All you hippies would love for Iraq to turn into Vietnam.

I have no love for the occupation and no love for its leaders. The best way to support our troops would be to bring them home. And lock up the ones responsible for the recent atrocities! As much as I am inclined towards pacifism, I see that Iraq turning into another Vietnam would probably be the least bad outcome. The powers responsible for this illegal occupation must be forced to withdraw, and if that means they have to get a little bloody nose, then so be it. Then maybe they would think twice about invading third world nations....

 

iraq is too important to withdraw from

 

So Chongo Blanco, how long have you been a CIA agent infiltrator?

 

You know what, I both agree and disagree with the war over in Iraq, i thought when we first got involved it was a good idea, but now im like "fuck it leave those bastards to figure their own fucked up country out"

 

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002



"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE
ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???

 

cb

What a load of crap please read a bit more history.

How many times should a rogue nation be allowed to defy U.N. resolutions before something is done?

How many times can the world community THREATEN to use force and then back down? How long can the world stand by and watch? I admit that some of the reasons we went to war with the Hussein regime turned out to be false, but can you honestly admit that there were still not enough reasons to get rid of the Hussein regime. What incentive would there be for rogue nations to comply with U.N. resolutions if nothing is ever done? Economic sanctions? You know as well as I do that sanctions hurt the people more than the governments.

Israel has ignore its fair share of UN resolutions it even defied the UN and US over its building of it nuclear weapons (it has 200 of them and the means of delivery). The US has vetoed any measure to censor its aggression.

As to how long can the US watch well its government’s watched a lot worse and even supported or helped put in place the regimes that did them. During Saddam’s bloodiest time the US was supporting him.

Some say the U.S. needs to mind their own business. Maybe you're right. Maybe we shouldn't get involved in other countries problems.

Many countries such as Chile or Guatemala would have been happier if you had.

Maybe we should cut off the BILLIONS of dollars in economic aid that we give the foreign countries every year.

The US gives the lowest amount of aid relative to GDP than any other of the other industrialised nations. Even then most of the aid is tied in some way to signing up to what the US wants.

Maybe we should ignore the starvation and genocide that has happened and is happening in Chechnya, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, North Korea, Phillipines, South America, and so many other countries. Perhaps we should have ignored Hitler.

We did in Rwanda. Chechnya the US supports Russia’s ‘war on terrorism’. Somalia the US fucked up, Iraq (see above). As to South America oh please a hell of a lot of that regions problems are a direct result of US involvement.

Hitler had to declare war on the US it was not the other way around. Fact is most Americans did want to ignore him.

What really is pissing me off lately is the controversy of the "torture" of the iraqi prisoners. Arab leaders are demanding apologies and that the soldiers involved be reprimanded. They are demanding. Now that takes some fucking balls. I didn't hear one arab leader say anything about the four americans that we recently killed in iraq.No, it wasn't pictures taken of them naked. They were just burned alive, dismembered, drug through the streets and hung from bridges. But that is not worth mentioning I guess.

Do you mean the four, armed, mercenaries? I hate any innocent persons death but to go into a war zone armed as a mercenary being paid to do that job. To me if you sign up for that kind of thing you know the risks.

The innocent people that have been tortured have not signed up to it their country just happens to be occupied.

All you protestors can ever say is what we shouldn't do. For once I would like to hear what we should do. If what we are doing is wrong, than what should we do to fix the worlds problems???


Well you could stop being so arrogant and ignorant for a start.

 

Balbus-ter

Israel has ignore its fair share of UN resolutions it even defied the UN and US over its building of it nuclear weapons (it has 200 of them and the means of delivery). The US has vetoed any measure to censor its aggression.

First of all, Israel is not a rogue nation. Second, how can you possibly compare Israel with Iraq??

As to how long can the US watch well its government’s watched a lot worse and even supported or helped put in place the regimes that did them. During Saddam’s bloodiest time the US was supporting him.

At that time Iran was a worse threat than Iraq.

Many countries such as Chile or Guatemala would have been happier if you had.


That's a hell of an example.

The US gives the lowest amount of aid relative to GDP than any other of the other industrialised nations. Even then most of the aid is tied in some way to signing up to what the US wants.

Example: We give $2 Billion a year to Egypt and they only back our votes 15% of the time.

We did in Rwanda. Chechnya the US supports Russia’s ‘war on terrorism’. Somalia the US fucked up, Iraq (see above). As to South America oh please a hell of a lot of that regions problems are a direct result of US involvement.

You can't help people that can't help themselves. Nobody gave America the freedom we have. We earned it, we faught for it. Our goal in Somalia and Iraq and others is to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, but the opposition knows our weakness. You don't think we could have taken out Ahzid?? How about the Hussein Regime. You don't think we could/could have taken out the regime? You're damned right we could have if that was our only objective. We could have leveled Mog and we could have leveled Baghdad, but our ultimate goal is to help the people, and you can't help the people when you wipe them out along with their oppressive government.

