Was The War in Iraq Necessary

[KrustyKidd]

Duplicate post

[Reverend Blair]

Your opinion suddenly has become proof?

No, and the way I presented it was not to read my opinion, but to read the links that were instrumental in forming that opinion. That seems to have set you off because you didn't like the links. Tough.

Lookie has a pretty good grasp of what you're all about, Krusty.

[Lookie]

Thanks for the welcome Krusty, I quite like it here, been lurking for some time. Imagine it took YOU to finally have me post! Do you feel special now?

[KrustyKidd]

My appoligies then. Here, take a lesson from Black Dog on how to post links and quotes. Note that he gives the link to give yu the opportunity to read his quote in context. It is not a signal for us to go on a scavenger hunt to read the linked source cover to cover from the front page to the obituaries but rather give us the opportunity to ensure that we see exactly the context that the quote is placed in.

Link.

Eight Palestinians were killed and dozens were wounded yesterday afternoon when IDF tanks fired shells at a crowd of protesters in Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Four of those killed were children under 14. Sixty-two people were wounded and about half of them, in a serious condition were taken to hospitals in Khan Yunis.

More.

The marchers had been surging toward the Tel Sultan neighborhood, the focal point of Israel's sweep into Rafah for the stated purpose of hunting militants and uncovering tunnels used to smuggle weapons across the border from Egypt.

Where are the howls of condemnation? Whenever a Hamas bomber detonates themselves on a Israeli street, we hear outpourings of rage at the "inhumanity" of the Palestinians. Will anyone hold Israel to the same standards?

The UN Security Council condemned the killings and Israel's in campaign in Rafah. In a rare move, the U.S. abstained (the closest Israel will get to a rebuke from them).

In light of this and the continuing collective punishment meted out against israel, I don't see many options left for the Palestinian people. Likud will not negotiate, peaceful protests will be attacked. It's a fight for survival. I hope they will continue to try and use peaceful protest as a means of keeping Israel's crimes in the spotlight. But I also understand that some may see an all out war as the only chance. After all: they don't have anything to lose.

Your link was given with no indication as to what we were supposed to look for and pretty much was 'here, find some proof.' A very frustrarting and time consuming enterprise for somebody whom you are trying to place evidence on a plate for easier consumption for.

[Reverend Blair]

I posted a couple of individual links, but it was pretty clear that they hadn't been read. I posted something about context earlier too because quotes, even if a link is provided, can be very misleading.

[Hugo]

Germany and Japan were the exception, not the rule.

One exception, I could believe. Two enormous and glaring exceptions, no. Your rule is invalidated.

Because you cannot bring about democracy by killing women and children,

Can you bring about democracy by drastically cuttingthe numbers of women and children being killed?

pretending that laws do not apply to you

I think KK has already thoroughly debunked this idea.

and crushing freedom of the press

Who is crushing freedom of the press? Pop quiz: what overweight, left-wing demagogue has just released a highly-publicised movie in the US that goes to great lengths bashing and demonising the Bush administration?

[Reverend Blair]

One exception, I could believe. Two enormous and glaring exceptions, no. Your rule is invalidated.

How about more recent examples where the world is not given any say. Where has the US brought democracy, on its own, since 1960. Your rule is invalidated.

Can you bring about democracy by drastically cuttingthe numbers of women and children being killed?

Not if you are dropping weapons of mass destruction on them and not if those weapons will continue killing after you go home. There's this:

Both during and after U.S. military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and elsewhere, cluster munitions have caused extensive—and predictable—harm to civilians. They endanger civilians during strikes with their broad footprint, and their explosive duds threaten people even years after they are deployed. The most common models of cluster munitions used in Iraq had dud rates of 16 percent, according to Department of Defense figures. 

from Human Rights Watch.

There is also the matter of the US refusing to ban landmines and continuing the use of depleted uranium ammunition.

I think KK has already thoroughly debunked this idea.

