Intresting,: Iraq, EU and Kerry/Bush MATURE MEMBERS ONLY!

[-Carnifex-]

Let's face it, we're not any safer with Saddam out of control than we were before.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

...

I for one am simply amazed that there are people here and abroad that are incensed that there are terrorists flooding into Iraq to fight out servicemen. Do you people not realise that this is a GOOD thing to quote Martha Stewart.

They're fighting on Iraq soil, NOT US SOIL.

...

EXACTLY!


For many Arabs, I expect it hurts their pride to have their political messes cleaned up by American infidels, and they are expressing their resentment with violence. But I don't think this can continue or grow for much longer. I'm pretty confident that when Iraqis look around them today they recognize that they are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein.

As regards to motivations and reasons for the invasion, it was a net good, and popular history will probably come to see it that way. If you study closely, you will see that the true motivations for entering most wars are hidden from the public , and a "good" story becomes the accepted national myth. WW1 & WW2 were not the great democratic crusades so many believe them to have been, but were struggles for imperial & economic dominance.

[Gitaroo Man]

What I'd like to see is more backing to facts. Like if someone says, "Iraqi people support us." How do you know that? I'd just like to see more facts, i'm not saying anyone is wrong.

[Miscue]

<b>As for your assertion that it is the US that's creating these terrorists by killing/removing/defeating them, what utter nonsense. </b>

So you DON'T agree that the insurgency is growing stronger, and that it is way stronger and more organized than when we first invaded Iraq? Even Fox would say this is true. Maybe you're trying to twist my words around, I don't know, but the longer we stay there, the more the resentment towards the US grows, and more people are attacking us in Iraq. I don't blame them either, with their loved ones getting killed on accident by US troops. They are living in a war zone, and they get pissed of at the US because they started it, even though it's the insurgents that are keeping things the way they are.

I think it was ironic that Bush used the Iraqi soccer teams success in the Olympics as his poster child for the Iraq war, and Time quoted the captain saying that if he wasn't at the Olympics he would join the resistance in Iraq.

I agree that Saddam was a bad, bad dictator, and that he killed his own people, but if you remember, that WASN'T the reason we went into Iraq. If I remember correctly, the main reason for invading Iraq was to get Saddam out of power and destroy all of his WMDs, but we jumped the gun and went ahead without much support or information. The next reason to go to war with Iraq was because of 9/11, which Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with, no matter how many times Bush and Cheney repeat it to the press. Now the reason is becasue he was a bad dictator? Why didn't we attack him during the Clinton administration, or even the Bush Sr. admin.? You get on Kerry's case when he says he wouldn't of invaded Iraq, but you never get on Bush Sr's case, even though he probably could have got the other coalition members in the original Gulf War to help him get rid of Saddam.

The countries that stood by us during the war are brave, but they aren't wholeheartedly getting into the war like the US would like people to think. We are sending a lot of our troops over there, while our allies send few compared to what they could spare. They want to be allies with the US, and what better way than to support a US led invasion that no other countries want to be a part of. It shows courage, it shows valor, but it's only a half assed attempt for a full-out war.

<b>The only ones there that are not happy are the Saddam loyalists, terrorists and those that stand to lose from having open elections.</b>

Those are the only people that aren't happy? What about the people who have had their loved ones killed, or the people who had to live without power for so long, or the people who have to live in war zones every day? A lot of people were happy when the US first got rid of Saddam, but are getting mad because of all the chaos there.

We need to stay their longer and keep blowing them up - to squash the insurgencies. The longer we stay there, the more bad guys we kill. More of our people die of course, but with a good kill/death ratio we're going to win over time.

The people who had their loved ones killed, loved someone who voluntarily joined an organization that is made for killing people. This is what the military does, and this is the risks they face by taking the job - if they didn't know this before they signed up, they should have figured it out by boot-camp. Our people are going to die, and it's terrible that has to happen, but is necessary for the greater good.

Saddam is a weapon of mass destruction. Arguing about the presence of WMD's is like arguing whether his method of killing people is acceptable or not. If he killed 1,000,000 people with sticks - it this acceptable as long as he didn't kill 10,000 with a chemical weapon?

Since you're complaining about the lack of stockpiles of WMDs... why is a WMD a good justification for war anyway? What is the difference if he kills 1,000,000 in one day with a WMD... and 100,000 for 10 days with conventional weapons?

We don't need WMDs as a sole reason to justify war - there are plenty of others. Can you think of some reasons why we would go to war with any arbitrary country? What conditions would need to be satisfied to justify war?

[GT]

So you DON'T agree that the insurgency is growing stronger, and that it is way stronger and more organized than when we first invaded Iraq?

You need to ask yourself why the insurgents are attacking more forcefully? Is it because if they loose Iraq that the rest of hte middle east will fall to democracy?

the main reason for invading Iraq was to get Saddam out of power and destroy all of his WMDs, but we jumped the gun and went ahead without much support or information.

