You are:
against war
For war

Tough to say. I'm against war. But I think we are doing what we need to do to insure our safety in the future. So I support what the military is doing.

against, bush said something like "taking out sadaum will end terroristm"

Which no it wont. Terrorism isn't a country, it can be anyone, anywhere. Killing other people, pissing off there familys and whatnot will only make things worse.

=\

looking for freedom

George Bush senior - 6 January 1991 at tv:
"we used two hundred times military force in our history, and I believe, it gave five declarations of war".

George Bush junior - 7 October 2001 at tv:
"We are a peaceful nation".


1. 1775-1783 revolution war against Great Britain
2. 1775-1776 Canada
3. 1798-1800 France (without declaration of war)
4. 1801-1805 Tripoli
5. 1806 Mexico (Spanish area)
6. 1806-1810 gulf of Mexico
7. 1810 west Florida (Spanish area)
8. 1812 occupation of the island Melia (Spanish area)
9. 1812-1815 Great Britain (declaration of war takes place)
10. 1812-1815 Canada
11. 1813 west Florida (Spanish area)
12. 1813-1814 Marquesas islands
13. 1814 Spanish Florida
14. 1814-1825 Kariben
15. 1815 Algiers
16. 1815 Tripoli
17. 1816 Spanish Florida
18. 1817 island Amelia (Spanish area)
19. 1818 Oregon
20. 1820-1823 Africa (fight of the slave trade)
21. 1822 Cuba
22. 1823 Cuba
23. 1824 Cuba
24. 1824 Puerto Rico (Spanish area)
25. 1825 Cuba
26. 1827 Greece
27. 1831-1832 Falkland Islands
28. 1832 Sumatra
29. 1833 Argentina
30. 1835-1936 Peru
31. 1836 Mexico
32. 1838-1839 Sumatra
33. 1840 Fiji islands
34. 1841 Samoa
35. 1841 Drummond islands
36. 1842 Mexico
37. 1843 Africa
38. 1844 Mexico
39. 1846-1848 Mexico
40. 1849 Smyrna
41. 1851 Turkey
42. 1851 Johanna island (eastern of Africa)
43. 1852-1853 Argentina
44. 1853 Nicaragua
45. 1853-1854 Riukio and Bonin islands (Japan)
46. 1854 China
47. 1854 Nicaragua
48. 1855 China
49. 1855 Fiji islands
50. 1855 Uruguay
51. 1856 Panama
52. 1856 China
53. 1857 Nicaragua
54. 1858 Uruguay
55. 1858 Fiji islands
56. 1858-1859 Turkey
57. 1859 Paraguay
58. 1859 Mexico
59. 1859 China
60. 1860 Angola
61. 1860 Colombia, gulf of Panama
62. 1863 Japan
63. 1864 Japan
64. 1864 Japan
65. 1865 Panama
66. 1866 Mexico
67. 1866 China
68. 1867 island Formosa
69. 1868 Japan
70. 1868 Uruguay
71. 1868 Colombia
72. 1870 Mexico
73. 1870 Hawaii islands
74. 1871 Korea
75. 1973 Colombia
76. 1873 Mexico
77. 1874 Hawaii islands
78. 1876 Mexico
79. 1882 Egypt
80. 1885 Panama
81. 1888 Korea
82. 1889-1889 Samoa
83. 1888 Haiti
84. 1889 Hawaii islands
85. 1890 Argentina
86. 1891 Haiti
87. 1891 Beringsea
88. 1891 Chile
89. 1893 Hawaii
90. 1894 Brazil
91. 1894 Nicaragua
92. 1894-1896 Korea
93. 1894-1895 China
94. 1894-1895 China
95. 1895 Colombia
96. 1896 Nicaragua
97. 1898-1899 China
98. 1898 Nicaragua
99. 1898 American-Spanish war
100. 1899 Samoa
101. the 1899-1901 Philippines
102. 1900 China
103. 1901 Colombia
104. 1902 Colombia
105. 1902 Colombia
106. 1903 Honduras
107. 1903 Dominican republic
108. 1903 Syria
109. 1903-1914 Panama
110. 1904 Dominican republic
111. 1904-1905 Korea
112. 1904 Tanger, Morocco
113. 1904 Panama
114. 1904-1905 Korea
115. 1906-1909 Cuba
116. 1907 Honduras
117. 1910 Nicaragua
118. 1911 Honduras
119. 1911 China
120. 1912 Honduras
121. 1912 Panama
122. 1912 Cuba
123. 1912 China
124. 1912 Turkey
125. 1912-1925 Nicaragua
126. 1912-1941 China
127. 1913 Mexico
128. 1914 Haiti
129. 1914 Dominican republic
130. 1914-1917 Mexico
131. 1915-1934 Haiti
132. 1917-1918 the First World War
133. 1917-1922 Cuba
134. 1918-1919 Mexico
135. 1918-1920 Panama
136. 1918-1920 Soviet Russia
137. 1919 Honduras
138. 1920-1922 Russia (Siberia)
139. 1920 China
140. 1920 Guatemala
141. 1921 Panama Costa Rica
142. 1922 Turkey
143. 1924 Honduras
144. 1924 China
145. 1925 China
146. 1925 Honduras
147. 1925 Panama
148. 1926-1933 Nicaragua
149. 1926 China
150. 1927 China
151. 1933 Cuba
152. 1940 Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad, British Guayana
153. 1941 Greenland [ Danish area ]
154. the 1941 Netherlands (Netherlands Guayana)
155. 1941 Iceland
156. 1941 Germany [ attacks on German ships ]
157. 1941 US entrance into the Second World War
158. 1941-1945 Germany, Italy, Japan
159. 1942 Labrador
160. 1945-1960 China (CIA)
161. 1946-1947 Italy (CIA)
162. 1947-1955 Greece (CIA)
163. the 1945-1955 Philippines (CIA)
164. 1950-1953 Korea war
165. 1949-1953 Albania (CIA)
166. 1955 Germany (CIA)
167. 1953 Iran (CIA)
168. 1953-1954 Guatemale (CIA)
169. 1955 Costa Rica (CIA)
170. 1956-1957 Syria (CIA)
171. 1957-1958 the middle east
172. 1957-1958 Indonesia (CIA)
173. 1955-1965 Western Europe (CIA)
174. 1945-1965 Sowjetunion (CIA)
175. 1955-1975 Italy (CIA)
176. 1945-1975 war in Vietnam (CIA)
177. 1955-1973 Cambodia (CIA)
178. 1957-1973 Laos (CIA)
179. 1959-1963 Haiti
180. 1960 Guatemala
181. 1960-1963 Equador (CIA)
182. 1960-1964 Congo (CIA)
183. 1961-1961 Brazil (CIA)
184. 1960-1965 Peru (CIA)
185. 1960-1966 Republic of Dominican (CIA)
186. 1950-1980 Cuba (CIA)
187. 1865 Indonesia (CIA)
188. 1966 Ghana (CIA)
189. 1964-1970 Uruguay (CIA)
190. 1964-1973 Chile (CIA)
191. 1964-1974 Greece (CIA)
192. 1964-1875 Bolivien (CIA)
193. 1962-1985 Guatemala (CIA)
194. 1970-1971 Costa Rica (CIA)
195. 1972-1975 Irak (CIA)
196. 1973-1975 Australien (CIA)
197. 1975 Indonesien [CIA]
198. 1975-1985 Angola (CIA)
199. 1975-1978 Zaire (CIA)
200. 1976-1980 Jamaika (Economic war)
201. 1979-1981 Seychellen
202. 1979-1984 Grenada
203. 1983 Marocco (CIA)
204. 1982-1984 Surinam (CIA)
205. 1981-1989 Lybien
206. 1981-1990 Nicaragua [Causing the civil war ]
207. 1969-1991 Panama (CIA)
208. 1990 Bulgaria [CIA]
209. 1990-1991 Irak
210. 1979-1992 Afghanistan (CIA)
211. 1980-1994 El Salvador [CIA]
212. 1986-1994 Haiti (CIA)
213. 1992-1994 Somalia
214. 2001-Afghanistan
215. 2003-?????????

