We've captured most of their top military and research people and secured practically all of key H.Q's. We've had ample time to interrogate them, and still there is no sign of WMD. People like to say that UNMOVOC and UNSCOM were ineffective, the only WMD weapons found in Iraq was a stockpile of mustard gas that Iraq reported to UNMOVOC in January.

The U.S. has given up looking for WMD for a very obvious reason: they don't exist . We have their military and scientific leadership, yet we still have nothing.

The war is nothing more than excuse for America to assume the role of great power in the Middle East. Now we have an escalating guerilla war on our hands I hope Bush and the American people are happy with their decision.

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

Don't agree.

1. The Iraqi leadership was a menace to the whole region and indirectly to world order. The fact is that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war and launched Scud missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel in the first Gulf War. His intentions were clear and beyond doubt.
2. He may have transferred the WMD to Syria. He transferred his airplanes to Iran in 1991 to avoid them getting damaged.
3. He may have temporarily lost the capacity to produce WMD because of international sanctions. But he could well have bveen waiting for the moment to produce again - he had the brainpower and ability.
4. He was a ruthless dictator at home. His people deserved international assistance in getting rid of him even if the cost was a period of instability whilst trying to rebuild after decades of tyranny.

Louis

I think we ought to go into Syria and get the craphead. If some Syrians get in the way, tough, we just bump them off too. No warning, just do it full force. They don't have any oil though do they? Darn

In case it helps, they do!


Natural resources:

petroleum, phosphates, chrome and manganese ores, asphalt, iron ore, rock salt, marble, gypsum, hydropower


Exports - commodities:

crude oil 68%, textiles 7%, fruits and vegetables 6%, raw cotton 4% (1998 est.)

Source is CIA

Mitch

may have... could have...

... yes... that's reason enough to bomb anyone...


he said sarcastically..........................

Saddam says he doesn't have them and the UN believes Him. Clinton says he has them and you say nothing. The rest of the world knows he has them and yet you do not. Bush says they do, and he's a liar. Since when did Saddam become respectable? Ask the Kurds. Ask The Iranians. Did they die of fright? If Saddam destroyed them, why not say so and enjoy the Billions from the oil? Why should we believe the ramblings of a disgruntled Bush hater like you and the rest of your cronies?

Well said Sonny, I second that.Must be a troll surfing the net looking for trouble

LilJoe

Have you noticed that WMD have not been planted there by the USA? No phony stagings or set-ups? They are being straight forward about this. I personally believe Sadam (not the country of Iraq) was very interested in nuclear weapons...boy would that ever give him horrific strength! It makes me shudder.

There is a forest in an acorn.

North Korea should also make you shudder. Their leader would make Saddam Hussein seem like Mother Teresa. (sorry Mother).

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

China needs to pull the plug on the electricity they supply them and get off their ass. If not, it's another fine mess Jimmy Carter negotiated for us.

NK does! I guess eventually it's going to happen. Some madman will get one. What if someone does, is there any effective defense? I guess the missile defense (star wars?) system is for that.

It could be one of those suitcase bombs (nuclear) or a missile. I suppose whoever used it would be annilated in revenge. But would the US or allies target a whole nation in defense?

Any thoughts? Hope it never comes to this:

There is a forest in an acorn.

Ireckon the response to a suitcase nuke with similar fatalities to 9/11 would get the sort of response to Al Qaueda whereas if the number of dead was significantly larger the anger felt would allow for all-out war on the perpetrating nation.

Louis

He said "geurilla war" Brenda, not "Gorilla War"

Well, I spelled "annihilated" wrong...oops.

There is a forest in an acorn.

"North Korea should also make you shudder..."

I agree...

... but, sorry, no oil..............

>Saddam says he doesn't have them and the UN believes Him.
>Clinton says he has them and you say nothing. The rest of the
>world knows he has them and yet you do not. Bush says they do,
>and he's a liar. Since when did Saddam become respectable? Ask
>the Kurds. Ask The Iranians. Did they die of fright? If Saddam
>destroyed them, why not say so and enjoy the Billions from the
>oil? Why should we believe the ramblings of a disgruntled Bush
>hater like you and the rest of your cronies?


It's the truth! Why do you think we're reluctant to send troops to the Congo or Rwanda, with all their problems yet so eager to send troops here: strategic interests. How many times do I have to say it: 60% of the world's proven oil reserves lie in the Middle East, the Iranians have just announced the discovery of a new of 20-50 billion barrels so that figure may go up. Iraq also possesses the world's 2nd largest supplt of proven reserves, do you think this is completely irrelevant. There are two great states in the Middle East: Iran and Iraq. If you control Iraq you have land access to:Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Jordan. If you control both of Iran and Iraq the middle east would effectively fall under U.S. control. Are you really going to tell me that oil does not matter. controlling those reserves is the whole point of this "police action".

