""intellectual-discourse-haters" ..... I love it.

Riorules... I enjoy your dellusional one world rants and you are free to continue because I need a good laugh from time to time. I could really nail you if I wanted to but I hate to come down on you too hard. It's sort of like hitting a girl... sure you will win the fight, but you will feel like shit afterwards.

Let me ask you this. How did you feel about global happiness and world unity when you were a boy and the Japanese Army rolled through the Phillipines? I guess that's when you learned that if you just reasoned with the aggressors it would solve everything. Maybe you even figured out why they hated you so that you could change your ways. It's all starting to make sense now.

As for Collossus... did he touch a nerve? It wasn't my nerve. I believed my former posts said how humorous I was finding it all. The humor comes from some of you guys jumping all over one little point, or seizing something you read at some left-wing website and then posting it and writing volumes as if it is the ultimate truth. A poll goes your way and you get all happy and jump in with the latest news. It's really funny.

Collossus is a good for nothing lurker. In case you missed it, here is my salute to both of you though .......

Gotta love this, from this past Sunday's Washington Post:

Iraq vs. Vietnam: The Scorecard

By Richard Leiby
The Washington Post
Sunday, March 21, 2004; Page D03

A year ago, while hundreds of eager reporters embedded with U.S. troops pushing into Iraq, some wag circulated the "Vietnam II Preflight Check," a list of questions comparing the just-launched war with that previous long and nasty one. How prescient was it? Here's the list, for which no author has ever taken credit or blame:
1. Cabal of oldsters who won't listen to outside advice? Check.
2. No understanding of ethnicities of the many locals? Check.
3. National boundaries drawn in Europe, not by the locals? Check.
4. Unshakable faith in our superior technology? Check.
5. France secretly hoping we fall on our [rear ends]? Check.
6. Russia secretly hoping we fall on our [rear ends]? Check.
7. China secretly hoping we fall on our [rear ends]? Check.
8. Secretary of Defense pushing a conflict the Joint Chiefs never wanted? Check.
9. Fear we'll look bad if we back down now? Check.
10. Corrupt Texan in the White House? Check. [Editor's note: Absolutely no proof of this.]
11. Land war in Asia? Check.
12. Right-wing unhappy with outcome of previous war? Check.
13. Enemy easily moves in/out of neighboring countries? Check.
14. Soldiers about to be exposed to our own chemicals? Check.
15. Friendly fire problem ignored instead of solved? Check.
16. Anti-Americanism up sharply in Europe? Check.
17. B-52 bombers? Check.
18. Helicopters that clog up on the local dust? Check.
19. Infighting among the branches of the military? Check.
20. Locals that cheer us by day, hate us by night? Check.
21. Local experts ignored? Check.
22. Local politicians ignored? Check.
23. Locals accustomed to conflicts lasting since before the USA has been a country? Check.
24. Against advice, Prez won't raise taxes to pay for war? Check.
25. Blue water navy ships operating in brown water? Check.
26. Use of nukes hinted at if things don't go our way? Check.
27. Unpopular war? Check.
28. It's the media's fault? Check.

"Vietnam II, you are cleared for takeoff."

On the US election
BUSH-LITE
An Interview with Noam Chomsky

Kerry is sometimes described as Bush-lite, which is not inaccurate, and in general the political spectrum is pretty narrow in the United States, and elections are mostly bought, as the population knows.
 
But despite the limited differences both domestically and internationally, there are differences. And in this system of immense power, small differences can translate into large outcomes.
 
My feeling is pretty much the way it was in the year 2000. I admire Ralph Nader and Denis Kucinich very much, and insofar as they bring up issues and carry out an educational and organizational function - that's important, and fine, and I support it.
 
However, when it comes to the choice between the two factions of the business party, it does sometimes, in this case as in 2000, make a difference. A fraction.
 
That's not only true for international affairs, it's maybe even more dramatically true domestically. The people around Bush are very deeply committed to dismantling the achievements of popular struggle through the past century. The prospect of a government which serves popular interests is being dismantled here. It's an administration that works, that is devoted, to a narrow sector of wealth and power, no matter what the cost to the general population. And that could be extremely dangerous in the not very long run.
 
You could see it clearly in the way they dealt with, what is by common agreement, the major domestic economic problem coming along, namely the exploding health care costs. They're traceable to the fact that the US has a highly inefficient healthcare system - far higher expenditure than other comparable countries, and not particularly good outcomes. Rather poor, in fact. And it's because it's privatised.
 
So they passed a huge prescription drug bill, which is primarily a gift to the pharmaceutical corporations and insurance companies. It's a huge taxpayer subsidy. They're already wealthy beyond dreams of avarice. And that's their constituency. And as that continues, with significant domestic problems ahead, for the general population it's extremely harmful.
 
Again there isn't a great difference, so for maybe 90% of the population over the past 20 years, real income has either stagnated or declined, while for the top few percent, it's just exploded astronomically. But there are differences and the present group in power is particularly cruel and savage in this respect.

Note: The rest of the article could be found at...

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=33&ItemID=5177

Note 2: I have a suggestion: from now onwards, let us ignore negative and intolerant people who keep saying they do not like the discussion, but anyway keep butting-in and just can't keep themselves away. People who uses profanitities, insults and the finger icon. They are like middle-school kids who never grew up. They want attention (just look at the attention one gets, using the finger icon). They want to be in the adult world but just can't keep up with its fundamental requirement: maturity.

Happyxhonor,

Interesting. I clearly can see that some people in the administration referred to an imminent threat. Even though its watered down a little if you read the entire interview. But show me one where Bush says " Imminent threat". Thats what was I was asking for. The only time I ever recall him using imminent threat is when he said that we should not let it become one.

I am curious about how Bush is getting beat up over not paying enough attention to terrorism, while Clinton got an 8 year pass. Whats up with that?

I find it Ironic that the same people who bitch about pre-emptive action against Iraq and also bitched about going into Afganistan, are now saying that Bush did not pay enough attention to Al-Qaueda. It just goes to prove that a sitting President is not going to catch a break in an election year. Bush is the source of all evil in the world. Just like Clinton was when he was running for re-election. It just seems that the dems are a little more desparate this year and are willing to conveniently forget history.

Rio Rules,

You quoting Noam Chomsky would be like me quoting Bob Dornan. They are both too far out on their ends of the political spectrum to be relied upon as unbiased sources of information.

Baster1,

Sorry, I didn't realize that the spokesman for the Whitehouse referring to Iraq as an "Imminent Threat" was not the same as Bush saying it in your eyes. This makes me wonder what the purpose of a Whitehouse spokesman is for if not to express the views of the President.

Give me a few hours, maybe I'll be able to find a verifiable instance where Bush used that term.

Are you saying that it is YOUR UNDERSTANDING that Bush didn't say or imply that Iraq was an "imminent threat"?

Baster1,

You're right I was unable to find an instance when Bush personally used the phrase "imminent threat" in referencing Iraq. I stopped my search when the Simpsons came on. However, there are plenty of instances where members of his administration used that term.