Hitler had to declare war on the US it was not the other way around. Fact is most Americans did want to ignore him.

Did you just say most Americans wanted to ignore Hitler? How does one begin to respond to that. Americans wanted to avoid war like any sane person, but everyone knew taking him out was necessary.

Do you mean the four, armed, mercenaries? I hate any innocent persons death but to go into a war zone armed as a mercenary being paid to do that job. To me if you sign up for that kind of thing you know the risks.

Mercenaries? Do you mean four innocent American contractors that were there to HELP the iraqi people and support their families back home which happened to be armed to protect themselves from armed militias roaming the country?

The innocent people that have been tortured have not signed up to it their country just happens to be occupied.

You are exactly right. The innocent people that have been tortured have not signed up for it. The people that are there to help the Iraqi people have not signed up to be tortured.

Well you could stop being so arrogant and ignorant for a start.

Ignorance I am guilty of. Arrogance, perhaps you're right. American is the great Satan that terrorized the world. We start wars and destroy countries for economic gain.

 

Uh, how about Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Ghana, the Phillipines, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Puerto Rico, Hawaii (since the majority of Hawaiians would like to secede from the US), El Salvador, Ecuador, Honduras, Cuba, Colombia, Peru, Bahrain, Yemen...etc etc etc.

Or do these countries not "count?"

 

"how many times must we change our reasons for war, to placate the masses?"

 

Any country that has a U.S. military presence should ask the question: Why is the U.S. there. If you don't want the U.S. there, why don't you stop fucking around so we don't have to go there. It is that simple. If you don't give us a reason and we occupy anyways, then you can call us war mongers.

 

Any country that has a U.S. military presence should ask the question: Why is the U.S. there.

Because Those People are baaaad guys. And we're the goooood guys. It's so simply. Us good, Them bad. Or, to look at it differently, "we're the good guys and they're the bad guys." Or, from another view, they're the dark, we're the light. Read the transcript of a Bush speech sometime, if you think I'm exaggerating.

A large percentage of Americans haven't even noticed that we've actually switched sides in the Iraq War, and not just once. Of course, whichever side we're fighting against today is The Bad Guys, and the side we're fighting alongside is made up of the Good Guys. We're fighting The Enemy, and we've always been fighting The Enemy. Us good, them bad.

So, now that we've fought against the RG, then declared them to be Good Guys and fought WITH them, then declared them Bad Guys and went hunting for them again, and last I heard they're back to being Good Guys and are the side we're backing- then again, I've not checked the news in the last hour, so "we" might have flipflopped yet again. So... are you pro-RG or anti-RG?

Or do you not pay attention, and just Know that Us Good Them Bad?

 

I admire you for your honestly it takes courage to admit that you are an ignoramus.

But please take heart there is a cure, as long as you are not lazy and have an open mind, a bit of study should help you with you obvious lack of knowledge.

However there is one thing that might get in your way that suspected arrogance of yours, arrogant people think they are correct whatever the evidence might say, they are very often ignorant since they believe they don’t need to learn anything. You see since they already have an opinion on any subject and since to them their opinion can only be right what point is there in study.

**

You seem to be saying that UN Resolutions only have importance when you (or rather the US government) believe they to be important? Why? Are you saying that Resolutions should not be seen by their merit but only by their relevance to the interests of the US and its political elite?

You dismiss Chile and Guatemala as examples of US foreign policy. Why? Is it because you know little about them or too much?

You don’t address the fact of the US’s miserly foreign aid programme only bemoaning that in your view that what small amount the US does give doesn’t allow the US to have control over others views. Why? If you were going to give to charity are you doing it out of kindness or just so you can tell the recipients what to think?

Humans like stories and they like myths at one time before people climbed out of ignorance people believed the myths were history. Well like many myths there can often be a bit of truth hidden in them but a lot of distortion. You see the myths of a people usually show those people in a heroic and noble light it seems you like those simple folk have accepted the myth of American history, and I can see why some people, like you, would want to remain in ignorance of the often less flattering truth.

Here for example the myth is that ‘Americans’ won the war of independence when in fact without the French it is likely they would have lost. American want to believe themselves heroic so they want to believe they were all for bringing down Hitler, but the fact is many Americans admired the German Chancellor. The British paid a high price for fighting the Nazis from 1939, we had to hand over many bases over to the US to get some small help (the US still has them) and the later lend lease meant we were still paying off the debt to the US in 1999.

**

Your last argument is of perticular interest to me

You don't think we could/could have taken out the regime? You're damned right we could have if that was our only objective. We could have leveled Mog and we could have leveled Baghdad, but our ultimate goal is to help the people, and you can't help the people when you wipe them out along with their oppressive government.
Your argument seems to be that Saddam’s regime was oppressive and therefore needed to be toppled. The people he was oppressing was the Iraqi people. Are you saying that to free them from oppression an option was to kill a large percentage of them?

