KrustyKidd

If you are suggesting that the US was wrong by outsing Saddam in that the Iraqi people should have done it themselves it never would have happened. Saddam was born by Coup and his main preoccupation was preventing one, not WMD or quests for domination of the region. He built cities and transportation systems so that he could control people and eliminate this possibility. Centralized command and control and had an intricate network of terror and spies amongst the population. So if not a superpower then who? And furthermore, if 'humans within their own society' are not even allowed to speak of anything other than the party line, how can they decide if they want a democratic vote or even LOL hold a vote to see if they want to vote?

HERE'S A QUOTE FROM INSIGHT

I have quotes of Chirac, Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, Clinton all saying that they existed. If you don’t like that, then I also have the wording of the resolutions 1441,687,686 saying that Saddam is not permitted to process any WMD, related WMD Material, resources or related equipment and even specifies ‘dual purpose equipment.’ . I also have Blix’s report from the runup to the war saying that Saddam was in clear violation of the resolutions and Kay verifying it after the war. Does the average Iraqi guy strap a bomb to himself and blow up people? Does the average Iraqi hack fellow clerics to death with swords? Explain how letting a bunch of heavily armed guys who are the private army of the violent murderous cleric settle in a city and fire at US forces and be called justified when there is an arrest warrant out for the guy? Do you think that these guys are contributing to the stability of the situation or do you not think that is might be just a tad creepy against what the general population want given the fact that the rest of the country is trying to build a life for themselves and promote stabilty so they can build a country, heal and make a government? RECENT GALLUP POLL FINDINGS So, seems that the US is, as we all know not liked and as I said, the Iraqis agree with everybody including the soldiers and the US people that they want them out but the people don’t like the insurgents either as they attack the police. They like the fact Saddam is gone and they want the US to go as well. However, they figure they would be less safe if the US went. That sounds anything but a popular uprising to me. In short, they are there to finish a job however dangerous and costly it may be for all. I know that we all find that unpleasant but such is reality. The insurgents however want to fill the vacuum to gain power, surely you are not for that? Of course not, the stakes are too high herre and even the insurgents and terrorists know that. So as Bush said, ‘we will stay and finish the job. We will not abandon the people of Iraq.’ US controls the oil in Iraq and the price goes up. Got to hear the Liberal conspiracy on that one LOL. In reality though, 'Hello, earth calling' Over 80% of the oil contracts so far have gon to non-US interests. Saddam wanted to control the oil supply of the ME by taking Kuwait and Saudi and continued to pursue his WMD programs even throughout the sanctions while his people starved. Oil was another reason why Iraq was a viable choice to begin the Democracy seeding in that it could pay for it’s own reconstruction and make a country with opportunity for it’s people. The issue of the permanent military presence is valid as it would be a completely predictable move for the US to make as it plans on continuing it mission of enabling democracy in the region via economic, cultural, political and if necessary military means. You can be assured that no matter what government takes power that the security support from the US and the continuing $ support from same will be part and parcel of the package for allowing these bases. I’m tired of this BD, go to Iraqibodycout.com and look the numbers up, then go to the UN report on how many people Saddam has killed. It comes out to ten or eleven thousand from Iraqi Body count and Saddam - 300,000 (not to mention the millions during war with Iran and Gulf I) Then average it out by months Saddam was in power and the time the US has been there. I comes out to something like 5:1 or something. When you go to the search engine, look up ‘mass graves’ that gives numbers as well. Amnesty international and UN Human rights are other good sources. As for more dangerous, heck, it still hasn't settled down yet. Like when you go to the dentist and the freezing wears off then you blame the dentist for making it worse. Stuff like ripping the government out of a country is painful and takes time to heal. Surely you are not that nitpicky to have ever expected intant results with everybody hap hap happy right away? 9 11 showed the US that in the nuclear age, it cannot wait until terrorists attack, it has to take action beforehand. Iraq, with an unstable leader in the heart of the Middle East who did nothing to promote stability was an accident waiting to happen and provided the opportunity to promote democracy. Read 687 and 686 where it states that ‘Member States assisting the government of Kuwait are permitted to use military force to enact these resolutions’ and then read Blix’s report where he shows Saddam had not come clean and continued to play games of deception. Whatever you call the Invasion of Iraq, stupid, silly, horrific and all, one thing that it was, was legal. Now if the UN had made a resolution cancelling these resolutions then that would have been different, but they didn’t did they? I don’t know about the puppet government, you think they have problems now with credibility, wait until they hold free elections after the interim government has their day and it’s hand picked candidates. Therefore I don’t believe for a moment it will be a puppet government. If it is, then I will concede to your way of thinking. However, until that happens, let’s wait and see, I contend that since that is the vocalized purpose of the US invasion - to bring democracy to Iraq, they will have to accept whatever form that takes, however painful. And I explained to you how much easier this could have gone simply by weakening Saddam and allowing a coup. Don’t you think for a moment that it would have been much easier to do that and thereby, commit all those troops to Syria instead? Heck, they would even have the help of the ‘New Regime’ for crying out loud. Your argument is as tired and false as the ‘oil for blood’ slogans. Just wondering, where do you think the US should go from here? Should they pull out? Allow an election immediately and trust that Iraiqs themselves will be able to hold free and fair elections? Is that within realistic expectations on the left or are you more or less resigned to the same reality that is the right in that we are locked on a course that must be seen until it berths at a democratic vote?

