Why the war on iraq ?

[Bakunin]

Was it just business as usual ?

Simply a new way for multinational and politician

to leech more money from the taxpayer ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050706/bs_nm/...alliburton_dc_6

[Hawk]

Was it just business as usual ?

Simply a new way for multinational and politician

to leech more money from the taxpayer ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050706/bs_nm/...alliburton_dc_6

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So let me get this straight, socialists blam the USA for going in... yet now you get pissed that they want to rebuild it and help out? Wow, thats all I can say, wow.

[Bakunin]

Was it just business as usual ?

Simply a new way for multinational and politician

to leech more money from the taxpayer ?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050706/bs_nm/...alliburton_dc_6

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So let me get this straight, socialists blam the USA for going in... yet now you get pissed that they want to rebuild it and help out? Wow, thats all I can say, wow.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats not the point, im just worried.

When the government is formed of people that are linked to the war industry and they go to a controversed war against iraq and those industry signs deals for billions... hmm it looks like a confict of interest to me.

Let me ask another question, is it just a coincidence that the real president of the united states, Dick Cheney, worked at Halliburton for 5 years... Does he still have links over there ? do they talk to each others ?

Could we pretend that its just a coincidence and that once the man become a politician, he had no more link with the company he worked ?

It could be something similar to the sponsorship scandal. Use political power to boost a business with tax payers money ?

[BHS]

Thats not the point, im just worried.

When the government is formed of people that are linked to the war industry and they go to a controversed war against iraq and those industry signs deals for billions... hmm it looks like a confict of interest to me.

Let me ask another question, is it just a coincidence that the real president of the united states, Dick Cheney, worked at Halliburton for 5 years... Does he still have links over there ? do they talk to each others ?

Could we pretend that its just a coincidence and that once the man become a politician, he had no more link with the company he worked ?

It could be something similar to the sponsorship scandal. Use political power to boost a business with tax payers money ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you just wake up from a coma? This looks like the stuff that people were writing back in 2002.

Do you honestly believe that the US went to war in Iraq solely to benefit Haliburton (or, let's say, all American oil interests), and do you think the WMD issues and the democratization efforts and everything else was just blather to cover the oil issue up?

[Bakunin]

Thats not the point, im just worried.

When the government is formed of people that are linked to the war industry and they go to a controversed war against iraq and those industry signs deals for billions... hmm it looks like a confict of interest to me.

Let me ask another question, is it just a coincidence that the real president of the united states, Dick Cheney, worked at Halliburton for 5 years... Does he still have links over there ? do they talk to each others ?

Could we pretend that its just a coincidence and that once the man become a politician, he had no more link with the company he worked ?

It could be something similar to the sponsorship scandal. Use political power to boost a business with tax payers money ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you just wake up from a coma? This looks like the stuff that people were writing back in 2002.

Do you honestly believe that the US went to war in Iraq solely to benefit Haliburton (or, let's say, all American oil interests), and do you think the WMD issues and the democratization efforts and everything else was just blather to cover the oil issue up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In 2002 ppl were assuming this, now we have what can be called the proof that it was right.

[Muddyw67]

ma? This looks like the stuff that people were writing back in 2002.

Do you honestly believe that the US went to war in Iraq solely to benefit Haliburton (or, let's say, all American oil interests), and do you think the WMD issues and the democratization efforts and everything else was just blather to cover the oil issue up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It must have been a joint coma. All sorts of evidence now plainly indicates that the Bush Reich did in fact use information about WMD that they knew was false in order to rationalize and terrorize the American people into accepting this imperialist invasion. The democratic rhetoric was a rather belated attempted to cover up the failure to find the non existent WMD as a rational to the American people now that the Iraqis had failed to act like the grateful French of 1944 and throw flowers all over the victorious army and was in fact determined to push them out by what ever means at their disposal. Initially remember Bush had no interest in "Nation Building" and attempted to resist the Iraqis impulses towards creating their own country. He wanted to rule Iraq like a colony under a proconsul. The original constitution drafted by corporate interests included unbelievable guarantees of access to Iraqis resources and the removal of profits to corporate head quarters an unprecedented intrusion into the affairs of a sovereign country. A few points that you might have missed while you were in hyper sleep

