If enemy is defined as those who have intentions to kill or to help people who wish to kill us, then Iraq under Saddam was clearly enemy of the United States.

From my view, the people who support this Iraq war are those with enough courage to go and fight the enemy and those against are simply people who are not only lack of courage but also do not even have a common courtesy to stand behind the courageous ones who already stepped up to the front.

Note that the Iraq War supporters are not War Lovers, they are also against war but when the going gets tough, the tough gets going while the soft keeps whinning, talking and coming up with excuses for not going.

If you are one of the people who call this war stupid, It is OK for you to do so because there are soldiers already risking their lives to ensure your safety so that you can tell them that they are fighting and dying for a stupid war.

Saddam had no intention of attacking the US and even if he did have intentions he didn't have the Weapons of Mass Destruction to do it. Those are the facts.

Speak for yourself, I definately love war. And I would call this a dumb war because soldiers are trying to be diplomatic, its tacky.

As an aside I agree with you on the motivations. The us had good reason to suspect saddam would want revenge for the gulf war, because they knew thats the kind of guy he is. 9-11 spooked them, made them realise even lamo's can attack in ways they can't defend against so they thought better be safe than sorry with saddam. They didn't have any particularly hard evidence that saddam was going to attack but felt like they couldn't afford to wait for it. They were probably wrong, but again they were being safe.
They would have been better off being honest, of course hindsight is 20/20.

Saddam Hussein was also an enemy of al-Qaeda, and the occupation of Iraq is devouring most of America's attention, blood, and treasure, while in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and many other places, recruitment for terrorism against the US is growing fast.

You can support the troops, but not the reasons the war was fought. John Kerry had the courage to fight in vietnam, then he had the courage to stand up for what he felt was wrong, even if it was an unpopular view at the time. When the going gets tough, sometimes the tough have to back off. We are trying to create a stable government over there, not kill everyone, that would be easy.

the obvious answer to the question is yes
the war-in-iraq supporters are a friendly baby-eating dog-kicking wife-beating types who like violence and death

we get our kicks by invading countries and toppling their governments
the bloodier it is, the hornier we feel

a day without a brutal massacre is a day wasted - is what i say

[a note for all morons out there: i hope you detected the sarcasm]

Grover,
It is not a fact that Iraq did not have WMDs just because we did not find them. He did have them because he had used them before on the Kurds. Whether we find WMD or not, it is stilll important to realize that even if he no longer has them, he still would have made them and used it against us whenever he has a chance such as selling them to terrorists. Do you really think that he already used all of his WMDs to kill the Kurds? or he had been a nice guy and destroyed all of his remaining WMDs after killing them without making a big show to the world how nice he was?

Dr Lou Natic,
I obviously was wrong to assume(ass..u..me) that nobody loves war. Allow me to add the word "most" in front of "...Iraq War supporters are not War Lovers". By the way, if for any reason you disagree and then able to prove that the majority of Iraq War supporters actually love war, then let me know so I can change "most" to "many" then to "few"...By trying to be diplomatic, do you mean that our military commanders are trying to talk with the Iraqis? If yes, I do not like this talking either. I think the military should destroy all the places that the terrorists are hiding inside to shoot at us after giving one minute warning that if there is any civilian in there or close to it, must exit or run away from the place without holding a weapon in hands. Also, we should keep on doing this until bullets stop flying toward us.

The soldiers there are not making things safe for us or the people of Iraq. Saddam was contained and the containment was increasing as well as the desire to improve the welfare of Iraq and help them learn how to govern themselves in a mutually positive way for all concerned before neoconservatives decided to take advantage of the situation.

hungvu, you are a victim of pernicious propaganda. This war is to fill the coffers of a power elite. It is an offense against the US and Iraq and all humanity. Your approach here is to attack the character of all who would disagree with you. That will not help you to see the facts.

Terrorism is a state of mind. The only way to "kill" a state of mind is to get off of this "good guys verses bad guys" fantasy and address removing the conditions that create terrorism. As long as you feel that some people are inately evil and you must kill them, you feed the conflagration.

If enemy is defined as those who have intentions to kill or to help people who wish to kill us, then Iraq under Saddam was clearly enemy of the United States.

From my view, the people who support this Iraq war are those with enough courage to go and fight the enemy and those against are simply people who are not only lack of courage but also do not even have a common courtesy to stand behind the courageous ones who already stepped up to the front.

Note that the Iraq War supporters are not War Lovers, they are also against war but when the going gets tough, the tough gets going while the soft keeps whinning, talking and coming up with excuses for not going.

If you are one of the people who call this war stupid, It is OK for you to do so because there are soldiers already risking their lives to ensure your safety so that you can tell them that they are fighting and dying for a stupid war.

Interesting this Kungfoo..... :rolleyes:

You from the Heritage Foundation or AIPAC, Bubba?

Young soldiers are dying in Iraq for "only" two reasons:

1. Oil for the gluttonous US' SUV's and its other oil driven industries.
2. G. W. Bush's lies and his wanting to prove he is truly a "reel" macho man.

Saddam was no more a threat to the US than a stone throwing Palestinian boy hurling stones at a steel clad Israeli Merkava tank from 1,000 meters.

The US will lose thousands of young soldiers in Iraq to prove Bush and his cabal of pro-Israel NeoCon(men) are lying rats.

As of last week Bush was up to his Kiester in Iraqi crocodiles and then he and Sharon had a meeting regarding the continued theft of Palestinian turf and now he has managed to pick up another million or two Muslim enemies for America.

Hey, "KEYBOARD WARRIOR " maybe you should sign up for a couple of tours in Iraq, huh? :D

Whirlwind.......

PS: No one has ever accused draft dodging George "CHICKEN HAWK" Bush of having any "huevos" so cut out the pro-Bush, pro-war Caca, OK? :D

That recent agreement between Bush and Sharon sure was like twisting the knife in the creation of terrorism. Wow. Incredible how people are so duped into believing in the altruism of Bush. A suggestion, consider Bush as a total sociopath, intent on spreading mayhem and destruction in the name of his delusions. Get informed elsewhere than his mouth or the mainstream media which has become his proxy.

No WMDs have been found after 1 year...plus I don't know about you but if I were being attacked and had WMDs I would have used them, so it's pretty safe to say there are no WMDs in Iraq...your point about him making them in the future is not only conjecture, it's also bullshit since you already stated that he had them in the past and assume that if he had them he would sell them to terrorists...once again absolutely no evidence, all we know is that terrorists have never used WMDs. I don't know why there are no WMDs in Iraq, I prefer to stick with the facts: There is no evidence of WMDs in Iraq, Bush lied to the world when he said they had solid evidence that there were WMDs and used it as a reason to invade a country...that's illegal...he should be tried for war crimes.

Whirlwind,

You are absolutely right that OIL is one of the reasons that our soldiers are dying for because 95% of Iraq Gross National Product is OIL and our soldiers are being shot at to guard and make sure that their OIL will fairly be distributed among Iraqis without even an attempt to take away one single drop.

For your information, I was a U.S. Marine during the first Iraq war. I am no longer a marine but if I am ever needed again, you can count on me.

By calling me "Kungfoo," did you consider me your enemy because that is the impression that I have? Be reminded that our eminent enemy is terrorism and not someone with a name that sounds asian or with a view that is different from yours.

No WMDs have been found after 1 year...plus I don't know about you but if I were being attacked and had WMDs I would have used them, so it's pretty safe to say there are no WMDs in Iraq

This is invalid. Saddam had them in the first war and he didnt use them.

The US will lose thousands of young soldiers in Iraq to prove Bush and his cabal of pro-Israel NeoCon(men) are lying rats.