Not only has Krusty not debunked that idea, but the US has committed far more crimes than just the invasion.

Who is crushing freedom of the press?

The bigget uprising since Bush declared the war over was triggered by the closing of a press outlet.

The 2003 Press Freedom Ranking from Reporters Without Borders Place the US in Iraq in 135. Iraq under Saddam Hussein in the same year ranked 124. The US allowed less freedom of the press than Saddam did. Now there's something to be proud of.

The answer to your pop quiz is Michael Moore, Hugo. He had a lot of trouble getting the movie made and having it released. The right in the US is still discouraging theatre owners from playing it even though it is sure to draw people and make money.

[KrustyKidd]

Thanks for the welcome Krusty, I quite like it here, been lurking for some time. Imagine it took YOU to finally have me post! Do you feel special now?

Not really. You lurk for however long then the major event that makes you come out of your shell is to be a cheerleader for Black Dog and give me a hard time?

What reasons! What noble intellect. A cheerleader and a heckler, your momma must be so proud.

When asked why you disagree, you say you don't like to argue. I suppose you just like to be a pom pom girl and don't have a real opinion that can be backed up. Instead preffering to give a hard time instead. Sweet.

However, the really cool thing is that on a quiet night like it was last night, with nobody on the Forum but me and Rev, you pop up. And, although you two live two separate time zones apart, and your local time should be completely different, they are exactly the same. As if you lived together or something.

Interesting to say the least.

[August1991]

Rev, it seems to me the only links you have provided are to your own articles on another site. When I asked for a link, I meant to one of your specific articles. (I can understand that you don't want to type the same argument twice.)

But now you provide a real link to rsf and their 2003 ratings. There, I find the US is behind Costa Rica and Slovenia (both pleasant places). Curious, I find this:

The poor ranking of the United States (17th) is mainly because of the number of journalists arrested or imprisoned there. Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.

NationsOnLine (Never heard of them.)

Journalists held on contempt of court strikes me as evidence of press freedom.

But getting back to the original point, the rating of Iraq with the US vs. the rating of Iraq with Saddam, Iraq in 2003 was a war-zone.

Nevertheless, it is points like this that you should make.

----

Hugo provided a good link (above) about fatalities since the war started compared with fatalities under Saddam. You answered with a link (above) about how evil cluster bombs are. (I have no doubt cluster bombs are evil, but can you draw the connection to the issue at hand?)

----

I take issue with your suggestion that we only accept links to US government sites. That's absurd. BlackDog makes extremely good anti-war arguments always with well documented links.

For myself, I was against this war before it started. But I can understand why the US/UK/Aussies/East Europe/Italy/Spain (and others) did it.

[KrustyKidd]

The answer to your pop quiz is Michael Moore, Hugo. He had a lot of trouble getting the movie made and having it released. The right in the US is still discouraging theatre owners from playing it even though it is sure to draw people and make money.

Fox News Likes F 911

It turns out to be a really brilliant piece of work, and a film that members of all political parties should see without fail.

Moore accused of publicity stunt over Disney 'ban'

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

Michael Moore Admits Disney 'Ban' Was A Stunt

    In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

    But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Did they recently pull the plug---one year ago? Perhaps Kerry is Moore's script writer.

Michael Moore admits Disney 'ban' was a stunt

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

[Lookie]

Thanks for the welcome Krusty, I quite like it here, been lurking for some time. Imagine it took YOU to finally have me post! Do you feel special now?

Not really. You lurk for however long then the major event that makes you come out of your shell is to be a cheerleader for Black Dog and give me a hard time?

What reasons! What noble intellect. A cheerleader and a heckler, your momma must be so proud.

When asked why you disagree, you say you don't like to argue. I suppose you just like to be a pom pom girl and don't have a real opinion that can be backed up. Instead preffering to give a hard time instead. Sweet.