A PEACEFULL NATION ????

[]http://autokacik.pl/images/graemlins/hehe.gif[/][]http://autokacik.pl/images/graemlins/hehe.gif[/][]http://autokacik.pl/images/graemlins/hehe.gif[/] Great []http://autokacik.pl/images/graemlins/zlosnik.gif[/]

[]patt said:
1. 1775-1783 revolution war against Great Britain
2. 1775-1776 Canada
3. 1798-1800 France (without declaration of war)
4. 1801-1805 Tripoli
5. 1806 Mexico (Spanish area)
6. 1806-1810 gulf of Mexico
7. 1810 west Florida (Spanish area)
8. 1812 occupation of the island Melia (Spanish area)
9. 1812-1815 Great Britain (declaration of war takes place)
[/]

The American's know when they are beaten by the British

In war, everyone loses. The side that loses the least is declared the winner...

No matter how it goes down innocent people, people who don't care about politics or agree with the decisions of their government, are going to die. Should someone be punished just because they happen to have been born in a country like Iraq? I think not...

These people you are talking about really have suffered enough, that's the whole reasoningf behind the war. When it's over, you'll hear from the people of Iraq who've been mutilated, beaten, and have had family members gassed, and otherwise murdered at the hands of sadamm and his sons. Here's a recent story that has come out about Iraq and Saddam's henious crimes:
[]
THE ENEMY: Please read Ann Clwyd's devastating piece in the Times of London today. Here's how it starts:

"There was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food ... on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Hussein’s youngest son] personally supervise these murders."

What Clwyd says - clearly, unforgettably, indelibly - is something that some people think is unsophisticated or crude or manipulative. What she says is that the Saddam regime is evil. I'm aware of the argument that there are many evil regimes in the world and we aren't invading to destroy all of them. But there comes a point at which such arguments say less about the world and more about the people making them. Saddam's regime is certainly one of the vilest on earth. Its malevolence and brutality is documented beyond dispute. In a world in which morality matters, the leading theologians and moralists and politicians would not be bending over backwards to find arguments to leave this regime alone, to lend credence to its lies, and to appease its poisons. They would be casting about for reasons to end it. I think that is what has given Blair his strength these past few months. He knows he's right. So does Clwyd:

"I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight."
[/]
(thanks Andrew Sullivan)

Freedom isn't free, there's always a price to be paid.

War isn't something to be taken lightly. There have to be some very strong reasons for engaging another country in conflict. Yes, there are stories of atrocities and I hope that they are true because they are being used to fule support for this war...

Don't believe everything you see and read Allen -it's very easy to manipulate a population into supporting bad decisions. Now I'm not comparing the States to Nazy Germany, but I'm sure there were people in Nazy Germany who felt a sense of patriatizm and nationalizm and thought their government could do no wrong.

Do you forget that the US practicly gave Sadam a "green light" for invading Kuwaitt back in the early 90s? We didn't take him out the first time, so what's the motivation for taking him out how? The US sat back and watched genoside in Bosnia for years before finally stepping in to do something about it, even though it was Europe's problem. Europe sat back and did nothing because they knew the US eventually would. Now the UN can sit back and do nothing cause the US will step in and do their dirty work for them. But why did it take so long for the US to act in Bosnia? Was it because there was nothing to gain from it finantialy?

Some top Saudi citizens (who have ties to or are in the Saudi government) donated money to front companies who supported terrorists. Money that may have been used to finance September 11th. And yet we are not attacking Saudi Arabia. Why? Things that make you go hmmm...

My point is: Don't get caught up in the hype. Things are not always as they seem. And there is going to be a lot of hype in the current conflict because the US is trying to drum up support for a very unpopular war...

[]Dalantech said:
Things are not always as they seem. And there is going to be a lot of hype in the current conflict because the US is trying to drum up support for a very unpopular war... [/]

What part do you see as 'hype'? The fact that he gasses whole villages in his own country? Or fact that he has had his own relatives killed who he didn't trust? Or facts that he has lied for 12 years about the treaties and 17 UN resolutions he has thumbed his nose at?

What makes a war 'popular'? Who in their right mind is 'pro-war'? The people of the US overwhelmingly support the troops and the decision to go into Iraq (the polls were up to >70% for it as of Tuesday).

We aren't for war, tho it is a necessary evil at times. I noticed you left out the Italians and Mussolini in the 30's and 40's - he wasn't much if any better than Hitler. The only thing neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

While you are answering my questions, please tell us how the US 'gave Saddam the green light for invading Kuwait in the early 90's'... the UN upheld something being done in Bosnia during that time as well.

[]http://www.a1port.de/bush1.jpg[/]

I'm going to quote what one of a poster said on another forum []I don't know what democratic country everyone thinks they're living in, but I live in a capitalist country. Money dominates all government decisions. As a small background on this, we do not have national healthcare, even though it would greatly help the people and lower everyone's cost on healthcare a month. We do this because America doesn't help the people UNLESS it can make them money. Homelessness is another issue. The programs set up to assist are put together sloppily and need to be centralized in an agency. Since the homeless won't contribute enough however, it will not be taken care of.

Now let's enter the Iraq situation. Saddam Hussein has not been any more of a danger to us than he has been for the last 15-20 years. A few years ago, weapons inspectors during the Clinton times reported that Iraq had dismantled so many weapons, it was unprecendented in history. In addition, Iraq has been destroying weapons ever since then. They are of little danger to us. That argument is out the window.

The treaty is another story. While I believe we could have given more time to the inspectors, as progress was being made, I do see the point in this. It's been too many years since the treaty took effect, and something needs to be done about it.

Thirdly, the freeing of Iraqi people. While Bush's argument of Iraq gassing it's own people at Hablaja(sp?) has been proven false, Hussein is still an evil son of a bitch. If this war will bring about peace in Iraq, then at least something good will come out of it. I don't believe we're here for that however, because if we were, we wouldn't be waiving the Massive Ordnance Air Blast around in a threatening way. There's no way we'll waste them on small bases, they were made to hit cities, as they have the explosion of a nuclear blast, minus the radioactive fallout.

The reason I first mentioned capitalism is because I believe we're in Iraq for three main reasons, all money producing. The first two are pretty well known.

1) Military funding-self explanitory

2) Oil-well known, don't be a fool. Everyone knows we have this agenda.

3)water-very unknown but legitimate cause for war in Iraq

I have to get to sleep, but I'm going to follow this up tomorrow with details on all three reasons for going into this war capitalistically. I'll also discuss our "freedoms" that will change in the new Patriot Act 2, that is waiting for the next terrorist attack to be passed. Someone already presented pieces of the first Patriot Act in this post, stating how the fourth amendment right has been done away with. Just remember people, open up your third eye. Everything isn't always as it seems on the surface.
[/]

How does nationalizing healthcare make it cheaper? Does money then appear magically out of thin air to pay for it?

Anyways, back on topic

Please ask the guy you quote to back up his 'facts' with something a little more concrete than hearsay - it is well-known that Saddam gassed villages of Kurds in northern Iraq.

Here's something by Andrew Sullivan that might explain a bit better:
A Just War - The morality of ousting Saddam

[]
But can the war be legitimate without the sanction of the U.N.? Of course it can be. Traditional just war theory leaves the responsibility for grave decisions like these to the relevant authorities, i.e. the parties to the dispute and the countries planning on taking action. We do not live under a world government. We live under a system in which nation states wield authority, in cooperation with one another. A coalition of the willing - a majority of the states in Europe, the U.S., Britain and other countries - easily qualifies as a legitimate source of authority for launching war.