Answer this for me Basterman, what is YOUR interpretation of this statement by Sec. of Def. Don Rumsfeld, "I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2002/t11152002_t1114rum.html

Sure does sound like he’s trying to convince the audience that Iraq is an imminent threat. What’s your interpretation of his statement?

To accuse the President of using the words “Imminent Threat” would be incorrect. However, to claim that the President or his staff didn’t try to imply that Iraq was an “Imminent Threat” is probably just as incorrect.

Just trying to keep the facts straight. How you interpret them is up to you.

(Message edited by happyxhoner on March 24, 2004)

“Imminent Threat” ? who gives a shit? Everyone knows that these scumbags had this war planned from day 1 look at the evidence, read chapter 1 of Dude, wheres my country? look aroundthe world,Saddam was a piece of shit but he isnt the worst world leader out there. The powers that bewant to build a pipeline from the baltic sea through afghanistan and Iraq ,Almost every member of Bushs Cabinet sit on the boards (or have been and will be on the boards) of energy and defense (or offense) companies this doesnt seem fishy? Am I just a misinformed Nut? Am I gullable, and do I fall for every conspiracy theory out there? I dont know maybe Im fucked up but If Im not we should all be up im arms over this shit and take our country back

American actions suggest that the White House felt the threat to be imminent. Here are some images in my own head:

1. By the end of 2002, we had assembled over a 100K troops outside of Iraq as Hans Blix searched in vane for WMD.

2. I don't remember the details, but Bush gave Saddam an ultimatem.

3. We went into Iraq even though most of the world felt it better to continue with the UN weapons inspector.

At this point, it does not matter what was said, we behaved in a way that we felt the threat was imminent. That's all that matters.

I don't understand why Bush gives Hugo Chavez a free pass to terrorize his country, fund terrorists abroad, kill his own citizens, and sell us oil.

Larry, you are all of that, but you said it, not me.

One has to be careful about citing opinions as facts. Saying that Bush planned the invasion from day 1 is opinion not fact. You base your opinion on two disgruntled former employees that were essentially fired, then proceeded to disgrace themselves by writing a kiss and tell book. Paul O'neil had a distinguished career and he chose to end it as a bitter old fool. Dick Clark is a bitter liar with balls the size of a bulls to suggest that Sept 11th is somehow more Bush's fault than the previous administration he served in for 8 years. There is enough blame to go around but to suggest that the people in office for barely 8 months own more of it than the people that were in office for 8 years. I don't necessarily blame Clinton though. It's a complicated world. All of this blame game is pointless anyway. Blame the people that flew the planes inot the buildings.

Back to Dick. Dick wanted the number 2 position at the new Homeland Security Dept and when he didn't get it, he pouted, then resigned and started writing a book. That is unprecidented for a high ranking National Security official to do to a sitting President. What a disgrace.

Bluestraveler.. let's remember. The only reason Hans Blix and his band of Merrymen were in Iraq were because those 100K troops were sitting in the desert sweating their asses off. Still, they weren't permitted to search certain areas. In the end, Saddam thought France or Russia would jump in at the last minute and stop the US with some new delaying tactic. It was the mother of all miscalculations. No more pussy parties for him and his sons.

Explorer... Chavez hasn't started 2 major wars in the last 20 years, pursued nuclear and biological weapons, and sponsored terrorism by awarding 25K to families of Palestianian suicide bombers. That's why. He's just a fucking nut.

Ok Aldaron Fuck you too ,I dont care I leave for brazil in 14 hours!!!!!! hope to see all you dudes there.

Aldaron, amigo:

"One has to be careful about citing opinions as facts. Saying that Bush planned the invasion from day 1 is opinion not fact."

Please read this:
http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/2003/01/27/news/local/5025024.htm?1c

and more specifically this:
www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

The cabal around Bush (excuse, President G.W. Bush's trusted advisors) have been planning the Iraq invasion since at least 1998. The question to ask yourself is WHY? Why the focus on Iraq? Yeah, Saddam is a bad guy, but so are a lot of other dictators and regimes, many of which we coddle. Why specifically Iraq? I have my opinions (it's not Iraqi oil or Caspian pipelines or even Israel), but they're just that - opinions. Maybe you can enlighten us?

Abraco,

BS


(Message edited by badseed on March 25, 2004)

Badseed,

The reason is because poppa Bush fucked up in 1991 by not finishing Saddam off, and the fucked up his reelection in 1992. This allowed a hillbilly Democrat in the White House, who ushered in the longest era of prosperity for the widest crossection of the US since the early 1960's. Now, we can't have that, can we?

You have to create external problems to smooth-over internal problems. The consequences always come later, but the short term is always nice. Scare the people, wave the flag and keep the bullshit flowing.

Cato:

I'm truly interested in what Aldaron has to say. I think that what you mentioned is nice "icing" on the cake for the Bush Regime, but isn't the real reason.

But Aldaron, don't give me "free the Iraqi people", WMD, or "plant the seed of democracy in the Middle East", we're all of us too grown-up to believe THAT!

Your in realpolitik,

BS

HappyXhonor,

It sounds to me like Rumsfeld is trying to say, "why let something become an imminent threat". Obviously we interpret things differently.

I remember several occasions during the Clinton administration that spokesholes or admin members said something that they later had to retract as not being exactly in line with the president's beliefs. The fact of the matter is that the "hate Bush" factor is so strong and the issue is so politicized that there can be completely opposite interpretations of the same issue.

The beauty of America is that we can all disagree on how things should be done. We can all have a different opinion, and the only real judge of what worked and what did not will be history.

I personally believe its a mistake to ignore things and let them fester until they are not only an imminent threat but a 9/11. I think both Clinton and Bush stepped on their dicks. But since 9/11 I am generally in favor of the Bush approach to terrorism, as opposed to the Clinton Law enforcement approach and the European appeasment approach.

As far as Bushies planning on invading Iraq going back as far as 1998. I am not at all surprised. Clinton made Regime change in Iraq official US policy in 1998. Ever since that day, the intelligence agencies and military have been planning invasion and overthrow scenarios. Did it speed up under Bush? Yes. Is there anything surprising about that? No.

I personally think that Bushes handling of the occupation of Iraq has been a disaster. They had no clue what they were going to do after they routed Saddams government. Big big mistake on Rumsfelds part. But I am glad Saddam is gone. People laugh at Aldaron for saying that the Iraqi people have been freed. But that seems to be the opinion of the majority of the Iraqi people. I base that on the latest poll by Oxford. I am happy to post the entire poll and its methodology if any one doubts its validity. Its rather long.

So we can bitch all we want about our involvment, but a clear majority of Iraqis feel they are better off without Saddam. And I can gaurantee you it would not of happened without the US.

I disagree with Batster1. People dont laugh at Aldaron for saying the Iraqi people have been freed. People laugh at Aldaron because unlike mature conservatives that talk like adults, Aldaron bitches and whines with profanity and insults and accuses others of what he does.