However, the really cool thing is that on a quiet night like it was last night, with nobody on the Forum but me and Rev, you pop up. And, although you two live two separate time zones apart, and your local time should be completely different, they are exactly the same. As if you lived together or something.

Interesting to say the least.

Haha...you make me laugh Krusty. Always trying to get an argument out of somebody!

Hey Rev, did you know we are apparently LUHVERS??? hehe

[KrustyKidd]

Haha...you make me laugh Krusty. Always trying to get an argument out of somebody!

Thanks. That's post number four from you and still nothing to add. Keep going, you are heading the current record for poster irrelevence.

[Reverend Blair]

When I asked for a link, I meant to one of your specific articles. (I can understand that you don't want to type the same argument twice.)

Which specific article? There isn't one that fits this thread exactly, but there are several with links that are related to what we are talking about.

But now you provide a real link to rsf and their 2003 ratings.

That link is at the bottom of one of the articles as well.

But getting back to the original point, the rating of Iraq with the US vs. the rating of Iraq with Saddam, Iraq in 2003 was a war-zone.

Iraq has arguably been a war zone since the first Bush was in office. The US didn't just imprison members of the press there, it blew up the offices af al Jazeera, it fired at the Palestine, a hotel anybody who watches major news networks knew the press was staying in, killing a couple members of the international press, and limited access by the press while seeking to control content through embedding. Those are not the actions of a nation that respects press freedom, even in a war zone, and the results are valid.

For myself, I was against this war before it started. But I can understand why the US/UK/Aussies/East Europe/Italy/Spain (and others) did it.

The US did it for oil and corporate profit, not for the betterment of the US, but for the enrichment of the friends of George Bush.

Most of the other countries did for trade and aid. Either they wanted more or were afraid of losing what they already had. They thought it would be a short war and the controversy would die down. They were wrong.

I've never been able to figure out why Tony Blair is adamant about backing George Bush. My personal feeling is that Maggie Thatcher impregnated Pat Nixon and Tony Blair is the bastard result of that unholy union.

Actually I think Tony is influenced by tails of the British Empire and feels guilty about the way the Middle East was divvied up after WWI. He wants to make a difference but isn't bright enough to understand that he's making things worse instead of better.

I'm pretty sure I missed a point there someplace, but i'm sure somebody will be able to point it out to me.

Krusty:

Other than linking to the same article twice (the New Zealand News story is part of the Capitalist article) you've linked to the only story (twice) I know of that tried to spin claiming that Moore was merely pulling a stunt. It has been quoted and requoted until it seems to be coming from all directions, but the original source seems to be from New Zealand.

I don't don't that Moore is beyond stunts, they are part of his schtick, but he did have trouble getting funding for the movie to begin with, then a distribution deal was turned down. Considering Moore's recent success I'll stick against Disney on this. The company has never done anything except for money and, since Moore's movie was sure to be profitable, it can be assumed the money for Disney is coming from someplace.

Lookie said,

Hey Rev, did you know we are apparently LUHVERS??? hehe

Apparently. Don't tell Mrs. Rev. I haven't been to the coast in six or seven years, when's the last time you were in Winnipeg?

The whole supposition is based on me staying up until the wee hours. My mother lives in Saskatchewan though, so I'm allowed to stay up as late as I want. Krusty also doesn't like the way I don't bother to set my local time. Why would I? I know what time it is here.

[KrustyKidd]

the original source seems to be from New Zealand.

It seems you are correct. It quotes a CNN interview but I haven't been able to find it. What I have found however is glowing reviews of the film everywhere. One article agreed with you on his willingness to capitalize on this type of thing though.

A rather humerous one was a supposed quote from him published n a website saying that he did it for the American people and allowed them to download it for free. That one got squashed pretty quick after a few downloads LOL.

[Reverend Blair]

I've looked for that CNN interview too. No luck. Notice that Moore never says it was a stunt though, just that Disney had said no a year ago? He'd another book come out in that time and his fame had grown a fair bit. I don't think that expecting renegotiation is unfair under those circumstances.