: Saddam did not collude with Al Quada in the 9/11 attacks

: Saddam did not met with Al Quada

: Saddam did not posses weapons of mass destruction

The US knew this and pushed their invasion agenda anyway. The reason for the Bush Reich's interest in Iraq is not the oil per se but the control of it in terms of its larger geo political agenda which would be made much easier with Iraqis oil and bases in the Middle East.

[BHS]

It must have been a joint coma. All sorts of evidence now plainly indicates that the Bush Reich did in fact use information about WMD that they knew was false in order to rationalize and terrorize the American people into accepting this imperialist invasion. The democratic rhetoric was a rather belated attempted to cover up the failure to find the non existent WMD as a rational to the American people now that the Iraqis had failed to act like the grateful French of 1944 and throw flowers all over the victorious army and was in fact determined to push them out by what ever means at their disposal. Initially remember Bush had no interest in "Nation Building" and attempted to resist the Iraqis impulses towards creating their own country. He wanted to rule Iraq like a colony under a proconsul. The original constitution drafted by corporate interests included unbelievable guarantees of access to Iraqis resources and the removal of profits to corporate head quarters an unprecedented intrusion into the affairs of a sovereign country. A few points that you might have missed while you were in hyper sleep

: Saddam did not collude with Al Quada in the 9/11 attacks

: Saddam did not met with Al Quada

: Saddam did not posses weapons of mass destruction

The US knew this and pushed their invasion agenda anyway. The reason for the Bush Reich's interest in Iraq is not the oil per se but the control of it in terms of its larger geo political agenda which would be made much easier with Iraqis oil and bases in the Middle East.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, your cliches are so tired. They only serve to make your arguments that much more laughable. I mean, Bush Reich? (Oh, I get it: BUSH=HITLER. That's convincing. So when is the US going to annex Canada? Which segment of the American population is Bush scapegoating? Go the extra mile and fill in a few blanks for me here.)

It's interesting to me, how much your conspiracy theory about the government using false information to "terrorize" the American population reads like a cheap movie plot. I believe it might just be possible that you put a little too much faith into whatever spy thrillers you've seen. I know the stories appear plausible, but the real world doesn't work that way.

Here's some things you may have missed while you were awake and frantically

skimming the headlines for signs of Bush-inspired Armaggedon:

- The US didn't go into Iraq in retaliation for 911. Collusion between Al-Qaeda and Saddam over 911 was never an issue. The American effort was entirely pre-emptive in nature, and was based on Saddam's history of supporting terrorism, harbouring terrorists, attempting to acquire WMD and attacking peaceful neighbouring states.

- Furthermore, the evidence available after 911 suggested that Al-Qaeda had supporters and sympathizers across the Middle East, and that the effort required to remove the threat of Islamist terrorism required a large, long-term American military presence. The pre-911 arrangement with Saudi Arabia was insufficient (and largely suspect, due to the large contingent of Saudis in the 911 group). The solution was a large, permanent base in a friendly nation in the centre of the Middle East. Hence the need for a democratic and pro-West Iraq. You can call this imperialism if it suits you. I suppose you also consider the continued presense of large American troop deployments in Germany and South Korea to be indicative of America's "imperialist" past lurking in the present. I call it defending allied nations against unstable former adversaries. Potato, potahto.

I can't help you with your belief that the US has such a stranglehold on the global oil market that it considers an independant Iraq a threat. My only suggestion in that regard is lithium, and a good therapist.

[Argus]

It must have been a joint coma. All sorts of evidence now plainly indicates that the Bush Reich...

That's about as far as I got without snickering.

There's just no way I or anyone else this side of the sanity line is going to take anyone seriously who earnestly uses terms like "The Bush Reich".

