economic miracle for a reason. Relatively stable in the fact that they simply had infrastructure available from the rapid industries built under Nazi Germany.

And, yes, Western Germany.

http://www.assassinworks.com/**********

Alright, Schnoogs. Was it American aid that saved Germany?

[Oxonian]

You're really going to say the first Gulf War was unjustified?
I honestly can't quite tell whether Bingley Joe opposed the second Iraq War or not. Frankly, he points out something a lot of anti-war people elide: that the trade sanctions resulted in a lot of suffering for the Iraqi people, as well.

[Schnoogs]

it was American aid that saved Germany

Fixed that for you

[GrinR]

I honestly can't quite tell whether Bingley Joe opposed the second Iraq War or not. Frankly, he points out something a lot of anti-war people elide: that the trade sanctions resulted in a lot of suffering for the Iraqi people, as well.

Lacking a working moral compass, it is impossible to have any meaningful moral position.

[Whimbrel]

Your post is interesting, but only from the perspective of counting unsupported assertions. Your saying it's so don't make it so. Same for me, only I like pictures and first-hand stories.

You have first hand stories about the war being justified? About the US being safer? About our planning for the occupation? About our involvement in Iraq creating a generation of people "sympathetic to our cause" as opposed to orphans whose lives were destroyed by an unnecessary and poorly implemented foreign policy?

Look, neither one of us would argue that delusional thinking is not a part of supporting this catastrophe. But, let's get something straight. I'm not saying this shit is right because I happen to think so. If you need facts, do your own fucking homework, but don't pretend that just because you don't know about something that means everybody is talking from that same level of ignorance.

Schnoogs, sure, addressing the problems in Iraq that existed prior to our invasion was complicated. It was this administration that claimed it would be quick, easy, and cheap. The argument was never, it would be tough so let's do nothing. It was that because we knew how tough it would be we should be extra careful not to completely fuck it up. Just because our administration chose to fuck it up anyway does not mean that this was the only option or the right one. It adds further support to the argument that this approach was always the wrong one.

[Oxonian]

It was called an economic miracle for a reason. Relatively stable in the fact that they simply had infrastructure available from the rapid industries built under Nazi Germany.
There was a lot of infrastructure built during Nazi Germany. Which we then blew the fuck up. And then we bounced the rubble. In 1947, European industrial production was 88% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Before_the_Marshall_Plan) of the 1938 total. In Operation Gomorrah, ten square miles of Hamburg were leveled. In the first couple of years after the war, people literally starved to death because the economy was ruined. There were a number of reasons for why West Germany had incredible economic growth, but lots of pre-existing infrastructure wasn't one of them.

[Talon-]

Fixed that for you

Except, the war reparations that West Germany had to pay negated any of the US foreign aid given to them.

It was a combination of industry, the Korean War, cheap labor, and luck that saved the West German economy.

There was a lot of infrastructure built during Nazi Germany. Which we then blew the fuck up. And then we bounced the rubble. In 1947, European industrial production was 88% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Before_the_Marshall_Plan) of the 1938 total. In Operation Gomorrah, ten square miles of Hamburg were leveled. In the first couple of years after the war, people literally starved to death because the economy was ruined. There were a number of reasons for why West Germany had incredible economic growth, but lots of pre-existing infrastructure wasn't one of them.

I never said "lots." I also was referring to roadways and public utilities more so than factories. And, yes, there was preexisting industry that was destroyed. I'll take my Professor's word over yours.

[Generation ABXY]

Hell, people forget, but Bush ran on a platform of non-intervention.

Here's a reminder that Ron Paul is basically running on Bush's 2000 policies...he just believes in them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MpTNdcM_e0

You know, Bush may have believed in those policies, too and Paul, once he gets in, may very well change, too. I say this because America is in kind of a pickle when it comes to our foreign policy - if we get involved with another country, it isn't long before someone is sobbing on TV about our war crimes and pointless wars, yet, if we do nothing, people will turn around and wag their finger at us for that, or say we did too little too late.

If you need an example, just watch the news. Tons of people are saying we have no right to be in other countries' business and we should pull out of Iraq now. Then, the next day, they are out protesting our lack of involvement in Darfur or whatever the genocide du jour is...okay, well maybe not right now, but it is too cold to be protesting, especially when it is something you believe in so wholeheartedly.

[Rifter]

Blithely dismissing it like that isn't appropriate.