Allow me to help you out with this one. The CIA was not the only one that dropped the ball on WMD's. Lets also add russian intelligence, The Mosad, and the British. We all thought they had it. Important note here is that, i believe, the crap is still there we just havnt found it

There is an excellent article in the cristian science moniters website about WMD's. The last time weapons inspectors could account for any WMDs was destruction of only a portion of Saddams arsnel back in 1996. They were either barried in the middle of the deaster of shipped to syria, but they were there.

The next reason to go to war with Iraq was because of 9/11, which Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with, no matter how many times Bush and Cheney repeat it to the press. Now the reason is becasue he was a bad dictator?

I'm sorry but this is completely false. 9/11 and Iraq are two totally different issues. Show me where Bush or Chenney said Iraq has anything to do with 9/11.

I think it was ironic that Bush used the Iraqi soccer teams success in the Olympics as his poster child for the Iraq war, and Time quoted the captain saying that if he wasn't at the Olympics he would join the resistance in Iraq.

You know what the great Irony is? That he is free to say whatever he wants aganist the gov't. Lets be honest, do you think this guy had a better life under Saddam? Lets also keep in mind that a great number of these folks are CYA'ing in fear that Saddam could return. I think once he is tried and his dead body is dragged through the streat you will see a huge change in the small, loud, minorty of Iraq's.

US first got rid of Saddam, but are getting mad because of all the chaos there.

You need to review some history. We were chasing Nazis, 3-4 years after the war. This is no different.

We are sending a lot of our troops over there, while our allies send few compared to what they could spare. They want to be allies with the US, and what better way than to support a US led invasion that no other countries want to be a part of. It shows courage, it shows valor, but it's only a half assed attempt for a full-out war.

DO you really think any of the EU gives a dam about the US? Foreign nations have never ever supported anything with the same vigor as the US.

You get on Kerry's case when he says he wouldn't of invaded Iraq, but you never get on Bush Sr's case

Bush Sr. isnt running for president. Second, Kerry ripped Bush in an Editorial in the NY times, Spet. 2002, for not attacking Saddam sooner.

[ScatterPlot]

I'm not sure if this is an issue, but if any of you think that no WMD's were found, well, they were. My mom talked to a guy a couple months back whose group had been ATTACKED with chemical weapons. No serious casualties, but they were there none the less.

[Army]

I'm not sure if this is an issue, but if any of you think that no WMD's were found, well, they were. My mom talked to a guy a couple months back whose group had been ATTACKED with chemical weapons. No serious casualties, but they were there none the less.

This was around a dozen binary artillery shells (Sarin gas) that the bad guys simply found. It was not a concerted chemical attack, just an accident of war. Only two were detonated, with minimal damage and no injuries. The bad guys didn't know what they had.

Interesting sideline though...take note all you doubters of WMD's...these particular projo's were on the approved list, by lot number, of weapons THAT HAD BEEN REPORTED AS DESTROYED by Saddams military in 1995.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmm?

[taylor492]

Yeah i like how since our troops havent found WMDs then there obviously must not be any.

Iraq is a pretty big place. So like gtrsi, i still think they are there. As far as the insurgency goes. Some of you guys just dont get it. The terrorist are fighting because THEY want control of Iraq. Its not Ahmed, the local barber, and his buddies because their dog was killed.

[1stdeadeye]

. This war can be considered a family legecy, but I digress. Just

Bush went to war for his daddy? You can do better then that!

[Jeffy-CanCon]

We need to stay their longer and keep blowing them up - to squash the insurgencies. The longer we stay there, the more bad guys we kill. More of our people die of course, but with a good kill/death ratio we're going to win over time.

...

I agree that Coalition troops need to stay in Iraq a long time, and that more insurgents/terrorists will be killed. But I don't think the latter is the reason for the former.

The idea that a favourable kill-ratio is the key to victory is false. That idea persisted in Vietnam, too. They key to victory is making your enemy no longer want to fight. People will make huge sacrifices for independence and/or religion, and the West is up against both in Iraq. But if they see that neither religion nor independence is at stake, they should stop fighting. Most of them, anyway.

The Iraqis have to come to believe that the USA will let them run their own country, and will help them with infrastructure, training and money. Eventually, they will look around them and see that life is better except for Arab insurgents killing Arab policemen. Then support for violence will drop off. One of the keys is that the Iraqi government has to really be in charge. If they see that their government is a puppet regime, they will keep fighting.

After WW2 Japan and Germany were occupied for a long time before being handed over to local authorities. At least five years, and occupation troops still had a lot of power over security until the mid 1950's. Why does anyone think a stable democracy can be created in Iraq or Afghanistan in just two years?