[Hawk]

Man I started reading about the Bush 'Reich' and nearly choked to death on my tater tots xD Thanks guys, gave me a good laugh, while your at it you should throw some more of that 'evidence' at the FBI so they can get the 'war criminal' behind bars

[GostHacked]

It must have been a joint coma. SNIP  A few points that you might have missed while you were in hyper sleep

: Saddam did not collude with Al Quada in the 9/11 attacks

: Saddam did not met with Al Quada

: Saddam did not posses weapons of mass destruction

The US knew this and pushed their invasion agenda anyway. The reason for the Bush Reich's interest in Iraq is not the oil per se but the control of it in terms of its larger geo political agenda which would be made much easier with Iraqis oil and bases in the Middle East.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's some things you may have missed while you were awake and frantically

skimming the headlines for signs of Bush-inspired Armaggedon:

- The US didn't go into Iraq in retaliation for 911. Collusion between Al-Qaeda and Saddam over 911 was never an issue. The American effort was entirely pre-emptive in nature, and was based on Saddam's history of supporting terrorism, harbouring terrorists, attempting to acquire WMD and attacking peaceful neighbouring states.

- Furthermore, the evidence available after 911 suggested that Al-Qaeda had supporters and sympathizers across the Middle East, and that the effort required to remove the threat of Islamist terrorism required a large, long-term American military presence. The pre-911 arrangement with Saudi Arabia was insufficient (and largely suspect, due to the large contingent of Saudis in the 911 group). The solution was a large, permanent base in a friendly nation in the centre of the Middle East. Hence the need for a democratic and pro-West Iraq. You can call this imperialism if it suits you. I suppose you also consider the continued presense of large American troop deployments in Germany and South Korea to be indicative of America's "imperialist" past lurking in the present. I call it defending allied nations against unstable former adversaries. Potato, potahto.

I can't help you with your belief that the US has such a stranglehold on the global oil market that it considers an independant Iraq a threat. My only suggestion in that regard is lithium, and a good therapist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Before the war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

Main quote from both articles. The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

During the invasion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/...ain584234.shtml

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?f...rican%20Century

Tell me what you see here. Or is this all just spin for the real reasons the US went to war against Iraq.

Do your damn research and get YOUR head out of the sand/coma. Also just stop before you embarass yourself some more.

[Black Dog]

The US didn't go into Iraq in retaliation for 911. Collusion between Al-Qaeda and Saddam over 911 was never an issue. The American effort was entirely pre-emptive in nature, and was based on Saddam's history of supporting terrorism, harbouring terrorists, attempting to acquire WMD and attacking peaceful neighbouring states.

Give me a break.

-"supporting terrorism": if supporting terrorism wa steh issue, why not invade Saudi Arabia (you know: the country that actualy spawne dthose responsible for 9-11?)?

"Harbouring terrorists": the Unitede States harbours terrorists too.

"Attempting to aquire WMD": Pre-war evidence of Iraq's WMD situation was, at best, shaky. After the overthrow, it became clear that there were no WMD and no active WMD development programs.

"Attacking Peaceful Neighbouring states": like who? Iran? Kuwait? Both of those were conducted with either the explicit suport of the U.S. (as in Iran) or what Saddam husayn belived was the U.S.'s approval (as in Kuwait).

Now, to be sure Saddam Husayn's regime was brutal. And the world knew its brutality even back when the U.S.A was selling him the means to do his dirty work. No the reason for invading and occupying Iraq is, as you clumisly state, the need for a large American military force to secure the regional oil supply. Unfortunately for the Americans, they've overreached. The problem of terrorism is getting worse as a result of their invasion. Nations like Iran and North Korea are building up nuclear deterrents. Iraq remains an unstable mess.

[BHS]

Before the war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

Main quote from both articles. The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

During the invasion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/...ain584234.shtml

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?f...rican%20Century

Tell me what you see here. Or is this all just spin for the real reasons the US went to war against Iraq.

