ANSWER Anti-War Rally -What was the question, again?

[Shinken]

Around noon Saturday, I found myself surfing the channels with nothing special on the air. Eventually, I came across C-SPAN (you know, the channel only Dick Cheney watches). "And what to my wondering eyes did appear?" 'Twas some pot-smoking hippies with a message quite queer.

Apparently, a bunch of people had gotten Al Sharpton and Martin Luther King v3.0 together, along with some fat chick who, for some reason, needed a microphone in hand to sing IN FRONT OF ANOTHER MICROPHONE!!!

The fifteen minutes I managed to catch made me laugh uncontrollably. There was a group of women in their sixties dubbed 'The Raging Grannies', singing "Bush and Cheneeeeeeey, are evil right down to their toes...", thus leading me to this one eternal question; "WHAT THE ****?"

The things that the protestors said were, for the most part, ridiculous. There was a ten minute period, during which some scrawny, nerdy white guy stood in front of the podium chanting (and I quote): "No to empire! Yes to peace!" And this makes me laugh, because he's using that chant in the completely wrong context.

This guy apparently feels that the United States is an invading empire, destroying peace in Iraq. However, he's got this whole war flipped around. Saddam had already turned Iraq into an empire which made peace impossible, and WE were the ones who went in there and got the S.O.B. out. So, I am confused. How does liberating a country from a tyrant with a mustache deem US the empire? I'll tell you- it doesn't.

...Opinions?

[DeathKnight]

[color=crimson]Lol. What makes the US an 'Empire', [or 'United State' since it is a democracy]- no matter what we invade now or in the future- is the annexation of the Republics of Texas and Hawaii [California too?]. Hell, Hawaii was annexed under questionable means, even. Ever since then the United States has, and will be, an 'empire'/'united state'.

Now the invasion of Iraq was a bad deal for the United States. In my opinon, they probably wanted to secure more oil- however, you can't invade saying "we just want the oil". There has to be a better pretence or else a general uproar would rush across the world.

So our pretence was the weapons of mass destruction that, of course, do not exist.

I might be wrong, it is still kinda open in the air what our true, not lieing goal was there.

Oh well. People will protest, they always do.
[/color]

[Guest evil chocobo]

I think you are right, with the fact that the U.S. liberated a country so it can have peace is a good thing that they did, but then Iraq had no one running the place beside the U.S. army which made the U.S. look really bad which had that "little nerdy guy" saying that the U.S. is the empire. but the thing I didn't like about the way U.S. liberated Iraq is that they did it with fighting and that was the fastest way to liberate Iraq and bring peace and that there should be a better way to to have peace. Cause eace coming from fighting just seems wrong.

[Sui Generis]

[COLOR=indigo]I know this isn't exactly the topic at hand but..

Peace can never come from peace in my opinion. Peace is just another state of being. Opposites attract. Violence leads to peace as much as peace leads to violence. Everything ends upon itself. The only way a greedy person is destroyed is by greed itself. If a country is violent massacring people by the millions then simply sitting down and saying "This is wrong" isn't going to get you anywhere, except for 6 feet under.

If a kid does something wrong you punish them right? Well if you don't they'll continue doing it assuming its fine. If you simply just say "Bad Joe Joe" then they won't stop. You have to give them a reason to stop, be it spanking or grounding. Simply saying something is wrong isn't going to do anything until you show why not.

Thats the same way with peace. You can't just declare that you want peace in the world one find summer day. You have to work for it and strive for it, and if you're facing a dictatorship they obviously won't want to give up their throne so they arn't exactly just going to let you patrol the streets singing about peace. The hippies tried that already, didn't really work out all that well.

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

Anti-war/Bush protestors are getting on my nerves. Everyone hates the man yet he's doing his best job plus look what he had to work with.

Bill Clinton was not an active foreign president. All he did was try and make everyone hunky dorey ok, which we all know is impossible. In order ot make one person happy you have to burn another so needless to say our relations were shambles. Now after good ol' Clinton leaves the reputation of the USA stays. So Bush comes in on horrible terms with many countries in the world and trys to put the USA in the direction it was founded on.

The USA stands for many things, freedom is probably the first thing that comes to mind. If we simply say we support it thats going to do nothing at all except make us appear as hypocrits. All Bush is doing is standing up for the rights our ancestors died to gain.