To parapphrase Lord Palmerstone ,"The American Empire does not have permanent allies, merely permanent interests."

I'm sure Saddam could probably tell you that story from a first hand perspective.

>How many times
>do I have to say it: 60% of the world's proven oil reserves
>lie in the Middle East, the Iranians have just announced the
>discovery of a new of 20-50 billion barrels so that figure may
>go up. <

Funny you should say that, you have NOT mentioned that in this thread at all......so you have been here before spouting the same bull.

And don't have the guts to log in with your real name again.....troll.

Ed W.

Your first post in this Forum and you want to start crap? Seems like some other people we know who did this in the past.

The War is over, like it or leave.



Ed W.

I could care less about his post.

Whilst mostly stating the obvious, it's nevertheless well off the mark and almost offensive.

But, what about the guy's right to free speech - or is speech free only if you happen to agree with it?

IMHO, some of the reponses generated do more to compromise the status of the forum than did the original post!

It was probably only a piece of bait anyway.

Mitch

>I could care less about his post.
>
>Whilst mostly stating the obvious, it's nevertheless well off
>the mark and almost offensive.
>
>But, what about the guy's right to free speech - or is speech
>free only if you happen to agree with it?
>
>IMHO, some of the reponses generated do more to compromise
>the status of the forum than did the original post!
>
>It was probably only a piece of bait anyway.


Sir, I take offense to that remark. This is not bait. The point of this post is to let Americans and other people world wide see the truth of what's happening over in Iraq. I am angered at the loss of life of our troops. For what cause? More are dying now then during the war. The troops even want leave and go to their families. Our president has made a grave mistake, costing the lives of our servicemen and the dignity of this nation.

>"Sir, I take offense to that remark. This is not bait."<
Following your subsquent postings, I withdraw my offending remark.


I disagree with much of what you have said, but I accept that you do have a perfect right to say it.>

Mitch

I suppose you want to retreat and someday let a zealot from the mideast shove antrax up your ass. You're a foolish man.

>I suppose you want to retreat and someday let a zealot from
>the mideast shove antrax up your ass. You're a foolish man.

Your ad hominem attacks show your true character. I suggest you be more polite. It's fine to disagree, but to spout off obnoxious and ignorant comments is detrimental to your character and standing on this debate.

As for UKMitch, thank you for calm and sensible reply.

"The War is over, like it or leave."

You reckon? Because Dubyer says it is?

That's why allied servicemen are still dying? Seemingly at a greater rate now than before the war "ended".

So far the allies haven't found Osama Bin Laden, haven't found Saddam Hussein or his sons, haven't found WMDs. They were probably lucky to find Baghdad. They didn't even find that wounded lady soldier (sorry, I've forgotten her name), an Iraqi doctor did that for them.

It's beginning to look like Vietnam in the desert.

Three months or so ago US polls said the public were all in favour of the war. Now those polls say the (amazingly low) Allied casualty rate is unacceptable to the same US public. Fickle, aren't we.

Here, here Paul. Agree wholeheartedly.

KevinR.

>Your first post in this Forum and you want to start crap?
>Seems like some other people we know who did this in the
>past.
>
>The War is over, like it or leave.
>
>
>
>Ed W.


This is merely my opinion. It is not starting anything. It's an observation of the current events in Iraq.

The public war is over... the hidden war is ongoing.

What is your nationality? I ask because when I viewed the photos of Kurdish gas victims, especially those of the children I knew this had to be stopped and the only was by going to Baghdad.

I want to know what your feelings are about gassing unarmed civilians? War crime? Worth stopping? Ethnic cleansing?

I am not happy about managing their problems, but they are not managing anything, but slaughter. So, if they don't like our management, do it yourself.

As far as WMD's, even the UN knows they have them somewhere, problem is they are probably in the hands of a true believer.

Besides we have Burundi (formerly Rowanda) warming up, the machete wars are starting up again. So we can start a body count and see if it exceeds last time at 250,000 plus in a three week period.

Get better blood footage, but then the CNN crew might be next, and that would be ok if the rebels could operate the camera, as the crew is hacked to death for our news amuzement. Whoops, no oil and no political pressure to resolve the problem of artifical borders and ancient warring traditions.

Under Construction

Here's another brilliant critic: Flori-duh Senator Bob Graham

'Deceit,' That Five-Letter Word


http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/18/160922

There is a forest in an acorn.