THEY WERE ACQUITTED. Get it straight, and quit trying to paint honorable marines as blood-thirsty killers. They were framed by an Iraqi insurgent. But, the Times got a hold of it, and blew it out of proportion.


More importantly, your main point is insane. If his statements had been "aiding the enemy", then it wouldn't matter if it was accurate, just that they it helped Al-Qaeda. But if you censor political criticism so as not to provide our enemies with anything to criticize us about, then you tear down democracy and REALLY "aid the enemy".
You are completley out in left field here. It is one thing for you and I to not be censored. It is something else ENTIRELY for a someone like MURTHA to falsly decree that these marines had murdered people. He SHOULD be sued for defamation, and libel. Being that this was done during war-time, I think it skirts a fine line between freedom, and treason, as well.

Murtha killed men over in Iraq, he just wasn't holding the gun that fired the bullets. His followers have blood on their hands, as well.

[GrinR]

You have first hand stories about the war being justified? About the US being safer? About our planning for the occupation? About our involvement in Iraq creating a generation of people "sympathetic to our cause" as opposed to orphans whose lives were destroyed by an unnecessary and poorly implemented foreign policy?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. In that order.

Hell you can get all that from ONLY Michael Yon's (http://michaelyon-online.com/)site.

I already linked Spirit of America. You can also hit Michael Totten's site (http://www.michaeltotten.com/).

I mean, if you care to know what's going on from people who are actually involved.

[Wasson_]

reminds me of the MST3K movie where they get back from the alien world, Tom Servo is like, "Ahhh, earth just like we left it...With the USA in charge! yeaaaa!!"

Mr. Servo...in absence of many gum balls, there was wisdom.

[Rifter]

Along the lines of what Whimbrel stated, Iraq was essentially a safer, more productive, and more economical country under Saddam. Saddam was powerful enough to quiet the tribal disparrities. The economy was stronger under Saddam, their quality of life was probably better under Saddam than now, etc al.

Actually, Iraq went from one of the richest countries, to one of the poorest under Sadam. Before he took power, the average Iraqi citizen had quite a bit of money, especially compared to other middle east nations. Then, he tookd power, and put the populace into poverty. But, I guess the economy was "stronger" as you said... ha, right.

[Schnoogs]

Except, the war reparations that West Germany had to pay negated any of the US foreign aid given to them..

Right man...the US handed them $5 to their one hand then they put it in their other hand and handed it right back.

Revisionist history and cynicism for the win. :rolleyes:

[Schnoogs]

I'll take my Professor's word over yours.

His professor turns out to be Ward Churchill

[Johan]

You are completley out in left field here.

IrishWhiskey is in LEFT FIELD?

And I thought he was a moderate. ;)

Right man...the US handed them $5 to their one hand then they put it in their other hand and handed it right back.

Revisionist history and cynicism for the win. :rolleyes:

You're being too nice to Talon.

Fact is, in at least one case, we didn't get paid back until 2006! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm) Even then, it wasn't really getting "paid back" in full, either.

I wonder how much money we sank into Germany and Japan rebuilding them? :D

"In a nutshell, everything we got from America in World War II was free," says economic historian Professor Mark Harrison, of Warwick University.

"The loan was really to help Britain through the consequences of post-war adjustment, rather than the war itself. This position was different from World War I, where money was lent for the war effort itself."

SELFISH AMERICANS!!!

[Whimbrel]

Actually, Iraq went from one of the richest countries, to one of the poorest under Sadam. Before he took power, the average Iraqi citizen had quite a bit of money, especially compared to other middle east nations. Then, he tookd power, and put the populace into poverty. But, I guess the economy was "stronger" as you said... ha, right.

He was obviously comparing Iraq during Hussein to the current state, not to its condition prior to Saddam. Selective misinterpretation or an honest attempt to address the argument. Hmmmm?

[Schnoogs]

IrishWhiskey is in LEFT FIELD?

And I thought he was a moderate. ;)

He is...anarchists are to his left and liberals are to his right :p

[Rifter]

You want to know why NATO wont give you the numbers you require? Because most of the NATO countries have a significant population of muslim people (the most vocal of which are in France which oddly enough was one of the main anti-US led war countries at the time)

France was also throat deep in the oil for food scandal, and top officials were making buckets of money. Funny, the other country ALSO exploiting the oil for food program... Russia... hey, who was against the invasion? OH YEA!

[51|RandoM]

Each one can be removed fairly quickly with our hardware.