If you or anyone else wants to take that for granted and say the countless millions lives lost for our rights means nothing then in my opinion get the hell outta here.

I know it comes off sounding mean and prolly pisses off quite a number of people but oh well its how I feel.

So many Americans have died to upstand what we have now, but then we have peace lovers who think that any type of fighting is evil, that it accomplishes nothing and that all we're doing is war mongering.

Standing up for what you believe in is one of the most preciouse things humans are capable of doing, and one of the most difficult. Many people simply can't or don't want to do that. Why criticize someone who has the balls, the will, and the ideals to do so? [/COLOR]

[Shinken]

My only problem with the whole campaign was how Bush handled it after he had dropped the bombs. It's like giving a kid a car without telling him what's what- a bad idea. Also, he seems to be ignoring the fact that, sure Saddam's been ousted from his throne, but there's still danger to the troops we have there. The death toll in Iraq has passed one hundred, with most of them occuring after Iraq's liberation. Some people may think that we've already got too many soldiers in Iraq, but I say that we need more. The reason is simple; the more people you have in a group, the more eyes/ears/trigger fingers you have protecting you from, oh, say, a car bomb. While there may be more people that might potentially be killed, there is a smaller chance of that happening (or at least a decreased amount of soldiers killed per attack) with more soldiers on the watch.

[James]

[color=#707875]My biggest problem is the inaccuracy with a lot of this.

A lot of people are saying "Oh they're only there for oil". That annoys me because it's blatantly false. If you actually look at what's going on in Iraq now, you can see that. More importantly, the US wouldn't have needed to invade Iraq if they "only wanted oil". There were much easier and more painless ways of getting it out of Iraq. lol

In any case...I'm just getting tired of the whole thing. A lot of people are complaining and making it a political thing. Who cares? If you're that concerned, go and send an aid package to some Iraqi children or something. Do something constructive with your time.[/color]

[Corey]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]My biggest problem is the inaccuracy with a lot of this.

A lot of people are saying "Oh they're only there for oil". That annoys me because it's blatantly false. If you actually look at what's going on in Iraq now, you can see that. More importantly, the US wouldn't have needed to invade Iraq if they "only wanted oil". There were much easier and more painless ways of getting it out of Iraq. lol

In any case...I'm just getting tired of the whole thing. A lot of people are complaining and making it a political thing. Who cares? If you're that concerned, go and send an aid package to some Iraqi children or something. Do something constructive with your time.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Precicely.
And on another note, I watch C-SPAN whenever I'm at my friends house.

[Kent]

6 or 8 months ago, I had the energy to opine on such subjects with a vigor and passion that is no longer availible to me.

I've just gotten too tired of dealing with the politics of the world.

I try not to watch the news, and this helps with getting away, but video games is my best route of escape.:(

A.N.S.W.E.R. (act now to stop war and end racism) is a fairly active group with predictable liberal politics. Nothing about the group draws my attention besides their own assumptions about dealing with such sensitive and age old subjects as war and racism.

I think these people are more interested in themselves and their own political agendas than the plight of the real victims in the world.

Oh well, and sorry to put up an opinion if it offended anyone... Just had to let the cat outta the bag didn't I.

[TheShinje]

I really don't understand where the anti war, anti Bush protesters get the idea that America is in it for the oil, sure, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction, but they have liberated the people from an iron fisted tyrant, and that's something that an oppressing force, when you think about it, simply would [i]not[/i] do.

If the U.S.A is an occupying terror force, then why are Iraqi's shooting guns in the air, and giving the American soldiers the high five, and cheering as their supposed "empire tanks of terror" roll into town? The answer is that they are happy to be liberated from such a brutal dictatorship such as Hussein's.

The attacks on U.S convoys are not done by every single Iraqi lol. These are used as evidence by the Anti War protesters to support their claims that Iraqis are fighting off the oppressors. These are only splinter groups of the deposed regime fighting tot the death. If every Iraqi wanted to destroy the American occupation, it would be complete pandemonium over there, whereas, apart from the odd skirmish, it's not.

That's my understanding of the situation over in Iraq anyway.

[DuoMax]

[quote]This guy apparently feels that the United States is an invading empire, destroying peace in Iraq. [/quote]

Well, you must admit, that there was a hell of a lot more peace in Iraq before they got invaded...

I oposed the war, mainly because the Bush administration put forth no reason that convinced me that we [i]needed[/i] to invade a foriegn(sp?) country. It seemed wrong and now, after the "major hostilities" are over, they keep switching reasons.