Is there a credible alternative? Well, there is one obvious alternative to war: continuation of economic sanctions on Iraq. But these sanctions have long been abused by Saddam to allow him to finance his weapons programs, while leaving thousands of Iraqis, including children, to starve or die for lack of good medical care. Is it moral to allow this intense suffering to continue indefinitely while we congratulate ourselves for giving "peace" a chance? We have long been told that these sanctions have resulted in the deaths of countless thousands of innocents, including children. Is it more moral to maintain that horror rather than to try and win a quick war to depose Saddam, free the Iraqi people from tyranny and end the sanctions?

War is an awful thing. But it isn't the most awful thing. No one disputes the evil of Saddam's brutal police state. No one doubts he would get and use weapons of mass destruction if he could. No one can guarantee he would not help Islamist terrorists get exactly those weapons to use against the West or his own regional enemies. No one disputes that the Iraqi people would be better off under almost any other regime than the current one - or that vast numbers of them, including almost every Iraqi exile, endorses a war to remove the tyrant. If we can do so with a minimun of civilian casualties, if we do all we can to encourage democracy in the aftermath, then this war is not only vital for our national security. It is a moral imperative. And those who oppose it without offering any credible moral alternative are not merely wrong and misguided. They are helping to perpetuate a deep and intolerable injustice.
[/]

you are ignorant of the conditions and should educate yourself about iraq and it's leadership, as well as it's past, and the governments treatment of it's people.

You also might want to consider the sanctions put against Iraq, as well as the time allotted to comply with them.

Innocent people have and will die, IT WILL BE FAAAAAAR LESS THAN THE NUMBER OF INNOCENT PEOPLE THE HAVE BEEN AND WILL CONTINUE TO DIE UNDER IRAQI LEADERSHIP IF THIS WAR DID NOT TAKE PLACE.

Didn't he torture his Olympic teams when they didn't win?

Gee.... I thought they loved him... after all, he won a Unanimous Election. ha ha Like not one person in the country would mistakingly choose the wrong option like here in the states? LOL

The best footage today, was the american soldier tearing down the Picture of Sadam, then the Iraqi citizen hitting the picture of Sadam on the nose with his shoe. Yeah, they love him.

After they've given up, they are happy to see the american soldiers, hugging and greeting them. Shaking their hands.

Hopefully, given the success so far, it'll be over very soon... quickly and without much loss of life.

[]AllenAyres said:

What part do you see as 'hype'? The fact that he gasses whole villages in his own country? Or fact that he has had his own relatives killed who he didn't trust? Or facts that he has lied for 12 years about the treaties and 17 UN resolutions he has thumbed his nose at?
[/]

During the Iraq / Iran war Sadam was a friend of the US. His military wa trained by Americans! The US has consistently created the very same bad guys that they have had to fight. I was actually glad when Turkey voted to turn down all the money that the US was throwing at them to allow the US to use their bases: After giving the Turks +26 Billion dollars they could turn into the next problem in the region...

[]AllenAyres said:

What makes a war 'popular'? Who in their right mind is 'pro-war'? The people of the US overwhelmingly support the troops and the decision to go into Iraq (the polls were up to >70% for it as of Tuesday).

We aren't for war, tho it is a necessary evil at times. I noticed you left out the Italians and Mussolini in the 30's and 40's - he wasn't much if any better than Hitler. The only thing neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
[/]

First: I'm an American. So your using Mussolini as a way to assassinate my character and weaken my arguments is limp at best Oh, the US did nothing in Bosnia for years, and Maloshavich (sp?) almost succeeded in his genocide...

[]AllenAyres said:
While you are answering my questions, please tell us how the US 'gave Saddam the green light for invading Kuwait in the early 90's'... the UN upheld something being done in Bosnia during that time as well. [/]

Because he took his plans for invading Kuwaitt to the Sr. Bush's administration and they did not tell him no. You really need to watch more than CNN or Fox News. Kuwait was slant drilling into the Iraqi side of an oil field that is on the border between the two countries. After the Kuwaitis pumped out oil that belonged to Iraq they sold that oil on the world markets below the price that was set by OPEC. Sadam confronted them about it and Kuwait ignored him.

Now, I'm not trying to defend Sadam Hussein: I think he needed to get overthrown 12 years ago. But the US must stop creating problems in the world by supporting countries only when it's beneficial, and then abandoning them when there is no longer any profit to be had! We trained Sadam's military. It's common knowledge that the CIA sent advisors to Iraq during their war with Iran. How much of what happened to the Kurds is our fault Allen? That's what I mean when I say that things are not always as they seem...

It’s been said that, America educates 80% of the world’s terrorist

Someone posted this on my board... and it made me laugh.

Maybe it will lighten the mood.

[]http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_makelove.jpg[/]

ROFLMAO!

BTW: I think Sadam should have been over thrown 12 years ago. I just like to argue sometimes

rolf - great pic Josh.

By all reports, Saddam is getting is but kicked.

[]Dalantech said:
[]AllenAyres said:

What part do you see as 'hype'? The fact that he gasses whole villages in his own country? Or fact that he has had his own relatives killed who he didn't trust? Or facts that he has lied for 12 years about the treaties and 17 UN resolutions he has thumbed his nose at?
[/]

During the Iraq / Iran war Sadam was a friend of the US. His military wa trained by Americans! The US has consistently created the very same bad guys that they have had to fight. I was actually glad when Turkey voted to turn down all the money that the US was throwing at them to allow the US to use their bases: After giving the Turks +26 Billion dollars they could turn into the next problem in the region...

[/]

Again you avoid my questions and answer obtusely. What part was hype?
[]Dalantech said:
[]AllenAyres said:

What makes a war 'popular'? Who in their right mind is 'pro-war'? The people of the US overwhelmingly support the troops and the decision to go into Iraq (the polls were up to >70% for it as of Tuesday).

We aren't for war, tho it is a necessary evil at times. I noticed you left out the Italians and Mussolini in the 30's and 40's - he wasn't much if any better than Hitler. The only thing neccessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
[/]

First: I'm an American. So your using Mussolini as a way to assassinate my character and weaken my arguments is limp at best Oh, the US did nothing in Bosnia for years, and Maloshavich (sp?) almost succeeded in his genocide...
[/]

The US did nothing in Bosnia at the request of the UN, if it weren't for the impeachment of Clinton, we would have never done anything in Kosovo either. Things that should have been done kept getting punted, hoping that there was enough field to get out of his 8 years without another Vietnam war. There's Rwanda in '94, Saddam's continued development of WMD throughout the 90's, Korea, Iran, etc etc etc. Instead the administration went through the UN for more resolutions which the countries immediately ignored.

[]Dalantech said:
[]AllenAyres said:
While you are answering my questions, please tell us how the US 'gave Saddam the green light for invading Kuwait in the early 90's'... the UN upheld something being done in Bosnia during that time as well. [/]

Because he took his plans for invading Kuwaitt to the Sr. Bush's administration and they did not tell him no. You really need to watch more than CNN or Fox News. Kuwait was slant drilling into the Iraqi side of an oil field that is on the border between the two countries. After the Kuwaitis pumped out oil that belonged to Iraq they sold that oil on the world markets below the price that was set by OPEC. Sadam confronted them about it and Kuwait ignored him.

Now, I'm not trying to defend Sadam Hussein: I think he needed to get overthrown 12 years ago. But the US must stop creating problems in the world by supporting countries only when it's beneficial, and then abandoning them when there is no longer any profit to be had! We trained Sadam's military. It's common knowledge that the CIA sent advisors to Iraq during their war with Iran. How much of what happened to the Kurds is our fault Allen? That's what I mean when I say that things are not always as they seem... [/]

First, I don't have cable TV, so I do not watch CNN or Fox.