Kerry and Bush share the same views on Iraq so if that is the issue your friends are basing their decisions on they need to rethink in a severe way. Kerry has no plan for the economy and nothing new anywhere else. He has 'flip flopped' on so many issues that nobody knows where he stands. Why would they not go for Nader? He at least defines himself. I mean, if Bush is bad then what is Kerry? A complete unknown as he changes stands and a hypocrite to boot.

I thought that you contended that everybody knew there were no WMD in Iraq, therefore, there would have been no reason to try and disarm something that did not exist. Make up your mind here, can't have it both ways. Actually BD, it is not the average Iraqi that is doing that but rather those who want to take advantage of the situation for the gain of power themselves. Average Iraqis are angry that the US has not crushed these insurgents already and made them more secure. Undoubtably, nobody want s the US there, even the US but you know what would happen if they left today. Occupation is a necessary fact unti the Iraqi government is strong enough to take on the insurgents themselves. The US acts in it's own interest. this time, as always it acted similarly but it also acted in line with the safety of many other countries in mind as well as it ousted a Dictator and attempts to build a self determined governmental system for Iraq in which terrorists will have a hard time to find recruits. As for blowing the hell out of anyone etc, less people have died as a result of this war than were killed in day to day administration under Saddam in peacetime by more than two thirds. The US has saved lives. When you say 'their eyes alone' I take it you didn't think to include the others eyes. Eyes like : United Kingdom. Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Netherlands, Iceland, Italy, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary Albania, Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Croatia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Philippines, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Mongolia, Palau, Tonga, El Salvador, Colombia, Nicaragua, Costa Rica Dominican Republic, Honduras, Australia, Kuwait, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, and Angola. I know those 50 some odd countries are not that big of a player(s) as the US but surely, they share the US's zeal for having "a God-given right to blow the hell out of anyone who contravines (in their eyes, and their eyes alone) these principles ." Bravo Black Dog! A valid point at last. The US foreign policy of the past has been to prop up a dictator in order to have somebody with which to deal with. Similar to the French and Germans who did everything they could to keep their deals with Saddam. LOL, it seems that all countries choose the most selfish way to gain what they want, even going against a war that they know they should have been for (and having their names added to the list above.) Now you have to go back a bit, maybe ten years or so and think what the US would have done if they encounteredt the same scenario with the WMD and 9 11 and all. What would they have done with Iraq? Spent $500 billion and years and years of effort and lose troops or move in and install a new regieme that they had an agreement with? This certainly looks like they have changed their ways somewhat, I mean, elections, infastructure, social programs and all. How much easier would it have been to simply bring in a ruthless General and keep the population quaking and in control? You have to admit, things are different. One step at a time. It will take decades for this to work. Remember when Bush said that this would 'be a long, hard struggle that would take many years?' He meant it. Further confusing the whole action is the fact that many of the region don't understand what is happening. Heck! Many enlightened people of the West can't grasp the idea and fall back into the evil USA routine rather than stepping back and giving it a dispassionate thought. Is the USA acting in it's own interests? Sure. Less terrorism means more money, more peace, more control, more trade. Good for them, good for us and good for everybody. Is France acting in their best interest when it tried to keep Saddam in power? Sure, more Saddam meant the Billons in oil contracts would be kept in place as would the repayment for the weapons that he owed Germany and Russia. I can't blame them for that as it is a lot of moola but I can for not helping out when it was clear those deals were off.