It makes me think that our public has gotten the wool puled over it's eyes. IT saddens me that American soldiers and soldiers are being killed and wounded over there. Somehow, I think that Iraq will be another Vietnam. I know I sound pessimistic, but we'll probably be occupying the country fora couple of years, all thw while enduring guerila attacks.

My two cents.

[Baron Samedi]

Sure, not all irqi's are chucking bombs at the Americans. Sure some of them are happy. But look at that on the flip side. Sure, some of them are happy, but some aren't Two sides to every coin.

Something I do find amusing is how far people will stretch a name to come up with a cool acronym. It's hilarious.

ANSWER. Hah.

[Corey]

People will change sides as often as you hit the spacebar on your keyboard.

More than half of the people that are supporting the US in Iraq will turn against them the minute they leave.
I don't doubt it, and anyone that does should watch a couple of street fights. I've seen people go from one side to another and then back to the original simply because the other side was stronger at the time.

[destro53]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoMax [/i]
[B]Well, you must admit, that there was a hell of a lot more peace in Iraq before they got invaded...

I oposed the war, mainly because the Bush administration put forth no reason that convinced me that we [i]needed[/i] to invade a foriegn(sp?) country. It seemed wrong and now, after the "major hostilities" are over, they keep switching reasons.

It makes me think that our public has gotten the wool puled over it's eyes. IT saddens me that American soldiers and soldiers are being killed and wounded over there. Somehow, I think that Iraq will be another Vietnam. I know I sound pessimistic, but we'll probably be occupying the country fora couple of years, all thw while enduring guerila attacks.

My two cents. [/B][/QUOTE]

Peace? You call Huseins rule [u]peaceful?![/u] Do you know how many mass graves have been found? Two were in the first week of fighting. These had over [b]two thousand[/b] bodies in each. That is not peace. Do you know that Husein licsenced people to rape (literaly [i]rape[/i] them) his opponents? Do you know that almost all of Husseins palaces, which bankrupted his country, had torture chambers under them? That was not peace. That was living in terror. We did the right thing.


Another thing that bugs me; that this has been turn into a racism issue! How did that happen?! How was this war racist?

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DuoMax [/i]
[B]Well, you must admit, that there was a hell of a lot more peace in Iraq before they got invaded...
. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Why would I admit to a statement that has no shred of truth to it? I fail to see how you could consider Iraq to be even a relatively peaceful country when the average citizen there lives in constant fear of his leader. Saddam long ago set the precedence for not only torturing and killing those that spoke out against his politics, but murdering his nay-sayer family and neighbors. The only regret I have with the war in Iraq is that the US didn?t go against UN protocol during Operation Desert Storm and liberate the country. A poll was conducted several weeks ago by the associated press and it was found that eighty-six percent of the people that live in Baghdad support the joint efforts in Iraq.

As for the typical ?we are only there for the oil? argument (not yours Duo, just the general argument)?I will state again that is the most pointless, unfounded, pathetic reasoning I have heard. If the US was solely interested in oil we could have very easily lifted the embargos that we sanctioned on Iraq. It would have saved countless lives and billions upon billions of dollars?[/color]

[Shinken]

QUOTE: Well, you must admit, that there was a hell of a lot more peace in Iraq before they got invaded...
____________________________________________________

I'd have to disagree with that statement, because Saddam constantly tortured his people for information, or if he suspected them of treason (which in his country, sneezing in his presence might qualify). This tyrant even tested his weapons on his own people!

[James]

[color=#707875]I forget the exact numbers, but from what I remember, it was less than 2,000 civilians who died during Gulf War II. It sounds like a lot, but it's a pretty small number in the context of war.

I say this because Amnesty International estimates that upwards of 30,000 Iraqi citizens were arrested or killed by Saddam's regime [b]each year[/b]. Out of those who were imprisoned, a large percentage were later killed.

Less suffering before the war? I don't think so.[/color]

[Shinken]

Wow. I knew that Saddam was, well, Sadistic, but I had no idea that he was [b]that[/b] extreme. It's a shame that more people don't see these kinds of numbers, because it might wake them up to the fact that Saddam has done much more damage than we ever could. Unfortunately, the only numbers we see on the news are the American and allied casualties, a growing list which will likely become even longer.