Do your damn research and get YOUR head out of the sand/coma. Also just stop before you embarass yourself some more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My whole point is that any link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq was IRRELEVANT.

You have the reading comprehension skills of a pre-school student, I'm supposed to be embarrassed?

As for research, why don't you try looking a little further than the Democrat fellatio artists of the leftist American MSM? There was never any question that Iraq and Al-Qaeda had covert connections, as outlined in this article:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.htmlhttp://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html

Main quote: "Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it."

So the Sept. 11 commission, specifically charged with investigating the events leading up to 911, found no evidence that they chose to classify as "credible" of a collaberative effort between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, in regard to the planning and preparation for 911. Which is entirely consistent with what I've said.

[BHS]

-"supporting terrorism": if supporting terrorism wa steh issue, why not invade Saudi Arabia (you know: the country that actualy spawne dthose responsible for 9-11?)?

Saudi Arabia was and is still considered an ally of the US. Iraq was not. Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia's government colluded with Al-Qaeda? That's quite a charge.

"Harbouring terrorists": the Unitede States harbours terrorists too.

Are you saying that the US government has a policy of giving aid and succor to terrorist organisations? That's quite a charge.

"Attempting to aquire WMD": Pre-war evidence of Iraq's WMD situation was, at best, shaky. After the overthrow, it became clear that there were no WMD and no active WMD development programs.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

There's a clear difference between intent and outcome in this case. That Saddam ended up without his prized nukes is not important. The fact is, Saddam had a history of attempting to acquire WMD, and as long as he was in power there remained a chance that he would eventually succeed. This was an unacceptable situation.

"Attacking Peaceful Neighbouring states": like who? Iran? Kuwait? Both of those were conducted with either the explicit suport of the U.S. (as in Iran) or what Saddam husayn belived was the U.S.'s approval (as in Kuwait).

Now, to be sure Saddam Husayn's regime was brutal. And the world knew its brutality even back when the U.S.A was selling him the means to do his dirty work. No the reason for invading and occupying Iraq is, as you clumisly state, the need for a large American military force to secure the regional oil supply. Unfortunately for the Americans, they've overreached. The problem of terrorism is getting worse as a result of their invasion. Nations like Iran and North Korea are building up nuclear deterrents. Iraq remains an unstable mess.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll remind you that your heros in this little drama, those brave nations that fought most fiercely to keep the US out of Iraq, were far more complicet in his acquisition of weaponary than the US ever was. Your position that Saddam's brutality was carried on American shoulders is a trope. And even if it is true, that the US is ultimately responsible for Saddam's tyranny, doesn't that oblige them, morally, to go in a fix the problem?

As for terrorsim "getting worse", well, it's always darkest just before the dawn, as the old saying goes. We'll see who was correct in times to come.

[GostHacked]

Before the war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun16.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

Main quote from both articles. The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

During the invasion.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/...ain584234.shtml

http://www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?f...rican%20Century

Tell me what you see here. Or is this all just spin for the real reasons the US went to war against Iraq.

Do your damn research and get YOUR head out of the sand/coma. Also just stop before you embarass yourself some more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My whole point is that any link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq was IRRELEVANT.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is not irrelevant when it was one of the major supporting points for the invasion of Iraq. Which turned out to be total bull. I read that article, and you can come up with other credible sources? Look where Powel is now. Retired and totaly distanced himself from the allegations of the Al Queada-Iraq-911 connections. Also you may want to note what Powell was telling the world in 2001, before the WTC attacks. Then after the attacks, all that starts to come out that he DOES have WMDs. Why the change of speech?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm Watch the little video.

Also the other reasons for war, was the WMDs and chemical weapons. Hans Blix found nothing in Iraq. And since then the US has stopped the hunt for WMDs in Iraq. If that was a major reason for war, why just give up?

When you have a podium of Al queda links, WMDs, chem weapons, the threat to other neighbours ect, and they turn out to be all lies. The invasion of Iraq was wrong. Regardless of Saddams past history.