Quickly? I would hardly use that term to describe our situation in Iraq.

[Rifter]

He was obviously comparing Iraq during Hussein to the current state, not to its condition prior to Saddam. Selective misinterpretation or an honest attempt to address the argument. Hmmmm?

I was pointing out, that Saddam has screwed that country over, horribly. So, instead of looking at X would have been killed this year... but with America there, Y got killed... why don't we look at ... Had Saddam, and then his sons taken power, there would have been X killed. While America being in country for X years, led to a total of Y deaths... that is going to be a HELL of a lot less, than what Saddam and his boys would have done, total.

[cp#]

Our country is no safer today than before 9/11. Just fucking paranoid.

[Rifter]

Quickly? I would hardly use that term to describe our situation in Iraq.

We removed Saddam from power, pretty quickly. That is what happenend. Wasn't it a sprint between the Army and Marines, to see who would reach Bagdad first? Which left for some painfully susceptable supply lines.

[Drinking_Buddy]

I dont know if this has been asked yet, but how do we know that its accually an Iraqi woman and her dead son?

I read the info on the website, but I didn't see anything that could confrim it.

I am going to assume, that the child just recently died, because he has alot of color for a dead person.

Just my two cents.

[51|RandoM]

We removed Saddam from power, pretty quickly. That is what happenend. Wasn't it a sprint between the Army and Marines, to see who would reach Bagdad first? Which left for some painfully susceptable supply lines.

...and in doing so started a wave of bloodshed that has managed to kill more people than Saddam ever did. Mission accomplished? If so then get the fuck out already.

There are two reasons we are still there 1) Bush will not admit he was wrong in even the least bit, and 2) He wants to leave the biggest mistake of his presidency for somebody else to clean up so it doesn't tarnish his legacy.

It is just so wrong in so many ways that I don't have any interest in hearing in what trivial ways it can be spun to be right. He is the boy who cried wolf one time too many.

[torrefaction]

You know, Bush may have believed in those policies, too and Paul, once he gets in, may very well change, too. I say this because America is in kind of a pickle when it comes to our foreign policy - if we get involved with another country, it isn't long before someone is sobbing on TV about our war crimes and pointless wars, yet, if we do nothing, people will turn around and wag their finger at us for that, or say we did too little too late.

If you need an example, just watch the news. Tons of people are saying we have no right to be in other countries' business and we should pull out of Iraq now. Then, the next day, they are out protesting our lack of involvement in Darfur or whatever the genocide du jour is...okay, well maybe not right now, but it is too cold to be protesting, especially when it is something you believe in so wholeheartedly.

Except for Paul's voting record backs up what he says. The same can't really be said of any other politician. It's Paul's big downfall. He's too honest, which makes him unelectable.

[GrinR]

...and in doing so started a wave of bloodshed that has managed to kill more people than Saddam ever did. Mission accomplished? If so then get the fuck out already.

Even using the most extreme numbers, this is flatly untrue.

It's shamefully disingenuous to suggest that bloodshed and body count are your primary grievance and then follow up with aggressive support for a course of action that everyone agrees would result in even more bloodshed and death toll.

You'd be better off simply saying, "fuck those ragheads" and calling it a night.

[Church42]

This is the STUPIDEST fucking thing I have read in A LONG TIME.

Do you even know the purpose of a depleted uranium shell? Do you?

Its heavier. Thats it. Its heavier which means it hits harder when its shot. To call it a WMD just demonstrates your fundamental lack of knowledge on the subject.

Blah blah blah...if you think what I said is the stupidest fucking thing you've read in the long time, you must've just discovered the internet recently.

Welcome to the internet. I'm sure if I looked heard enough, I can find some pretty stupid things from your own mouth, so don't act all high & mighty.

[Church42]

You're really going to say the first Gulf War was unjustified? Really? So we should just let him gas the kurds all day long? Kuwait be damned? You really don't care about their lives, at all?

In retrospect, maybe we should've just let Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the rest of the Middle East take on Saddam. Part of the reason Osama dislikes the US so much is their stationing of military forces on Saudi soil.

Just saying, not that I endorse the idea.

[Church42]

THEY WERE ACQUITTED. Get it straight, and quit trying to paint honorable marines as blood-thirsty killers. They were framed by an Iraqi insurgent. But, the Times got a hold of it, and blew it out of proportion.