According to [url]http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=1817[/url] , our President sees little reason to send in more troops to the Gulf; I think this is a [i]grievous[/i] error in judgement. As I've said before, more troops means more eyes in the sky/ground/watchtower, which will add more security and lower the likeliness of soldiers being killed by car bombs, RPGs, etc. I would like to know what others think; should we send more troops to Iraq, do we have enough, or should we pull out altogether and let the Iraqi government (or what's left of it) deal with the problem themselves?

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Battosai [/i]
[B]According to [url]http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=1817[/url] , our President sees little reason to send in more troops to the Gulf; I think this is a [i]grievous[/i] error in judgement. As I've said before, more troops means more eyes in the sky/ground/watchtower, which will add more security and lower the likeliness of soldiers being killed by car bombs, RPGs, etc. I would like to know what others think; should we send more troops to Iraq, do we have enough, or should we pull out altogether and let the Iraqi government (or what's left of it) deal with the problem themselves? [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]I don't think that we need any additional forces in Iraq. You need to remember that over occupation could be dangerous when it comes to political and social relations with the Iraqi people. At the same time it is important to remain a presence within Iraq and help the Iraqi people establish a healthy government. If we were to move too many troops out of Iraq there would be too great an opening for left over regimes to tear apart the already war torn country.[/color]

[satan665]

I think that Iraq will be much better off in the long run because of the war/invasion even though I was against it. The problem is that none of the Iraqi's deserved to die because of us (the civilians). Its also not fair that kids my age (20's) have to go and die for politics. I think that ideally the Iraqi people should have overthrown the government. It needed to happen, but it probably would have taken a very long time and a lot of Iraqi's would have died under Saddam's rule as well.

So basically at a large cost, we gave them a revolution which is still at its early stages. If it ends up well for Iraq's people, then it may have been worth it. I still don't think its very fair for the people that died though in bombings or our soldiers.

The ugliest thing is the politics of it. Regardless of what good our govt may have actually done, what they said in justifying the war was really weak and dodgy. A lot of people saw that and thus, a lot of protests.

[KarmaOfChaos]

[color=deeppink][font=arial]
Isn't the real question here 'were we justified in going into Iraq'? And as for the answer, it's obvious we all differ. Personally, I'm not sure. I think that before we going charging into other countries trying to help them, America might benefit from trying to help herself. Yes, Saddam has done terrible, terrible things. But don't we have people like that in America too? They just don't have the position of power that Saddam did. Yet, they still commit terrible crimes. Wouldn't it better for us to clean up our side of the street before we go on someone elses?

Then again, such extreme loss of life is such a horrible thing, I'm very glad that we put some sort of stop to it. So, I'm leaning more towards supporting the war in Iraq.

People will always have their different opinions. Humanity is such that things like war will always exist, because of sinful nature. Loss of life is never truly 'justified,' it just comes down to what will result in less pain and horror.

As for what they're doing now in Iraq, I agree with Battosai. We're there, we've 'liberated' them, whether or not that was wrong or right, it's already done. After all of that, it would be stupid to simply leave and let it all go hell. We should at least try to help them gain some sort of regulation. This may sound as if I'm trying to insult the Iraqis, but I'm not. There are way too many different factions and conflicting groups that want power, it would only end in a blood bath, possibly with someone worse than Saddam gaining power. Better to have more troops there to keep things under control while someone figures out what the hell Saddam was doing, and try to put a rational government in place.

I'll end this with one of my favorite quotes:

"Wars never decided who was wrong or right, only who was left."
-?

I really must find out who said that.

-Karma
[/font][/color]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]I'm sorry, but I have to pull this post apart just alittle bit, it really bothers me for some odd reason...[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by satan665 [/i]
I think that Iraq will be much better off in the long run because of the war/invasion even though I was against it. The problem is that none of the Iraqi's deserved to die because of us (the civilians). [/quote]

[color=indigo]Well, I agree with you that Iraq will be much better off in the future, actually I think they are already much better off. I think that most sane people agree that usurping Saddam from his position of power was a good thing. I also think that it sucks that civilians had to die, but I fail to see how it was a problem. People don't deserve to die from cancer, car wrecks, and being devoured by white sharks...at least the civilians that were killed died in the attempt to free an oppressed nation.[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by satan665 [/i]
Its also not fair that kids my age (20's) have to go and die for politics.[/quote]