>What is your nationality? I ask because when I viewed the
>photos of Kurdish gas victims, especially those of the
>children I knew this had to be stopped and the only was by
>going to Baghdad.
>
>I want to know what your feelings are about gassing unarmed
>civilians? War crime? Worth stopping? Ethnic cleansing?
>
>I am not happy about managing their problems, but they are
>not managing anything, but slaughter. So, if they don't like
>our management, do it yourself.
>
>As far as WMD's, even the UN knows they have them somewhere,
>problem is they are probably in the hands of a true
>believer.
>
>Besides we have Burundi (formerly Rowanda) warming up, the
>machete wars are starting up again. So we can start a body
>count and see if it exceeds last time at 250,000 plus in a
>three week period.
>
>Get better blood footage, but then the CNN crew might be
>next, and that would be ok if the rebels could operate the
>camera, as the crew is hacked to death for our news amuzement.
>Whoops, no oil and no political pressure to resolve the
>problem of artifical borders and ancient warring traditions.



Hello 60% of world's proven reserves are in the Middle East, but that's somehow irrelevant. I don't know about you but the last time that I checked oil was important for the U.S. economy and global economy. You don't think controlling the region would somehow enhance U.S. power. I bet the entire Middle East has far more oil than Nigeria. Why can't people just wake and say yes it's important control the oil and the region, why do is that such hard thing to admit? The U.S. burns through 15 million barrels of oil a day (80% of that is imported) why is it so wrong to say that we are in the region for oil and power?

We are not occupying the area? So all those troops we have in the country are on some sort of extended leave? Be real. We are occupying and controlling the country for strategic reasons.

Do you think this war was waged for the sake enlightment and humanity? All countries operate to further their strategic ends. Why should this empire be different from any other?

By the way, I am American.

Why do we send our wealth to the Sheiks of the desert. You're on to something. Let's just nuke the bastards and take over all of that beautiful oil. Yeah! That's the ticket. We rule the world. Yeah! Man, I shoud have thought of that before, Thank you!

Lets look at what we DO know about the world today

1. Saddam Hussein is a pole-smoking ass-muncher. Now, you may call that an ad-hominem attack, but I'm fine with being labeled as illogical and offensive as long as I get the point across.

2. Iraq has a lot of oil. There is a lot of evidence that Siberia (almost all of it) has just as much oil, but we're not taking over Russia anytime soon.

3. So far, we haven't found any WMD's that we didn't already know about. Does that mean they are not there? Probably not, since its very likely that much of it was destroyed or transported outside of the country

4. Bush used WMD's in large part to justify going into Iraq. Maybe he did it for himself, or for some people I have never met, but I could really care less, because Iraq will be a better place from now on. I've hated Saddam Hussein for longer than GWB has been able to spell his name (so at least 6 months), not just because of what he is, but for what he stands for. An overweight dictator with a mustache that lives in a country where a large number of its citizens are oppressed, starved, and tortured. And thats just his good side.

5. I don't particularly like GWB. I don't plan on voting for him, I didn't vote for him in the past election. I like John McCain. If he gets the nod (which of course, he won't) I would vote for him.

6. The war is over, the cleanup and the rest of the restructuring is not.

So, for me the ends justifies the means. I could care less if Bush is lying, because he has always struck me as a weasly person anyway, so I would not be too suprised. My hatred for Saddam Hussein and those like him (wake up Iran and North Korea) far outweighs my loathing of Bush.

Ah! An honest man! And one who thinks for himself.

Great post, Doc.

Well said, doc. In this important case, the end will justify the means, (the good lord willing and the creek don't rise).

There is a forest in an acorn.

Perhaps I should have said the end CAN justify the means (for me personally) if things go a certain way. Political and Military muscles have already been flexed, dicks have been waved, measurements taken, but in the long run it will not be up to the US (they can kill every Iraqi and they won't be winning any hearts and minds) to determine the future of Iraq, it will be up to the Iraqi's themselves.

But the outcome of this situation is going to be incredibly important for everyone concerned. If it goes the way it should (Iraq is transformed into a Democratic Republic, adopts something similar to a bill of rights, has free elections without "vote for Saddam or die" on the ballot), all of a sudden the governments of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and a few others will be making brown soup in their pants because civilians will realize that freedom is a good thing, and the first people they will go after are the fundamentalists and representatives of the state goverment.

the governments of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and a few others

Thank you. Someone finally understands.

The one thing I really do worry about is that Muslim culture (at least certain aspects of it) will be lost once people move into the 21st century. Funny, my friend Jeff and I were talking about this last night, and he made the comment that most of these places are moving into the 20th century as far as technology, civil rights, etc., while the rest of the world is living in the 21st century. It's almost like they are always 100 years behind everyone else when it comes to certain things.