Two and a half million? As long as it's real money sign me up! Family comes before country everytime and this would set them up for generations. I'll invest half, move to Montana and buy a ranch and drink beer with Albertans on the weekend when we go to Rodeos. Or, apply for Citizenship and move back into my house. Hide the money, get a grant and start a taxi cab business. Heck with it, go on welfare.

Don't know. Far as I am concerned, I saw this and it seemed to make sense. Scince you don't have any different information then guess we will have to accept this report. Sure wish I wasn't the only one here that knew how to work a search engine. Makes things so one sided all the time. That's a silly argument. Iraq is a zone of conflict. A war zone if you will. If you want to portray the attacks on US Soldiers as 'terrorist activity' in order to counter this report then no wonder attacks the world over are down, the terrorists are all in Iraq getting taken out by US forces.

Rush has deeper problems than his hopefully beaten pill addiction. He has nuerous faults that even myself, who usually finds myself on the Right in most arguments observe stand out annoyingly. First and foremost he has an ego as big as Texas and never shuts up. 'Open Line Friday turns into three hours of him and a repititious monologue over and over again interspaced with one or two calls. He talks before he thinks, or as he thinks which leads him to have many gaffs, his pride doesn't allow him to correct himself and subsequently, those who are loyal listeners begin to take his error as fact or a convoluted theology of some kind. He really isn't that bright and a listener will note that over the course of a three hour show the same words, phrases and ideas are being said in the same way over and over ad nausium. I listen to him quite often when i am on the road as Dr Laura isn't much better and find that quite often, a caller with a valid point stumbles the champ quite easily and he has to retreat into either a commercial or a declaration of how the argument was irrelevent anyhow.here The last fault is severe though, he is a die hard partisan for the Republican party. No matter what the issue or sense/non sense the issue makes , it is always going to have one outcome on his show. Republicans are right and the Democrats are wrong, no Grey, just Black and White. That is the reason why he and probably most people in politics are idiots. As a Democratic example I give you Kerry and his bid for the US presidency, no plan, no policies, just to discredit Bush and run on that ticket knowing that most people on the Left hate Bush enough to vote for him even though so far, he stands for nothing.. Now that is not to say that Rush is not without merit, frequently I learn things before they are reported in the mainstream news or arguements put forth that do make sense and persue them using valid sources to verify. Three hours of Rush though, you would have to be a Ditto Head to handle it every day. And make sure you go visit Pembroke Online as well. It's a cool site with lots to offer local people and tourists alike.

Worldwide terrorist attacks down in 2003 There is lots more but this is the first one that I pulled up.

Absolutely. Good thing the US went in and liberated a country then started rebuilding it so the people can be free from tyranny and have self determination. In order to give them that so thaqt terrorism becomes less of an option for their hopelessness, you have to secure the place by taking out those who want to have a hold on the people. You knew that though didn't you? Got that right. Amazing how one dimensional some people are when they address this issue. 'Why not North Korea? Why not China etc' It pretty much comes down to the unique situation that Iraq was in with it's geographic location as a centralized Middle Eastern country, Saddam being a 'disposable government' complete with Iraq having enough natural resources so that the US could oust and replace with a prosperous nation in minimal time. The hoped for result - a nation that works and is not under the boot of some nut or tyrant. They had legal justification for doing so given the UN resolutions (which if properly cross referenced gives 'Member Nations Assisting the Country of Kuwait' all the necessary permission to carry this out scince they had not adhered to their part of the 91 ceasefire by co operating fully and ridding themselves of 'all WMD and rrelated materials and equipment' As Blix attested to in his 27 Jan brief to the UN in 2003.) The results so far have shown a decrease in terrorism the world over. Lowest in over thirty years matter of fact. Given that it is legal, then your arguments against the war must be moral Whose though? The elected government of the USA approved, the UN wrote the rules that made it legal, the US didn't invade us, the Iraqis had no official government outside of Saddam who was a criminal, and the Iraqi people are in the process of putting together a representative government and there is no way that they want to return to the days of Saddam. So whose morals were infringed on here? So many equate terrorism with the specifices of 9 11 thinking cause/effect. It was not that particular act that is the reason for Iraqi Freedom but it is that act, that shows how serious this can be if action is not taken against terrorism. Just because the guys flying the planes on 9 11 were Saudi does not mean that Islamo Fachists and Islamic Terrorists the world over are all Saudi. They are all nationalities.