[color=indigo]Since America didn't open the draft, every "kid" was a willing member of the United States Millitary. They joined the millitary knowing that it is their duty to protect America and fight for its ideals. I have many family members and friends that served and are continuing to serve in our efforts in Iraq, I doubt that any one of them would say that it is "unfair" for them to be there...[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by satan665 [/i]
I think that ideally the Iraqi people should have overthrown the government. It needed to happen, but it probably would have taken a very long time and a lot of Iraqi's would have died under Saddam's rule as well. [/quote]

[color=indigo]It would have been very difficult if not impossible for the Iraqi people to have overthrown Saddam's regime and the number of casualties would have been infinitly greater. Saddam ruled his country in absolute. He deprived his people until they depended on him for nearly everything. [/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by satan665 [/i]
So basically at a large cost, we gave them a revolution which is still at its early stages. If it ends up well for Iraq's people, then it may have been worth it. I still don't think its very fair for the people that died though in bombings or our soldiers.[/quote]

[color=indigo]Again, "fair" is a debatable term. If my government was oppressing me to the point where I feared expressing my opinions I think that the sacrifice of my life would be a small price to pay so that generations upon generations could live without that fear and sense of hoplessness[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by satan665 [/i]
The ugliest thing is the politics of it. Regardless of what good our govt may have actually done, what they said in justifying the war was really weak and dodgy. A lot of people saw that and thus, a lot of protests. [/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Although I still think that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, I will disregard it in my point which is simply: If the ends are just and noble then does the reasoning truly matter?[/color]

[Shinken]

QUOTE: Yes, Saddam has done terrible, terrible things. But don't we have people like that in America too? They just don't have the position of power that Saddam did. Yet, they still commit terrible crimes. Wouldn't it better for us to clean up our side of the street before we go on someone elses?
____________________________________________________

I'd have to disagree with you there, Karma. I will admit that there are people on or beyond Saddam's level of atrocious behavior, but there is one major difference here; they don't have as much power to do so, and they don't have that many people to do that two. (Okay, two differences).
Saddam had a whole nation under his control, and if you didn't do what he wanted, you died. And if he wanted you to die, then that was that. He could use his soldiers to force people to surrender to these atrocities, or he simply lied to them to get them to accept. In the States, there aren't any political figures massing people together and then chopping off heads or mustard-gassing them. I don't mean to sound arrogant, pompous, or anything, but it just doesn't happen here. At least, not on those scales.

Sure, there are your Ted Kazinskis (sp?), but that's a relatively rare tragedy. Saddam Hussein has a long track record of atrocities and misdoings. [url]http://www.navyseals.com/community/articles/article.cfm?id=1828[/url] Click and see what I mean.

So, in short, I'd have to say that before we try and clean up our blacktop street, we should pave somebody else's dirt roads.

[Guest cloricus]

[quote]
I'd have to disagree with that statement, because Saddam constantly tortured his people for information, or if he suspected them of treason.[/quote]
Battosai that isn't entirely correct as Saddam was not concerned with every day people; it was more a culture of fear than any real physical threat to the majority of the population except of course the people he did have killed. (I believe that numbered in the <100k people over ten years?) There at the moment is about the same amount of fear except it is entirely displaced in confusion. For example, Afghanistan, young girls are now allowed to attend school but there is a high chance of being attacked and or raped trying to get there. They no longer fear strict rules but fear lawlessness which is a direct result of President Bush "forgetting" to carry out a [b]promise[/b] to fund the peace keeping force and pulling out troops where he said he would leave them for stabilisation reasons. Afghanistan is now bordering on being worse than it was before it was invaded because once again, in their eyes, the great America has proven to the next generation that it will screw them over.
After examples like this the US wonders why people don?t like them?

Iraq really is a mess. I never supported the war and now I see that it was [i]most likely[/i] the correct position to be in. America is now the big bully in the school yard; it with its brutes (Australia, England and others) have beaten up another kid which they incorrectly thought [i]might[/i] be a threat and after searching for his lunch money have found nothing. Of course they could still find WMD and they would be vindicated, but the way they have handled it really is appalling as you can see on the news every night. Oil is an interesting twist on the whole thing though, although I don?t believe extreme views that it has every thing to do with the attack on the other hand I don?t believe the opinions of people saying it has nothing to do with it and I would really be interested to see what the real part oil played.