You are completley out in left field here. It is one thing for you and I to not be censored. It is something else ENTIRELY for a someone like MURTHA to falsly decree that these marines had murdered people. He SHOULD be sued for defamation, and libel. Being that this was done during war-time, I think it skirts a fine line between freedom, and treason, as well.

Murtha killed men over in Iraq, he just wasn't holding the gun that fired the bullets. His followers have blood on their hands, as well.

Proving defamation & libel is pretty tough as you need to prove that what he said was truely false...easier said than done.

Are you also saying that there aren't any bad apples in the services and that no rapes or murders by men serving our flag? If you honestly believe that, you're naive. Part of the reason why the saying holds true...War is hell. It brings out the worst in humanity.

[Church42]

Actually, Iraq went from one of the richest countries, to one of the poorest under Sadam. Before he took power, the average Iraqi citizen had quite a bit of money, especially compared to other middle east nations. Then, he tookd power, and put the populace into poverty. But, I guess the economy was "stronger" as you said... ha, right.

Back that up with statistics instead of opinions and I'll believe you.

Oil production was higher under Saddam than it is now. Certainly safer, better staffed health care, better education, people were employed then. Certainly better than now.

And yeah, I guess you could say Saddam made the economy weaker after the Gulf War because of the economic sanctions, but what about before?

Again, you offer no statistics to prove anything. Would be interesting to see pre-Gulf & post-Gulf economic statistics on Iraq.

[torrefaction]

Back that up with statistics instead of opinions and I'll believe you.

Oil production was higher under Saddam than it is now. Certainly safer, better staffed health care, better education, people were employed then. Certainly better than now.

And yeah, I guess you could say Saddam made the economy weaker after the Gulf War because of the economic sanctions, but what about before?

Again, you offer no statistics to prove anything. Would be interesting to see pre-Gulf & post-Gulf economic statistics on Iraq.

Too lazy to google yourself? That only took two seconds, besides the fact that it was common knowledge.


Besides crushing human rights, Saddam smothered the Iraqi economy. The dictator, who invaded Iran in 1980 and Kuwait in 1990, ran a war-based economy, diverting resources to the military and starving the rest of the country. Iraq's infrastructure deteriorated; the oil industry alone needs $10 billion to $40 billion of investment to catch up. Saddam and his cronies imposed stiff duties on imports, steered government contracts to loyalists and buried business in regulations. This encouraged a culture of kickbacks and corruption.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-28-iraq-economy_x.htm

[Rifter]

...and in doing so started a wave of bloodshed that has managed to kill more people than Saddam ever did. Mission accomplished? If so then get the fuck out already.

Really? I have not seen any real numbers that actually say that. The numbers I have seen, say Saddam killed FAR more people when he was in power.

[Church42]

Do you even know the purpose of a depleted uranium shell? Do you?

Its heavier. Thats it. Its heavier which means it hits harder when its shot.

It's also toxic, as its a heavy metal like mercury. But I can see how its easy to overlook a fact like that.

[Whimbrel]

I don't think anybody has an accurate death toll for Iraqis since the invasion, but is there anybody here who thinks the number is not between 250,000 and 750,000? Not trying to argue, just seeing if we are all in the same ballpark.

[cp#]

I don't think anybody has an accurate death toll for Iraqis since the invasion, but is there anybody here who thinks the number is not between 250,000 and 750,000? Not trying to argue, just seeing if we are all in the same ballpark.

I've been hearing over 1 million for months now

[Church42]

Eh, I dunno. UN estimated the Iraq population in 2003 at just over 25 million. 750k would be 3% of the population. To me 750k sounds a bit too high...even 250k sounds too high but could be true.

Just hard to grasp the idea of 250,000 dead civilians really. Using rough rounding and using March 20th, 2003 as the starting date of the war, the war will have gone on for 5 years on March 20th of this year or 1827 days (2 leap years). That's an average of 137 civilians dead per day (again, average). 250k just seems to high using the dates mentioned.

[torrefaction]

So I give you numbers and data, and you don't respond?

Awesome.

[Citizen Philip]

Well, I hope everyone has got that out of their systems. Save up the anger and frustration and will see you all again in a few weeks, or when someone undesirable gets elected. Whichever comes first.

Most of us will be here all week, remember to make a donation.

[Church42]

So I give you numbers and data, and you don't respond?

Awesome.

Maybe I just decided now to read the article.

To quote the article "The World Bank says Iraq's economy shrank by nearly a third last year after several years of smaller declines. The World Bank projects a sharp rebound in 2004 — growth ranging anywhere from 30% to 70% — and an overall economy worth $17 billion to $22 billion. That would make the Iraqi economy about the size of North Dakota's or Vermont's, which have the smallest output among the 50 states."