Why was he not just taken out in the first Gulf War? Why was he even given the chance to build up WMDs and links to Al Queda. Tell me that.

[BHS]

It is not irrelevant when it was one of the major supporting points for the invasion of Iraq. Which turned out to be total bull. I read that article, and you can come up with other credible sources? Look where Powel is now. Retired and totaly distanced himself from the allegations of the Al Queada-Iraq-911 connections. Also you may want to note what Powell was telling the world in 2001, before the WTC attacks. Then after the attacks, all that starts to come out that he DOES have WMDs. Why the change of speech?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WMDlies.html

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm Watch the little video.

Also the other reasons for war, was the WMDs and chemical weapons. Hans Blix found nothing in Iraq. And since then the US has stopped the hunt for WMDs in Iraq. If that was a major reason for war, why just give up?

When you have a podium of Al queda links, WMDs, chem weapons, the threat to other neighbours ect, and they turn out to be all lies. The invasion of Iraq was wrong. Regardless of Saddams past history.

Why was he not just taken out in the first Gulf War? Why was he even given the chance to build up WMDs and links to Al Queda. Tell me that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please note that I didn't link Saddam to Al-Qaeda in my "podium". I said Saddam had a history of supporting terrorism, which he most assuredly did. That Saddam supported terrorism, pursued WMD, had not verified the destruction of his WMD stockpile, and posed a threat to neighbouring countries are verifiable facts, not lies.

Saddam was not taken out during the first Gulf War because George Bush Sr. chose to play by the rules mandated by the United Nations, stating that the mission was to end when Iraq's armed forces had been removed from Kuwait. This was undoubtedly a mistake, but it's a nasty double standard on your part to ask the question, in a thread where you've done nothing but defend the inviolability of Iraqi sovereignty.

I've given you my own take on what I considered important facts before the war, and why I believed and still believe that the war was the right thing to do. If you and every other anti-war type want to keep kicking a dead horse, concentrating on the missing WMD issue and doggedy insisting that only a positive Iraq/911 link could justify the invasion, to the exclusion of all other issues, then there's nothing more that I can offer to you. If you choose to limit our debate of the rightness of the war to two as-yet unfinished topics, then congratulations.

I hope you feel as fully justified in your convictions 20 years from now. I know I will. As for the present, I can't be bothered to go any further with this thread.,

[crazymf]

Ok, new spin....

Back away for a sec.

Was Iraq a world threat?

I say no. They were a threat to neighbors and general pain in the a** but not a real threat to anybody 10000 miles away.

Did Saddam harbor terrorists, use terrorism?

I say he used government dictatorial iron fist rule to suppress and murder his own people for his own gain, but not outside influence to overthrow western civilization, other than to try to murder Bush sr in Kuwait, which again is next door. Saddam was too self centered and frankly small minded to expand much beyond his realm. Hindsight of the hole incident showed his true nature.

Did the USA go in there for oil?

Absolutely. You didn't see them run to Rwanda to save those people and you didn't see them topple the regime in Somalia, of which there wasn't one. They left instead. Why not be a beacon of freedom in Africa and sacrifice American lives for them in the name of freedom? Because they don't have the means to pay the USA back later.

Is the world better off now than before they went in?

That's the burning debate. I don't know......

[Black Dog]

Saudi Arabia was and is still considered an ally of the US. Iraq was not. Are you suggesting that Saudi Arabia's government colluded with Al-Qaeda? That's quite a charge.

It's well known that Saudi Arabia is the nexus of radical, antiwestern Islamic thought. it's also well known that the Saud family as long tacitly supported such movements. Al Qaeda is an offshoot of those movements. So, while the House of Saud may not have any direct link with AQ (inasmuch as regimes such as Saudi Arabia's are enemies of Islam according to AQ), they have incubated terrorism and radicalism by creating an environment in which it can prosper.

Are you saying that the US government has a policy of giving aid and succor to terrorist organisations? That's quite a charge.