Second, please point to any verification that Iraq brought their invasion plans to Bush Sr. and the greenlight given. Don't care where, just somewhere. Kuwait had been forced by Iraq to forgive the huge debt owed to Kuwait for their financial backing during the Iran/Iraq war. Iraq then used the claim that Kuwait was drilling an oilfield that straddled their border (while not sharing the profits) as an excuse to invade and annex Kuwait. The Arab states tried to mediate and Iraq invaded anyway. Kuwait didn't want to appear to be a puppet of the West, so they didn't ask for help until the invasion and annexation was already done (the invasion and annexation only took ~8 hours).

Third, the Iran/Iraq war has little to do with the gassing of the Kurds in northern Iraq in '89, other than Saddam was involved in both. Iran had stopped supporting the Kurds in 1975. Saddam gassed the Kurds because they were a seperatist group who wanted independence and this was Saddam's way of quelling that (yes, a simplistic description, but the salient points, nonetheless).

How would this have been handled differently if it were up to you? Would you have had the US more involved throughout the 70's, 80's, and 90's (definitely not something the Arab states would have tolerated), or would you have had the US ignore the pleas for help when the smaller countries were swallowed up by the larger ones?

there's a great documentary, I saw it on oeta which is an oklahoma network but anyway it was called "frontlines" I think. It showed footage of iraqi helicopters chasing the kurds north and shooting at them as thousands of them ran. They killed women and children. It also showed Iraqi soldiers kicking the ever living $#!+ out of those who tried to rise up against them post desert storm.

Check this article out: blood brothers

These people want to be liberated and relieved of this tyranic dictator.

The Digital Collegian

From Mike Warren:

• ``Saddam reacted predictably to Bush's encouragement, publicly threatened to use force against Kuwait and moved his troops to the border. To be certain he had U.S. backing for the invasion, he then summoned U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie to his office and asked her what Washington's position was on his dispute with Kuwait. Glaspie, acting on Bush's cable of the previous day, gave Saddam the barely disguised go-ahead by saying that "the President had instructed her to broaden and deepen our relations with Iraq" and to deliver America's warm sympathy with his problems. She then stated, "We have no opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait....[Secretary of State] James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction."44 Senior Pentagon officials had feared Bush's cabled instructions would send a signal that it was all right with the U.S. if Iraq invaded Kuwait.45 "This stinks," one said about the cable. But Bush had prevented a Pentagon effort to draft a sterner message that might have shown American opposition to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.''

As for your other questions: You're asking me to define "hype", and what is hype to some is truth to others...

P.S. The US gave Saddam 3 billion (yes, that's with a b) dollars in "agricultural loans" which he used to buy military equipment.

I'll say it again: The US government needs to stop creating the very monsters that it has to fight...

Interesting to read the replies back and forth, hope you don't mind me making a comment or two. I like what both DaLanTech and Allen are saying -- you guys offer healthy discussion on a difficult topic. I appreciate that you both are grounded in your views and can have this dialogue.

Like both of you, I can't stand Saddaam and for the sake of his people, want him gone. But I do agree with DaLanTech that this is not the US's war. We are there for one reason, to re-draw the region boundaries and to get a reward (oil) for doing so.

That is where the hype you seek is Allen. When you hear our leadership saying "we want to liberate the Iraqi people" you should cringe. Pure bullshit. Don't get me wrong, when this war is done and Saddam gone, the end result will be the liberation of the Iraqi people -- but that is not the main objective of our president, it's simply a by-product of the effort.

My God, the blue print for this war was written years ago by Reagan cronies who now happen to be part of Bush's cabinet (Wolfowitz, Perle, et el). Nothing here is new. The problem is that you can't liberate a people who don't want to be liberated. Like any other liberating change, it must start from within. This war might be over within the coming weeks, but the regime has been in power for more than one generation, we won't be getting out any time soon. What will that breed for America? It's just more bad foreign policy.

More hype? Who supplied the chemical weapons to Iraq? The US -- that's why we know Saddam has them. We supplied the weapons when he was using them to kill Iranians. So what makes what we did any less criminal than what Saddam did to his own people? We gave them the weapons and trained them in its use. We did the same with Bin Ladan. We did the same with Noriega. We did the same all over South America. And technically, we did the same with McVeigh. All of these people, along with many others we don't know of, were trained by the US and when they turned on us, we cry "monsters!" Yes they were all monsters.

Now try and look at what I've just stated from an outsiders point of view and you'll get a better pictures of why so much of the world has the opinion they do of the US. Why aren't we fighting the tyranny in half a dozen African countries? There are monsters there that are killing their own. Why did it take so long to get involved in the Balkans? Why aren't we stopping the oppression and atrocities taking place in Palestine? And what of the threat in North Korea? NK is the real threat to the US -- they have nukes that CAN reach our shores.

Sorry for the dissertation but this sort of discussion is invigorating. May God bless our troops and bring them home safely.
Respectfully,
Joe.

I disagree that this war is about oil. It may be that we want to be able to have access to this oil, but this is not nearly the main reason. I agree that "liberating" the Iraqi people is MOSTLY bullshit (makes for good reason though). A main part of this war is as stated, and that is to rid us of the threat of SADDAM HUSSEIN and his abilities to use weapons of mass destruction, which is becoming more and more evident with the findings of late.

This man has killed tens of thousands of his own people, he tortures and is a brutal tyrant. It is not safe for anyone in this world to allow a leader like this to exist, and to exist in a region as unstable as the middle east. It is a danger that must be removed.

Nobody wants war. War is EVIL, but sometimes, and in this case, is necessary. People are going to be mad, and upset, and there is going to be alot of tension in the world until this is over.

If we (the U.S. and U.K.) demonstrate that we had the best interest of Iraq and the arab world in mind then I think a different light may be shed on US and a better opinion of "us" will come about.

If not, what did we lose? The arab world already hates us. If we rid ourselves and everyone else of an evil, dangerous dictator, create a democratic society in the middle east, and increase our "access" to a large supply of oil, AND they still hate us, I think we did okay.

This war is not about oil. Less than half of all of the US oil imports is from the mid-east. Nearly 2/3 of it is from canada and south america. Saudi Arabia is the single largest country that exports oil to the US, but still nearly all of our oil comes from north and south america, with some help from the arab countries.

Dalantech's 'verification' is just speculation on the reasoning why the US stayed out of the Iraq/Kuwait conflict until asked. "Special-investigative-reporting-of-leaked-documents-no-one-else-has-ever-seen" is conspiracy theory at best. If we gave money for agricultural purposes and they turned around and bought military equipment, how is that our fault? The loans between kuwait and iraq was money owed to kuwait, not the other way around, aannndd... the 'disputed lands' was kuwait itself - iraq still thought it had a claim to them because it was part of them during the ottoman empire.

Had the US done anything about Iraq's stance before they actually invaded kuwait would have brought the Arab states to Iraq's aid, a case of damed if you do, damned if you don't. Once iraq invaded, then it was a clear case for going in and righting the wrong.

Spending $100,000,000,000+ (per year mind you) to get favorable oil pricing has to be the weakest argument you guys could toss up, please think of something original. When Gulf nations nationalized American oil companies operating in their territory over the last half century, the U.S. did nothing. Assuming that after the U.S. liberates Iraq it is going to turn around and steal all the oil is pure conspiracy theory, with no basis in fact or history whatsoever.

Another weak one: The United States armed Saddam. This one grew over time, but when Iraq was on it's weapons spending spree from 1972 (when its oil revenue quadrupled) to 1990, the purchases were quite public and listed over $40 billion worth of arms sales. Russia was the largest supplier, with $25 billion. A similar myth, that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons is equally off base. Iraq requested Anthrax samples from the US government, as do nations the world over, for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. Nerve gas doesn't require technical help, it's a variant of common insecticides. European nations (including Germany and France) sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas, and Russia sold them the anthrax.