Article was written about 1 year after the war. Note how it says the economy shrank by 1/3rd last year? War-related, probably...but also note that it states "several years of smaller declines". How the economy has responded post-March 2004 I don't know.

More from the article:

"Street violence and corruption are the flip side of the Baghdad boom. Under Saddam, car dealer Tuma complains, he and his brothers only had to bribe one of Saddam's relatives. In a way, it was one-stop shopping. Now, every cop on the beat seems to have his hand out, he says. Police threatened to arrest Tuma on trumped-up charges and relented only after collecting a $50 payoff. When thieves drove off with a car someone had entrusted the Tuma brothers to sell, police demanded a $100 payment on top of $2,000 compensation to the car's owner."

"On the other hand, Tuma concedes that some of his best customers are crooked cops. One cash-rich police captain recently ordered three cars, including a fully loaded '93 Mercedes for $8,000"

GDP measures gross domestic product but doesn't necessarily reflect how the average citizen is doing. Yeah, people may be able to sell more products for more money, but when its being stolen or taken by crooked cops its hard to say if suppliers are really ahead.

GDP is essentially a formula. GDP = C + I + (X-M), or translated GDP = consumption + investments + (exports - imports). Considering the money the US is pumping into Iraq, that inflates GDP. I need to see the changes in consumption & balance of trade.

Lastly, as the article was written in 2004, the security situation probably wasn't as bad as in 2005-2007. The economic situation has likely not improved, or if it has, not significantly. Again, if you want to point to GDP and show me a graph that shows it increasing, that's great, but you have to realize what goes into the computation of GDP and also realize that higher GDP does not necessarily translate into better wages & jobs for individuals as a whole.

[Church42]

If I could find information too, I'd be looking at the pre-war, pre-Saddam, and current educational statistics of Iraq. Would be interesting to see how literacy, school attendance, and higher education levels have change pre-Saddam, during his reign, and after.

The saying "Children are the future" is pretty accurate. A country's economical success depends largely on the intelligence of the children they produce. Smart kids stir innovation, new ideas, make more money, invest and save that money more efficiently, etc al. Quite a snowball effect. Wrote a term paper for my graduate macroecon class about education levels & its affects on a nation's economy. Wonder if I can find it.

Oh well, good arguments everyone, good fun.

[torrefaction]

If I could find information too, I'd be looking at the pre-war, pre-Saddam, and current educational statistics of Iraq. Would be interesting to see how literacy, school attendance, and higher education levels have change pre-Saddam, during his reign, and after.

The saying "Children are the future" is pretty accurate. A country's economical success depends largely on the intelligence of the children they produce. Smart kids stir innovation, new ideas, make more money, invest and save that money more efficiently, etc al. Quite a snowball effect. Wrote a term paper for my graduate macroecon class about education levels & its affects on a nation's economy. Wonder if I can find it.

Oh well, good arguments everyone, good fun.

Current economic indicators from the Economist:

# Iraq's fiscal outlook has strengthened, following an upward revision to our oil production forecasts. Despite a pick-up in government expenditure, the fiscal surplus is expected to average some 22% of GDP in 2008-09.
# Iraq's economic prospects have improved. Increased security has boosted domestic demand and allowed sustained oil exports from the Kirkuk oilfields. This is forecast to lift annual real GDP growth to above 6% in 2008-09.
#
# The Economist Intelligence Unit has raised its forecasts for Iraq's current-account surplus, after increasing its oil production projections.

It's harder to find exact current data than it is 2000-2004 data. Since as described above, the security situation is much better, this is a big thing to account for.

It seems like the 2002 GDP was 81,849 million. The GDP of 2007 is estimated at $100 million. To contrast, the 2006 GDP was $87.9 million.

http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/v48n16-5OD01.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/iz.html

Iraq's GDP only grew by 3.2 percent in 2001, and remained flat in '02.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aairaqioil.htm

Seems to me the 13% growth from '06 to '07 significantly outperformed anything Saddam was doing. As far as the literacy rates, I'm having real difficulty finding any current data...but things do point to a significantly stronger economy. I'd be almost certain there's a significant quality of life hit though, there's no denying that.


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/iz.html

[TrackZero]

Millions more have fled the country.