I would hate to see so many things that are good just be thrown out the window. I love Islamic art, architecture (the mosques, IMHO, can rival the great Catholic churches for architectural genius), the hospitality they show to travelers and academia, etc. Remove all the political and religious bullshit of the Hajj, and you basically have a bunch of brothers (it should be open to women too, goddamit!) from all over the world meeting up to hang out in one place and just be together.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Islamic culture isn't picked up by the western culture, for example fashion, art, music, literature, architecture, food, etc. Some fads will catch on that will familiarize us with that way of life. As long as it doesn't mean I need to wear something on my head! I guess I am wrong....not Islamic culture. Islam is a religion. But you know what I mean I hope. Some of their positive teachings and customs, etc. Maybe like The Beatles did with the East Indian influence. I think we will get more familiar with them when things are more peaceful.

There is a forest in an acorn.

I'm surprised that nobody has had the courage to mention the connection between the War in Iraq and corporate America, especially the Engineering and Procurement sector. There's just too many political connections with Bechtel, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and Fluor Corp etc to really believe that this war was designated for the liberation of the Iraqi peoples. I must admit, as a Canadian, that I was initially disappointed that our Prime Minister did not support the United States in this war. As I learned more about the "Corpolitical" aspect of this war it angered me that innocent service men and women were losing their lives in the name of the almighty buck. I'm glad that Canada stayed clear of Bush's war for profit. I also find it ironic that both George Bush Sr and former British Prime Minister John Major both have Senior Positions with the Carlyle Group.

http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html

That's as loonie as the black helicopter crowd. What kind of weed are you clowns smoking. Why don't you just put in great big ass capital letters "I hate Bush". Where in the hell do you clowns get this propaganda shit.

Don't mean for this thread to get uncivil but from my perspective using the threat of W.M.D.s is an example of propaganda. Hope we can agree to disagree.

It's very uncivil when you get anthrax shoved up your ass from some zealot from the mid east. Saddam is their Nebuchadnezzar. He needed to be destroyed and unfortunately we have to do it. I don't mean to be this harsh but anyone can build a website spouting their brand of propaganda and I would hope that you could see through such nonsense. They fail to motion all of the other people who belong to the Carlyle group only because they have an agenda. I hope you don't.

Look at it this way: If by all accounts it turns out that there were no WMD's at all in Iraq, it isn't going to make a lot of difference to me, because I never trusted the Bush administation much to begin with. If there are WMD's in Iraq, then it simply adds more legitimacy to the military action for those that would not accept intervention without proof of said WMD's.

Now, if things were different (say for example, the idea was to kill Saddam and let all hell break loose), I would have to say "no, that's a bad idea", because Shi'ites are notorious for not being particulary tolerant when it comes to religious freedom. I may think organized or unorganized religion is a joke, but I wouldn't ever tell someone they can't practice their religion within reason (state sponsored is not within reason, IMHO). In a nutshell, those bitches must be put in check, and it is up to anyone that can to do it.

I don't get it, DM. you trusted Clinton. Bush says the same thing and you don't trust him? Must that political party affiliation thing going around. Anyway, Your other reasoning is quite sound.

When did I say I trusted Clinton? He was a pathological liar, to the best of my knowledge. I didn't vote for his fat ass either

Well, at least we do have in common the fact that we are Independents and not affiliated.

Doc, there's lot's of other countries who's peoples are oppressed and Washington turns a blind eye. I still believe that the magnitude of oil in Iraq and the potential for profit drove this war.

Washington does not turn a blind eye to them. If we decided to use military action in every country that was oppressed, we would have 3 guys from Dunkin Donuts watching Fort Knox. Our resources only go so far, and right now they are (as Ed already stated, not trying to steal his point) stretched very thin as it is. It's not like DC is full of morons (there's room for a lot more ). I dont' pretend to know everything about politics, but I do know simple math: 200 countries with shit going on that needs fixing, and 200,000 troops available to fix it. Perhaps if Canada made the initiative to go into East Timor or liberate Tibet or Liberia, you would understand what the means. Don't know how you're gonna get all those Mounties onto ships

We'll have people on rotation in Iraq for at least 2 more years in large numbers, numbers that will affect our entire geo-political agenda, and you can't ignore that.

But then again, part of me looks at some of these places and wonders why in the name of Zeus these people that live in the middle of the desert don't move the hell out! The deserts in Northern Africa have been moving south for decades. All the animals moved south, all the bugs and insects moved south, but these people just stay there year after year. I see this stuff on TV late at night, and I'm like "dude, you live in a desert, you're not starving because people don't care, you're starving because you don't have the good sense to follow the food!".

still believe that the magnitude of oil in Iraq and the potential for profit drove this war

Then let's conquer Venezuela, Canada, and Mexico. That's where the majority of our oil comes from.

Screw the oil, lets invade the southern half of Africa for the diamond mines, the eastern section of Russia for gold and oil, and Sweden for hot blondes!