And lastly: The U.S. created Saddam. Arab nationalism created Saddam. He neither asked, needed nor got any help from the United States as he rose to power in the Baath party. When he took over in 1979, he promptly went to war with Iran a year later. Even before that, public opinion, and public policy, regarding Saddam (the bloody minded head of the secret police) was negative. You can go read it in the contemporary papers. Despite most Americans feeling OK about Iran getting hammered by Iraq (because Iran had held our embassy staff hostage for over a year during Jimmy Carter's administration), there was no move to provide Iraq with weapons. When the Iraqis looked like they might fold, and Iran's then fearsome Islamic Jihad (against less observant Moslems, and mostly against America, the Great Satan) might spread, the U.S. provided Iraq with satellite photos of Iranian military positions. After that war ended in a draw in 1988, the U.S. believed Saddam's pronouncements that he had seen the light and would rein in his aggressive impulses.

For a clearer picture of 'whose war' this is, please read:
Whose War? - A Roll-Call of Architects
People tend to forget that we didn't 'finish off' Saddam the first time at the urging of the UN. Clinton fumbled around with it for the next 8 years with big words, some 450 cruise missiles in '98 (impeachment anyone?), and ~15-16 UN resolutions Saddam promptly ignored, then came 9/11, and the rest is history.

Did I miss anything?

no Allen, I think you covered it quite well.

My how times do change...

I figured I'd post a link to a CNN article this time, although they don't go in to all the details.

I've never said this war is about oil, BTW. It's about taking out Saddam because:

• We owe it to the planet to get rid of Saddam because we created him.
• We knew about Bin Laden but didn't act and 911 was the result.
• The military industrial complex needs an occasional boost now that the cold war is over.

The truly sad thing is that since the Berlin wall fell the US has been declaring war on everything. War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism, etc. Why don't we stop messing around and just declare war on peace and get it over with

Oh, and declaring war on terrorism is really scary. Americans are being asked to give up some of their basic rights for the duration of the war "to better protect them". The problem is this: when does the war on terrorism end? It's not like a war on another country, after all it's pretty obvious when the war is over if you are fighting a named enemy. Attack the French and the war is over when they surrender (2 days tops ).

But how do you know when you've won the war on terrorism? How do you know when you've killed or captured all the terrorists? What politician is going to commit political suicide by declaring an end to the war? When do you get your rights as a US citizen back? How much freedom are you going to lose in the name of protection before it's all said and done? Scary times my friends, just too scary...

So, instead of getting involved in the affairs of other countries only when there is something in it for America to gain, how about we just leave them alone? You'd have to publish a new map of the world, Russia would own Afganistan, but you wouldn't have to be concerned about the Stinger missles that weren't turned back in to the CIA after the war in Afganistan was over...

Sorry Allen, I'm a realist: When I see a glass with some liquid in it I don't see the glass as half full or half empty. I know that if I hang around long enough I'll get stuck washing the glass...

UNLIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF EVERY SINGLE WAR EVER, the United States does not take over the land that it conquers. If we did so, we would own over half of the planet. Heck, after we complete a "war" in another country not only do we not only NOT take them over, but we spend BILLIONS of dollars rebuilding their countries and making them better places to live.

Heck, take the Panama Canal for instance.

(I love this debate btw, it's highly intellectually stimulating)

If it was about what you say, the planet you live on would be named AMERICA. It is not, and when we are finished in Iraq, we will leave, and they will be an independently operating nation, where the people are free of fear, and governmental moderation and restriction.

Why can't you see that this is for good? Is it impossible that this is the case?

you're not watching Iraqi or Arab state run television by any chance are you?

[]shortbus said:
UNLIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE HISTORY OF EVERY SINGLE WAR EVER, the United States does not take over the land that it conquers. If we did so, we would own over half of the planet. Heck, after we complete a "war" in another country not only do we not only NOT take them over, but we spend BILLIONS of dollars rebuilding their countries and making them better places to live.
[/]

Not entirely true. I live in Italy, a country that looks like it's stuck in the 1950s. The US spent a lot of money rebuilding Japan after WWII, and we sent a lot of aid to Europe. BTW: America exists due to a war with England, if I remember my history lessons As for not occupying other countries: That just makes sense, cause it's too expensive to stay. Can you imagine what your tax burden would be if you had to support the military it would require to hold all the countries the US has fought in!

[]shortbus said:
Heck, take the Panama Canal for instance.
[/]

Uh, we lost it cause the leese ran out...

[]shortbus said:

If it was about what you say, the planet you live on would be named AMERICA. It is not, and when we are finished in Iraq, we will leave, and they will be an independently operating nation, where the people are free of fear, and governmental moderation and restriction.

[/]

No, they are only free from the regime that was in place before we got there, but they are not free from us... The US gets involved with a lot of foreign countries. We even got a few dictators in place around the globe (so the whole "spreading democracy" argument is a total pipe dream). And after dumping millions, and sometimes billions, of dollars in economic aid into those countries they just turn on us later and then we have to go in and knock them down. The US put the Shaw or Iran in power, and when he was assasinated by his own people we backed Iraq in their border dispute / war with Iran. At what point did we liberate anyone in that mess?!

[]shortbus said:

Why can't you see that this is for good? Is it impossible that this is the case?

you're not watching Iraqi or Arab state run television by any chance are you?

[/]

Nope, no Al Jazir on the TV at my house

"Why can't you see that this is for good?" Simple: What are we going to do when the next dictator in Iraq turns on us?...

Why not stop creating the very same monsters that we have to fight later on?...

That's something that will have to be dealt with if it happens. We've sat on our thumbs and hoped for the best for 12 years now.

Again, we did not create Saddam, he did very well becoming the insamely cruel madman that he is on his on.

Currently the objective is democratic elections. It's entirely possible that everything will go well, I'm not one to view pessimism as pragmatism. People said the same things about Germany during/after WWII, Japan, and Russia. Most people would have never believed it could happen, but it did.

Something you guys might like that fits the occasion:

I Won't Back Down

okay, you aren't making any sense here...

Panama Canal, THE LEASE RAN OUT!!!!!!!!!

That's my point man! We were leasing it! WHY? Why were we leasing it from them?

I'll get to the rest later...

very cool Allen...!

[]shortbus said:
That's my point man! We were leasing it! WHY? Why were we leasing it from them?
[/]

Because it's cheaper than paying for an occupational military force to keep it in US control...

QUOTE FOR THE DAY: [] "It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out where the strong man stumbled, or where a doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and who comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause. The man who at best knows the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold timid souls who never knew victory or defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt on the back-seat drivers in this war, "The Strenuous Life: Essays and Addresses."
[/]

Quote for the day:

[] If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
George Orwell, author or 1984 [/]

Hmmm...

that's fine as long as it resembles fact in some way.

The four-year old Iraqi girl, blood streaming from an eye wound, screaming for her dead mother!...........thanx Mr. Bush!

[]http://www.a1port.de/irak/kind.jpg[/]

[]patt said:
The four-year old Iraqi girl, blood streaming from an eye wound, screaming for her dead mother!...........thanx Mr. Bush!

[]http://www.a1port.de/irak/kind.jpg[/] [/]

Ok.. so you can show one bad picture.. then here is one to show the positive side of things, how the Iraqi children welcome the troops and are thankful for their help...

[]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20030325/capt.1048626709.iraq_war_britain_nywd138.jpg[/]

I think it's strange that so many people point their fingers at the president for everything that happens. If the rest of the government, and the bulk of the people of the US, had been strongly opposed to the war, it would never have happened.

At this point though, seeing how the Iraqi government treat their own people, I think the war makes sense. And the more that I listen to the briefings from the US defense department and senior military officers, the more impressed I've become by their competence in planning and conducting the operation. I have no complaints.

[]shortbus said:
that's fine as long as it resembles fact in some way. [/]

Who gets to deside what is and is not fact?...

"Having the right to vote isn't important. Having the right to count the votes is." Joseph Stalin.