Bullshit. More doom and gloom. Im sure you said the exact same thing during the first war.

See that Whirlwind? Call somebody a name and they will pick on that and ignore most other criticism. As far as the oil goes, hungv is just remouthing the inanities of the terrorist in the white house, perhaps, the terrorist with more innocent victims to his tally over the last couple of years than any other on the planet right now. hungv is obviously unaware of the laundering of tax dollars that is going on over there right now and the profiting by oil, electricity, construction and other service companies, given contracts to be paid by the US government even without bidding.

Whirlwind, I like your perspective and agree much but if you don't see that the insanity of others is not due to any fault of their own and aim inane twisitng of handles or insults towards them, the important content of your messages will not get through. Not that I'm really hopeful that my respect for hungv and total disagreement with his basic attitude and beliefs will amount to anything.

crazy151drinker, over ten thousand people, mostly civilians, have died as the result of this "war" so far over in Iraq not to mention anything about the hundreds of thousands claimed to have died through the result of the sanctions of more than a decade. It's been doom and gloom for them, or should we say, "shock and awe" for quite some time. Now, we will fight them into peace?

crazy151drinker, why do I find your handle so apt at times?

Chips, he was talking about US soilders.

The Sanctions were Saddams own fault not ours. Im sure you'll disagree :)

151 is good for the mind

Oh, well then, lets forget the innocents why don't we. Isn't it nice to have clearly defined bad guys and good guys. Makes it all so much easier to disregard the collateral damage, which I'm sure, will be more of the lasting legacy than any pet peeves.

BTW, if you want to see the "rest of the story" you might tune into Radio Pacifica if you can and especially the "Democracy Now" show, some NPR and PBS (Bill Moyers and some Frontline as well as Nova) though they have lost a lot of their nerve along with mainstream news sources. There are a lot of places on the web that can help inform one rather than just mimic the deluded. I peruse http://www.antiwar.com and http://www.buzzflash.com most every day. One needs to exercise being eclectic if you want to get a more precise view of things. If the lies are good enough for you then, my regrets at your misfortune. It is my misfortune too as we share this small planet.

From my view, the people who support this Iraq war are those with enough courage to go and fight the enemy So the 73% of Americans who supported a war on false pretenses are courageous?
those against are simply people who are not only lack of courage but also do not even have a common courtesy to stand behind the courageous ones who already stepped up to the front. How, do you think, that argument would have gone over in about 1986, when Iraq was a paid ally of the United States of America? Or in 1982 when the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the terrorist-sponsor list in order to fund it as yet another round of punishment for Iran's refusal to continue to live under an American-backed, illegitimate, tyrannical shah?

Or, to sum up the war dogs' argument: Gosh! Saddam needs to be punished for doing the things we paid him to do! But we bear no responsibility for actions we bankrolled.

It does make a nice bit of propaganda, Hungvu, but I'm not sure it's fair, or, to be accurate, factually supportable.
Note that the Iraq War supporters are not War Lovers It's true. Some of them are unfortunately deceived.
they are also against war but when the going gets tough, the tough gets going When the going gets tough, it's not the tough, but the stupid, who rush to warfare.
while the soft keeps whinning, talking and coming up with excuses for not going Recent events vindicate "the soft."

It's the hard-ons, I mean the hard-liners, who seem to have led this nation into a war on false pretenses. Now, I don't know about you, but supporting murder in order to prop up lies is not something most people undertake casually.
If you are one of the people who call this war stupid, It is OK for you to do so because there are soldiers already risking their lives to ensure your safety so that you can tell them that they are fighting and dying for a stupid war. Um ... they're criminals this time out, Hungvu. And you can thank their Commander for that.

Our contract-killers are supposed to make the world safer for us, not more dangerous. And they're not supposed to go out to enforce falsehood.

Welcome to the machine, Hungvu. And welcome to Sciforums.

You can invent any war you want, and convince yourself of the necessity. Some of us look to the values so many "noble" wars aspire to and say, "Well, why the hell can't you pursue those noble values?"

It would be nice if the "nobility" of our mission was more than a stroke around the Bush.

"Welcome to the machine"

Yup. Nice post tiassa.

over ten thousand people, mostly civilians, have died as the result of this "war" so far over in Iraq not to mention anything about the hundreds of thousands claimed to have died through the result of the sanctions of more than a decade.

Ah the warm blanket of a double standard.

How many civilians would have died in the same country had we not acted? None?

Sanctions? Yeah a lot of people died because Sadaam took the food money to the gold palace store.

Were those US sanctions? I thought they were UN sanctions.

Well howdy Wes! How's it hanging? Did you just try to post something? Maybe if you could expand a bit to see if you can address something someone said rather than what you would put in my mouth we could have some intelligent discourse.

and opinions are like... um.... "IceHoles" so, nobody is right? one thing is obvious, it Ain't for the oil! at a buck seventy two a Gallon for gas nowdays..gezz..

So the 73% of Americans who supported a war on false pretenses are courageous?

So you presume everyone who was for the war accepted in on false pretenses eh? How utterly arrogant.


How, do you think, that argument would have gone over in about 1986, when Iraq was a paid ally of the United States of America?
Differently, because they were a paid ally of the United States.


Or in 1982 when the Reagan administration removed Iraq from the terrorist-sponsor list in order to fund it as yet another round of punishment for Iran's refusal to continue to live under an American-backed, illegitimate, tyrannical shah?
So, politics make for strange bedfellows. Shocking. Too advanced for you? Right.


Or, to sum up the war dogs' argument: Gosh! Saddam needs to be punished for doing the things we paid him to do!
No, Sadaam needs to be punished for not performing his fucking contracted duty. We made him, he went his own way and it was long since time to reel in that loose fucking cannon, especially considering that... though he may not have liked Al-Queda, he had SO entertainment to gain from allowing them to play in his yard, in order that they recruit and train. I'd guess he'd probably even fund them such that they take us down. He had to have hated us for having fucked with him, so he was too much of a risk to leave in position considering the US's political perspective post 9-11.


But we bear no responsibility for actions we bankrolled.
So you don't think it's possible that this is one of the reasons we reeled him in? We can't change the past, but we can effect forthcoming effents to some extent.


It does make a nice bit of propaganda, Hungvu, but I'm not sure it's fair, or, to be accurate, factually supportable.

So you fight propaganda with rhetoric! Well done. I see how many facts you've affirmed here. I know of at least one that you've put on display for all to see.


It's true.
As if you have the sense to recognize "truth"? Bad joke.


Some of them are unfortunately deceived.
LOL. Always looking down from your imaginary throne eh? Perhaps we're ALL decieved to some degree. No... that's silly eh? It's everyone but you, who can't even manage his life, who has been deceived.

Thanks for looking out for all of us, douche.


When the going gets tough, it's not the tough, but the stupid, who rush to warfare.
Cold up in the NW this time of year? Is your blanket statement to keep you warm? I don't think you know the first thing about tough.


It's the hard-ons, I mean the hard-liners, who seem to have led this nation into a war on false pretenses.
Would that make you a limp-dick? Yes I do think so.

Do you think the masses are down with the nuances of international politics? Do you think that "weapons of mass destruction" might just be a psychologically advantageous term for "big threat"? If I hire you to fix my computer and I'm computer illiterate, should you tell me all about the variety of memory registers on the motherboard, their hex addresses, bits, etc.? Perhaps I should just tell you "your computer was broke, you hired me to fix it, so I did". Now, in a perfect world, the "spin" and political jockeyign would be significantly toned down, but as it has recently reached epidemic proportions due the whole 'information age' thing, the system now has to struggle to find a way to balance itself out. In essence, this conversation is a minute part of that effort, though it could possible serve toward pushing the system farther out of equilibrium.