Sorry if my mockery of Aldaron makes this discussion less friendly.

Aldaron is funny even if its in a repulsive kind of way. Read his earlier messages and those in other message areas and see how angry he gets while accusing those crazy liberals of getting angry.

It took a while for him to understand I was mocking him. My message was closer to his post before he edited it to make him appear less angry.

Aldaron keeps saying he is going to stop posting in the politics sections but I know he is not mature enough for that. Instead of polite disagreement, he will continue to interrupt polite political debate with his attack rants and just continue to embarrass himself.

He says this is funny, but I know he is really mad. Look at all the attention he is giving me. The truth hurts, so Aldaron will rant like crazy at people who disagree while he can. I am laughing at Aldaron like everyone else and looking foward to his next silly rant where he says hes not angry and liberals are crazy and fuck you Colossus.

Batster1 talks like an intelligent conversative. I disagree but thank you for not posting it like an angry immature toddler.

Intelligent Conservative? As in ,Jumbo Shrimp?


Just kidding boys, Im off to the airport ,thanks for all the info Everyone on this board made my planning that much easier ,hope to run into you guys in Rio,Peace

Badseed this is just for you. (I can't believe you are making me waste my time like this)

I think this is the way it played out:

-Everyone including the UN thought Saddam had WMDs.

-That put him in violation of the cease fire agreement of 1991. It also put him in violation of the UN resolutions.

-After Sept 11th, a new world threat emerged... a threat to civilized society, the likes of which had never before been seen. It gave us a small glimpse of what it might be like if a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon went off in a major city.

-In light of that change, the adminstration begin to look hard at countries that were problem areas and potential threats. The Bush Doctrine was born. No longer would we sit back and be a target. We would become proactive and take the fight to our enemies and to potentially dangerous situations.

-First came Afghanistan because it was a terrorist haven and the last known location of UBL.

-A year later they begin to look at Iraq. Why Iraq? The scenario begin to emerge that this man who hates the US had control over WMDs and could supply terrorists anonymously. Moreover, as soon as the UN and US turned it's back on Saddam and took away the sanctions, he would have been free to start anew. His history shows that is exactly what he would have done. He was a master of miscalculations. He was a destabilizing figure in the Middle East authorizing money to be paid to Palestianian suicide bombers. That made him a sponsor of terrorism. He started two major wars in the region in less than 15 years, and there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't have started a 3rd if left alone. He allowed known terrorists to operate within his borders. In short, he was a threat to the region and the new reality that a madman with WMDs who had motivation to do us harm, would do so if given the chance.

-Considering all of that, this administration decided they needed to bring this to a head. The idea of constantly enforcing no-fly zones and having our pilots shot at daily for decades more was unacceptable. The Middle East only respects one thing.... force. After Sept 11th the administration said that they weren't going to wait around until Iraq was an imminent threat.

-The Congress voted to support the President on disarming Iraq and gave him full authority to do so by any means necessary.

-The UN Security Counsil voted unanimously that Saddam must disarm and declare all it's weapons.

-What followed was more of the same. Delaying... stalling..... and forbidding the weapons inspectors to go in certain areas. Repeated warning were ignored.

-In the end, the decision was whether or not to let this two-bit dictator jerk around the civilized world for a 13th year or end it now. Having 100K troops sit around in the hot desert until the Fall was not an option. He had 12 years to prove he disarmed. He didn't take advantage of that, nor was there any indication he ever would. So with one final miscalculation, the invasion begin.

I know that many of you are going to disagree with all of that but I was asked to explain "why Iraq?" That's how I believe they justifiable came to their solution. This scenario is consistent with everything the administration has put forth from 2002 onward.

For the record, I'm not some big right wing conservative. Before Sept 11th I voted on one issue... taxes.....which party is going to feed the govt beast less money. After Sept 11th I vote on taxes and who's going to proatively go after unstable regions.

Also, I don't hate liberals. I just think they are naive. In fact the name of this thread is even silly. War or Peace?... Of course everyone wants peace, but what comes after that? After you try to negotiate and resolve a situation peacefully and it fails, then what comes next? For the liberal, it's a re-doubled effort to negotiate some more. That fails to recognize that some people just don't have the same stake in the outcome of the negotiation that another does. In fact, a true liberal has never seen the need to fire a shot in ANY situation. I know they think they are smarter than everyone else, but the American voting public keeps proving them wrong.

Liberals on here tend to exagerate and misrepresent facts by substituting facts with opinions and conspiracies. Take the economy for instance. If you listened to the average liberal you would think we are in the second coming of the Depression. The facts are we have 5.6% unemployment... 4 - 5 % growth for this year expected... every major economic indicator is positive... save job creation, and of course, that is the one they beat into the ground. I remind you though 5.6% unemployment. I've been unemployed before and as I sat in my robe drinking coffee and watching Maury Povich at 10 AM, not once did I think to myself, "the President owes me a job". That's the whole liberal philosphy though. Everything can be solved by govt.

Let the Liberalfest begin!


Colossus, (or should I say Riorules) I can be insightful when I want, or I can be silly when I want. I like to mix the two up because of the nature of this site. This isn't some respectable community forum .. it's a whore mongering website. No matter how enlightened we all try to make oursleves sound, in the end we are all nothing but degenerates and perverts. That's why I find the in-depth discussions so funny. I'm even laughing at myself now for writing all of that above. That's also why I use profanity and silliness from time to time. If you look around, we all do. I can say... Badseed... fuck you.. pervert.... and it's no big deal. Some are so passionate and it leads to irrationality. That's why I said it was funny to me sometimes. Some can't make an argument without referring to some link of something that somebody else wrote.

As for giving you attention, I don't think that is the case. I suppose you want me to tell you to fuck off again. OK... fuck off. I've already told you once. If you want another salute, here it is

The bottomline is that you are irrelevent on this site. That's why I devoted so little attention to you the first time my Meek, Conscious, Silent Grunt. You have 4 discuss posts. Go away. You are dismissed.

IMHO Dartagana is one of the better participants on this board. We do not agree on a lot, but he is always polite and a very good writer. And he aslo has some damn good trip reports (which is more than I can say for myself or other losers actively involved in the off-topic So I was glad to see that he believes Dick Clarke to be very credible.

In 1999 Dick Clarke was quoted at length by the Washington Post. An excerpt from that article.

"Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.
While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.
Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

So, we have a "credible" expert on terrorism, working for Bill Clinton that said that the US could make the link between Osama-Nerve Gas-Iraq.

Hey wait a minute. I thought it was just those lying bastard Bushies who alleged a link between Osama and Saddam. And as HappyXhonor will tell you, since Clarke was speaking as an official of the Clinton administration, that must be what Clinton beleived or said. Interesting.