[] Ok.. so you can show one bad picture.. then here is one to show the positive side of things, how the Iraqi children welcome the troops and are thankful for their help...
[/]

i can show u hundreds of bad iraq war pictures...

your picture shows British Royal Marines.......and kids happy for food after 12 years embargo.....anyhow...i missing some us-flags

I'm just saying, for the hundreds of bad photos, you can also find hundreds of good photos as well. And are you saying the ROyal Marines haven't killed anyone in iraq or accidently hurt a civillian?

hundred of good ore hundred of bad photos.....doesn't matter......important are the true photos!!!

and royal marines ore us marines......in this dirty war for me are both the same : MURDER!

that child was likely injured by IRAQI government.

How dumb are you to blame one injured child on the U.S. when we are doing every single thing we can to avoid casualties even at the cost of our own soldiers, while the IRAQI's use women and children as human shields.

Yeah, the terrible, awful United States.

They must be horrible, I mean, look how their own people live.......Oh wait, that's not right!

Those people will be better off and it will be worth the innocent civilians lives that are lost because it will end the loss of innocent lives by Saddam that GREATLY exceeds that of this war......

[]that child was likely injured by IRAQI government.[/]
here more about this child.....

on monday, 5 children (less then 5 years) was killed by us troops near Nadschaf.......

[]http://www.stern.de/_content/50/06/500605/baby135.jpg[/]

[] after local soldiers appeared to force civilians towards U.S. marines positions [/]

I GUESS YOU MISSED THIS PART?

post the story behind the image:

[]
A wounded Iraqi girl is treated by U.S. marines in central Iraq March 29, 2003. Confused front line crossfire ripped apart an Iraqi family on Saturday after local soldiers appeared to force civilians towards U.S. marines positions. The four-year old girl, blood streaming from an eye wound, was screaming for her dead mother, while her father, shot in a leg, begged to be freed from the plastic wrist cuffs slapped on him by U.S. marines, so he could hug his other terrified daughter. (AP)
[/]

The b*)&^*&(^ iraqi militia pushed this family into the middle of the gunfight between coalition forces and iraqi militia. No where does it say the family was shot by coalition forces, it does say the Marines treated the girl... iraqi militia would have just as soon see her die.

Please use at least a little judgement in your posts

i don't miss this part.....i don't trust us newspapers, because 95% made by us propaganda.....better u use the web and read the whole story from other newspapers!
"I saw the heads of my two little g...ily pregnant wife, Lamea, 36, said .....

judgement? what the hell is judgement?

[]http://www.smh.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1048653885780_2003/03/29/gal10_brother,0.jpg[/]

An Iraqi boy sits near the body of his brother lying in a casket prior to his funeral after the US-led bombing. Photo: AFP

uh, yeah, U.S. propaganda....riiiiiiiiiiiight.

Would that be like the Iraqi minister of defense claiming that the U.S. hasn't even crossed the Tigris river yet when they are actually 20 some miles from Baghdad?

I can't wait til his next speech when he says the same thing and then windows and doors bust in and Army Rangers or some other special ops team makes a live tv appearance.

I don't doubt that there are civilians dieing, but most of them are dieing becuase the Iraqi regime doesn't care about them. Instead of making sure they are out of harms way, they are intentionally putting them IN harms way.

What part about human shields, soldiers hiding in mosques, and in ancient sacred buildings and shooting at us soldiers, using hospitals, nad red cross vehicles to carry out war, wearing us and uk uniforms or dressing up as civilians, surrendering and then shooting at the soldiers, paying the families of suicide bombers, etc., DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Guess you also didn't see that torture chamber that they showed on tv yesterday. Guess you haven't seen the Iraqis celebrating the U.S. soldiers.

You WANT to hate the united states, regardless of where you are from. That is all there is to it. You WILL NOT listen to reason, so there is no point in even continueing this discussion is there.

Let me know when you can look at fact, make educated observations, and form an unbiased and informed opinion. Then we'll talk.

i see..........

"Someday I will provide some useful nformation to this forum. That day......Is not today."

in one thing u are 100% right......

"That day......Is not today."