The beauty of a representative republic is vast IMO, but the main cause of it's merit IMO is that it accounts for specialization. It would be horribly innefficient for everyone to be completely informed, all the time regarding political crap.


Now, I don't know about you, but supporting murder in order to prop up lies is not something most people undertake casually.
What about murder to stop murder? What about accidental deaths to stop murder? What about murder to save yoru child? What about murder to save the probability of a nuke going off in NYC if you know the likelihood is 90%? What if it's 60%. Okay what about 20%. You know there is a 1 in 5 chance that a bomb will kill 6 million in NYC, which can be averted if you drop a bomb on an apartment building in toronto, though it's right next to a school who has all the students on the playground at 10 random times during the day for 10 minutes at a time. Do you drop the bomb or take the chance that could result in 6 million dead?

That you would think the President of the United States of America would casually undertake the likely destruction of any person, is a despicable accusation on your part. There are no easy choices at that level. It's easy for you to spew your hypocritical, thoughtless rhetoric on a message board though eh? I can do the same thing. How important of us. How fair.


Um ... they're criminals this time out, Hungvu. And you can thank their Commander for that.
Technically POTHEAD, you are a criminal too... no? Oh that's right, it's about murder eh? Yeah the president is murdering people. It's his fucking job. He has to figure out the route that the least americans and secondly the least people are murdered over his term.


Our contract-killers are supposed to make the world [i]safer for us, not more dangerous.
What a comprehensive view you've supported. How exactly is the world more dangerous now? I'd say it's "as dangerous as it is", especially consideirng that it is quite obvious that we had previously underestimated exactly how dangerous it already is... eh? No?


And they're not supposed to go out to enforce falsehood.
:rolleyes:

As if YOU are the authority of truth? LOL. Do you have all the facts? How DO you manage? It it your horrible attitude, lack of character, obnoxious personality or horrific emotional retardation that deludes you into your superior attitude?


You can invent any war you want, and convince yourself of the necessity.
And you can delude yourself in a world of denial, misery and rhetoric. You're a brilliant example of it. Pathetic wretch.


Some of us look to the values so many "noble" wars aspire to and say, "Well, why the hell can't you pursue those noble values?"

I would not trust that your idea of "nobility" wouldn't make the average person puke on you.


It would be nice if the "nobility" of our mission was more than a stroke around the Bush.

Since you don't seem capable of comprehending the issues at hand, your opinion on the matter comes across as rather vacuous. Of course it appeals to the naive.

Wes,

Stop running around squalling like an imbecile. Your response addresses me in the context of your long-standing attitude problem. Try it once addressing me in the context of the topic.

Otherwise, keep your holy mission to yourself and stop mucking up discussions.

:rolleyes:

Stop running around squalling like an imbecile.

Gee, when I offer the same advice... you ignore it. OH SHIT! You're the BOSS! I FORGOT. I'm SO sorry Mr. Cunt. I'm so insensitive sometimes. I'm just too dumb and irrelevant! :rolleyes:

LOL.

Why should I give a shit what you want me to do? I can tell you that what you want me to do might be negatively correlated to my actions... but for the most part I sincerely do not care what you want me to do.


Your response addresses me in the context of your long-standing attitude problem.

LOL. Something kettle-related? Pot and blackness. I dunno.


Try it once addressing me in the context of the topic.

Your failure to see the facets of the post that did address your vacuous nonsense only fuels my argument.


Otherwise, keep your holy mission to yourself and stop mucking up discussions.

You are not privy to my motivations, no matter how real your perception of them seems to you.

in tiassa's world everybody is perfect, except the USA

the tyrants and murderers get a free pass, while the USA are evil and sinister, no matter what

with so much goodness and rhiteousness in you, tiassa, i'm surprised you're not elected President

Originally Posted by Mr. Chips
over ten thousand people, mostly civilians, have died as the result of this "war" so far over in Iraq not to mention anything about the hundreds of thousands claimed to have died through the result of the sanctions of more than a decade.


Well howdy Wes! How's it hanging? Did you just try to post something? Maybe if you could expand a bit to see if you can address something someone said rather than what you would put in my mouth we could have some intelligent discourse.

Doing pretty good thanks. Need to get more excercise I suppose. Meh.

Anyway, I thought my criticism was obvious enough that if you thought about it for a minute, you'd see it.

Now that I've re-read it, I think I see what you mean. For some reason I put what you were saying in the context that you were saying "the US SUCKS!", in which case I think there's an obvious double standard in the words I quoted. On the re-read though, I see what you mean. You didn't necessarily create that context. Re-reading the broader context of your posts I can see where I think I got the idea, but I don't think that's a valid conclusion, so I apologize for having jumped to it.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Oh, well, I do believe that the US sucks but that is besides the point. Heck, I'm of the opinion that all nations suck, big time. In your comments to tiassa you did much the same thing with some added colorful insult but I always expect those weird twists of meanings and the crass low stooping in an online forum.

An apology is a start though I would much rather you look to improve yourself and see if you can get out of being in such a sorry state. Ultimately we're all in this togethor whether anomie leads to blind allegiance to these failing institutions or not. Misperception is more an enemy than any human anywhere.

Oh, well, I do believe that the US sucks but that is besides the point.

Indeed.

[QUOTE]Heck, I'm of the opinion that all nations suck, big time.
I might not argue with that, but then again, that's not really "to the point" either.


In your comments to tiassa you did much the same thing with some added colorful insult.
If you're gonna make that claim, please at least given an example.


but I always expect those weird twists of meanings and the crass low stooping in an online forum.
"crass low stooping"? I'll buy crass.


An apology is a start
I was incorrect, so it was in order.


though I would much rather you look to improve yourself and see if you can get out of being in such a sorry state.
LOL. Okay, how is my state so "sorry"?


Ultimately we're all in this togethor whether anomie leads to blind allegiance to these failing institutions or not.
Agreed, sort of. We're definately all here, but not necessarily together. That depends on the circumstances. Circumstances as of now lead individuals to formulate their opinions based on their ability and propensity to do so, and the influences on them. Given the variety of the human experience, different conclusions are rational given their starting points and input. That inherently leads to some amount of conflict. Hence we are not at all necessarily 'in this together'. Many of us are "in this" apart and opposed to one another. Such is the deal.

I don't have any blind alliegance. I choose my allegiances.


Misperception is more an enemy than any human anywhere.

How is that relevant?

I think this is an obvious insinuation that my perception is flawed. Is that correct?

Let's see, you give Saddam two years notice that you are coming in and he's surrounded by countries sympathetic to him (at least so far in their mutual hate of us).

You don't suppose any WMD's were moved to Syria or Iran?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.................

They wouldn't do that!!!!!!!!!! Would they????????????

Really, Wes, the answer is quite simple.

The USA could sort out Iraq real quick. Just flatten the lot of them....

Like it says here..... in some of the responses to this

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1118837/posts

These guys really know what they are talking about.

Perhaps you'd like to join in with them.

After all, they are the only ones who can possible save the world, right.

sarcasm off.

Hesomagari -

Thank you for that link. Compelling story, hilarious quotes. Quote of the week:
SEMPER FIDELIS. And may God protect these heros..ALL OF THEM ARE HEROS..with His divine mercy and protection.

May the leftist spawn of satan that undermine our President and our troops rot in hell. (link° (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1118837/posts))° (for formality's sake, a link)

I just found that ironic because an associate was telling me, just the other day, how American violence has nothing to do with religion.

Do Iraq War Supporters Really Love War?
No. They just lack imagination.
Dee Cee

Really, Wes, the answer is quite simple.