So why is the left beating up on Bush over trying to link Iraq and terrorism? Or maybe Dick Clarke is not so credible. In his book he is saying that he never believed there was a link between Osama and Iraq. Maybe there was and maybe there was not. But the more we find out about Clarkes past utterances, the less credible he seems and it looks like a lot of sour grapes. He seems like a loose cannon to me.

The second point to be made is that, as Hillary Clinton recently said, the intel from BushI to Clinton to BushII was consistent. Consistently bad it appears.

I still believe that a lot of the opposition to what is going on in Iraq boils down to pure liberal hate for Bush. There is just no other way to explain all the flip flopping on the issue. Clinton maintained right up to the war that Saddam proabably had WMD. But Bush is a liar for claiming the same? Clinton made regime change official US policy. Bush actually acted on it and he is war mongering bastard. It all comes down to political opinion.

Aldaron, I agree with you on most of the points, but you really need to get laid. LOL

batstertheblowhard

Batster, I agree with you. I need to get laid. Tomorrow will be 2 whole months since I was last in Rio. My balls have passed the blue phase and have now turned a purplish pink color.

I agree also that D'artanananagaga or whatever, is a reasonable guy, albeit misguided. Why, he's only flamed me once on this board a little while back, but I didn't take it personally. I think his hemmorhoids were acting up that night.

Baster1,

Although we might not necessarily agree about Iraq, I think the basis of our opinions are the same.

It's refreshing to be able to disagree with someone about this without getting into a raging insulting match. Too few people left around who can still see the world in shades of grey instead of black and white.

I tend to hold leaders to a higher and probably unrealistic standard. I felt what Rumsfeld said was intentionally vague and was carefully structured to deliver an image of danger that was greatly exaggerated.

Your statement, "why let something become an imminent threat" baffles me. Using that logic, an invasion of just about any country could be justified. Hell, the French have been pushing our buttons for years, AND THEY HAVE NUKES.

Precedence seems to be a very important factor in our political system. This Iraq thing has set a very disturbing precedence.

A question addressed to posters in favor of Bush's war on Iraq: are you saying that it is justified to use violence to get peace? Violence leading to peace? Isn't this what they call an oxymoron?

No matter how you justify going to war, I will tell you that violence can only lead to more violence. (Israel's and US's doctrine.)

Real peace can only be achieved through nonviolence. (Gandhi's and King's philosophy.)

You may disagree with me, but your disagreement will not alter that truth.

This is sad.

Your "truth" is the classic liberal fallacy.

RioRules,

Wake up my socialist freind. Sometimes violence is the only way to peace. WWII is a very good example. Removing Saddam Hussein is another good example. You may think that leaving Saddam there was preferable. It certainly was for Saddam , for Russia Germany and France who were doing big business with him. It was also preferable for the thieves at the UN who were skimming millions off of the Food for Oil fund, and for the French Banks that handled the money charging a heft commision.

But Saddam staying in power was certainly not better for the thousands of Political prisoners, for the 50,000 people dying yearly under the Food for Oil program( because the money was not going for food). It was not better for the Kurds, the Shiites, or the Turkmen, all peo-ple who were severely repressed under Hussein.

You can argue the US's reasons for going in, but how can any reasonable person not believe its a good thing that Saddam is gone? And like it or not, my peace loving freind, the only way to get him out was through violent force. 12 years of UN negotiations did not work and it never would have. Why because many times diplomacy needs the threat of force. It has to be a credible threat.

Gandhis and Kings ideas are beautiful, and maybe even the ideal. They are not practical for dealing with problems like Islamo-facism and Islamic Terrorism. However maybe it would be a good idea for you to preach a little of that religion over in the Islamic countries. They could use a little moderation.

You may disagree but that does not alter the truth. Thats right Riorules. The truth is that contrary to your utopian ideals, the world has never worked the way you say it should. And as long as mankind continues being mankind, It never will.

Happyxhonor,

You were the only guy to provide me with some info that makes me really consider my position. I apprecaite that. But I can not believe that you would actually compare a possible threat from Saddam to the French. Whats the imminent threat from the French? They will ut a wine and cheese embargo on us? I vastly prefer California wines and California cheese. Because it comes from happy cows.

Yes the French have nukes, but they are not INSANE. Hussein is INSANE.

Saddam tried to Kill Bush in 93. He shot at our airplanes for 10 years, he was invloved in all sorts of bad shit. He was unstable. He hated the US. He DID have involvment with Islamic Terrorists.

Thats a far cry from the French. Your comparison baffles me.

As far as his links with terrorism. Consider some of the following.

He made cash payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

On Wednesday Clarke told the September 11 Commission about Abdul Rahman Yasin, the al Qaeda operative who federal prosecutors indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that rocked the World Trade Center, killed six, and injured 1,042 people on February 26, 1993.
"He was an Iraqi," Clarke observed. "Therefore, when the explosion took place, and he fled the United States, he went back to Iraq." While Clarke believes Baghdad did not orchestrate that attack, he concedes that Hussein embraced this assassin.
"The Iraqi government," Clarke continued, "didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists."

"Last week, Day One confirmed he [Yasin] is in Baghdad," ABC correspondent Sheila MacVicar reported June 27, 1994. "Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father's] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely."


In a January 23, 1999, Washington Post article in which Clarke defended the Clinton administration's August 20, 1998, cruise-missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. That mission avenged al Qaeda's demolition of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that August 7, which killed 224 individuals and injured more than 5,000. The Post quoted Clarke as "sure" that Iraqi experts there produced a powdered VX nerve gas component. According to the Post, Clarke "said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan."

Meanwhile, Palestinian terrorist Abu Abbas made news March 9 by dying of natural causes in U.S. military custody in Iraq. Green Berets captured him last April 14 in Baghdad, where he had lived under Hussein's protection since 2000. After masterminding the 1985 Achille Lauro cruise ship hijacking, in which U.S. retiree Leon Klinghoffer was murdered, Abbas slipped Italian custody. How? ''Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport,'' Italy's then-premiere Bettino Craxi announced then. So, Rome let him split for Yugoslavia, and beyond.

Speaking of diplomacy, the Philippine government booted the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy, Hisham al Hussein, on February 13, 2003, after discovering that the same mobile phone that reached his number on October 3, 2002, six days later rang another cell phone strapped to a bomb at the San Roque Elementary School in Zamboanga. While that device failed, another exploded one day earlier in Zamboanga, wounding 23 and killing three, including U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson. That mobile phone also registered calls to Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Ali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, al Qaeda's Philippine branch. It was launched in the late 1980s by the late Abdurajak Janjalani, with the help of Jamal Mohammad Khalifa, Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law.

As the Washington Times's Marc Lerner reported on March 3, 2003, Hamsiraji Ali, an Abu Sayyaf commander on the southern island of Basilan, bragged that his group received almost $20,000 annually from Iraqis close to Saddam Hussein.
"It's so we would have something to spend on chemicals for bomb-making and for the movement of our people," Sali explained.

Iraqi diplomat Muwafak al-Ani also was expelled from the Philippines, the Christian Science Monitor's Dan Murphy reported February 26, 2003.