The U.S lends support, training, shelter and arms to many terrorist groups, predominately Latin American, including Cuban exile groups and Latin American paramilitaries. That's not a fantastic charge, but public record.

There's a clear difference between intent and outcome in this case. That Saddam ended up without his prized nukes is not important. The fact is, Saddam had a history of attempting to acquire WMD, and as long as he was in power there remained a chance that he would eventually succeed. This was an unacceptable situation.

Again: Iraq's nuclear program was dormant ( a fact which was known to the intelligence community), while Iran’s and North Korea's were and are in full swing. If preventing so called "rogue states" from acquiring WMD was the purpose of the invasion, why start with the country that poses the least threat?

I'll remind you that your heros in this little drama, those brave nations that fought most fiercely to keep the US out of Iraq, were far more complicet in his acquisition of weaponary than the US ever was. Your position that Saddam's brutality was carried on American shoulders is a trope. And even if it is true, that the US is ultimately responsible for Saddam's tyranny, doesn't that oblige them, morally, to go in a fix the problem?

You'll find no reference to heroes in my posts on this subject. France, Russia et al were complicit in Saddam's regime, no doubt about it. The whole debacle was an example of cynical power politics at the expense of the people of an impoverished nation victimized by their own leadership and the wealthy west.

As for "fixing the problem", the U.S. policy of intervention in the region since World War 2 has led to many of the problems they are trying to fix today. Further intervention isn't the answer, but folly. What business do American elected officials have determining the fate of people in the Middle East? Those people do not exist for our convenience or for our energy security. Nor is it America's place to ensure justice in the region. Government in the United States was to be strictly limited by the Constitution, its purpose was to guard the peace and security of the American people at home, not to extend American power hither and yon for grandiose schemes.

The United States would be better to act as a moral leader, serve by example, rather than engaging in the same pattern of behaviour that has produced naught but failure after failure.

[CrazyCanuck]

Why are people still arguing over the USA's justification of the Iraqi war? Who cares, its over and done with. I get so sick of everyone still bashing the States for going there. WE KNOW THEY FUCKED UP. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW THEY FUCKED UP. What are they supposed to do now, just leave?!? Why doesn't the rest of the world step in to help fix the situation? I've heard so many different reasons why they went there and how wrong it is but has anyone offered up some reasonable solutions or constructive ways to help the Americans fix their problem? No, instead we continue to bash them for their foreign policy until we need their help, in which case we praise how they are always the first one's there to give a hand (you can try and deny it but realistically, for every bad thing the Americans have done to other people, they done a lot more good for other people). The double standard we all have with regards to the USA is really pathetic. You can hate the Americans for whatever reason you like, but the fact still remains that they're the ones people call on for help when they need it. If the Americans choose not to get involved , they get criticized for it and when they do, they also get criticized. Now I don't agree with the war either, but i think the issue has gone well beyond whether or not they should be there. Its unfortunate but with regards to Americans, us Canadians still sound like typical teenagers who are always pissed off with our parents, yet are always quick to accept any help our parents are willing to give. And not only do we accept it, more often than not we expect it and demand it.

[Black Dog]

What are they supposed to do now, just leave

Sooner or later, yes.

Why doesn't the rest of the world step in to help fix the situation? I've heard so many different reasons why they went there and how wrong it is but has anyone offered up some reasonable solutions or constructive ways to help the Americans fix their problem?

The decision to invade and occupy was contrary to world opinion. I don't think we should have to help the U.S. clean up the mess they made. The last thing needed in that region is more foreign meddling.

No, instead we continue to bash them for their foreign policy until we need their help, in which case we praise how they are always the first one's there to give a hand (you can try and deny it but realistically, for every bad thing the Americans have done to other people, they done a lot more good for other people). The double standard we all have with regards to the USA is really pathetic. You can hate the Americans for whatever reason you like, but the fact still remains that they're the ones people call on for help when they need it.