Hummmmm? Think you're on to 'sumpin there. Especially the Blondes. I don't like diamonds unless they're in the rough.

>That's as loonie as the black helicopter crowd. What kind of
>weed are you clowns smoking. Why don't you just put in great
>big ass capital letters "I hate Bush". Where in the hell do
>you clowns get this propaganda shit.

News Flash:

Now before the U.S. took over Iraq we simply purchased the oil now we CONTROL it, there is a very important distinction here. We can attack Iran, a major strategic consideration in light of all the ranting and raving about Iran's nuclear program. This is superb coup for American strategic interests, U.S. forces are in a position to project power into the whole the Middle East. Yes it is about the oil and he who has the power to take from someone else reigns supreme, America has the bases and now its simply a matter of exercising that power.
Now guess what... American soldiers have to keep the "peace" now, a daunting and costly proposition in both human and monetary terms.

Sonny,

It's easy to say the war was "justified" and "righteous" when you aren't in Iraq. You try being there without the constant fear and worry of a sniper's bullet or some booby trap. Most of these soldiers should have been home already. What alarms me is that our soldiers our dying on a daily basis on the premise that Iraq had "WMD." What are we doing there? I don't think anything justifies the death of these brave soldiers, and it angers me that our politicians are sending these boys into harms way for economical reasons so they can line their pockets. Bring freedom to Iraqis? Most of them hate us and want us to leave. We are the occupiers. And yes, talk to the parents of some the deceased and see what they say this war was all about, and the horrible cost it took upon this nation.

El Paz, when did you come back from Iraq?

>El Paz, when did you come back from Iraq?

It was not meant to be taken literally. I am in contact with people in the service and have read expressed fears in the region.

Ah, so the assertion that most Iraqi's (Kurds, Sunni's, and Shi'ites) don't want us there is pure speculation then, isn't it? I haven't seen a single poll that suggests one way or the other, so maybe it would be wise to say "there are some that don't want us there, and some that do" and leave it at that.

As I said, I'm all for religious freedom, but my definition of religious freedom doesn't include state-sponsored religion, and if certain sects have their way, they will get just that, and we'll be looking at another Iran. And I hate the Iranian government as much as I hate cooked asparagus.

Every Marine I know that is in Iraq knew exactly what they were getting into, they knew the risks, and the definitely knew what the role of the military is (they don't weave baskets, they fight). Some of them are not alive anymore, and I miss them because they were good friends and good people, but all of them were doing the job they were trained to do. I can tell you that most of the ones I knew personally that are alive have told me how happy it makes them to see a young Iraqi pissing on a picture of Saddam, hitting a statue with their shoes (for with there is no western equivalent.. imagine me coming to your house and talking shit about your mother for 3 days, and you get close!), and saying in broken english "Thank You, No Saddam!". Thats got to be worth it.

>That's as loonie as the black helicopter crowd. What kind of
>weed are you clowns smoking. Why don't you just put in great
>big ass capital letters "I hate Bush". Where in the hell do
>you clowns get this propaganda shit.



Why are all the pro war people so reluctant to give even any credence to the idea that we did this to control the region and control the oil? We went to war for the oil and power, 60% of the world's proven reserves lie in the Middle East. The Middle East is politically unstable and has vast oil reserves. Despite our claims of a better life for the Iraqi people, water is quite dirty and scarce,electricity is only on sometimes, food is in short supply, hospitals are stacked with the wounded and maimed, historic treasures of the region and of the Iraqi people have been looted, and nuclear material may have been disseminated to who knows where, while U.S. troops, on orders, looked on and guarded the OIL supply.



As in the novel Dune ,"He who controls the spice controls the universe." Is it really absurd to assume that he who controls the oil controls the world? I think it's a reasonable assumption. If nations of the world are dependant upon America for their energy needs it's impossible to say that this isn't a form of power.

U.S. forces aren't in Canada or Mexico so the argument isn't that crazy after all. Is that assumption really so counterintuitive? There is simply too much for the U.S. to gain by having military bases in the region and proper land access to Iraq.

Regarding my cynicism about Saddam I think Thomas Friedman of the New York Times said it best. I don't remember what he said verbatim but this is what it boiled down to.

"Did Saddam make Iraq or did Iraq make Saddam. If Saddam made Iraq then we can set up a democratic government. However if Iraq made Saddam it would imply that a country with feuding ethnic groups needed a strong man like Saddam to keep it together. If Iraq made Saddam then the United States would in effect have to become the next Saddam in order to keep the country together."


I ask you all these questions, not to incite "trolling", but to make you all think.