--------------------

~~~~~~[censored] taste good...100.000 flies don't err~~~~~~

very nice one Patt, I'll give you credit for that, but as far as a reply based on the subject, you are failing miserably.

ok....about failing miserably......
reading is easy for me....but writing in english gives me some problems.....please use for my answer some online translation:

"Would that be like the Iraqi minister of defense claiming that the U.S. hasn't even crossed the Tigris river yet when they are actually 20 some miles from Baghdad?
I can't wait til his next speech when he says the same thing and then windows and doors bust in and Army Rangers or some other special ops team makes a live tv appearance."

logischerweise lügen wohl beide seiten was die berichterstattung angeht, "die medien als mittel zum zweck", deswegen sollte man auch immer alle nachrichten von verschiedenen zeitungen und tv-stationen und am besten keine arabischen oder amerikanischen nehmen oder diesen vorbehaltlos vertrauen oder glauben!
es steht wohl ausser frage das diese berichtserstattungen zu 50% aus märchen bestehen und dadurch nur die leute für dumm verkauft werden.....wer diese lügenmärchen (auf beide seiten) glaubt ist wohl selbst daran schuld.


"I don't doubt that there are civilians dieing, but most of them are dieing becuase the Iraqi regime doesn't care about them. Instead of making sure they are out of harms way, they are intentionally putting them IN harms way."

zivilisten sterben im irak zur zeit in erster linie nur durch us/britische waffen, ohne diesen total unnötigen angriffskrieg könnten hunderte von menschen noch am leben sein!

"What part about human shields, soldiers hiding in mosques, and in ancient sacred buildings and shooting at us soldiers, using hospitals, nad red cross vehicles to carry out war, wearing us and uk uniforms or dressing up as civilians, surrendering and then shooting at the soldiers, paying the families of suicide bombers, etc., DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?"

krieg ist und bleibt schmutzig, wer aber hat diesen krieg in den irak gebracht? was haben die "befreier" gedacht? dass sie mit kleinen fähnchen schwenkenden einwohnern als befreier gefeiert werden? was für eine wahl hat dieser diktator jetzt noch? es ist doch logisch dass ihm jetzt jedes mittel recht ist diesen krieg zu führen, daran hätte george bush vorher denken können; sich blind und arrogant nur auf seine ratgeber zu verlassen und alle anderen warnenden stimmen zu ignorieren ist schon mehr als nur idiotisch.
und weil wir gerade von menschlichen schutzschildern sprachen....auf dem weg nach amman wurden 2 busse mit diesen von us tieffliegern mit bordwaffen beschossen....was für ein dreckiger krieg!

"Guess you also didn't see that torture chamber that they showed on tv yesterday. Guess you haven't seen the Iraqis celebrating the U.S. soldiers."

folterstühle und sonstiges habe ich bisher massenhaft gesehen, was mich aber am meisten ankotzt sind diese toten kinder....
logischerweise bringen us medien befreierfeiernde irakis...sollen sie weinende mütter zeigen um den patriotismus zu stärken?
wo war die humanitäre hilfe in den letzten 12 jahren?
zehntausende von kinder starben in dieser zeit auf grund des verhängten embargos.

"You WANT to hate the united states, regardless of where you are from. That is all there is to it."


ich hasse amerika nicht, ich hasse verbrecher und ihresgleichen...egal ob sie saddam, tony oder george heissen......für mich ist ein solcher krieg mord und alle beteiligten daran sind meines erachtens verbrecher, vor allem wenn solches aus reiner gewinnsucht betrieben wird!

"You WILL NOT listen to reason, so there is no point in even continueing this discussion is there."

im gegensatz zu manch anderen leuten laufe ich bestimmt nicht mit scheuklappen durch die gegend und vertraue blind auf irgendwelche probagandamedien! ich kann immer nur eines betonen: traue nie nur einer seite, schaue dir alle seiten an und mache dir vor allem gedanken!

so, ich denke das war wohl das wichtigste....
kann jetzt nur hoffen das babelfish mein geschreibe einigermassen übersetzen kann *gg

babelfish fails miserably in most regards to comprehensible translation

WHAT WE NOW KNOW: We're an amnesiac short-attention span culture. Only three weeks ago, we were in the middle of a debate about war; now we're in the middle of the war. In the frenetic news cycles, we scarcely find time to relate what we now know to what we once argued. But we need to make time.

Here's a short list of what we know now about Saddam, two weeks after the outbreak of war: that he runs a more horrifying police-state than some of us imagined; that he uses terroristic measures to maintain his rule; has close contact with other terrorist groups whom he has invited into his country in his defense; invokes Islamic justifications for his despotism far more often than any secular justifications; is capable of actions very few other human beings are capable of; and will not give up an ounce of real power even at the point of an actually loaded gun.

In other words, the prudential justification for the war is now far stronger than it was only a couple of weeks ago: no one can plausibly now argue that this monstrous regime would have voluntarily disarmed itself at the polite and constantly negotiable behest of a mild-mannered Swede. Inspections would never have worked, if by "worked," we actually mean succeeded in disarming Saddam. But more importantly, the moral justification for war has been deepened. More Americans today can absorb the true horror of murderous totalitarian rule, by watching its hatchet men defend themselves by all means necessary - using women and childern as shields, murdering POWs, deploying suicide bombers, and the like. Ending that kind of evil anywhere any time is always a good thing. You can argue the costs but you can't argue the moral good of it. We will save many lives; we are rescuing many people who are oppressed in ways those who constantly talk about "oppression" do not really know or understand. These are good things to know. They are vital things to remember.

"Hundreds of American troops marched into town at midday today and were greeted by its residents. The infantry was backed by attack helicopters and bombers, and immediately destroyed several arms caches and took over a military training facility to serve as their headquarters. The occupying forces, from the First and Second brigades of the 101st Airborne Division, entered from the south and north. They had seized the perimeter of town on Tuesday. People rushed to greet them today, crying out repeatedly, 'Thank you, this is beautiful!'

Two questions dominated a crowd that gathered outside a former ammunition center for the Baath Party. 'Will you stay?' asked Kase, a civil engineer who would not give his last name. Another man, Heider, said, 'Can you tell me what time Saddam is finished?'" - New York Times, April 2, reporting on the first city to have been fully liberated from Saddam's thugs.

Who Armed Saddam?

[]http://www.stand318.com/temp/war_news01.jpg[/]

.

[]http://www.stand318.com/temp/war_news04.jpg[/]

.

[]http://www.stand318.com/temp/war_news07.jpg[/]

.

[]http://www.stand318.com/temp/war_news08.jpg[/]

[]http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,252742,00.jpg[/] []http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,252724,00.jpg[/] []http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,252726,00.jpg[/]

[]patt said:
"Someday I will provide some useful nformation to this forum. That day......Is not today."

in one thing u are 100% right......

"That day......Is not today."[/]

I agree with a lot of what you've said patt. I think this 'war' is absolutely wrong and I do not support it. I've always kept up quite well with government and politics, so I make my decision based on my own knowledge. But I think we should try to not attack people for the way they feel (and it seemed to me like that was what you did in the above quote.) We know they are wrong, don't we? If we attack each other or make fun of something the other has said, it just makes it look like we don't really have anything to back up our position. I don't think that's the case, and I think your position will be more credible if you refrain from jabs like that and stick with the real issues.

[]shortbus said:
You WANT to hate the united states, regardless of where you are from. That is all there is to it. You WILL NOT listen to reason, so there is no point in even continueing this discussion is there.[/]

I certainly don't WANT to hate the US, and I don't think that believing this war is illegal, morally wrong, and against everything I believe this country is really about, makes me "hate" the US. Please realize that just because we don't agree with your version of the 'facts' doesn't mean we aren't reasonable. It's just as easy for me to believe that it is YOU who won't see reason, but that obviously doesn't make it so.

OK, point taken

How would you deal with Saddam Hussein (self-avowed Stalinist running a brutal police-state) then?

- Would you continue to allow him to murder, maim, and mutilate his own people... letting thousands die of starvation and disease while he adds yet another palace to the 8 he already has?
- Would you continue to allow the rape of women in front of their husbands in order to extract information?
- Would you continue to allow the gouging of eyes of prisoners?
- Would you continue to allow him to build the very same weapons he had agreed to destroy as terms of his 1992 surrender?
- Would you continue to allow this 21st century Hitler the freedom to murder the Kurds simply because they aren't Arab?
- I'll have a few more followups when those are answered

[]https://www.ubbdev.com/threads/php/uploads/panels/9340-1899.png[/]

absolutely right lisa *g

You have no idea either patt?

Again, it's much easier to take a back-seat driver's position and say 'we shouldn't do that', than actually have input into what should actually be done.

Do we need to repeat the atrocities of Stalin, Kosovo, Rwanda, etc. because it's 'none of our business'?

no idea?

nochmals eine kleine zusammenfassung:

dieser dreckige krieg war total unnötig, jedes opfer geht zu lasten der us/british koalition.
bush und blair werden als kriegstreiber in die geschichte eingehen!
die entwaffnung wäre auch ohne jegliche kriegshandlungen machbar gewesen.
ich kann nur hoffen das der rest der amerikanischen bevölkerung, die nicht dem falschen fox/cnn patriotismus verfallen ist, die alten werte der usa aufrecht erhalten!
ich will auch nicht über saddams horrortaten debattieren, diese sind wohl jedem bekannt, mir kommt es vor als würden diese aber immer nur in erinnerung gebracht werden als schutzbehauptungen für diesen miesen krieg!

WO RECHT ZU UNRECHT WIRD - WIRD WIDERSTAND ZUR PFLICHT!

Bablefish translation:
[]again a small summary: this dirty war was totally unnecessary, each victim goes debited to us/british the coalition bush and blair as war driver history will enter! the disarmament would have been feasible also without any war actions I can only hope that the remainder of the American population, who did not purge to the wrong fox/cnn patriotismus, those old worth of the USA to keep upright! I want also not over saddams horror-did to debate, these am probably everyone well-known, me occur it as these however in each case in memory would be brought as protection statements for this bad war! WHERE RIGHT TO INJUSTICE BECOMES - RESISTANCE BECOMES THE OBLIGATION! [/]

>> Totally Unnecessary