I disagree. The U.S. does what it does to serve its own interests. If people are helped or harmed, well, that's secondary. So to paint them as some sort of global martyr is just naive and wrong.

[crazymf]

In Vietnam, the people were fighting a civil war and the Americans were viewed as an occupational colonial force. In essence it was a three way fight where the enemy of your enemy isn't necessarily your friend.

I see similarities in that simplification of Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq. Sunni's, Shi'ites, Kurds. One thing that is different is that there isn't another superpower in the background fighting by proxy. However, Syria, Iran and probably others seem to be in support of the insurgency.

I hope this ends soon, but I doubt it.

[GostHacked]

Saddam was not taken out during the first Gulf War because George Bush Sr. chose to play by the rules mandated by the United Nations, stating that the mission was to end when Iraq's armed forces had been removed from Kuwait. This was undoubtedly a mistake, but it's a nasty double standard on your part to ask the question, in a thread where you've done nothing but defend the inviolability of Iraqi sovereignty.

I've given you my own take on what I considered important facts before the war, and why I believed and still believe that the war was the right thing to do. If you and every other anti-war type want  to keep kicking a dead horse, concentrating on the missing WMD issue and doggedy insisting that only a positive Iraq/911 link could justify the invasion, to the exclusion of all other issues, then there's nothing more that I can offer to you. If you choose to limit our debate of the rightness of the war to two as-yet unfinished topics, then congratulations.

I hope you feel as fully justified in your convictions 20 years from now. I know I will. As for the present, I can't be bothered to go any further with this thread.,

in·vi·o·la·ble

adj.

Secure from violation or profanation: an inviolable reliquary deep beneath the altar.

Impregnable to assault or trespass; invincible: fortifications that made the frontier inviolable.

Can you tell me where I even mention Iraq Soveriegnty, and where do I defend the inviolability of said soveriegnty? I am not understanding this. And yes I had to look up the word to try to grasp it. Eventhough I am claiming ignorance on the word, I bet you have something negative to say about it.

That is fine that you can have your own take and I see and understand it. But when you look at the public record of what was said before Sept 11, then the speaches AFTER 9-11, your own take on it is irrelevant. Let's deal with the facts and what was said before and after. And how the tone towards Iraq was drastically changed. Also you should know that Bush DID try to tie Iraq with 9-11, or are you completly ignoring what was really said by the Bush Administration?

In that context, the war is not justified, and that is what the public saw and heard. Not the other reasons you are holding faith in. It is what went on the public record that we all hear and see. So let me beat some dead horse sense into this. If the Bush Administration was smart, they would have tried other legitimate reasons for invading Iraq and ousting Husein.

You may very well be right 20 years down the road, and I will be humble and eat my words without protest. Untill then...

[Letitfly]

Saddam was not taken out during the first Gulf War because George Bush Sr. chose to play by the rules mandated by the United Nations, stating that the mission was to end when Iraq's armed forces had been removed from Kuwait. This was undoubtedly a mistake, but it's a nasty double standard on your part to ask the question, in a thread where you've done nothing but defend the inviolability of Iraqi sovereignty.

I've given you my own take on what I considered important facts before the war, and why I believed and still believe that the war was the right thing to do. If you and every other anti-war type want  to keep kicking a dead horse, concentrating on the missing WMD issue and doggedy insisting that only a positive Iraq/911 link could justify the invasion, to the exclusion of all other issues, then there's nothing more that I can offer to you. If you choose to limit our debate of the rightness of the war to two as-yet unfinished topics, then congratulations.

I hope you feel as fully justified in your convictions 20 years from now. I know I will. As for the present, I can't be bothered to go any further with this thread.,

in·vi·o·la·ble

adj.

Secure from violation or profanation: an inviolable reliquary deep beneath the altar.

Impregnable to assault or trespass; invincible: fortifications that made the frontier inviolable.