I, personally, never thought the war, with Iraq, was a wise decision but, then, War never is. George W. Bush, whom I like (really don't know why) seemed determined on that course of action led on, I presume by the hawks in his Government. The war wasn't, from GWB's position, about oil but appears to be a genuine desire to rid the World of an evil Dictator. The motives of Rumsfeld and Cheney ( both of whom I dislike intensely), I question.

I still believe that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and mass murderer and the World, and Iraq, is a better place without him. Having said that no thought, or at least very little, was paid to the enormity of the rebuilding of the Country. The US is finding, much to their surprise, that the Iraqis are not exactly welcoming them, with open arms. Food, water, electricity and medical essentials are in short supply and they are facing, an increasingly hostile Iraqi population.
The President's popularity is plummeting, the economy is in the doldrums and the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan occupation is costing the taxpayers 5 billion amonth (a mindboggling figure).

At the moment we have Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (plus the two sons), running free with access to Tapes, absolutely no WAMD being discovered (at least in sufficient quantities to justify an invasion), a brewing scandal in the US over false statements in the State of the Union Address and a British Prime Minister who is sorely in danger of losing his position.

The US cannot convince any Country to send Peacekeeping troops (to Iraq), at least not yet, and American soldiers are being killed at the a rate of one a day. They are not policemen, but are being given the task of policing a hostile and belligerent population. Their morale, probably low already, will sink lower and the anti-war movement, back home, will gain momentum again.

Now we have the spectre of North Korea and Iran, already professing to have Nuclear weapons. The US, in N. Korea's case, is unable to do a thing, because of enormous ramifications to the Asian Continent. As for Iran, i feel the GWB will have trouble convincing anyone, including his own people, to start another war. Plus Iran, unlike Iraq, is no pushover, being a nation of 66 million people and not weakened by years of embargo. The best the US could do is to bomb the Nuclear facilities and incur the wrath of the Muslim fanatics around the World.

Things could, however, change rapidly. WAMD could be found, Iraq stabilized, the Iranian regime toppled and Kim of NK have a change of heart. Lets pray that is what will happen.

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

Scar, would you consider running for President?

But seriously, that may well be the best short summing-up of the current world situation I have yet seen. Thankyou.

But if we don't think like you, we aren't thinking right!

Someone give me a labotamy right now, I don't want to think for myself anymore!

"I'm surprised that nobody has had the courage to mention the connection between the War in Iraq and corporate America, especially the Engineering and Procurement sector. There's just too many political connections with Bechtel, Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and Fluor Corp etc to really believe that this war was designated for the liberation of the Iraqi peoples"

Great, Thats where I pointed my portfolio! There and toward defense contracting companies like Raytheon and Lockheed! Maybe your post will alert others to this opportunity.

The Arab culture was lost long ago. Where are the great Arab astronomers or the inventors of higher math? The great architects of Babylon?

Ethan

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.
"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took it all from them." - Edward Filene

Well, once you invent something, you don't really need to invent it again, do you?

The best "Arab" scientists and artisans are in the US and UK now. Probably because living in some of those places isn't a party given their chosen fields!

>The Arab culture was lost long ago. Where are the great Arab
>astronomers or the inventors of higher math? The great
>architects of Babylon?
>
That Arab culture (I agree with was indeed great and contributed to the development of mankind) has simply been replaced by a newere Arab culture which is militaristic and despises all non-Arabs.

Louis

Come on Paul, a great post only if it agrees with your opinion.

I don't agree with much of what he says about our President, I voted for him, and I will again if he runs.

The War is over, the clean up and realignment will take years. Why we are not running into Africa is very obvious....don't spread your troops too thin. The all volunteer Armed Forces are not up to the level that I think they should be, and it shows now.

Ed W.

Sure I agree with much (not all) of it. That's not what I was praising though. I may be wrong, but what struck me is that he's formed an individual opinion after a deal of thought, and he's not just parroting the conservative line.

And I can't understand how anyone in the USA could vote for any ticket that includes Dick Cheney. He bought the Vice-Presidency, and like any businessman is making sure he gets a solid return on his investment. He's using the job to line his pockets.

FWIW, while I don't like Bush I think in his own strange way he's basically honest. But Cheney - no!

I promise I will never parrot the conservative line, the liberal line, or the tow line!

Squawk!