In 1991, an Iraqi embassy car took two terrorists near America's Thomas Jefferson Cultural Center in Manila. As they hid a bomb there, it exploded, killing one fanatic. Al-Ani's business card was found in the survivor's pocket, triggering al-Ani's ouster.

Washington Times Pentagon correspondents Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough reported March 19 on a 20-page, Arabic-language document from the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Stamped "top secret," it lists IIS "collaborators," among them, "the Saudi Osama bin Laden." It says he is a "Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan...And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria." Signed "Jabar," the 1993 record seemed authentic to an American official who reviewed it.
"Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad," CIA Director George Tenet concluded in an October 7, 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee. "Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links with terrorists will increase, even absent US military action."

Don't forget the Salman Pak terrorist training camp.

Don't forget Abu Nidal, a terrorist wanted by Interpol, the US, and Saudia Arabia was lving in a government appartment in Baghdad. But in the fall of 2002 when Colin Powell started talking about Saddams links to terrorism. Abu Nidal suddenly commited suicide with something like 8 bullets to the chest and head. It was a little inconvenient for Saddam to deny links with terrorism with this guy living off of Saddams dole in Baghdad.

What baffles me is how any body can keep on denying Saddams links to Islamic terrorism. They deny them only because it is convenient to do so. It is convenient because it dovetails with the blame Bush movement for all.

I believe we are in a war. A war with Islamic terrorists. I don't know if it can be won. Probably not. But I would rather fight it as a war and not as a law enforcemnet problem. And most certainly not as a UN diplomatic problem.

Batsterthehostileviolentknuckledragger.

Batster, our common sense arguments and facts fall on deaf ears for people that argue backwards from "I hate Bush". I'm not mentioning any names, just making the point.

Aldaron:

Sorry I haven't had a chance to get back to this yet, but I appreciate your laying out the "pro-war" position for why Iraq. Please indulge me while I respond to your points, and excuse me for not digging up a source for each of my rebuttals, but I believe I can grab an article from a major newspaper to support anything I've written:

-Everyone including the UN thought Saddam had WMDs.

The UN inspectors were specifically saying that he DIDN'T, at lesat not since the 1990 Gulf War. And anyway, other rogue regimes that either have or are very close to having WMDs are Iran, DPRK, and Pakistan (defintely has nukes, only aren't "rogue" but the slimmest of margins, mroe about them later).

-That put him in violation of the cease fire agreement of 1991. It also put him in violation of the UN resolutions.

Again, no proof that he had WMD, still don't have proof. He let in inspectors under duress, true, but at the same time we were beating the war drums, Kim in the DPRK was kicking out inspectors and withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty. So again, why Iraq (instead of DPRK, and let's not even get into Pakistan and Dr. Kahn).

-After Sept 11th, a new world threat emerged... a threat to civilized society, the likes of which had never before been seen. It gave us a small glimpse of what it might be like if a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon went off in a major city.

Uhn, this threat has been around for 60 years, in fact the USA created it (yeah, for hte good of all mankind, and to save countless combat deaths in Japan). Anyway nothing new, and see my above comments about North Korea and Pakistan - if we were interested in stopping proliferation, Pakistan was the place to start... (and no, thisisn thindsight, people were saying the same thing in '02).

-In light of that change, the adminstration begin to look hard at countries that were problem areas and potential threats. The Bush Doctrine was born. No longer would we sit back and be a target. We would become proactive and take the fight to our enemies and to potentially dangerous situations.

OK, most of the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, as did most of their financing. I won't speculate about the Bin Laden family being flown out of the US on 9/12 or about the passages about Saudi Arabia being expunged from the White HOuse 9/11 report, but it's really hard to deny that Saudi Arabia is a terrorist haven. Other more imminent threats - Pakistan, Iran, and especially Noth Korea. Obvioulsy, I'm not saying we should have, or culd have invaded any of hese coutnries,but that's where our efforts (military, diplomatic, containment, economic blockade, inspection, police activity, etc),should have been. So again, with all these glaring problems, why Iraq?

-First came Afghanistan because it was a terrorist haven and the last known location of UBL.

Outside the scope of my question, but as we've seen the Al Queda operatives in Afghanistan have simply scuttled off to Northern Pakistan. Wher we ignored them for a year while fighting in Iraq. Let's face it, Afghanistan was a "feel-good", lets bomb something, war. Fat lot of good it did, UBL is still at large, Taliban are back in power in most of Afghanistan, and Al Queida has pulled another major attck - Madrid (not as many people killed, but what an impact...).

-A year later they begin to look at Iraq. Why Iraq? The scenario begin to emerge that this man who hates the US had control over WMDs and could supply terrorists anonymously............

One word - Kahn. By now we know that Bush & Co. fabricated Iraqi WMD while the whole world told him there were no WMD's in Iraq and while Pakisan was doing exactly what Saddam was accused of.

.....Moreover, as soon as the UN and US turned it's back on Saddam and took away the sanctions, he would have been free to start anew.

WIth what resources? His country was already starved. But since sanctions were workign already why not continue? Containment got us thru the Cold War. No fun, but better than a gurrilla war (which is what we have now).

His history shows that is exactly what he would have done. He was a master of miscalculations. He was a destabilizing figure in the Middle East authorizing money to be paid to Palestianian suicide bombers. That made him a sponsor of terrorism............

See my comments about Saudi Arabia.

He started two major wars in the region in less than 15 years, and there is no reason to believe that he wouldn't have started a 3rd if left alone.

No one was saying leave him alone - contain.

He allowed known terrorists to operate within his borders.

Another fabrication from the White House. Who did he allow to "operate within his borders?" THere was one Al Queda operative who had surgery in Baghdad (while Germany was "allowing" most of the 9/11 hijackers to operate in their borders... should we bomb them?). And then there is the group that had camps in Northern Iraq, near the Iranian border - I forget their name.. but, tellingpoint, they were well within the No-Fly Zone! So why didn't WE bomb them? he Kurds were warnign us for years (even pre-9/11). Why were WE allowing Al Queda terroriststo operate in areas of IRaq that WE control? There is so much more here than meets the eye, even without getting into wild conspiracy theories..

In short, he was a threat to the region and the new reality that a madman with WMDs who had motivation to do us harm, would do so if given the chance.

Again, yes.. but he's far from the only one, why was he #1 on the hitlist with so many more pressing threats?


-Considering all of that, this administration decided they needed to bring this to a head. The idea of constantly enforcing no-fly zones and having our pilots shot at daily for decades more was unacceptable.

Umm.... right after the "shooting war" the Pentagon admited what many suspected throughout the leadup to war - that we were deliberaely targeting Iraqi installations in order to "soften" the eventual war targets. Our pilots were getting shot at because they were bombing Iraqi targets.

The Middle East only respects one thing.... force. After Sept 11th the administration said that they weren't going to wait around until Iraq was an imminent threat.