Can you tell me where I even mention Iraq Soveriegnty, and where do I defend the inviolability of said soveriegnty? I am not understanding this. And yes I had to look up the word to try to grasp it. Eventhough I am claiming ignorance on the word, I bet you have something negative to say about it.

That is fine that you can have your own take and I see and understand it. But when you look at the public record of what was said before Sept 11, then the speaches AFTER 9-11, your own take on it is irrelevant. Let's deal with the facts and what was said before and after. And how the tone towards Iraq was drastically changed. Also you should know that Bush DID try to tie Iraq with 9-11, or are you completly ignoring what was really said by the Bush Administration?

In that context, the war is not justified, and that is what the public saw and heard. Not the other reasons you are holding faith in. It is what went on the public record that we all hear and see. So let me beat some dead horse sense into this. If the Bush Administration was smart, they would have tried other legitimate reasons for invading Iraq and ousting Husein.

You may very well be right 20 years down the road, and I will be humble and eat my words without protest. Untill then...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[rbacon]

Maybe Bush just wanted to try and end Islamic Terror that seems to be the only thing that Moslems have done for the last 1400 years before Bush.

This list, of over 2600 terrorist attacks committed by Muslims since 9/11/01 (a rate of about two per day), is incomplete because not all attacks were picked up by international news sources, even those involving multiple loss of life. We included an attack if it were committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, and usually only if loss of life occurred (with a handful of exceptions where there were a very large number of injuries). In several cases, the victims are undercounted because deaths from trauma caused by the Islamists may occur in latter days, despite the best efforts of medical personnel to keep the victims alive.

We usually avoided including acts occurring in combat situations, such as the recent action in Iraq, unless they involved particularly heinous terrorist tactics. Unprovoked sniper, drive-by or roadside bombing attacks on military personnel serving normal police duties are sometimes included when available.

Unfortunately this list of Muslim terrorist attacks barely scratches the surface of atrocities committed in the name of Islam that occur world-wide each day. Only a handful of cases from the country of Sudan were included, for example, even though the Muslim government has killed nearly two million Christians and other non-Muslim black Africans in the last two decades. Sudan, like other Islamic Republics, strictly controls access to areas where people have cause for complaint. The human toll has been horrific, with Jihad fighters using rape, torture and slavery to decimate the black African people.

The overall magnitude of the violence, of which this Web site hopes to educate, is such that it is nearly impossible to find all incidents of Islamic terror. When doing research over the past year, it was quite typical to come across accounts of massacres from news sources which also mentioned that several hundred other people had lost their lives in the violence over a period of time. Yet supporting news reports could not be found (over the Internet) to provide the basic information for including these casualties. It is not that they didn't occur, just that they were occurring too often.

Go back to the List of Islamic Terrorist Attacks

[Black Dog]

Maybe Bush just wanted to try and end Islamic Terror that seems to be the only thing that Moslems have done for the last 1400 years before Bush.

This list, of over 2600 terrorist attacks committed by Muslims since 9/11/01 (a rate of about two per day), is incomplete because not all attacks were picked up by international news sources, even those involving multiple loss of life. We included an attack if it were committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, and usually only if loss of life occurred (with a handful of exceptions where there were a very large number of injuries). In several cases, the victims are undercounted because deaths from trauma caused by the Islamists may occur in latter days, despite the best efforts of medical personnel to keep the victims alive.

Curious, then that terrorist attacks have spiked since the campaign to end terrorism began. Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism.

We usually avoided including acts occurring in combat situations, such as the recent action in Iraq, unless they involved particularly heinous terrorist tactics. Unprovoked sniper, drive-by or roadside bombing attacks on military personnel serving normal police duties are sometimes included when available.

Military personnel are legitimate targets. To call attacks on a foreign occupying force "unprovoked" is to be blind to reality itself.

[rbacon]

I think maybe we are just more aware of the Jihadi's work since 9/11, they have been busy committing murder of the infidels for 1400 years. Could you also link the butchery in the Sudan to Bush as well. Can you link the butchery before Iraq to Bush as well?