The USA could sort out Iraq real quick. Just flatten the lot of them....

Why would we do that? This is about government. There is no direct problem with the Iraqi people excepting those who try to kill us.


Like it says here..... in some of the responses to this

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1118837/posts

These guys really know what they are talking about.

Those guys are soldiers, trying to keep the peace. They are not required to 'know what they're talking about'. Their job is "keeping the peace" and secondarily "acting as bait" I guess. It's ultimately better (from the perspective of the US government) that they shoot guys with RPGs in Iraq than in Chicago.


Perhaps you'd like to join in with them.

Why?


After all, they are the only ones who can possible save the world, right.
Did someone mention something about people putting words in other's mouths? Yeah.

Ulitmately, the problem is competing views of what exactly comprises "saving the world", don't you think?

originally posted by wesmorris

There is no direct problem with the Iraqi people excepting those who try to kill us.

O come now wes... if the boot was on the other foot, and the USA was invaded some time in the future, by, say, China, (sorry, saved from a fate worse then Bush) do you think all the american citizens would stand by and allow it to happen, thinking that China could give them a better form of government than their own?

What did you expect the Iraqi people to do?

Lie down and say "yes please"?

Or did you believe the Bush line that the ordinary Iraqi citizen would welcome being "invaded", for their own good?

All Bush has done is created a situation where, yes, he captured Saddam who they all hated, but now, they hate Americans even more than they hated Saddam.



Perhaps you would like to join in with themWhy?I think that everyone who thinks that the USA is doing the right thing, should go along and help them out.

I mean, they are so short of "volunteer" soldiers, that some of them have had their year long stint extended by three months. I'd just like to see if those people who think that everything that's happening in Iraq is so "right" and "proper".... whether if you joined them to continue the "good work", your views might change.

But then, I know that, as even a volunteer addition to the armed forced in USA it is a crime to either criticise Bush, or to disagree with orders, so even if you changed your mind, and didn't like it, you'd be forced to keep your mouth shut, or go to jail. What a wonderful concept of democracy that is...



After all, they are the only ones who can possibly save the world, right?Did someone mention something about people putting words in other's mouths? Yeah. Ultimately the problem is competing views of what exactly comprises "saving the world" don't you think?

No, I don't. Bush's version of a safe world, is to eliminate terrorists in Afghanistan, and wherever else they are, and despots by such means as enforcing "democracy" on Iraq.

Then, according to him, the world will be safe.

Who will he take on next? Kim Il Jong? After all, he has killed far more of his own people than Saddam ever had. And has North Korea in far more of a desperate position than Saddam ever did. And further, actually HAS WMD.

In fact, if you compare the two, surely KIJ would have been a better choice in the interests of a countrys people. But no. Some imagined connection between OBL and Saddam was the magic dust that decided who to go after.

All for 2,795 dead in NY city. And in reply, the USA has killed how many in Afghanistan and Iraq? And how many more will die, just so that Bush thinks "justice" has been done? Already the "equation" makes the motives of the USA look pretty sick.

Not to mention all the DU being left behind.... Oh, but I forgot. DU isn't an issue to pro-war people is it. It's perfectly safe

My version of saving the world, is to get rid of the factors that started the terrorism in the first place.

One of the things that would involved would be to remove the attitude of the american administration, that its okay for them to continually interfere in the politics/business sector of any country that they feel should do it their way.

And they do that all the time. Everywhere. Here, Australia, China, wherever they think that trading doesn't go in their favour.

The key, is to remove the US attitude that the whole world should revolve solely around the military, political, business and pharmaceutical future "needs" of the USA.

To those of us from afar, who have "suffered" at the hands of these attitudes, its simply a blinding revelation of the obvious. But for those in the world who consider that "the most powerful nation in the world" can do no wrong, I guess they will never see it....

You give up a lot of your rights when you volunteer to serve in the U.S. military. Some people cannot handle the sacrifice. Those who can feel that in surrendering their freedom they are insuring the safety of their country and protecting their future rights. I apologize to those who feel that they have suffered from the American forces. We thought that most people did not enjoy being ruled by someone who was so ruthless that they would use WMDs on their own populations. I personally do not care if we were looking for WMDs or ice cubes in the desert. America had to send a message that if you attack us on our home soil you will pay a price. Terrorist are spread throughout the world and feel that they are untouchable. America said that the way to stop terrorist attacks is to attack unfriendly governments that support terrorism. Saudi Arabia may have more terrorist in their country but at least their government is reasonable. When America participated in a regime change in two countries that supported terrorism it convinced several other countries that they might want to rethink their terror partners.

O come now wes... if the boot was on the other foot, and the USA was invaded some time in the future, by, say, China, (sorry, saved from a fate worse then Bush) do you think all the american citizens would stand by and allow it to happen, thinking that China could give them a better form of government than their own?

I don't think that's a comparable scenario.

If I am utterly militarily defeated, I see no point in killing soldiers excepting attempts to sway the bleeding hearts. That can be effective as you demonstrate. The US is giving them their country. There was a dictator in power that took "100% of the vote". It's basically our fault that he was there. I think it's the least we could do to take him down for them.


What did you expect the Iraqi people to do?

Lie down and say "yes please"?
"Lie down"? LOL. They "layed down" a long damned time ago and found themself under the boot of a dictator that we set up for them. I don't blame some of them for taking pot-shots at us, but I don't think the idea of them "laying down" is even pertinent. If a determined leader is in place on the part of the US, there is no chance for them to win militarily. It's stupid to try, but again, I understand that people's emotions get them and other people killed, all the time. That's just kind of part of the deal. I think it's prudent to try to minimize that kind of thing, such that people have some sort of faith in the stability of society, but it can be very reasonable to take your medicine now in order to avoid major surgery later. There's never a gaurentee it will work and this way, I'd guess that less people have died that would have in the same amount of time if we'd done nothing, so I think it's a good first step. Hopefully something good can come from all this sacrifice now.


Or did you believe the Bush line that the ordinary Iraqi citizen would welcome being "invaded", for their own good?
If Sadaam were in charge of the United States, I'd welcome an invasion. The US is not attacking Iraqi civilians unless those civilians attack them. In the same case I wouldn't be too worried about the occupying force harming me, especially if I knew they were in the process of trying to build a better government for me, one that didn't include a masochistic leader.


All Bush has done is created a situation where, yes, he captured Saddam who they all hated, but now, they hate Americans even more than they hated Saddam.
I don't think you can support that statement. Certainly pockets of people hate the US, and they have changed somewhat since the war began, but most of the Iraqis think it's better that we invaded than not. It's interesting to me that I'm not sure that their opinion as of today is necessarily pertinent to the big picture. The question is, will the world be better off in the future for this? I still think yes, though I do not insist that is correct. It could go either way. I would say however, that failure to act would end in the same action as a failure of the current plan, though perhaps sooner. That is actually better IMO, as a confrontation of that sort I believe is better now, than when tech. increases the military power of the average combatant (or terrorist, depending on your perspective) 10 or 30 years from now.


I think that everyone who thinks that the USA is doing the right thing, should go along and help them out.
I've done my time, thanks. Oh, and I think that's ridiculous. I think Bush should be our president again, that doesn't mean I'm going to the white house with him.


I mean, they are so short of "volunteer" soldiers, that some of them have had their year long stint extended by three months.
Been there. Being a soldier can suck. I'm familiar with it. Fact is that when you sign up, you sign up for whatever. While a tour extension does such from the perspective of the individual soldier, they can handle it. It's their job.