Yup, I work with a guy who got out of Iraq (he was doing IT work with the U.S. in the 'green zone' for a while, then got the hell out). Talked to him about what it's like, and you can tell, he doesn't want to go back (at least not until shit has really calmed down). He was a kid during the first gulf war, and then had to enjoy his youth in this second conflict. He didn't make it sound like a party, I'll say that much.

[51|RandoM]

Even using the most extreme numbers, this is flatly untrue.

Yeah, I went a bit overboard there. What I should have said is that we achieved a higher monthly death toll there for awhile.

;)

[Trickyicky]

The main 2 (non-political) things that bothers me about the whole Iraq war are:
1. Forcing democracy on a country is rarely a good idea. It's just not how it's been successful historically.

2. There was no terrorist shit going on when Saddam was in power. A dictator like that would not let people blow up buildings and murder people on the streets. He would have people killed for even talking about that shit. It does him no good to have his country torn up. Yeah, he did some terrible things, but at least there was order there. As was posted earlier, a lot more people are dying now than before, and it's really tarnished the reputation of the US.

[IrishWhiskey]

THEY WERE ACQUITTED. Get it straight, and quit trying to paint honorable marines as blood-thirsty killers. They were framed by an Iraqi insurgent. But, the Times got a hold of it, and blew it out of proportion.
Woah, there. They were not in any way acquitted of killing people, as much as you would like to jump to the conclusion. The ruling was that the killings followed the rules of engagement, and one senior officer was charged with manslaughter. Thats a far cry for your suggestion that no innocent civilian was killed, and its all a frame-up.

You are completely out in left field here. It is one thing for you and I to not be censored. It is something else ENTIRELY for a someone like MURTHA to falsly decree that these marines had murdered people. He SHOULD be sued for defamation, and libel. Being that this was done during war-time, I think it skirts a fine line between freedom, and treason, as well.The Marines did kill civilians. They question remains as to whether they murdered them. In war, that's often a fine line. I don't blame the Marines, but don't pretend that anyone who looks for the truth is helping the terrorists. Attack the former Marine John Murtha all you like, just don't act as a zealot yourself. The truth is often ambiguous and unpleasant. That fine line you mention divides our society from liberty and tyranny.

Murtha killed men over in Iraq, he just wasn't holding the gun that fired the bullets. His followers have blood on their hands, as well.For the Love of God, thats about the most radical statement I've heard on this forum. Please gain some perspective before you accuse anyone else on here of being radical. His followers? You mean like people who think the war was ill-advised?

[Achilles]

I've been hearing over 1 million for months nowEven if it were 1 million dead, which is about 10x the actual number the UN estimates unless you're counting things like natural deaths in the last 6 years, it's still less than the number Saddam killed by starting the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait. Not to mention he executed a large number of his own party members on video tape the day he took power, while chomping a cigar. Gassed the Kurds, killed his own son-in-laws, etc. And while thousands starved to death under the sanctions he managed to find the money to build 10 palaces all over Iraq, and the highest tech nuke-proof bunker in the world, literally suspended in liquid under Baghdad. I saw a show on that thing, it was a remarkable feat of engineering able to sustain tens of thousands of residents.

If you're interested in knowing the truth about the casualties in Iraq, go to UN websites, Red Cross websites, and other official sources of information rather than referencing anti-war propaganda numbers which were debunked some time ago. I had a similar debate with a fellow at work the other day, and after he looked up the official numbers, which are just over 100k, he had to change his argument.

[GrinR]

Missed you, Achilles. You and Rommel. *sigh*

[IrishWhiskey]

Even using the most extreme numbers, this is flatly untrue.Is it? I mean, it could be, but the number I'm researching from independent sites suggest that Saddam killed about 600,000 people in his regime, excepting the wars against Iran and Kuwait. If you count the Iran numbers in terms of supplying a humanitarian motive for intervention, then it should also be considered that we supplied him with WMDs to use in that war, and funded and encouraged it using the proceeds from South American nun-raping, drug-running, terrorist groups. Doesn't make the innocent people any less dead, but makes the politicians' motivation more suspect, seeing as it literally involved many of the same decision makers (George H.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld etc.)

The total number of civilians killed in the invasion of Iraq ranges from about 300,000 to over a million. That's not even including the most extreme numbers, and fits the range of people Saddam killed. And doesn't include people who fled the country to avoid being killed.