I'm sure that James will come back to the above with a rebuttal like "But it got rid of a truly evil man" but as I'm sure we both know the president that this "strike first" policy has created is a disturbing one especially since America has found nothing and is being dragged through mud from the constant lying that went on before the war. Also another blow to the policy was dealt the other day with France, Germany and several other EU countries diplomatically getting Iran to comply with strict rules on how it may proceed with it?s nuclear ambitions that is acceptable to the ?west?; now wasn?t America talking about a pre-emptive strike on them only several months ago using this point as the trigger?

Diplomacy was not fully explored in the Iraq case because of a small group of people at the head of the White House wanting to rush in and I?m sorry to say for the people of Iraq it backfired on America in a possibly big way.


(Just stating what it looks like from here and I am happy to be wrong on any of the above points so if any one is still interested in arguing the case don?t go overboard as it wont take much more than some [b][i]straight backed up facts[/i][/b] to change my opinion on some of the above points. :D)

Edited - Added
[quote]
Well, I agree with you that Iraq will be much better off in the future, actually I think they are already much better off. I think that most sane people agree that usurping Saddam from his position of power was a good thing.[/quote]

No clean water, no power, no food, no phones, no law and no support. They had all of these [b]basic[/b] things under the Saddam regime, even if he coursed them to be dependant it still kills off your argument that they are some how better off.
But it comes down to which is better, dying from malnourishment while you are a child or living with oppression? This is what I mean when I say America has screwed up running the country; if they had been able to be organised and had these basic things running Iraqis would most likely have moved over to being on their side. This hasn?t happened.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]Battosai that isn't entirely correct as Saddam was not concerned with every day people; it was more a culture of fear than any real physical threat to the majority of the population except of course the people he did have killed. (I believe that numbered in the <100k people over ten years?)[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]You said that he isn't concerned with everyday people, yet you then say that he killed over 100,000 people. To me, that makes little sense.

100,000 people is a [i]lot[/i] of people. And [i]most[/i] of them were everyday Iraqi citizens.[/color][quote][b]

There at the moment is about the same amount of fear except it is entirely displaced in confusion.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Oh really? Where is your evidence of this?

You're probably watching one of the many highly skewed reports, which do not represent the reality on the ground in Iraq.

I've seen many, many reports on Iraq since the war ended. And I believe that this comment is little but a purely emotive statement. I'll tell you right now; the same amount of fear does not exist in Iraq. Reports of "mass fear" and other such nonsense are over-reported, at best.[/color][quote][b]

For example, Afghanistan, young girls are now allowed to attend school but there is a high chance of being attacked and or raped trying to get there. They no longer fear strict rules but fear lawlessness which is a direct result of President Bush "forgetting" to carry out a [b]promise[/b] to fund the peace keeping force and pulling out troops where he said he would leave them for stabilisation reasons. Afghanistan is now bordering on being worse than it was before it was invaded because once again, in their eyes, the great America has proven to the next generation that it will screw them over.
After examples like this the US wonders why people don?t like them?[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Firstly, you are attempting to link Afghanistan to Iraq; or, at the very least, you're trying to make a direct comparison. That doesn't work for a whole variety of reasons -- both nations have different cultures, societies and are at different levels of progress and development. That's the first point.

The second point is that the United States [i]has[/i] and [i]is[/i] providing peace keeping support to Afghanistan. I recently heard reports that Donald Rumsfeld wants to significantly increase the deployment to Afghanistan, in order to develop peace keeping operations outside the major centres of Kabul and Kandahar.

In addition, again, your comment about girls being raped is an emotive argument. Do you think that the situation was any different under the Taliban?

Wait, yes, it was. Women were not allowed to wander the streets without a male companion. They were not allowed to [i]laugh[/i] in public, for fear of being beaten on the street. They dared not display their ankles and they had to be extremely careful about what they said and where they said it.

I saw footage of two Afghan women being beaten with canes in the streets of Kabul, because one of them laughed about something. They were beaten around the legs by two Taliban agents and nobody -- for fear of being publicly shot -- intervened.

Of course, I am saddened by [i]any[/i] mention of rape, particularly if it concerns innocent schoolgirls. But for you to point this out as a failure of President Bush is an absolute slanderous lie.