Since Disney owns Miramax and Miramax owned the distribution rights, iy is perfectly plausible that Disnay did not want the movie to come out.

[Hugo]

How about more recent examples where the world is not given any say.

I appreciate your attempt at a bait-and-switch. However, you originally said:

We cannot install democracy by going in with guns blazing

which has been proven wrong. That's my point. Yet again, you are trying to pull the argument off-course in the hope that obfuscation will lead people to forget your ignorance. Again, it isn't working.

There's this

As August said, this is about cluster munitions, not Iraqi civilian bodycounts. I think my source is more relevant to the argument. Even with the highly suspect figures from the Iraqi Information Ministry the simple fact is that the invasion of Iraq saved thousands (if not a greater magnitude) of civilian lives.

Krusty [has] not debunked that idea

If you say so. He's been quoting reams of international law and UN resolutions, and your pathetic riposte is a treatise from a bunch of leftist nobodies meeting in a basement. I read the thread and was quite amused by your flailing.

the US has committed far more crimes than just the invasion.

Crimes worse than Saddam's? Crimes even a tenth as bad as Saddam's?

Michael Moore... had a lot of trouble getting the movie made and having it released.

Once again, KK has beaten me to refuting this argument. I have to say he did it with his usual aplomb, however.

The US allowed less freedom of the press than Saddam did.

In a warzone, during a war, with terrorists running around? I'm sure they did. The media outlets in the Middle East have been notable for espousing the cause of terrorism and broadcasting promises of cash prizes to terrorists. Quite simply, at this time a free Iraqi press is a big security risk and endangers innocent lives. In ten years we shall see.

[Reverend Blair]

I appreciate your attempt at a bait-and-switch. However, you originally said:

No bait and switch. When has a unilateral US action resulted in a democracy. Don't tell me how this isn;t unilateral either, they are clearly running the show and it was clearly the US that decided to go to war.

That's my point. Yet again, you are trying to pull the argument off-course in the hope that obfuscation will lead people to forget your ignorance. Again, it isn't working.

I'm not trying to pull anything off course. You are ignoring that this invasion has more in common with incursions into South America than it does with World War two.

As August said, this is about cluster munitions, not Iraqi civilian bodycounts. I think my source is more relevant to the argument.

I think your source in nothing more than an opinion colomn that conveiently ignores facts that it can't make support the author's argument. As long as cluster munitions are used, and although it wasn't in the link there is also the use of du munitions to consider, the body count will continue to rise long after the conflict is over. The Iraq people are fully, and quite personally, aware of that. It is something that cannot be ignored for the convenience of your argument.

If you say so. He's been quoting reams of international law and UN resolutions,

Are you ignoring the fact that so many involved in international law have said that the invasion is illegal. Even Richard Perle admitted it was likely illegal. Kofi Annan said it was illegal. Their familiarity with international law is far greater than either yours or Krusty's. Until you provide your legal degrees and resumes it will remain so.

Crimes worse than Saddam's? Crimes even a tenth as bad as Saddam's?

Did I say anything about them being better, worse, or the same? As long as any nation is above any law, then others have a green light not to follow the law as well.

Look at it this way...when the Hells Angels come to a town and start offing the other criminals, we still seek to prosecute them. The experience in Winnipeg is that the Angels are far more professional than most criminals though, so the harm done to innocent bystanders is less. Are you saying that we should let the Angels run organised crime in Winnipeg? It's the same principle...we need to prosecute criminals whoever they are.

Once again, KK has beaten me to refuting this argument. I have to say he did it with his usual aplomb, however.

Even Krusty agreed that all of the claims seemed to stem from one article that was based on a quote from CNN that he can't find. Some refutation.