PF, your words are true but it is not the Government making the parts and brokering the deals but the private sector. the ones who are looking to make a buck and satisfy the shareholders (us). When you say it is easier to ship to theree, remember, easier is cheaper. Cheaper means cost savings, which in turn means more bought, which means more made, which means more jobs, which means better economy. I acknowlege that the Government has the ability to influence and has a large stake in setting out tariffs and such but that only works so far, they cannot artificially create a market where there was none before simply because it wants to. You are falling into the simple form of thinking that so many do to envision world affairs. Countries are never friends, they, at best form alliances that change over time to best suit each other. That is why they get Lawyers to work out details instead of big purple dinosaurs named Barney. They don't act out of spite or to try and take the other one over but rather to each's mutual benifit. They might try and influence one area by giving concessions in another for sure, but if you feel that our guys have worked out a bad deal, it is our fault, not the US's. On the other hand, the people of each country, PM and President included can feel a kinship to the other given our similar ethics and culture, this can be construed as 'friendship.'. This is why we and they should both stive to do things for each other as no other two countries on this planet are as similar to us and them as us and them are.

Pretend for a moment that I make a widget and sell it to whomever buys it. Taxed at a rate of 5% by the US in return for a low tax rate on the 'Snibs' they sell us, it makes for a half decent deal. Suddenly, I find that they are taxed at a rate of 10% and my orders stop comming from the US. I look to Europe and find that there are mega Widget manufacturers there that don't have a hefty transport cost attactched to their product and cannot compete. I go out of business here and move my company to the US. On the other hand, what if I look to Europe and find that I can make money trading with them? I, as a business owner would have done it long ago. Or at least, asked the Government to work on making some sort of agreement whereby I could make money there.

Exactly. It hardly makes a diffence at all. They are crap for money, crap for human rights and crap for taking care of it's own. As for the pilots, you understand well why it was they. It's the same reason that anybody can be a terrorist, appeal to some cord in their soul and they become one. Don't need him. Just remember, it's all the fault of the USA.

LOL. Good one! They really have choice there too, civil liberties are worse there than China for crying out loud! Bottom 100 countries of the world on civil liberties from NATIONMASTER I agree that poverty is not the 'root' cause of terrorism but it lends itself to the ability to find people that have nothing to lose by becomming it's recruits. People that have nowhere to turn, people that have no outlet, people that only have control when they are kiling somebody. People that are in places where they dare not speak out and yes, people that are poor. As in much of the third world. As for the individuals that flew the planes on 9 11, they all had their own reasons I am sure. Ego, religion, hatred, whatever. I also would observe that it would be a hard convincing gig to have a water buffalo shepard from Somalia pull off a pilot's position so these individuals are hardly representative of the overall makeup of a terrorist.

Terrorism levels have gone down to their lowest levels in over thirty years. Is this because of the US efforts, or in spite of it?

Saudi Arabia rich? Yes indeed for the 1% that control the weath it is a thrieving wonderland. Fot the rest, even averaged out they are poor. GDP per capita NATION MASTER

So true. Inept Governments keep disatified populations in check with force. When the people are happy and prosperous, the Government is happy and prosperous. Seems like a universal equation to me. If it could be applied to countries that have lots of terrorist recruits, it could almost be looked at as a deterent to terror.