If that little girl wasn't going to be raped on the street as a result of criminals, she'd have been raped at home in front of her parents by members of the Taliban. Yes, there are dangers on the streets -- but for you to sit there and tell me that Afghanistan is more dangerous and fearful now than it was previously, is an absolute and utter joke.[/color][quote][b]

Iraq really is a mess. I never supported the war and now I see that it was [i]most likely[/i] the correct position to be in. America is now the big bully in the school yard; it with its brutes (Australia, England and others) have beaten up another kid which they incorrectly thought [i]might[/i] be a threat and after searching for his lunch money have found nothing. [/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]What can I say? This is yet another emotive argument.

Your attempt to paint Iraq as some innocent child is laughable. Iraq was responsible for developing weapons of mass destruction over the last two decades.

But there's a very important point for me to make here, regarding the justification for the war. I will try to lay this out for you, so that you are 100% clear on it.

Firstly, let's begin at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Iraq signed a cease fire agreement, which stated that Iraq would cease the development of weapons of mass destruction in exchange for an end to the conflict. [i]However[/i], should Iraq ever continue illegal weapon development, the conflict would cease to be over. This is the first point (and it's one that I think is important to remember).

Over the following years, UNSCOM provided inspection services in Iraq. They discovered various illegal weapons, including stockpiles of chemicals as well as undeclared weapon laboritories.

Most of these stockpiles and labs were obviously destroyed by UNSCOM.

Later, triggered by resolution 1441, UNMOVIC was sent to Iraq to continue inspecting the country.

But let's be clear about what 1441 said.

1441 did [i]not[/i] say that weapons inspectors had to [i]find weapons of mass destruction[/i] in Iraq. This is a very common misconception.

Instead, 1441 said that Iraq had to declare what it did with the remaining, undeclared stockpiles of weaponry and weapon development systems, after 1991.

And, in November of last year, Iraq submitted a complete summary and account of its weapons record, including details of how and where weapons were destroyed.

However, Hans Blix (the man who is as anti-war as you) determined that the report was fundamentally flawed -- it was [i]mostly[/i] a vast rehash of previous weapons reports and was filled with statements that overlapped one another and repeated the same information that had previously been collected.

Translation: the report included [i]none[/i] of the content that resolution 1441 had called for. It was nothing but a time waster, designed to further stall the process.

Resolution 1441 contained a provision that simply said that if Iraq does not declare any outstanding weapons and weapons development systems by a certain date, [b]serious consequences[/b] would ensue. This implies, quite simply, that the ceasation of combat post-Gulf War would be over.

Of course, the United States wanted a second resolution that specifically authorised military action against Iraq. It didn't get that resolution; [i]despite[/i] the very clear and specific requirements that 1441 laid out -- requirements that Iraq failed to respond to in an adequate fashion.

Let me be completely clear; there was [i]never ever[/i] a requirement that the United States or UNMOVIC find physical weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is a very common misconception -- but it does not reflect the reality. Resolution 1441 simply called for Iraq to tell us what happened to weapons that remained in the country, but that were undeclared post-Gulf War.

Resolution 1441 was very clear about its intent and purpose. For countries like Germany and France to block a subsequent resolution on military action is simply a game of semantics. It's like Bill Clinton saying "But what do you [i]mean[/i] by sex?" -- somehow implying that oral sex isn't sex. Give me a break.[/color][quote][b]

Of course they could still find WMD and they would be vindicated, but the way they have handled it really is appalling as you can see on the news every night. [/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]About WMD, let me make some further points for you to think about.

1) Mobile weapon laboritories -- of the kind Secretary Powell illustrated to the UN Security Council -- were found in Baghdad. What purpose would Iraq have for mobile weapon laboritories? Perhaps to hide their developments from inspectors?

2) North of Tikrit, the US military discovered several MiG fighter jets buried under the sand. Think about that for a moment -- [i]entire[/i] MiG jets (several of them), buried under the sand. Do you really think that it would be hard for Iraq to take a few canisters of weapons-grade anthrax, throw it in a big hole out in the desert and cover it over? For you to base your approval of the war on the discovery of WMD entirely is unrealistic.

3) Iraqi science reports were discovered that indicated one important fact; Saddam Hussein wanted to keep weapons inspectors at bay. But more importantly, he [i]did[/i] want to demonstrate that he was destroying weapons. Doesn't this defeat my point on the war? No. The reason it doesn't, is because the reports [i]also[/i] indicate that Saddam wanted to [b]retain the capability[/b] to manufacture illegal weapons. This is because, when inspectors left and declared Iraq a "WMD free zone", Saddam would then have the already-established capability to manufacture more weapons. Thus, removing Saddam "pre-emptively" is also removing the cause -- not the symptom -- of the problem.