I'd just like to see if those people who think that everything that's happening in Iraq is so "right" and "proper".... whether if you joined them to continue the "good work", your views might change.
What is happening in Iraq right now is a clash of a lot of ideals. It's not "right" or "proper" but the best of a bad situation as far as I can see. My guess is if I were there, it would only bolster my opinion that this is a noble effort. I'm no longer in the military though, and have no plans to rejoin.


But then, I know that, as even a volunteer addition to the armed forced in USA it is a crime to either criticise Bush
That's no crime. If you don't want to be criticized in doing so however, it'd help if you tried to construct a fair, thoughtful argument. Pandering to ridiculous ideals only begs criticism.


or to disagree with orders
As long as orders are lawful, and you agreed to follow them, you would have to be a piece of shit not to follow them. That's what soldiers do. No one in the US military has been forced to be a soldier as you noted.


, so even if you changed your mind, and didn't like it, you'd be forced to keep your mouth shut, or go to jail.
Assuming that you're talking about soldiers, they shouldn't criticize bush while they're on duty. They can hold whatever opinion they like so long as that opinion doesn't comprimise their function as a soldier. If they don't like that, they are welcome to stop beign soldiers. It's quite easy to get yourself discharged from the military without getting put in prison.


No, I don't. Bush's version of a safe world, is to eliminate terrorists in Afghanistan, and wherever else they are, and despots by such means as enforcing "democracy" on Iraq.
I think that's an intentionally distorted and simplistic perspective on the scenario. I think you create it to support your presumptions, as you don't seem do be considering anything, but condemning all aspects of it like a typical partisan.

Ack. I simply don't have the energy to go through the rest of it at the moment. I might try to get back to it later.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2004/trall040417.gif

originally posted by wesmorris
The US is not attacking Iraqi civilians unless those civilians attack them.

Oh really? Is that gotten from the gospel of Fox news et al?

What about some eyewitness accounts?

Oh, dang. That's right. anything that isn't written by approved sources is lies and propaganda. But I'll put it them here just in case someone more open minded is interested.

http://indybay.org/news/2004/04/1677595.php

The American account

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wildfirejo/message/81

The British account of the same event. This one is far more detailed than the American one.

And this. /even your own admit that they kill hundreds of innocents, not becuase they fired on them, but because they can't tell the diffeence. But that acceptable collateral I'm sure...:


http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/5402104

What they told me, in a series of extraordinary interviews, will make uncomfortable reading for US and British politicians and senior military staff desperate to prevent the liberation of Iraq turning into a quagmire of Vietnam proportions, where the behaviour of troops feeds the hatred of an occupied people.

Sergeant First Class John Meadows revealed the mindset that has led to hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians being killed alongside fighters deliberately dressed in civilian clothes. "You can't distinguish between who's trying to kill you and who's not," he said. "Like, the only way to get through s*** like that was to concentrate on getting through it by killing as many people as you can, people you know are trying to kill you. Killing them first and getting home."

These GIs, from Bravo Company of the 3/15th US Infantry Division, are caught in an impossible situation. More than 40 of their number have been killed by hostile forces since 1 May - when President Bush declared major military operations were over - and the number of hit-and-run attacks is on the increase. They face a resentful civilian population and, hiding among it, a number of guerrilla fighters still loyal to the old regime. A lone Iraqi sniper nicknamed The Hunter is believed to have claimed his sixth American victim this week in a suburb of Baghdad.

You said



I wouldn't be too worried about the occupying force harming me, especially if I knew they were in the process of trying to build a better government for me, one that didn't include a masochistic leader.

That's funny. Considering the Iraqi's don't believe that USA will build a better government, and what is more Chalabi is looked at by them in a worse way than the afghans look at Karzai. Chalabi has a far more sinister and dubious past than Karzai has.

All Bush has done is created a situation where, yes, he captured Saddam who they all hated, but now, they hate Americans even more than they hated Saddam. I don't think you can support that statement. You can't disprove it either. I at least have friend sfront line in NGO and doctors without frontiers. Who all say the same thing. Do you?

Oh, I forgot. That's more anecdotal lies and propaganda. Because I'm not american, it must be.....

Maybe this might be more to your liking
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14492-2003Jun19?language=printer

"The way it seemed is, once Iraqis got over being grateful for getting rid of Saddam, they found out quickly they don't want the Americans, either," said Sgt. Nestor Torres, a military policeman with the 3rd Infantry Division in the restive town of Fallujah, 35 miles west of Baghdad.

Even your own see it for what it is.


The question is, will the world be better off in the future for this? I still think yes, though I do not insist that is correct.

I'm glad you don't insist your view is correct, because I don't think it will be, and my view is as valid as yours.

I think that USA will find itself on the wrong end of some really nasty times ahead, because the US government is full of itself, and has behaved this way for too long, and can't see it for looking. But again, like you I do not insist that is correct...



I think that everyone who thinks that the USA is doing the right thing, should go along and help them out.I've done my time, thanks. Oh, and I think that's ridiculous. I think Bush should be our president again, that doesn't mean I'm going to the white house with him.

A president in a white house, does not equate to a situation where a single president sends thousands of people to play out his international political aspirations. There is no resemblance to the two situations, though you seem to feel that both are "just" a job.



My guess is if I were there, it would only bolster my opinion that this is a noble effort.But as you say, its only a guess. You never know.... You might open your eyes and see what others are seeing. What then? Would you come down of your preconceived pedestal and admit that you only saw the doorhandle and not the whole house?



it's a crime to criticise BushThat's no crime. (and) Assuming that you're talking about soldiers, they shouldn't criticize bush while they're on duty. Go recheck your manual, wes... You speak out both within the unit our in public, you are done for.



Bush's version of a safe world, is to eliminate terrorists in Afghanistan, and wherever else they are, and despots by such means as enforcing "democracy" on Iraq. I think that's an intentionally distorted and simplistic perspective on the scenario. I think you create it to support your presumptions, as you don't seem do be considering anything, but condemning all aspects of it like a typical partisan. Oh really? "you're either for us, or against us" and "we have the right to go anywhere, do anything to make our country safe" and a few other thousands of such comments by your president...

It's how most of the rest of the world sees it wes. Get used to it.


Ack. I simply don't have the energy to go through the rest of it at the moment. I might try to get back to it later. why bother? You've shown that you're incapable of seeing any other position than your own. Anything else anyone else says is either lies, propaganda, distortion of simplistic.

I've been here a long time, and watched you, but finally got to the point where I needed to say something.

Stupid really. People like you are a total waste of time.

I've been here a long time, and watched you, but finally got to the point where I needed to say something.

Stupid really. People like you are a total waste of time.

LOL.

So like you didn't really think much before you wrote that part there eh?

I mean, if I'm a waste of time, why do you need to say something?

Why have you been "watching me"?

I'd respond further, but I'd hate to waste your precious time.

Tell me, what is it that makes you think I can't see any other perspective than my own? I guess technically, by definition, that's a wholly true statement - but you put it out there as if it is a negative thing. It's a truism for every person. Even when I'm trying to see your perspective, I'm really only seeing my interpretation of it. Did you know you're doing the same thing?

Have you shown the flexibility to claim you could "see another perspective". I haven't been watching you because you haven't posted, so I can't really see if you can or cannot relate to other perspectives. I'd say from this limited interaction the evidence weighs heavy to the implication that you are not at all capable - mostly given your tone towards me.

Care to provide evidence to the contrary?

I've been watching you, because I couldn't believe anybody could be so one-eyed... and wondered if an old new voice to your ears would give reason for you to actually look at facts.

Yes you would be wasting my time.

But I'll still read what you write.

After all, I have to keep track of the rednecks around here.