I'll let the "force majeur" theory of Mid-East diplomacy go uncommnetd, except to say that by this logic, the best thing to do would be to nuke the entire area. As for "imminent threat", even if one subscribes to the Bush doctrine, why was IRaq first? Pakistn, Korea, then Iran in that order are the most imminent threats. We keep coming back to why Iraq?

-The Congress voted to support the President on disarming Iraq and gave him full authority to do so by any means necessary.

Yes, all part of the rush to war. Still doesn't answer my question.

-The UN Security Counsil voted unanimously that Saddam must disarm and declare all it's weapons.

Ditto. And from this we got into the crazy argument that since Iraq declared that they didn't have any WMD, then obvioulsy they were lying so they were in violation. Not that I put it past Saddam to lie, but we all know that proving a negtive is impossible.

-What followed was more of the same. Delaying... stalling..... and forbidding the weapons inspectors to go in certain areas. Repeated warning were ignored.

Agin, what I said above. Saddam said "we don't have WMD's", we said you are lying, he let in more inspectors and opened up more areas, and on and on. Of course, he was trying to play a game with us, continually moving he goalposts, so to speak. But that didn't meanwe had to go to war. One possible solution - any site he blocked to inspectors would be bomber within 12 hours with no warning. We could have done that, no problem. With forward basing in Kuwait, within 2 hours.

-In the end, the decision was whether or not to let this two-bit dictator jerk around the civilized world for a 13th year or end it now. Having 100K troops sit around in the hot desert until the Fall was not an option.

Who put teh 100K troops there? we did in the lead-up to war.

He had 12 years to prove he disarmed. He didn't take advantage of that, nor was there any indication he ever would. So with one final miscalculation, the invasion begin.

Yeah, but who's miscalculation?

Aldaron, again, you laid out the "party line" very well, thanks for taking the time. But every point in the part line indicaes that we should have started our "defend America" efforts elsewhere. I'm not a dove (see my comments on bombing), but I'm a great believer in choosing your fights wisely. We rushed into this war and I still want to know.. why?

BS

P.S. About "law enforcement" - law enforcement against terrorists is when you do co-ordinated investigative work in co-operation with allied police forces and intelligence services untill you find out where the bad gusy are. Then you send in the SEALS, Delta-Force, Rangers, SAS, etc. When you do it the other way around, then the roaches just scurry off into the darkness...

BS... With all do respect, many of your points are not true at all. For example:

"The UN inspectors were specifically saying that he DIDN'T (have WMDs), at lesat not since the 1990 Gulf War."

This is simply not true. If this were the case the UN Securty Counsil would not have voted unanimously in late 2002 to order him to disarm and fully disclose all the weapon stockpiles that they (the UN) said he had not accounted for. This is fact.

Anyway, there's more of the same throughout your rebuttal, but I'm not going to write anymore about this. We arent going to change each other's mind.

Badseed...

One really has only one choice in this issue of war or peace. To go with peace. One cannot say "Let's go to war, so we can have peace later".

Peace will never be achieved if men continue to justify going to war. If one is for peace, one has to say no to war; and we have to start today.

Now, if one is for war and violence, then Bush is justified to bomb Afghans, Iraqis, etc. Then, it's just the law of the jungle out there. If it's a jungle with brainless beasts roaming around there, then everyone and anyone is justified to bomb and kill each other one.

If one is for war/violence, one cannot be for peace. One cannot say "I want peace and I do not want violence, so I am going war and commit violence".

It's the same oxymoron argument pro-death penalty people have: "I do not like people who killed people, so let's kill all people who killed people".

Can you see the absurdity of these two positions?

By the way, did you know that the US is the only first-world nation that -- not only is it the only one that still has the death penalty, but also the only one that still executes child offenders?

This from Amnesty International:

Amnesty International has documented executions of child offenders in eight countries since 1990: China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United States of America and Yemen.

Since 2000, 15 executions of child offenders have taken place in the world. Nine of them were in the USA.

(There are four executions of child offenders scheduled to take place in Texas in the first half of 2004 and 70 others throughout the rest of the country are in death row.)

Badseed, are you at all uncomfortable with any of your allies in this thread?

Riorules,

You were what, about 9 years old when the Japanese Army rolled through the peace-loving PI? What, did you greet the Imperial Army with open arms or something?

I always lover the "peace at any cost" camp. At no point in time in history has appeasement ever worked, but just ignore that. The reason? Someone is always looking for the advantage, and in that case it better be you. Social Darwinism on a global scale. It's scientifically unavoidable.

As far as "child offenders", we execute some of those in Virginia as well. Now, what you're saying is that if a 17-year old murders a couple of people, he should be sent to juvi for a couple of years? Give him a GED and he'll come out right as rain? Please. You commit capital crimes, you should get capital punishment. It's a tough fucking education, but a necessary one.

By the way, as a side item, the main reason that marxism and/or socialism does not work is you end up settling at the lowest common denominator. Theoretically, everyone would be equal (a stated goal of yours) but what does that get you?

What it gets you is a society of lazy fucks. Why try harder than the average, since you can't be rewarded for it? Now, don't give me the bullshit line about personal fulfillment. That goes out the window when you realize that there is no difference between being an aggressive, risk-taking entrepeneur and a slob who just cashes a paycheck. If you can't get ahead, you don't try to move ahead, and society stagnates and dies.

correct me if im wrong but wasnt saddam u.s. second best friend in the middle east for quite a while?

Not really second best friend, but we aided him quite a bit.

I don't really see the point. I guess it's hard for non-Americans to understand, but we traditionally have not kept long-term enemies. We destroyed Germany, Japan and Italy but within a few years of the end of the war, they were great allies. We are re-opening relations with Vietnam, and going back in history, we always had hot/cold relationships with France, England and Spain. One decade enemies, the next decade allies.

I view that as being pragmatic. You keep a few strong allies but the rest, you take on a day-by-day basis. It seems cold, but it does allow for flexibility. It's much better than the alternative, which we unfortunatly have a few such relationships which do far more harm than good (Cuba as permenant enemy, Israel as a permenant ally). The idea is to be pragmatic. Keep close friends close, but everything else is flexible.

Stalin was our "ally" at one point. You have to look at history in terms of its era.

Aldaron, Rio Rules and Cato:

Responding in no particular order:

Absolutely right about America's enemies becoming our friends - I'm predicting Sunni-burgers available on every streetcorner within 10 years. Would you like some Shiite-sauce with that? Nah,think I'll pass... ;-)

RioRules: In a perfect world, I'd be the first to agree with you. There is no path to Peace, Peace IS the path...... but we don't live in that perfect world and strength is the only way to peace. That being said, the armed fores should be like firefighters - keep them traingin in their barracks and showing the flag around the world, but when the day comes that you actually have to USE them, then you're in deep shit. Still, we ahve legitmately had to use our armed forces at numerous times in our history - WWII being the most clear cut, the world faced disaster without US itervention (of course, the wealthy americans actually HELPED Hitler throughout the 30's, but that's another story). War should be the last resort. And then you have to choose your fights (and your enemies wisely).