It's shamefully disingenuous to suggest that bloodshed and body count are your primary grievance and then follow up with aggressive support for a course of action that everyone agrees would result in even more bloodshed and death toll.Or reconciliation. The only way your statement holds true, is if our invasion prevented more deaths than the subsequent ethnic warfare and cleansing caused. Which may be true, but the figures of pre-invasion year deaths don't seem to substantiate that.
You'd be better off simply saying, "fuck those ragheads" and calling it a night.Funnily enough, I've heard that exact statement from war supporters before (including "we should nuke the Middle East"), but never from war opponents.

[H1PO]

Funnily enough, I've heard that exact statement from war supporters before (including "we should nuke the Middle East"), but never from war opponents.
Someone at my school (my teacher wouldn't reveal who) honest to god believed that we should nuke the entire middle east and be done with it. I am scared for the future of the earth.

[Schnoogs]

then it should also be considered that we supplied him with WMDs to use in that war, .

Liberal cliche #49843

We also supplied Stalin and his army during WWII. I guess that makes us guilty for the 20 million or so people he killed as well.

Oh wait...Roosevelt was a Dem....where as Reagan was a Republican. :rolleyes:

[IrishWhiskey]

Liberal cliche #49843

We also supplied Stalin and his army during WWII. I guess that makes us guilty for the 20 million or so people he killed as well.

Oh wait...Roosevelt was a Dem....where as Reagan was a Republican. :rolleyes:Oh for the .... okay. Logic and reason now enter the fray.

Yes, it would be bad if we supplied Stalin with weapons and WMDs for the explicit purpose of killing civilians in Siberia instead of say, winning WWII against Hitler. Of course, that's not what we did in WWII. It is what we did when we gave Saddam chemical weapons to use against Iranians in 87.

See, even if the situations were the same, I'd still have no reservations about condemning Roosevelt. There are things he and Truman, and JFK, and LBJ did that I strongly disagree with in terms of foreign policy. I'll list them if you like.

What on Earth is wrong with you? Why do you think I'd condemn Reagan's foreign policy mistakes, but not FDRs? When have I ever said anything resembling that?

[torrefaction]

The total number of civilians killed in the invasion of Iraq ranges from about 300,000 to over a million. That's not even including the most extreme numbers, and fits the range of people Saddam killed. And doesn't include people who fled the country to avoid being killed.
Or reconciliation. The only way your statement holds true, is if our invasion prevented more deaths than the subsequent ethnic warfare and cleansing caused. Which may be true, but the figures of pre-invasion year deaths don't seem to substantiate that.
Funnily enough, I've heard that exact statement from war supporters before (including "we should nuke the Middle East"), but never from war opponents.

Why do people insist on quoting the Lancet report? The World Health Organization's estimate of the death toll is 150,000. HALF of your lowest number. It's also the latest and largest report.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=10521721
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7180055.stm

[Johan]

Liberal cliche #49843

We also supplied Stalin and his army during WWII. I guess that makes us guilty for the 20 million or so people he killed as well.

Oh wait...Roosevelt was a Dem....where as Reagan was a Republican. :rolleyes:

Well said. I'm sure it was ignored...

Why do people insist on quoting the Lancet report?

People use the data that supports their flawed arguments?

That would be my guess...

[torrefaction]

Schnoogs Cliche #32435

Attacking Irish with piss-poor logic over and over and over.

[TheFlyingOrc]

There is no evidence to prove that Saddam was in dealings with terrorism.

He used terror to control his own people. The man was a terrorist, although he had no clear ties to Al-Queda, which is what you're referring to.

[Voodoo]

There is no evidence to prove that Saddam was in dealings with terrorism.

Welcome to 2002.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

[Bad_Buddha]

EvAv: Providing you with comprehensive and rational Socio-Political discussion - With Attitude!

"I always go to a gaming forum for my political insight!"

[TrackZero]

Hell, that is probably the reason half the Middle East hates us is that their own government hides from them the fact that we have this super high standard of living and we live in a country of enormous freedoms.


Oh THAT's cute, I mean really. That's so innocent a comment to make, I almost don't know how to reply to it. It's like telling a kid there's no Santa.

Evil, they know you have a high standard of living, it's why they hate you in the first damn place.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

First off, mustard gas isn't a WMD. Second, they did that 20 years ago, while we were friends with them. Back then Don Rumsfeld was bringing Saddam gifts of golden spurs for his boots and shaking his hand.

Third we know exactly what happens to mustard gas when it sits around for 20 years. Science. I know it's not your friend.