In a warzone, during a war, with terrorists running around? I'm sure they did. The media outlets in the Middle East have been notable for espousing the cause of terrorism and broadcasting promises of cash prizes to terrorists. Quite simply, at this time a free Iraqi press is a big security risk and endangers innocent lives. In ten years we shall see.

al Jazeera is an internationally recognised press outlet, no more biased than Fox when you get right down to it. The reporters in the Palestine were not working for the Iraqi press and were not Iraqi. The Iraqi press was not part of the embedding process.

Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water. You are saying that one of the basic tenets of democracy doesn't matter in a place where the US is claiming to try to bring democracy.

If the US were to invade Canada would say it was okay for them to blow up the offices of the CBC? How about the Sun? The Winnipeg Free Press? MacLean's? If there were a bevy of international press staying at tehe Richmond Inn would it be acceptable for them to fire missiles into the hotel? Would it be appropriate for them to refuse to have an open investigation into the matter?

[KrustyKidd]

REV

Even Richard Perle admitted it was likely illegal.

Likely? But you said that it WAS illegal.

Here is what Perle said "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

I didn't see a definite case for the war being illegal.

Kofi Annan said it was illegal.

Kofis quotes

  -  UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said Thursday that the Iraqi government hadn't given "an inch" toward meeting UN demands. "I don't see any change in attitude," he said.   

A rather interesting one from the World Federation of United Nations' Associations President Hasim Abdul Halim on march 26 who said ....

  that a meeting of the UN General Assembly be called immediately to declare the war an illegal military action. 

Add his urging to Kofis quote as well because

  Abdul Halim on march 26 urged the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to declare the US- initiated war on Iraq as illegal.

This would indicate that at that time no ruling was in place which made the action illegal. Otherwise, why call for a ruling that was already in place? Now, does not a current World Body President who says that the war is not, but should be illegal and needs to be made illegal carry more weight than a former has-been Advisor like Perle? If not, then why don't you like Bush's word, he's the President of the United States of America for cryng out loud and he says it's legal..

Their familiarity with international law is far greater than either yours or Krusty's. Until you provide your legal degrees and resumes it will remain so. 

Where is Koffees? Perles? Yours for that matter? You say it is illegal. Show me the law that specifically says that this is illegal. Then show us all the charges and which atricles the guilty are being charged with by A RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY to bring those who broke the law to justice.

From the Perle article:

Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes.

Don't know if any of these guys are lawyers but they carry more weight than a FORMER anything and they are against the war and they think that it should be illegal, yet they know that there is no law making it illegal. That's why all the urging to have the UN pass something. Hence, the war is not illegal.

BTW Rev, a very good example you gave. I am impressed, although I do not agree with it's implication that the US action in Iraq is criminal, it still makes your point in an impressive manner. Kudos.

Look at it this way...when the Hells Angels come to a town and start offing the other criminals, we still seek to prosecute them. The experience in Winnipeg is that the Angels are far more professional than most criminals though, so the harm done to innocent bystanders is less. Are you saying that we should let the Angels run organised crime in Winnipeg? It's the same principle...we need to prosecute criminals whoever they are.

[Reverend Blair]

Likely? But you said that it WAS illegal.

I did say that, and I stand by it. Such an admission by a criminal shows contempt for the law. Perle was clearly aware that he wouldn't be prosecuted.

Yours for that matter?

I'll sjow you mine if you'll show me yours. Who, prominent in international law outside of the Bush administration, has clearly backed your position up? Not by inference. Who has outright said that the invasion was legal?

Don't know if any of these guys are lawyers but they carry more weight than a FORMER anything and they are against the war and they think that it should be illegal, yet they know that there is no law making it illegal. That's why all the urging to have the UN pass something. Hence, the war is not illegal.

Ah, but their basic argument is based on international law. They wanted a specific resolution because the US was using old resolutions to circumvent the spirit and letter of existing law by insisting it didn't apply because this was a continuation of an old conflict. They were seeking to strengthen their case, not make a new one.