My beef with the Iraq war is that we chose the wrong fight with the wrong enemy at the wrong time. At no point did I say, nor do I think that Saddam wouldn't have to be dealt with one day, we have other "fish to fry" first _ UBL and his network, Pakistani nuclear proliferation, North Korea, Iran.....

BS

badseed u.s. intervention in ww2? the u.s. government didnt get a rat ass until japan bombed pearl harbour.at least 3 times u.s.deneid england to byu,borrow ships or in anaway aid them when churchill asked for help with trooptransports.this according to different english historians.the book is churchill biography.and the reason given was that u.s. want to get in to european business.so if japan had not bombed hawaii they had probably stayed out.like my own dear country did selling guns to the allies and coal and other fuels to the germans.iggy sca

Iggy,

Real bad history, guy. From early 1940, when we traded 50 older destroyers to the UK for some sunny spots in the Caribbean, until Dec 1941 when it was official, we were in a state of quasi-war with Germany. The US Navy escorted convoys all the way to Iceland, where the British Navy took over. We shipped massive quantities of Lend Lease equipment (i.e., "pay us back when you can, if you can") to Britain in that time period. Remember, the first US warships did not sink at Pearl and Subic - we lost a destroyer to a German U-Boat in the North Atlantic in Oct 1941. We also lost lots of volunteer pilots who resigned from the US Army Air Corp to sign up with the RAF too.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. If the US intervenes, we're imperialists, if we don't, we're just evil and don't care for anyone else but ourselves.

Okay, your neighborhood has been experiencing and lot of house burglaries lately. There's some really bad dude going around and messing up the quiet neighborhood. One early morning, the neighborhood mafioso goes to your house and declares, "I'm the strongest and most powerful guy in this town and I tell you that the only way to protect your wife and two teenaged daughters is to have a security guard stationed inside your house 24/7". He tells you that he will send one of his "lieutenants" to your house later that same day.

So the security personnel arrived, eat your food, fucked your wife and raped your 15 year-old daughter.

1. Do you thank the guy for "intervening" in your affairs?

2. Do you recommend this "intervention" to your other neighbors?

3. Or do you ask his "lieutenant" to rape your youngest 13 year-old daughter also?

BTW, did you know that more than 6,000 Iraqi civilians,including women and children, have been killed so far in this "intervention" named "Operation Freedom" -- "to free Iraqis from a very bad dude"?

There is so much wrong and foul with that analogy that I can't even begin a reply.

Badseed, Batster, or Cat, you can deal with him. He's hopeless.

Oh boy, I knew I shouldn't have jumped in on this conversation.... anyway, some responses:

Iggy: Read Cato's post. Roosevelt was chomping at the bit to get into the European war, and even after we were attacked by Japan, the Joint Cheifs (whatever tehy were called back them) almost immediately came up with a "Germany First" doctrine. Some historians even cite evidence that Roosevelt KNEW ABOUT the Pearl Harbour attack beforehand and kept quiet since it was the provocation that he needed ("three ships" incident in the Phillipines or was it Vietnam?, the radar operator in Northern Oahu, look it up, my memory is off about the details). Conspiracy theories aside, POTUS wanted us IN the war, although a lot of Congress didn't. Among other things, as Cato pointed out, the U.S. Navy had orders to fight U-boats, and Roosevelt was pretty clear about hoping to provoke an "incident" withthe Kreigsmarine (Moosebruger was our destroyer that first sunk a U-boat... I think... no coffee yet today, brain not functioning).

RioRules:

Yes, I'm very aware that about 10,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed and injured during their "liiberation". Our 10 years of sanctions were no picnic either. You'll rememebr that I'm also arguing AGAINST the Iraqi war. Still, if S.H. actually had been sitting on a nuclear stockpile, if there had been a credible threat, then those thousands of civilians killed would be a very unfortunate consequence of the US protecting itself from a madman with Nukes. But Saddam wasn't a madman with Nukes, he was just another tin-horn dictator.

Which bring us to your "mafioso" analogy. I agree with you, that is what we (the US) don't want to be! There is a very fine line between "peace through strength" and being running an occupation. Depending how you look at it, we've run an "occupation" of (formerly West) Germany from 1945-today. But, during the height of the COld War, you heard very few Germans complaining about it... they knew it was all that kept Red Army tanks from rolling into their cities. Ironaically, now the US is making some noises about leaving and the German's don't want to lose the dollars coming from the bases! Sigh... But that's a "good example", I'll be the first to admit that their are plenty of "bad examples" that come closer to the mafioso analogy you made - our Grenada invasion on a small scale, Vietnam on a large scale. Still, on the balance, I believe that the US has done more good than harm over the course of the 20th century.... though, we (the world) need another 100 years perspective to really judge that.

There is no black and white in foreign relations. It's all grey and we, the US, have screwed up more than a few times. But just as it can't be all "black" (Bush doctrine, as implemented) it can't be all "white" (dare I call it the RioRules Doctrine?). At first glance, it sounds insane, but the motto of the USAF Strategic Air Command (nuke bombers) sums it up: "Peace is Our Profession".

BS

Riorules,

Something every one seems to forget in this are the Iraqis themselves.

I think that probably 13,000 Iraqis have died under " Operation Iraqi Freedom". A good many killed by their own paisanos.

But the UN( They are never wrong)declared on multiple occasions that 50,000 Iraqis a year were dying under sanctions. Thats why it was necessary to implement the Oil for the UN, I mean "Oil for food program" Only surprise surpise. The UN said that thousands were still dying. Its no wonder, when in 2002 Saddam only gave 16 million dollars to the Ministry of Health. Meanwhile he and his cronies skimmed Billions.

So using the UN numbers, it seems to me that the Occupation of Iraq is saving the lives of some 37,000 people a year. Why do I say that? Because the healthcare and nutrition situation in Iraq is considerably better than it ever was under Saddam. He did not care for his people.

The very first Iraqi Ministry to be returned to 100% Iraqi control is the Ministry of Health. It was turned over to the Iraqis on Sunday. Their budget for this year is 948 Million dollars( like 40 times greater than 2002 paid for by Oil revenues and US tax dollars)

At the end of the war they had 300 tons of medicine on hand. In the last year alone 35,000 tons of medicine have been distributed( Including 30 million doses of childrens vaccines).

England and the US are bringing Iraqi doctors up to speed. The new Iraqi Minister of Health said that his experience working with the Provisional Authority to improve the healthcare situation in Iraq "Was the happiest time of his life".