Least they talked. More than the previous guy did. Continue hate and criticism without friendship and they stop listening. Guess you don't understand how to deal with people. I'm right leaning and I at least understand how a leftist PM made a blow for Canda and the world this week simply by opening dialogue. Maybe when they talk from now on Bush will understand why Canada did not join in on Iraq, maybe they will understand why we feel the way we do. Maybe he won't. At least, now, he will listen. If you see nothing postive about that then can't help you.

Let me ask you this: do you really think the U.S would close the borders to Canada if we proceed with marijuana reforms? I doubt it, as the economic costs to the States would be great (probably be greater than the costs of continuing to enforce their stupid drug policies). In other words, by punishing us, they would punish themselves. So, once we rule out that possibility as a likliehood, what's holding us back? There's no reason we can't address drug law reform while still addressing other priorities. Plus, the money saved from ceasing the pointless drug war would undoubetdly be welcome in a number of other areas. My business is cross border trade. It adds $$ for border crossings in order to get guys to drive for me and endure two to five times the wait at the border they did before 9 11. If we legalize the stuff the wait will even go up. Yes Black Dog, the trade will continue and the cost of doing so will go up, not only for us, but for them. That said, they may find that a cheap product might be found in Mexico rather than Canada, in a factory opened up by a person who realizes that cross border trade between Canada and the US makes for a less lucrative business than a more open border between Mexicq and the US, or even the hated Europe. Serious, there reaches a point where after paying a driver an extra $50 a load to clear US cutoms when it cost $0 before that it adds so much extra expense to a minimally expensive product. When it goes there and beyond, it makes that source of the product more vulnerable to outside competition.

Was out to dinner tonight. Amongst the celebrating table of 20 or so youngters (25-36) in the restaurant was a muslim woman in dress garb complete with headress. Modest and all you could only see her heavily made up face and the sequined robe outfit. Hmmmm. Eye attracting for sure, sexual? What's with the make up?

I would agree with you but find it hard to believe that they would have their hands tied like that. If they did, it certainly would be a bogus government. Do you have information on holding National Refferandums to change the constitution? US Forces to remain in country is only good sense. I am under no illusions that the US sees this as an opportunity to further change the Middle East. After all, it was the reason for going into Iraq in the first place. After WWII, storming Normandy and all, the Allies didn't 'hope' that things would be OK, they stayed and made sure, for fifty years. Your oil argument here is a completely separate thread I think.

The wording of you question and the terminology of the answers confused me a bit and I may have posted the wrong answer. I chose 'B' to allow it meaning to allow the taking of pictures. Anyhow, here is the result if they get away with wearing the traditional garb on the photo used to identify them. GOT TO BE KIDDING

As a right leaning type, I have always felt that Israel made sense, given the way the cards had fallen. However, when stepping back and reflecting, building settlements, giving some back and keeping others does not make any sense towards any kind of peace process. What strategic security is involved here when it only ensures that you will forever be guarding these 'outposts' from attack? Educate me please all.

Toes the line until they got the bugs worked out. Surely, you are not even suggesting that any government Iraq made on it's own would have even the remotest chance of succeeding against all the forces bent on destroying it? UN, the guys that cut an run at the first sign of trouble? UN, the guys that can't get any troops to commit? UN, guys that won't even stick by their own resolutions? Ya, I can see where that wouldv'e worked pretty good until the bullets started flying. Before you tell us that the bullets would not have stated flying, think about how insurgents have killed every group known to exist within Iraq; Religious, ethnic, UN, Spanish, US, British, Polish, and so on and forth, even Red Cross workers for crying out loud! You think they respect the UN? I think the killing of it's head in Iraq sent a message of non rrespect out far better than any words could.

So the puppet show will continue. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." And you figure mob rule should be the flavor of the day Black Dog? How about a moderate like Al Sadir? Or a leftist like Sistanni? You don't just turn this over to an unorganised group of twenty five million people overnight, it would be a death sentence for a million people and would turn the country into something that resembles Taliban ruled Afganistan. Surely you don't think that is the way to go? Anyhow, read this the other day but couldn't find it earlier. The UN has a guy setting it all out. In effect, it doesn't name the new puppets but gives the plan. CNN