Let us look at it from another angle let us say the US perceived Iraq as a threat and so nuked the whole of Iraq. Do you believe that was a realistic option open to the US?

This also could be seen as a threat to any nation. If the US doesn’t like a regime it could wipe it out so it is better to just let the US in and dictate what goes on, is that your intention?

Is you argument that since the US could have wiped the Iraqis out but didn’t these people should be happy to have an occupying force in their country telling them what to do. With the implicit threat that the wiping out could still happen.?

**

 

Iraq could very easily turn soldiers into the reported baby killers of Viet Nam. It isn’t the soldiers whom decide it is the government and societies voice that causes it. When soldiers are not given the basic level playing field while not playing a home game with no one rooting for them to win they feel they are a sacrifice for nothing. No will to win and destroy the enemy and a soldier will kill anything that smells like death or injury to his comrades or himself.

Changeyourlatitude

 

"All you protestors can ever say is what we shouldn't do. For once I would like to hear what we should do. If what we are doing is wrong, than what should we do to fix the worlds problems???"

Well the world is a bit wide but since this is mainly about Iraq let us look at that.

**

I don’t believe in predestination that history is fixed that events are set.

So history is made up of cause and effect, events and choices with those choices having consequences, things happen and are reacted to, cause and effect.

To me in this misadventure there were many choices and the people in control chose and still do choose what direction could and can be taken.

The problem is all along the line from conception to action to the sorry state we find ourselves in now are due to mistaken choices, and in history that happens, but my problem is that in this series of choices nearly all of those mistakes were avoidable and for many, many people seen to be avoidable.

We didn’t have to start from here.

**

Invading Iraq the way it was done was a bad idea

It was not based on helping the Iraqi people but on the doctrinal ideas of the neo-cons.

It was done without the backing of the international community

The US government alienating international community.

The neo-con scenario for the war was based on wishful thinking rather than objective assessment.

The military understood what was needed to conduct the war but were overruled by the neo-con.

The state department and Powell’s more realistic assessment were over ruled by the neo-con on doctrinal lines not rational ones.

The war didn’t go according to the neo-con plan but they didn’t have another.

There seemed to be no post war plan or even preparations for one.

They set up a ‘government’ made up of exiles with no backing or mandate from the Iraqi people.

They disbanded the army and police force against the advise of many including Whitehall and the UK military brass.

They seemed more interested in getting the export oil following than getting the other Iraqi infrastructure on which Iraqis depended on going.

They imposed the kind of doctrinally based free market principles on Iraq that have caused destabilisation in countries around the world.

They gave contracts to US corporations and seeming friends of the Bush admin so being perceived as carpetbaggers.

The US military from the top to the common solider seemed unsuited to occupation. They had few translators and so just shouted at people or on many occasions shot people for not obeying commands shouted in English that they didn’t understand.

Soldiers did heavy handed house to house searches and mass arrests (even before the insurgency started up).

They became increasingly heavy handed ending up with such actions as Falluja etc.

They took over the hated Abu Ghaid prison and then did it up to house it’s own prisoners.

They refused any attempts at have elections, for the national government.

They made it clear the US would have the real power even after hand over.

They are building 14 ‘enduring’ military bases throughout Iraq.

**

All these can be documented and there are other mistakes.

They made a bad situation worse and now critical. But all along the line people explained what would happen and were dismissed and given the tragic outcome ‘I told you so’ doesn’t seem the most satisfactory outcome.

These were all avoidable mistakes.

**

So how do you fix something that has been abused, well first of all by removing the influence of the abuser. Those that have made so many mistakes should be removed from the equation. The US government has to relinquish any ideas it had of controlling Iraq or using it as a strategic base of operations. But it has to realise that even though it won’t get anything out of it, it is still responsible for the situation and has to pay accordingly.

The UN even though it has been badly compromised is still the best hope, it could hopefully get other countries especially Muslim ones to help.

Take the control of military forces out of the hands of the Pentagon.

It needs to throw out the free market ideas and bring in some Keynesian ones.

Rescind all the contracts made by the US authorities.

Set up Iraqi people in business with low interest rates on free loans.

Set up a welfare system.

Have elections based on the ration card system and the Pre baathest doctored Iraqi constitution.

I don’t now if it would work but what is needed is to release the Iraqi people from the doctrinal dreams of the neo-cons and into the hands more pragmatic people that truly have the best of intentions of the Iraqi people at heart.

**

This was supposed to be about making the world safer, well now the US and the west are hated by many more people in the world.

**

The statement above is typical of much of America’s problems, "If what we are doing is wrong, than what should we do". Well it could try listening to those people that gave warnings before every bad decision only to be ignored how long does it take before it starts take advise from those that keep having to say ‘I told you so’

**