You can argue all you want the validity of going to war. You can argue that the US had no good reason( although I can think of 37,000 of them) to go to war. You can argue that Bush is a war monger. All are definitely open to debate. The US definitely screwed the pooch on a few things. And both sides have some truth in their arguments. But you can not argue that the Iraqi people were better off under Saddam or that the invasion has not had some positive results. And if you do, your argument of "peace first" is just really a hollow anti-american argument. Because the Iraqis had no peace under Saddam. I would refer you once again to the rather extensive Oxford Poll that shows a clear majority of Iraqis feel their life is better now than under Saddam, and they are more optimistic about their future than they were under Saddam. So if you really are interested in the Iraqis having a better life, Saddams removal by force was necessary.

The only country getting the short end of the stick is the US. US soldiers are dying to improve the lot of another people and US taxpayers are getting screwed with the bill to do so.

batster
i agree with everybody who claims that iraq is better of without saddam,but i dont by the reasons or at least not all of them.i think it was more than 15 years ago that he used the poison against the kurd population.so if any country would have reacted then,but use it as a reason so much later sounds to me a bit vauge and there are some others.iggy sca

"A good many killed by their own paisanos."

This exactly what's instore next for the Iraqis, an all-out civil war.

Parents, teachers, and adults in general, always tell children not to use force in conflict situations, but rather to talk it over, negotiate, but never, ever fight over it.

Then, a conflict arises and we, adults, send the same children (most soldiers sent to the fronlines are young) to the killing fields. (I have two nieces, ages 17 and 23 YO -- one is in the army and one in the Navy -- that are both in Iraq right now. Another 19 YO nephew was a ranger when he died during training in Hawaii.)

Do we adults ever qualify these teachings to our children? Do we ever say, no fighting, unless the guy is really a bully; or he has bullied in the past; or that maybe he is hiding some sort of weapon in his backpack, etc.? Then, you are not only justified to fight him, but you can ambush him even, if you want?

In the dictionary in front of me, this is under the word HYPOCRACY.

hypocrisy

\Hy*poc"ri*sy\ (h[i^]*p[o^]k"r[i^]*s[y^]), n.; pl. Hypocrisies (-s[i^]z). [OE. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, OF. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, F. hypocrisie, L. hypocrisis, fr. Gr. "ypo`krisis the playing a part on the stage, simulation, outward show, fr. "ypokr`nesqai to answer on the stage, to play a part; "ypo` under + kri`nein to decide; in the middle voice, to dispute, contend. See Hypo-, and Critic.] The act or practice of a hypocrite; a feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation, or a concealment of one's real character, disposition, or motives; especially, the assuming of false appearance of virtue or religion; a simulation of goodness.

There is just no way around this: if you want peace tomorrow, you should start with peace today.

If you do not want violence in the future, you should start acting with nonviolence today.

BTW, nonviolence is not some distant objective somewhere in one's future; it is actually a style of life in one's present.

In a perfect world we would not have terrorism against the civilized world. In reality we do. At that point you have to decide if you are going to sit back and take it or kill them. It's as simple as that.

In a perfect world a civilized world would not have terrorism. At that point we can sit back and take it too, or we can ask ourselves, who named who as civilized and uncivilized? Your civilized thought is to kill them. Unless you are with the terrorists. lmao.

RioRules:

We've had several internet "conversations" before, and you know I respefct you and am not "bashing" you. You wrote up above that if we condone violence, than it's "jsut teh law of the jungle out there." Well you are right, it IS the law of teh jungle. Your home country suffered many invasions over the centuries - Spain, USA, Japan, nowadyas the Muslim terrorists in the south islands, would total non-violence have stopped any of them? OK, I'm assuming they needed stopping, but I think that in this world, "peace at any price", ultimately means giving up your freedoms, property, even life. To what end? People WILL take these from you... RR you live in Copacabana! The only thing that keeps the "movimento" from coming down off the hills and strippign your apartment bare is the threat of armed force (i.e. police). Saying "peace at any price" to a drugged-up gangbanger as he invades your apratment will cause him to laugh at you a bit before he shoots you.

OK, philosophically speaking, the druglords up in Pavao and Pavaozinho and every otehr hill in Rio wouldn't be violent if they weren't part of a cycle of violendce - polcie shoot gang-bagers, gang-bangers shoot police and populace. A dubious theory (after all, everyone wants power, and for the poorest, power comes out of the barrell of a gun -thank you, Mao)... but in practice, tell me what would happen if the Rio police would say "We're not carrying weapons anymore, Peace is the answer". I'd love if that would work, everyone would, but... it won't. On a way more personal level (and I'm not advocating that you actually do it!), would you walk up to the top of Morro do Cantagalo carrying your wallet in your hand? Say "Paz, irmao" to each person that appraoches you? Honsetly would you? I'm not asking if you would get robbed or not (you would), but would you risk your own physical safety? I guess what I am asking (all silly mind games aside), is how do YOU practice this "peace at any price" theory in day-to-day reality?

Abraco,

BS

Just found this article from Time Magazine this morning:

<img>

RISING STAR: When she was 12, Cullis-Suzuki and three Vancouver schoolmates raised money to go to the Rio Earth Summit. Her speech to delegates, above, had such an impact that she became a frequent invitee to U.N. conferences. Now 22, with a B.S. in biology from Yale University, she will be in Johannesburg as a member of Kofi Annan's World Summit advisory panel


By SEVERN CULLIS-SUZUKI

Posted Sunday, August 18, 2002; 7:31 a.m. EST

When you are little, it's not hard to believe you can change the world. I remember my enthusiasm when, at the age of 12, I addressed the delegates at the Rio Earth Summit. "I am only a child," I told them. "Yet I know that if all the money spent on war was spent on ending poverty and finding environmental answers, what a wonderful place this would be. In school you teach us not to fight with others, to work things out, to respect others, to clean up our mess, not to hurt other creatures, to share, not be greedy. Then why do you go out and do the things you tell us not to do? You grownups say you love us, but I challenge you, please, to make your actions reflect your words."

I spoke for six minutes and received a standing ovation. Some of the delegates even cried. I thought that maybe I had reached some of them, that my speech might actually spur action. Now, a decade from Rio, after I've sat through many more conferences, I'm not sure what has been accomplished. My confidence in the people in power and in the power of an individual's voice to reach them has been deeply shaken.

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

So, what do we tell this young girl? that she should stop what she's doing, that she should stop hoping, that she should not be optimistic about the future of her generation and the generations to come, because there's just no hope. That the human being has been violent since the beginning of time and that there's is no way that this will change, ever?

For the rest of the article, go to http://www.time.com/time/2002/greencentury/engeneration.html

Pacifist Alert!!! ... I think we have a coddler on our hands. Do you want to try to talk to them and see if they will change their plans?

I consider the civilized world to be the one that doesn't strap explosives to young men, women and kids and send them into markets, into outdoor cafes, or onto buses to murder innocent women and children for some warped religious belief. I consider the civilized world people that don't plant bombs loaded with nails in crowded areas in order to inflict as much carnage as possible. I consider the civlized world people that don't fly airplanes into buildings killing thousands of innocent people. I consider the civilized world people that don't set off explosives on commuter trains to maim and kill people going about their productive lives. Yes, my civilized thought it to kill the savages.