BTW Rev, a very good example you gave. I am impressed, although I do not agree with it's implication that the US action in Iraq is criminal...

Which US action? You can quibble about the invasion itself, but the US has broken many laws in Iraq since then. They did not prevent looting or even try (unless you count the oil ministry), they did change laws that affected the basic economic structure of the country. There is footage of US soldiers shooting a wounded Iraqi soldier who is clearly out of action. There is serious doubt as to whether the use of some weapons the US uses is legal. There is footage of US soldiers shooting into a crowd of unarmed civilians and of bombs being dropped on civilian neighbourhoods in an effort to kill one or two of Saddam's pals.

I didn't compare the US to the Angels by accident. Frankly, I trust the Angels a lot more, which is not at all.

[Hugo]

When has a unilateral US action resulted in a democracy. Don't tell me how this isn;t unilateral either... I'm not trying to pull anything off course.

Yes, you are. You originally said,

We cannot install democracy by going in with guns blazing

which is wrong. Do you understand this yet, the third time around? You didn't say "unilaterally", you didn't say "in Latin America" or any other points that were not included in any way in your original statement. You simply said the above, pure and simple, and if you did not mean it you should have said it.

But you did mean it, you won't retract it and you are so arrogant that you'll happily go on digging a deeper hole for yourself forever. Say hi to China when you get there.

I think your source in nothing more than an opinion colomn that conveiently ignores facts that it can't make support the author's argument.

It cited the necessary facts from the Iraqi Information Ministry and Human Rights Watch, which you yourself quoted.

As long as cluster munitions are used, and... du munitions, the body count will continue to rise long after the conflict is over.

Ah, so if we don't use clusterbombs and DU munitions there won't be any more casualties? The terrorists in Iraq seem to be killing a lot of people without those weapons.

Are you ignoring the fact that so many involved in international law have said that the invasion is illegal.

Until they make international law it doesn't matter what they say. You can have a hundred judges denounce a sentence, but it's the one judge who handed it down who gets to make law. I don't need a law degree to understand that, do you?

And what you were talking about was a breach of law, not a question of ethics. It's a technicality, and technically the invasion was legal.

It's the same principle...we need to prosecute criminals whoever they are.

And if the police deliberately kill perpetrators or accidentally kill innocents in the pursuit of criminals?

Even Krusty agreed that all of the claims seemed to stem from one article that was based on a quote from CNN that he can't find.

Seems to me, nevertheless, that Moore is getting plenty of attention and box-office success for a guy whose freedom of speech is being squashed.

Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water.

I think it does. In wartime, it's been a long-standing tradition that even free countries will place tight restrictions on the press if to avoid doing so would compromise their military success. Same thing here.

[Reverend Blair]

Ah, another mob lawyer trying to defend the indefensible. Sorry dude, international law runs wider an narrower than that.

You'bve forgotten to give an example of the US installing a democracy in the modern world. WWII was a long time ago. Things have changed since then. Defend your president of choice.

It cited the necessary facts from the Iraqi Information Ministry and Human Rights Watch, which you yourself quoted.

Remember context?

Ah, so if we don't use clusterbombs and DU munitions there won't be any more casualties? The terrorists in Iraq seem to be killing a lot of people without those weapons.

So does the US government. Sometimes they have to beat people to death to make their point understood, but the Iraqi people understand it fully. That's why so many so vehemently oppose the US occupation.

Until they make international law it doesn't matter what they say.

You seem to be purposely obtuse. It is illegal to beat people to death. It is illegal to torture people. It is, as an occupying nation, illegal to change the economic structure of a country. Those things aren't just against international law, they are against US military law. There is no question that they occurred in Iraq.

Things that are contentious include little things like the CIA hiring private contractors who fall into a grey area when it comes to torturing people. You know what? A mercenary is a mercenary and about the lowest scum on the planet. The pricks that hire them are even lower than that. Want to defend mercenaries now? Go for it. They are just earning a living, after all. There are prostitutes and then there are whores...which camp do the mercenaries fit into? Their apologists?