Totally Unnecessary? Should we wait for him to use the chemical weapons on us, you or others before we take action?

The latest is that they most likely have found the chemicals... in barrels, burried in a bunker, hidden by leaves etc...
An Iraqi military officer took the coalition to them.
Pesticides? Why do you hide pesticides? Most likely not.

And the latest, they most likely have gotten Sadam and his sons this evening. Let's hope. Then it'll just be a matter of time before it's over.

something about chemical weapons:

[]http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/riegle_report/report/images/page165.jpg[/]

United States Duel-Use Exports to I...ealth of the Persian Gulf War Veterans.

U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfar...s of the Persian Gulf War. May 25, 1994

U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfar...f the Persian Gulf War. October 7, 1994

[]How would you deal with Saddam Hussein[/]

Seriously? If I were someone who was high enough in politics, such as the president, someone high-enough up in the CIA, whatever, I'd have just had him killed. I'm not joking - if we know he's as horrible as the government wants to shove down our throats, why not just send in some type of special op assassins, or hire them from another country, and have him killed? I despise the double-talk I hear from our government. I listen to and watch press conferences where one day Rumsfeld says our sole objective is to remove Saddam from power - remove his regime. Then the next day, when asked the day to day question as to whether or not Saddam is still alive, he answers, "It doesn't matter. If we had proof that Saddam was dead, it wouldn't change our military action whatsoever." (That's not a direct quote, that's paraphrased from memory.) If our military plan of action is NOT dependant upon whether or not Saddam is alive or dead, how could the entire mission be summed up as removing Saddam from power?

I'm against our government saying that if Saddam or any of his high-ranking political officials wanted to surrender, we would refuse to give them safe passage out of the country. We asked for Saddam to exile himself, but he refused, so now we'll accept nothing short of capturing him and bringing him to the US, or killing him. I think that's an incredibly stupid decision if we are truly concerned for the people of Iraq and our soldiers. I'm sorry, but if you back someone into a corner and give them NO acceptable way out, they will retaliate as viciously as possible. If we back him into a corner, with no way out except being dragged back to the US or being killed, why the heck wouldn't he use every weapon available?

If our concern was truly protecting the people of Iraq, I think there are other ways we could have 'rescued' the people without a war. I believe if we'd proposed a plan to the UN for rescuing the people, it would have been met with much more acceptance. We could have gone in with trucks and offered to relocate to another country any family who wanted to leave Iraq. There may have been bloodshed over it, but certainly not as much as we've had to this point. It would have been expensive, but certainly not as expensive as this war is. Maybe the people wouldn't have wanted to leave their country? If they were truly suffering or as terrorized as we're led to believe, they'd have been happy to leave. Sure, it's their home, their country, but we're destroying lots of those homes and country now anyway. If we removed everyone from Iraq who didn't want to live under Saddam, who'd be left? The ones who really want to live under Saddam!

But, to answer your questions:

- Would you continue to allow him to murder, maim, and mutilate his own people... letting thousands die of starvation and disease while he adds yet another palace to the 8 he already has? Nope, I'd take them all out and move them someplace else.

- Would you continue to allow the rape of women in front of their husbands in order to extract information? Nope, I'd take them all out and move them someplace else.

- Would you continue to allow the gouging of eyes of prisoners? ?? I guess that depends. Not until after we've removed everyone who doesn't want to stay. That includes the prisoners. There are prisons in most (every??) country - we can move prisoners just as easily as wives and children. As for the prisoners who are imprisoned after our removal of everyone - I guess I'm not as concerned with them. I mean, if I move to (or willingly stay in) a country where I know that is a punishment I could be subjected to, why should another country come in and say otherwise? Plenty of countries don't believe in capital punishment, but that doesn't stop Texas from executing prisoners one after another, does it?

Make sure you understand that I'm not saying anyone who lives in Iraq knows what they are up against, and if they live there that's there fault. I know for most of them they don't have the funds, connections, ability, etc., to relocate to another country. I'm saying after we relocated everyone who wanted to leave the country, anyone who chose to stay would have to understand that this is their one chance - take it or leave it.

- Would you continue to allow him to build the very same weapons he had agreed to destroy as terms of his 1992 surrender? totally different topic (not one I don't have an answer for , but it really is separate from the humanitarian aspects most of this post has dealt with)

- Would you continue to allow this 21st century Hitler the freedom to murder the Kurds simply because they aren't Arab? Nope, I'd relocate them.

And you can't say 'relocating them is way too simplistic a plan', because personally, I think picking up a gun and shooting your way through the country is even more simplistic. Even I have, and can fire, a gun.

Side note: If anyone here doesn't think they can separate a debate of these issues without ending up with hard feelings, please let me know! I have no problem with not answering in this thread if what I say will bother someone. I enjoy this board and the help I get here. I'd have no problem zipping my mouth to avoid offending anyone here.

Ah healthy discussion is good.

I sort of agree that the stopping of "executive executions" has really hurt us. I think I know why they stopped that, but taking out Osama and Sadam a long time ago, mysteriously in the middle of the night by some secret special forces would have sure made like alot easier than playing "fair" with war. :/

Hopefully it's almost over soon.

I just saw the guy in Washington interviewed... he's the US-Iraq Business Relations (or something like that). He said he was so happy. He said although he's lived "free" in the US for many years, his family has not been free... and he has still been fearful. He said he was happy Sadam was no longer in control.

If you "work for" Iraq... you don't say that on Television unless you are convinced that he's gone and not coming back.

Anyone seeing the Iraqis celebrating?

I wonder why they're doing that?

Seeing that statue come down the other day... and people hitting it with their shoe was great.

[]shortbus said:
Anyone seeing the Iraqis celebrating?

I wonder why they're doing that? [/]

Celebrating, rioting, looting -- lots of big public displays going on in Baghdad right now, not all of them good. Any time you get a large group of people together in a high-tension environment there's going to be a certain amount of "over the top" behaviour, so I don't think we can assume they're *all* just in it for the celebration. People in this country act like that on New Years Eve.

My concern -- the US is taking out a moderate (albeit crazy) Middle Eastern government and is going to replace it with a government backed by the Shi'ites or other, less moderate Islamic regime. Then we won't have prisoners being tortured for no good reason, but we will have thieves getting their hands chopped off for stealing, and women being stoned for adultery. The US didn't care one bit about how women were treated in Afghanistan until the Taliban suddenly blew up some buildings on American soil. Personally, I'm afraid that in the long run, large groups of Iraqis (Sunis, Christians, etc.) are going to be treated much worse than they ever were under Saddam.

My two cents, from a dual-citizenship perspective.

more than 2 cents......much more....

Just removing Saddam doesn't remove his grip on the people there... the top leaders in the country are as crazy as he is (have you listened to the 'minister of information'?). Saddam isn't the one pulling the trigger, he has many homicidal thugs doing it for him. I would imagine when Rumsfeld says our mission is to remove Saddam, our mission is to remove Saddam's influence, including his henchmen/sons/etc. Allowing them to 'promise to go away and not be bad people' anymore is to ignore the tragedy of Saddam's reign of terror since 1978, still, they were given that opportunity on many occasions and declined.

Just removing the millions of people from Iraq who are subject to his violence is just a little short-sighted, don't you think? What about their rights as citizens of the country to live there? Yes, 'shooting your way through' iraq may seem simplistic, but I challenge you to find any war between 2 countries where the number of civilians killed was less than the number of civilians killed by the iraqi govt. in the previous year. >50,000 citizens just disappear on a yearly basis there... they were 'relocated' to the afterlife.

You remember the guy who tried to force his way into a UN inspector's vehicle? He's gone.
Here's an example of more 'relocations':
[]
Amnesty International has on numerous occasions over the years expressed its concern at the practice of "disappearances" by the Iraqi authorities. Cases have been documented in several reports [2]. The organization has obtained and continues to receive the names of thousands of victims whose fate and whereabouts remain unknown. As an example, according to some estimates over 100,000 Kurdish civilians "disappeared" in 1988 alone, in a space of three to four months, in the so-called Operation Anfal when the Iraqi Government implemented a program of destruction of villages and towns all over Iraqi Kurdistan, ostensibly in order to resettle the inhabitants in areas which offered improved conditions. An estimated 4,000 villages and towns were destroyed and razed to the ground and decrees were issued giving military and security personnel the authority to execute any persons attempting to return to their homes. Some Kurdish estimates put the figure at 150,000 to 180,000 "disappeared" victims. Amnesty International has the names of about 17,000 people who "disappeared" during that time.
[/]

There's quite a bit more in that article, they list hundreds of thousands of people 'relocated' over the last 20 years...

I'm behind the president on this. Andy Rooney, a liberal democrat, had the decency to admit he was wrong and the President was right. I thought that was big of him. I thought once we saw the oppressed liberated and not living in fear the world would change its mind. I think it is too, but there is still great opposition.

I hope we dont have to go to war with Syria, but I like the current adminstration and trust their judgement.

Saddam Proud He Still Killed More Iraqi Civilians Than U.S.

BAGHDAD, IRAQ--Reflecting on his time as Iraq's president in a pre-taped television address, Saddam Hussein expressed pride Tuesday that, despite the success of the U.S. invasion and the civilian casualties it has inflicted, he still has killed far more Iraqis than President Bush.