Re: the increases in attacks.

Remember Tet in 1968. Everything looked good, then came a massive offensive which convinced US public opinion that the war was unwinnable. But the VC were almost totally destroyed in that fight, and afterwards most fighting was with the NVA.

Maybe this is the Iraqi Tet. But this time you don't have to face the NVA, afterwards.

[Thordic]

TOTAL ~28,600

United States: 130,000 troops, and as many as 50,000 added by next uear, bringing the total to 180,000 by next year.

Only 4.5% of the troops in Iraq are from countries other than the US.

4.5%? Good math, dumbass.

28,600 out of 158,600 = 18%.

[CaptaiN_JacK]

I'm sorry but this is completely false. 9/11 and Iraq are two totally different issues. Show me where Bush or Chenney said Iraq has anything to do with 9/11.

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that <font size="+2">Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida</font>," Bush said in his January State of the Union speech.

"It came from the White House, it came from other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'you got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'" - Wesley Clark.

What better way to make an unpopular war popular? Use 9/11 and Al-quida to justify it.


<b>Yeah i like how since our troops havent found WMDs then there obviously must not be any.</b>

I can use the same arguement to justify any war in any country. Canada is keeping 100 Americans hostage. We can't find them, we don't have any evidence that they actually are there, but they are there. And the Canadian terrorists holding them hostage are none other than Al-quida. And they have ties with Saddam Hussein and even Hitler, who is still alive and kicking, at least that's what I believe. Once again, we don't have any evidence to support our claims, but you can trust me, I'm the President. Of the US. Duh.


So, the insurgents used chemical weapons during the war. 2 artillery shells. And by that instance alone you can tell me that they have more wmds? What a weak arguement at best. There are live artillery and bombs everywhere, including many nuclear bombs that the US lost during the Cold War. If one of these were hypothetically salvaged by a terrorist group and detonated, would it be the US's fault? It would be to a certain extent, but it wasn't the US that detonated it, so it wouldn't be their fault. The insurgents found some chemical warheads, it's not Saddam's fault that they attacked US soldiers with them. It also doesn't mean that there are more out there.

<b>The people who had their loved ones killed, loved someone who voluntarily joined an organization that is made for killing people. This is what the military does, and this is the risks they face by taking the job - if they didn't know this before they signed up, they should have figured it out by boot-camp. Our people are going to die, and it's terrible that has to happen, but is necessary for the greater good. </b>

I'm talking about the Iraqi people that have had their loved ones killed by US forces.

And why am I sitting here critisizing the war instead of doing something about it? Because I can! Plain and simple, I'm not going to help out with an illegitimate war. I'm an 18 yr old high school student with 7 years of college ahead of me, I don't have time for it.

[Fred]

I dunno about you guys, but I'm starting to think its a great idea that we recall our troops, hand Iraq back to Saddam, give him a pile of money, and then sit back comfortably here in the US, and just wait for the chemical, dirty, and nuclear bombs to start detonating, because, then, finally, we'll have justification to turn the middle east into a big, crispy, smoking sheet of glass....

[FactsOfLife]

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that <font size="+2">Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaida</font>," Bush said in his January State of the Union speech.

"It came from the White House, it came from other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'you got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'" - Wesley Clark.

Yeah Saddam has, and did have connections and contact with Al Qaeda. How does this translate to Saddam Participating in 9/11? How do you make that leap from the above statement that says NOTHING about Saddam being connected to 9/11???

The Bush administration has NOT said that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, they said, and I'll even use YOUR quote, "Saddam aids and protects terrorists". That's what they said, and that's what they mean. The liberal left in this country has attempted time and again to twist that quote into something that they can hammer at the Bush Admin with. And it's frankly childish.

As for Wesley Clark, what do you expect from a guy who was running AGAINST President Bush for the office??? Where's his proof that he even GOT a call? Why on earth would anyone even be calling him??? The whole thing smacks of back room Clintonesque politics.

So what do you want the US to do? Pull all our troops immediately? Just hand Iraq over to Zarqawi?

Or do you want to maybe announce a date that we'll be leaving no matter what's going on over there? Do you think that these subhuman terrorists wouldn't sit back and fold their arms and wait???

Finishing the job we started is call leadership. It's the reason why President Bush is kicking John Effing Kerry's backside in poll after poll. It's called staying commited to the task at hand and securing the freedom of Iraq.

So far I have yet to hear of a cogent thought out alternative to finishing the job. I am kind of wondering if we ever will from the left.

[GT]

I dunno about you guys, but I'm starting to think its a great idea that we recall our troops, hand Iraq back to Saddam, give him a pile of money, and then sit back comfortably here in the US, and just wait for the chemical, dirty, and nuclear bombs to start detonating, because, then, finally, we'll have justification to turn the middle east into a big, crispy, smoking sheet of glass....