And if the police deliberately kill perpetrators or accidentally kill innocents in the pursuit of criminals?

Then they should be held fully responsible. If they are not willing to be held accountable the end result will be abuse.

I think it does. In wartime, it's been a long-standing tradition that even free countries will place tight restrictions on the press if to avoid doing so would compromise their military success.

So it must be okay to send a rocket into a hotel then? Or blow up the offices of a press agency that has taken the time to be sure you know their coordinates so you don't blow them up by accident? That's what AJ did...made sure the US knew exactly where they were so there wouldn't be any "accidents" like there were in Afghanistan. Incidentally, AJ shared offices with the BBC in Afghanistan. The US bombed the BEEB. Now there's a sign of a democratic nation, huh? The BBC is the closest thing the planet has to a universally recognised press agency and Bush sent a fucking rocket into their offices because he didn't like their friends.

Defend that, hugo. Keep in mind the rather sage words of Gilles Duceppe though...having a friend does not mean you have to kneel in front of him.

[willy]

Look forward, if Iran becomes a problem, we better hope that Iraq has a stable government.

Iran is becoming a problem. Lets hope the US is successful.

[Reverend Blair]

The problem is that US will not be successful in bringing democracy if they continue to do things the way they have been, Willy. They require the support of the Iraqi people for that and they have done little or nothing to win that support.

They just turned Iraq over to its own government. The problem is that they picked who the government would be an insist on maitaining control of almost everything. When (if) elections happen will the US allow people who speak out against them to run? Will the US allow those people to take office if they win?

We have not seen a history of that in modern US foreign policy and the Bush regime seems to want to keep a tight hold on the reins of Iraq. That is the sort of thing that got them booted out Iran in the first place and it is the kind of thing that built Saddam's power to the point it reached.

[Hugo]

You'bve forgotten to give an example of the US installing a democracy in the modern world.

Alright, this is the last time I'm going to do this.

You said:

We cannot install democracy by going in with guns blazing

which is wrong. End of story. There is precedent for exactly what you say cannot be done. If you want to change your statement, go ahead, but let's not pretend that's not what you are doing. We are not idiots here.

Any further ducking and diving on your part regarding this point will be ignored. It's a waste of time and bandwidth. You were wrong. Be a man and admit it, and then we can move on.

Remember context?

It seems that you are the only person in this thread who doesn't like that article. It seemed pretty clear-cut to me. It was not an opinion column, it was a series of facts correctly cited from good sources designed to dispel common misconceptions and ignorance.

You seem to be purposely obtuse.

Once again, you are trying to twist things around and muddy the waters to try and hide the fact that you were wrong.

You said the invasion of Iraq was illegal. It wasn't. You were wrong - again. Now, stop being childish. If you will insist on making such ridiculous posts, don't be surprised when they are blown out of the water on such a regular basis. This forum is not one of your lefty love-ins, you actually have to defend your statements here.

Or blow up the offices of a press agency that has taken the time to be sure you know their coordinates so you don't blow them up by accident?

Why don't you cite the exact facts of this incident, from a viable source (a reputable news agency will do), and we can discuss that?

[August1991]

You'bve forgotten to give an example of the US installing a democracy in the modern world. WWII was a long time ago.

Off the top of my head, South Korea in 1953, Lebanon in 1958 and all of Eastern Europe in the early 1990s, Kuwait in 1991.

You may disagree about "installing democracy" so I'll refer to "installing sovereignty".

Keep in mind that between 1945 and 1991, the US was involved in a Cold War. The battles of this war were not easy and the priority was to defeat the enemy. And the US eventually did. (I am not saying that Ronald Reagan defeated communism. I'm saying that all the US administrations from Truman to Bush did.)

But look, Rev, I think Hugo is logically correct. He gave a counter example to your claim and that's enough to disprove it.