Your aren't trying to see any other perspective other than your own, otherwise you would have already read the very perspectives that the "other" side put forward, and you would readily acknowledge that there was another side to the coin.

You have stuck yours on the table and can't see anything other than the side facing you...

Interesting that amongst a whole lot of other positions, I express my feelings, so you dismiss fact, by going for the dismissal by epithet trick, which you do to everyone, rather than actually deal with the facts.

And that's why I said it was a waste of time dealing with you. I had just been reading another thread where you got really foul with someone and used language that even an australian shearer would blush at. That's when I figured I might as well not bother.

Temporarily, I forgot that you do that to everyone.

You ask me to put up evidence to the contrary?

All the readers here, have all the evidence they need to see just who is prepared to put up links and discuss issues rather than shoot messengers.

And you're not one of them.

Whirlwind,

You are absolutely right that OIL is one of the reasons that our soldiers are dying for because 95% of Iraq Gross National Product is OIL and our soldiers are being shot at to guard and make sure that their OIL will fairly be distributed among Iraqis without even an attempt to take away one single drop.

For your information, I was a U.S. Marine during the first Iraq war. I am no longer a marine but if I am ever needed again, you can count on me.

By calling me "Kungfoo," did you consider me your enemy because that is the impression that I have? Be reminded that our eminent enemy is terrorism and not someone with a name that sounds asian or with a view that is different from yours.
__________________________________________________ _______________

Calm down lil doggie... :o

But Kungfoo seemed to make more sense than your "normal" handle.

I was a fighter pilot for 18 years (F-15's/F-16's) and I tell you what. I wouldn't fight for this Whitehouse sonofab!tch* "even" if his tequila twins were being held as hostages in some Fallujah cathouse!

*Draft dodging SOB's like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith and Perle, bother me so much that even the viagra fails to raise my blood pressure when I hear them lying to the people. :eek:

You Marines, you seem to have a "Death Wish," everytime that FOX JEWS NETWORK'S pardoned felon, Col. Oliver North, is talking to some wounded Marine in some field hospital, all they will say is "I want to get back to my outfit and get shot again." :)

Whirlwind....

Pssst, don't talk to loud 'cause there's many openings for experienced soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh really? Is that gotten from the gospel of Fox news et al?

Do you think it bolsters your case about me "shooting the messenger" to shoot the messenger? Where might I ask did I mention anything about Fox News? Did I mention a particular news item at all? No.

My knowledge of the military is intimate. I was in for four years from 88 to 92. I know how it works for the most part. I know that in a situation like that in fallujah, my comments about being scared about the occupying troops were wrong. I assumed however, that that sort of thing was obvious. Take any person and start shooting at them and see if they don't get a little loose with their trigger finger. Perhaps I was not clear about that point, as I figured it implicit. So yeah, when incidents of attacks on american troops go up, the body count of innocents will go up proportionally if the attackers are doing it in a populated area. Go figure?

Are the deaths acceptable? I don't see that as a pertinent question seeing as how they are already dead. Casualties are pretty much inevitable from this type of action I'd say, you're right. No deaths are "acceptable". Inevitable? Yeah. IMO however, it seems to me that the situation has no acceptable answer, so all you can do is make the best of it. Someone's going to die, that part is for sure. That point was made very clearly on 9/11.


What about some eyewitness accounts?
Okay that'd be fine.


Oh, dang. That's right. anything that isn't written by approved sources is lies and propaganda.
Oh? Did I say that? Please support your "fair and balanced" allegations since you are so willing to "put up links" and "address the issues". Can you smell the stink of your self-righteous hypocracy?

So let's start the list of "issues" you've addressed so far?

1) You imply that I have some religious indoctrination with "foxnews".
2) You use childish sarcasm to fallaciously establish that I won't accept account from sources outside my religious affiliation with "foxnews".

It seems you're not what you claim to be.


But I'll put it them here just in case someone more open minded is interested.
How sensitive you are to perspectives other than your own.


http://indybay.org/news/2004/04/1677595.php
That was a great article. What a horrible ordeal those people were gong through. Ack. Identifying friendlies is the bane of this type of battle, and a source of horrible stories like that one. I thought the writer was awesome. I was riveted by his account. What a terrible deal, and what a horrible mess in fallujah. I feel horrible for the innocents there.


And this. /even your own admit that they kill hundreds of innocents, not becuase they fired on them, but because they can't tell the diffeence. But that acceptable collateral I'm sure...:
Well, I don't really consider it "acceptable" but I don't know how to avoid it given the current situation either. That is not a good deal. Gawd I don't know how you even separate the "enemy" from the civilians in that mess. What a bunch of ugly, nasty bloodshed. I did come up with an idea on how to fix that situation with ambulances and stuff. I'm surprised something like that isn't in play.

Regardless, I find no glee in the deaths of the people in Iraq. It's an unfortunate situation that I hope is resolved quickly. Man I can't imagine the horror those people have to face. Thinking of the poor children makes me very sad. That does nothing to change the reality of the conflict at hand.


That's funny. Considering the Iraqi's don't believe that USA will build a better government
Oh? Seems like this page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3514504.stm) calls it a little differently:


"Seventy per cent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad."
But then again, I'm only quoting random links that support my argument in order to gain a false advantage in the argument. I'm a total asshat you know. Jerk.


, and what is more Chalabi is looked at by them in a worse way than the afghans look at Karzai. Chalabi has a far more sinister and dubious past than Karzai has.
Gee where's the link? You're so willing to post them. Post them then eh? What's sinister about him? How do you know they hate him? How do you know for sure he's gonna be the man? I saw something that said there were rumors to that effect. Here's what he was quoted as saying to this regard:

"Personally, I will not run for any office, and I am not seeking any positions. My job will end with the liberation of Iraq from Saddam's rule"

From this site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/not_in_website/syndication/monitoring/media_reports/2291649.stm)


You can't disprove it either.
I'd think since you made the accusation you should support it or retract it.


I at least have friend sfront line in NGO and doctors without frontiers.
What? Okay I have no idea what "doctors without frontiers" is. That your friend on the "frontline" of the NGO (I assume this (http://www.ngo.org/index2.htm) is what you mean) is about as powerful as me telling you that I overheard Cheney telling Bush that I'm cool. Do you think you've established any credibility? You've done little but slander the US and myself. You're more than entitle to do so, but I don't see how you expect to be taken seriously when your head is so far up your ass.


Who all say the same thing. Do you?
Please explain how you or your friends are privy to the presidents motivations. Have they attempted to put themselves in his shoes do you think?


Oh, I forgot. That's more anecdotal lies and propaganda.
Well yeah.


Because I'm not american, it must be.....
What does your citizenship have to do with anything? You're a fucking JERK. That's why you promote anecdotal lies and propaganda.

I realize that from your perspective you're doing what you think is right. What's fucked up to me is twofold:

1) You scoff at my efforts toward the same end when really all you've provided so far is accusation on top of accusation, with no substance.
2) You hypocritically claim a superior argument and have been plainly illustrated as just a bunch of accusations that you don't really support at all, excepting your links.. which really support nothing. Perhaps you could provide some solid analysis of the commentary in the links? I made a few comments about the actual content, perhaps you could follow my example? I only say that because I suspect you find 'following me' a most unpleasant suggestion.


Maybe this might be more to your liking
Side note: Do you think the soldiers in your quoted link were "finished" as you mentioned? I mean, they're not allowed to speak out right? Then you quote an article full of them speaking out? Man you're a mess aren't you?

This particular issue is personal to me and I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'll leave it with: Do you know how easy it is to find disgruntled troops, or to just catch one in a down mood, questioning the whole thing? While I can relate to his plight, having been there, I am in no way convinced that he sees the big picture especially considering that he needs to get some beer and get laid. Tours in the middle east are unforgiving for an army of alchoholics.