So far:

Not much love left for Bush (and Clinton)- except for some praise from down under for GW - plus a new definition of religious freedom and then a concern for the future of Islamic culture, which I suspect is in very short supply in Palestine at least:

>"....it angers me that our politicians are sending these boys into harms way for economical reasons so they can line their pockets."<

>"Saddam says he doesn't have them and the UN believes Him(sic). Clinton says he has them and you say nothing. The rest of the world knows he has them and yet you do not. Bush says they do, and he's a liar."<
>"Look at it this way: If by all accounts it turns out that there were no WMD's at all in Iraq, it isn't going to make a lot of difference to me, because I never trusted the Bush administation much to begin with."<
>"I don't get it.... you trusted Clinton. Bush says the same thing and you don't trust him?"<
>"When did I say I trusted Clinton? He was a pathological liar, to the best of my knowledge. I didn't vote for his fat ass either."<
>"FWIW, while I don't like Bush I think in his own strange way he's basically honest. But Cheney - no."<


>"As I said, I'm all for religious freedom, but my definition of religious freedom doesn't include state-sponsored religion..."<

>"The one thing I really do worry about is that Muslim culture (at least certain aspects of it) will be lost once people move into the 21st century.<">

Mitch

Welcome back, Hal.

Are you forgetting about the mobile chemical plants? But I guess those were mobile baby food factories weren't they? That's what they were with Bush Sr. although that's not what they were with Clinton. That's how it works isn't it?

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

>Welcome back, Hal.
>
>Are you forgetting about the mobile chemical plants? But I
>guess those were mobile baby food factories weren't they?
>That's what they were with Bush Sr. although that's not what
>they were with Clinton. That's how it works isn't it?



This war is nothing more than a naked attempt to enhance American power and prestige.

You're wrong on that count. Because the war was meant to send a message. To scare the Saudis, Iranians, Syrians and anyone else who might have a desire to support terror groups that fight the USA.

Here's the deal. Remember those Palestinians and Pakistanis and other assorted Middle Eastern Rif-raf who celebrated on 9/12? This war was for them. Those people thought it was the end of the US on that day, that finally, the great trickster had been mortally wounded. One of their own, a Muslim, had planned and pulled off an attack of immense proportions. It was like the local boys football club had defeated Real Madrid in a big game.

If you look back through history, it's all the same. Jews attack a Roman outpost, kill all Romans, Romans basically destroy Israel, rename everything. Charlemagne's forces suffer defeat from northern European migrant types, he goes and slaughters 4,000 of them on a river-bank.

The Alpha Male, when challenged, almost always responds with more than what is necessary. And you saw what happened when hundreds of thousands of Egyptians, Saudis, Jordanians and such were shocked the day the US Took Baghdad and they realized Al Jazeera had been lying to them about the war. OMG the USA is not dead, 9/11 didn't stop them!

Whether the War was justified only time will tell. My view is that the aftermath has no plan.

As for the falsehoods that hyped the war here is an interesting article:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/07/09/lying/index_np.html

Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.

"This war is nothing more than a naked attempt to enhance American power and prestige."

Next, you'll be telling us that the automobile is just a scheme to drive down the price of horses.

Pointman

No it was a scheme to make oil producers powerful and rich.

Louis

Still the politician at heart I see. Failed to even come close to addressing the post.

--------------
History teaches us that history has taught us nothing.

>This war is nothing more than a naked attempt to enhance
>American power and prestige.
>
>


Geeze, it was just about Oil, make up your mind.

Ed W.

It's about enhancing our manpower with oil and nakedness. Now thats what I call a "slippery slope"

This is for you all that think we have no interests in occupying Iraq Then when do we leave if we are so disinterested in occupying the country? Why isn't there a timetable for pulling out? Explain that. Look at U.S. peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavian republics, some of them are nearly ten years old! If you have a direct line W, I'd love to know when we are going to leave. Why are we planning to mobilize more units and send them to Iraq, if you read the Wall Street Journal they ran a lovely article about how the U.S. is going to mobilize 2 national Guard Brigades and send them to Iraq for a year. Tell me does this mission end!

Also look at the size of the new Iraqi 'army' 6,500 men. It would difficult enough to police a single large city with a force that size. We could easily build a force ten times the size. Iraq has 60% employment, there is no shortage of volunteers! The United States is deliberately creating a weak Iraqi military , to insure a U.S. role.

Self reliance on energy. Can you tell me exactly what the administration is doing to cut the U.S. appetite for imported crude oil, we consume 15 million barrels a day?

"This is for you all that think we have no interests in occupying Iraq. Then when do we leave if we are so disinterested in occupying the country? Why isn't there a timetable for pulling out? Explain that. Look at U.S. peacekeeping missions in the former Yugoslavian republics, some of them are nearly ten years old! If you have a direct line W, I'd love to know when we are going to leave."

You seem like you have a lot of experience planning projects. Have all of your plans, especially the ones where you've taken down despotic regimes, worked out exactly like you planned?

"Why are we planning to mobilize more units and send them to Iraq, if you read the Wall Street Journal they ran a lovely article about how the U.S. is going to mobilize 2 national Guard Brigades and send them to Iraq for a year. Tell me does this mission end!"