Every time Beelzebub posts it makes me want to fucking beat children to death with a ball peen hammer.

1) WMDs are classified as being either Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical....guess which one mustard gas falls under.

2) A lot of people seem to forget that the first gulf war was ended in a cease fire and nothing else... a cease fire that Saddam broke 8 months later by firing on coalition fighter jets patrolling the no fly zones. That in and of its self is justification for going back into Iraq and finishing a job like we should have in 91.

[torrefaction]

So are all the people that constantly claim it going to stop claiming 600,000 to 1 million deaths, now that they've seen the numbers from the World Health Organization?

I think that should do it.

[Bad_Buddha]

Ryctor;1250451']Every time Beelzebub posts it makes me want to fucking beat children to death with a ball pean hammer.

Ball PEEN hammer.

And don't take it out on the kids - go to the root of your anger!

My grandfather caught a bit of mustard gas in WW1. I think he would agree that it's a WMD considering the number of his comrades that suffered or died from it.

It's not as if we're talking about 7 or 8 people catching a whiff and coughing a bit; We're talking about clouds of the stuff engulfing towns or battlefields causing horrific blisters and lesions and blindness on almost everyone that's exposed to it. Those that inhale it are lucky enough to drown in their own blood and necrotic tissues of their lungs.

[Johan]

EvAv: Providing you with comprehensive and rational Socio-Political discussion - With Attitude!

"I always go to a gaming forum for my political insight!"

That's funny; I always go to a gaming forum to provide my political insight ("insight" used by myself loosely to denote uninsightful garbage and flames)!

We make a good team! :)

[Beelzebud]

Every time Beelzebub posts it makes me want to fucking beat children to death with a ball peen hammer.

Real classy, internet tough guy.

I love it. *edited*Certain conservatives get all violent and resort to childish taunts and name-calling, instead of just trying to point out where they think I'm wrong.

Welcome to my ignore list too, and for the safety of any children in reaching distance of your hammer, I suggest you put me on ignore too.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

Real classy, internet tough guy.

I love it. The conservatives get all violent and resort to childish taunts and name-calling, instead of just trying to point out where they think I'm wrong.

Welcome to my ignore list too, and for the safety of any children in reaching distance of your hammer, I suggest you put me on ignore too.

Glad you're able to sidestep my 2 points and only nitpick on the fact that I think you're a worthless human being. Mommy would be proud :rolleyes:

[GrinR]

Personal attacks and generalized judgments are the easiest way to advertise the low value of your posts.

[H.Bogard]

Significantly less than are alive now. Our being there has saved counless lives.

LOL!

You're not serious, are you?

That could be true. On the other hand, those troops could save many more lives in Kenya, Darfur and Burma. When the purpose of our presence is to buy time for a political reconciliation, when does it stop being our job to shepard their democracy? Why do those innocents who are dying of an ongoing genocide not deserve help?

Bu... but... there's no Oil in Kenya. ;(
is there?

[Beelzebud]

You and I don't agree on much at all GrinR, but I respect you, and you keep it civil.

I have a new rule. Anyone that directly insults me with silly names, in an attempt to make their point, I just ignore. I'm not perfect, and I am actually wrong sometimes! (wow what a stunning admission on an internet message board), but I never take to the level of threatening violence, or name calling.

[Goronmon]

Blah blah blah...if you think what I said is the stupidest fucking thing you've read in the long time, you must've just discovered the internet recently.

Welcome to the internet. I'm sure if I looked heard enough, I can find some pretty stupid things from your own mouth, so don't act all high & mighty.
Certain conservatives get all violent and resort to childish taunts and name-calling, instead of just trying to point out where they think I'm wrong.
I don't normally post on these threads, but these two posts stood out for me.

Basically, you both are idiots. You admit you are ignorant and probably should have never posted considering you were too lazy to actually do a simple google searches before commenting. Political discussions like these would go a lot smoother if you would just not post at all, rather than just make up some BS to participate and sound important and force the people who actually care to prove your ridiculous comments wrong.

But hey, let's not focus on the fact that you are morons. Let's focus on the fact that some one called you a name. Yeah, that's just awesome.

I would rather have a bunch of posters insult each other angrily, but from an informed perspective, than politely spouting pointless and incorrect information on a whim. Maybe people wouldn't consider you quite a dumbass if you didn't do such a job to portray yourself as one.

That said, this is more of post on that type of attitude in general, I just happened to focus on you two because you made yourselves easy targets.