Even your own see it for what it is.
"even your own"? Who are "my own"? I thought we were independent thinkers here? Ah, I'm just dogmatic, I only listen to fox news and pray to them and I'm dumb and I don't even post links? It seems so unlike me that I forget.


I'm glad you don't insist your view is correct, because I don't think it will be, and my view is as valid as yours.
Wow, how uhm.. insightful. So you basically said "okay so our views cancel out and we really can't predict the future". Why did you have to be such a snot saying it? Meh, as you wish, but uhm.. you know, fuck you?

You might be right, I might be right, yet you insist I'm the someone who can't see anything beyond his nose eh? Check yourself.


I think that USA will find itself on the wrong end of some really nasty times ahead
That's quite possible. Could be the whole world. Maybe not. Hard to say right?


, because the US government is full of itself
LOL. You don't think yours is? You don't think yours might not do the say thing if they had as much power and responsibility in the same scenario? Can you say for sure that having to make decisions like those regarding this scenario, some being VERY unpopular, isn't the fucking price for bearing such power and responsibility?

Actually I can. I'd say that with power comes great responsibility and that the president is doing his best with it in the face of great unpopularity. I can say that he may have made the wrong decision to go to war and maybe whole thing is for shit and we're all gonna die as a result. Then again maybe the opposite. Maybe this is actually the best possible way through this clash. It's really hard to say.


and has behaved this way for too long, and can't see it for looking.
So many supportive arguments. You're making my head spin. Could you at least explain your reasoning as to your opinion? Any of them? At least something? Can you provide evidence of a brain or are you just another parrot? You accuse, you give links.. but you don't say why you reach your conclusions? What is your thesis? How about at least a thesis for each issue? No?

Did you note how you didn't actually support jack shit yourself, but posted links as if they supported your case for you? All you have spewed is accusation. I think you forgot the part where you attempt an objective analysis of the problem.


But again, like you I do not insist that is correct...
It's hard to tell given your tone.


A president in a white house, does not equate to a situation where a single president sends thousands of people to play out his international political aspirations. There is no resemblance to the two situations
The only pertinent aspect of it is that I do not necessarily directly participate in everything that I have an opinion about - even if there are lives at stake. It was a lame example, sure, but if you were being honest here you could accept the simple point and move on. Flexing your capacity for understanding eh? Your ability to see the "opinion of others" or however you put it, has apparently vacated your brain without letting you know. Perhaps you should reconsider if you are actually capable.


, though you seem to feel that both are "just" a job.
I've been a soldier, it's a job. Once you accept the responsibility, you can bitch about it, but that doesn't relieve you of your responsibility. It's a dangerous job. That's probably why they call it "soldier".


But as you say, its only a guess. You never know....
Stupefying insight again. Impressive.


You might open your eyes and see what others are seeing.
LOL. Oh so it's me with the problem eh? Are you sure? Perhaps if you bothered to actually forumate a rational sentence, I'd consider what you have to say. Meanwhile all I see are your empty, pointless, childish, hateful accusations. If you re-read your post, can you see the lack of substance? You quote links? What a shit journalist you must be.


What then?
Well my eyes are wide open now and all I see is a whining jackass. Maybe it's just you.


Would you come down of your preconceived pedestal
Okay so can you support than I'm on a "preconceived pedestal" or are you just gonna continue blathering? Wow, impressive. You can accuse me of presonception. Can you give at least an example of where I've done it? It's funny, you convinct me with no case and conclude I'm on a "preconceived pedestal"? You don't see a problem with that? Ah, you've "been watching me eh"? LOL. Perhaps you just don't like me and have decided to proclaim it publicly. Good job then. Let me see, I disagree with you, so I'm on a preconcieved pedastal. Hmm.



and admit that you only saw the doorhandle and not the whole house?
Yeah sure, I'm quite sure I don't have the whole picture on Iraq. Is that good enough? Do you? "better than me" I suppose eh? LOL.

Tell me, could you admit your prespective is short-sighted? You're framing yourself as a tiassa.


Go recheck your manual, wes... You speak out both within the unit our in public, you are done for.
LOL. Okay so what about that article you quoted? Are all those folks "done for?" What comprises "done for"? What if they knew that and wanted to be "done for"? What if it's against the UCMJ for soldiers to publicly contradict their superiors in a time of war, for very sound reasons? What if the soldiers who said it were stupid, or misinformed intentionally by their superiors due to security considerations? Soldiers will inevitably have an opinion, just like anyone, but in war time they bear a role that does not lend itself to "speaking out". They are surely entitled to an opinion, and personally, I don't think that soldiers being tired or wanting to go home is necessarily bad for the chain of command. I don't however, think their opinions are necessarly more valid (regarding the issue of "should I be at this war") than any one elses. Regardless the UCMJ trumps my opinion.


Oh really? "you're either for us, or against us" and "we have the right to go anywhere, do anything to make our country safe" and a few other thousands of such comments by your president...
He is a bad public speaker, but regardless, I generally agree with the idea "you're either with us or against us" when it comes to this issue. What's the problem? I realize it re-enforces the conflict but to an extent I think that's the desirable effect if the theory "some death now in Iraq = less death later for everyone" has any merit, which is hard to damn say. The reason I think it's somewhat inconsequential is that well, a great number are already "against us" and plotting our destruction. So really, it is now or later or possibly both. I'm somewhat hep to the argument "none now" is better, but it loses merit to me because I think the potential for later is dependent directly on ever increasing tech, enabling those plotting said destruction much more power. This is a big deal and cannot be taken lightly by those with the responsibility to ensure social stability. One thing I'm sure of is that the people having to send soldiers to the middle east, knowing that Iraqis and soldiers will die as a result, do not do so lightly. I don't know if the strategy will work, I can only hope the sacrifices from all sides are not in vain.

It's how most of the rest of the world sees it wes. Get used to it.
Appeal to popularity?


why bother?
Well you posted to me, so I'm compelled to respond if I have the time. I have the time at the moment, I find it somewhat interesting, so.. *shrug*. I post.


You've shown that you're incapable of seeing any other position than your own.
Have I? I missed it? I also missed the part where you even remotely supported this accusation.


Anything else anyone else says is either lies, propaganda, distortion of simplistic.
Are you sure it's anyone else? Have you considered that it might be what is said moreso that who says it, though who says it can be a factor?


Stupid really.
Oh? I'm stupid? I hate to sound like a broken record but uhm... well, you kind of forgot to support that part too. I suppose you think that all of your other accusations support this accusation? Quite rational.

I've been watching you, because I couldn't believe anybody could be so one-eyed...

Perhaps it's a mirror you've been watching.


and wondered if an old new voice to your ears would give reason for you to actually look at facts.
What is "an old new voice"? You're someone masquerading as someone else? You engaged me one a long time ago or something? I have no problem looking at the facts if you'd bring some to the table. I read your links, a couple were good, but your lack of 'this because that' action sort of left me dry there. Perhaps there's more substance to you than you've provided thus far. I certainly hope so.


Yes you would be wasting my time.
Techinically, it's YOU wasting your time I guess.


But I'll still read what you write.
Thanks I guess.


After all, I have to keep track of the rednecks around here.
Ah, I'm a "redneck" am I? Does that make it easier for you... to think of me as just "some dumb hick"? So far you have been crushed. I'd rather have a good conversation and learn something, but so far I'm only learning that you're highly opinionated and prone to unsupported accusation.

Why would you keep up with the rednecks anyway? Got some kind of infatuation happening?