Would you prefer that we walked right out now without helping them establish some form of democratic government? Do you really believe that henchmen from Syria or Iran wouldn't start building a similiarly oppressive regime?

"Also look at the size of the new Iraqi 'army' 6,500 men. It would difficult enough to police a single large city with a force that size. We could easily build a force ten times the size. Iraq has 60% employment, there is no shortage of volunteers!"

Maybe, you have to start with a few good men and work up. Do you suppose that there are quite a few Fadayeen (sp?) around that are out of work? Surely you aren't suggesting that we reconstitute a sizeable well armed army of those bad boys to help police or intimidate their countrymen? Could the weeding out process take a little time?

"The United States is deliberately creating a weak Iraqi military , to insure a U.S. role."

On what do you base such an allegation? CNN will want to hear your proof.

"Self reliance on energy. Can you tell me exactly what the administration is doing to cut the U.S. appetite for imported crude oil, we consume 15 million barrels a day?"

Well, they're probably doing about as much or as little as any other administration.

Pointman

How about, how long were we in Germany after WWII? They at least had experience in a representative government.

How long were we in Japan, same time period? They didn't have the above.

You've got all the answers, La Paz, why don't you tell us how long it will take to convert a despotic regime history to a republic. Don't forget the little small details, though.

>
>You've got all the answers, La Paz, why don't you tell us how
>long it will take to convert a despotic regime history to a
>republic. Don't forget the little small details, though.
>

You notice the pattern, he has things for us to think about, but never gives an answer to any possible solutions. This pattern is the same as some other trolls we have had.

Ed W.

>
>>
>>You've got all the answers, La Paz, why don't you tell us
>how
>>long it will take to convert a despotic regime history to
>a
>>republic. Don't forget the little small details, though.
>>
>
>You notice the pattern, he has things for us to think about,
>but never gives an answer to any possible solutions. This
>pattern is the same as some other trolls we have had.
>
>Ed W.


The truth is that aside from an IMAGINARY threat there was no reason to invade Iraq.
This whole war was based off what WHAT SADDAM COULD have DONE.
Or what we IMAGINE he had.
IMAGINE IF he had chemical weapons.
After all IMAGINE what he COULD have done if when left him there?
Yet the facts are plain as day, twelve years after Desert Storm he posed no threat to his neighbors. In fact Saudi Arabia ( a neighbor of Iraq) tried desperately to stop this war.
This war proves that MAKE BELIEVE is best left to CHILDREN.

IMAGINE you actually have a true thought process of your own. Your entire argument is based on your, and your little band of malcontents, IMAGINATION.

American troops will be in Iraq for at least 10 years. As the old buddhist expression goes ,"An event cannot be undone."
It's akin to putting the milk back into the bottle after it's spilled onto the carpet, yes the carpet can be cleaned but the event cannot be undone.

If the postwar operations in Iraq were a movie it would probably be entitled "All the Wrong Moves."
The U.S. is making several mistakes.

1. The U.S. is antagonizing Iran
a. The United States is allowing the Iranian Mujadeen (an anti government group equipped with heavy weapons) to operate
against Iran from Iraqi territory.
b. We are trying to create "Iraq II" by accusing Iran of possessing WMD. Once the "evidence" is discovered it's just a matter of
time before the shooting starts.

2. The U.S. is making no attempt to build a viable Iraqi army.
a. The U.S. wants to "eventually" build an Army of 40,000 men in Iraq and only plans on building fielding 6,500 soldier initially.
I. Iraq has 60% unemployment building an army of 100,000 would put people back to work and greatly enhance
the security situation inside Iraq. These Iraqi units could be deployed in smaller formations and attached to larger American
units. They could do things like patrolling roads for bombs and other mundane but important security missions.
II. A force of 40,000 is simply inadequete for properly defending Iraq from it's neighbors.
III. A larger Iraqi army would allow the U.S. to send some of American soldiers back home.
IV. An Iraqi soldier is much cheaper to field than an American soldier. This solution could provide much larger bang per buck.
V. If an soldier dies keeping the peace the political consequences are more acceptable than having an American soldier die.

3. The U.S. seems intent on threatening Iraq's neighbors.
A. Before the war even ended the U.S. was accusing Syria of harboring Iraqi officials and WMD.
B. The U.S. seems insistent on confronting Iran about WMD.
C. Confronting Iraq's neighbors will only lead to more war and bloodshed in the future.



Ignorant comments like that Sonny are a sign that you are running out of reasons to back your side of the debate.

I truly feel sorry for you. It's a very sad life you live along with your naive coharts, your URL links, and your copy and paste world. You truly haven't a clue and never will.

You and your "cohorts" still have yet to prove the U.S intentions in Iraq. Instead of resulting in name calling, try using facts and persuasive logic instead of insults.