Your aren't trying to see any other perspective other than your own,
What is it with you dickheads thinking you know other people's motivations? I'd like to see your perspective, but you don't really offer much do you? Decent links I guess, but where's the substance? Can you provide evidence that you can think clearly? Accusations? Okay, those are easy, now can you say why you make them?


otherwise you would have already read the very perspectives that the "other" side put forward,
Where do you get the impression I haven't read them? It's just that most of them that I hear are bullshit. I think there are excellent reasons to think this war was a mistake and I don't necessarily think they're wrong, but it remains to be seen.

I don't however, think that "this is war is a lie" is even a remotely reasonable perspective. Whether or not it was/is a lie has little bearing on whether or not the world might be better from it later.

I don't think that "people are dying" is a reasonable perspective, because people die either way. Some now, some later, whatever, hard to say. Probaby true that some of the same people wouldn't have died, but who knows if there hadn't been this distraction in teh middle east, a nuke might have been delivered into NYC or Washington and exploded by now The fact is that it's goddamned tough to say if this is the right call or not, but my gut feeling about it, based on what I think I percieve of the scenario, is that this is as good of an option as any, because none of the options are good.

Did you see how I just provided some reasoning? Neat huh? Okay now you try. Oh.. shit. Unequipped eh? Sad.


and you would readily acknowledge that there was another side to the coin.
Aren't you high and mighty. I've repeatedly acknowledged another side to the coin, but that doesn't mean I endorse the type of vacuous tripe you've promoted thus far.


You have stuck yours on the table and can't see anything other than the side facing you...
*smirk* wow. You're fucked up dude.


Interesting that amongst a whole lot of other positions, I express my feelings,
Emotions trump facts. If you aren't willing to listen to me because of your distaste for what I'm saying, what I'm saying doesn't much matter, so your question "why bother" gains weight. Thought I'd check the meter before going on. I guess though it doesn't really matter so... it' doesn't really matter.


so you dismiss fact
Oh, you've provided some?

It just occured to me, maybe I wasn't clear before, I've typed too much and I don't remember. I was incorrect in saying "the US doesn't shoot civilians". I meant "the US really doesn't want to shoot civilians". I would say "the US doesn't shoot US soldiers" but in reality, they accidentally do. So maybe it's "the US doesn't intend to shoot civilians".


by going for the dismissal by epithet trick, which you do to everyone
Just a string of baseless accusations eh? Show it or shut it fucknut. You're talking out your ass.


, rather than actually deal with the facts.
LOL. What facts?


And that's why I said it was a waste of time dealing with you.
LOL, that may be true, but it seems to me the reason is that you really aren't at all interested in a conversation. You're here to shoot the messenger and you've made it quite clear. Maybe you're doing that as a premeditated reaction to your prejudice towards me.


I had just been reading another thread where you got really foul with someone and used language that even an australian shearer would blush at.
So you're the language police? Were you offended? It wasn't my intent to offend you, but it's not really my responsibility to police what you read. I suggest that if you find me offensive, you put me on your ignore list.


That's when I figured I might as well not bother.
Yet you did.


Temporarily, I forgot that you do that to everyone.
Man you're quite the character assasin, you'd do better if you could actually support your bullshit insteand of just piling on more bullshit.


You ask me to put up evidence to the contrary?
And you fail to! You're not at all obligated I suppose.


All the readers here, have all the evidence they need to see just who is prepared to put up links and discuss issues rather than shoot messengers.
Indeed.


And you're not one of them.
I'm not? Are you? Are you sure?

You really are full of yourself, aren't you...

Nerd overlord says it all.... except perhaps you should have put up "head despot" instead.

I keep up with nednecks because forewarned is forearmed. I prefer to see the reds of their eyes. It;s called knowing the real enemy.

One thing is certain, arguing with someone who is NOT an American will always be onesided... they simply DON'T know what the puck they are saying, yet they say it anyway.. it seems to be a global fallacy to attack Americans and America.. Jealous? It takes a Speacial Breed to be Free, The name Redneck sounds ok to me... better red then Dead.

I have read through so many great arguments and opinions from this thread. Can we all stop debating for a moment and look at some "facts" of what is really happening in Iraq? Visit this link http://www.kfi640.com/goodhappenings_iraq.html to see that besides all the horrible things, there are also good things that happen in Iraq but you will not find them from the news.

If I'm unreasonable, so are you.

If you're unreasonable, so am I.

Stark truth.

Breed to be Free, The name Redneck sounds ok to me... better red then Dead.
Was Tim McVey a redneck?
Or was he a terrorist?

I forget.
Dee Cee

Dee Cee, with your mentality you'd probably forget any answer given, so whats the use in answering such a childish question? If its for entertainment value alone, then ponder playing with someones Pee Pee for a while..

Was Tim McVey a redneck?
Or was he a terrorist?

I forget.
Dee Cee

Actually, there is a lady who has what I've heard is a very strong case that he was exactly a terrorist, working with Iraqi intelligence.

IOW, I heard her tell a pretty convincing sounding story about how an Iraqi intelligence guy was pulling the strings directly. Of course, I have no idea if it's actually true

WorldNet covers the McVeigh/Iraqi agent story (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25061); this particular article derives from US News, and I think the original is for sale at the magazine's website.

And O'Reilly has had his say in this one, too, according to another WorldNet (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22122) article.

Heck, why let WorldNet have all the fun? Get it from O'Reilly and guest themselves:

• FOX News. "Has the FBI ignored information?" May 14, 2001. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,24825,00.html

That's what I'm coming up with right now.

Here are a few other links.

http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/iraq_link_911.htm

http://www.jaynadavis.com/

http://www.glennbeck.com/okc/

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001612.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/629665/posts

I googled for "iraq oklahoma city".

The US will lose thousands of young soldiers in Iraq to prove Bush and his cabal of pro-Israel NeoCon(men) are lying rats.

Bullshit. More doom and gloom. Im sure you said the exact same thing during the first war.

We broke 705 dead US soldiers this week...

Wanna roll the dice again? :D

Too bad we can't send these NeoCon(men) into combat and find out "How bad" they want to liberate the Iraqi people.*

*Seems to me that last year they were liberating the Afghan women from their Burka's and now they ain't getting a penny of the promised foreign aid to rebuild their US flattened villages.

Before that they were parachuting food to the Kurds in northern Iraq (great photo-ops) and now that the Turk's are the only ones attacking and murdering them (with Saddam gone) what do they hear from their liberators from America - nada!

Whirlwind....

Your post, Whirlwind, violates the site rules. Wesmorris did not. You have just quoted another persons entire long ass post, this is not allowed.

Oh, and the flames against me, they are also not allowed.

Chips, he was talking about US soilders.

The Sanctions were Saddams own fault not ours. Im sure you'll disagree :)

151 is good for the mind

Yeah right!

Fact: WTC was the fault of America for financing Israeli terrorism.

Fiction: Sanctions were Saddams fault?

Whirlwind....

How's that (((GRAB))) you? :D

Your post, Whirlwind, violates the site rules. Wesmorris did not. You have just quoted another persons entire long ass post, this is not allowed.

Oh, and the flames against me, they are also not allowed.

Oh, I thought you said that "long ass posts" were a no-no.

Unless it was me that was posting them.

Flames?????? :eek:

Me????????? :)

Oh baby, you know daddy loves ya! :D

Yeah right!

Fact: WTC was the fault of America for financing Israeli terrorism.

Isn't one man's freedom fighter another's terrorist?


Fiction: Sanctions were Saddams fault?

Fault is irrelevant. Responsibility should be the pertinent issue no? Would you argue that Saddam wasn't responsible for the sanctions?