4) Iraq's missiles were supposed to have a UN-imposed limit of 150 miles. However, Iraq had a stockpile of SCUD missiles that were capable of travelling 200+ miles. At least two of these very missiles were used to strike Kuwait during the recent war. These weapons are [i]illegal[/i] weapons -- no different to "WMD", in terms of legality.[/color][quote][b]

Oil is an interesting twist on the whole thing though, although I don?t believe extreme views that it has every thing to do with the attack on the other hand I don?t believe the opinions of people saying it has nothing to do with it and I would really be interested to see what the real part oil played. [/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]This is a backflip. You had originally ranted at us that the war was about oil.

The war is not about oil at all. You are now sitting there and recoiling just a little, for fear that your comments might be proven wrong. Well, this idea that oil played a role [i]is[/i] wrong.

So far, the United States and others have spent billions of dollars to re-engineer the oil-related infrastructure in Iraq. But you know what is interesting? Since Iraq began producing and distributing oil once more, none of it has gone to the United States. Zero. None. Much of it has gone to Kuwait and/or been funnelled to International pipelines.

I have said it before and I will say it again; the United States is not interested in Iraq's oil.

If you knew anything about President Bush's policies, you would be aware that he is pushing very strongly for a two-pronged energy policy, which is designed to (read this carefully):[b] decrease America's reliance on Middle Eastern states for oil supply[/b].

His policy is split into the two following areas:

1) To develop new, renewable sources of energy and to increase the role of existing alternative energy forms (including windmill power and hydroelectricity, primarily) and;

2) To expand the drilling and refining processes in the United States. You may have heard that President Bush wants to drill in Alaska -- this is directly because he wants to use America's own oil reserves to decrease the amount that it imports from countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

The problem is that you attack Bush without knowing a single thing about him. If you studied his policies and if you understood his position on issues, you wouldn't be so quick to inaccurately blame him for things.[/color][quote][b]

I'm sure that James will come back to the above with a rebuttal like "But it got rid of a truly evil man" [/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]You underestimate me. ~_^

But more importantly, this makes me wonder whether you've [i]ever[/i] read my lengthy responses about Iraq. I am not going to sit here and use the "Saddam is evil" justification as some kind of blanket reasoning. I'm not that ignorant.[/color][quote][b]

but as I'm sure we both know the president that this "strike first" policy has created is a disturbing one especially since America has found nothing and is being dragged through mud from the constant lying that went on before the war. Also another blow to the policy was dealt the other day with France, Germany and several other EU countries diplomatically getting Iran to comply with strict rules on how it may proceed with it?s nuclear ambitions that is acceptable to the ?west?; now wasn?t America talking about a pre-emptive strike on them only several months ago using this point as the trigger?[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]What constant lying that went on before the war? Again, this is an emotive comment...but it's one with little foundation and [i]no proof[/i].

Bush was attacked for saying that Iraq tried to purchase enriched uranium from Africa. Yet, only recently, further evidence has been uncovered by UK intelligence officials that suggests this is true. There are even informants within Africa who have spoken about the issue.

However, I will accept that things like the "45 minute claim" are pretty bogus. The difference, however, is that instead of jumping up and down and saying "Those bastards are lying!!! AGgahah!!" I will take a [i]rational[/i] look at the entire issue.

In regard to your Iran reference, again, I think you're misinterpreting things.

First and foremost, it was the [b]United States[/b] who spearheaded diplomatic efforts to Iran. Colin Powell visited the region several times -- he even had direct talks with Iran's Prime Minister before the whole nuclear story became as well known as it is now.

Secondly, why do you think that Iran is agreeing to these inspections? There are two reasons. One is because the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has delivered a very specific deadline to Iran. Another, more important reason, is because the United States is prepared to enforce that resolution -- whereas the EU isn't.

Don't think for one minute that the EU is somehow pulling off some amazing feat of diplomacy. The EU is getting the credit while the US does the legwork.

And I do not see any evidence of the US declaring that it would pre-emptively strike Iran. That's just an assumption on your part, as far as I'm concerned.

There is also the issue of North Korea; diplomacy backed by force. The threat of force is one reason why North Korea even agreed to six-way diplomatic discussions about its nuclear development programs. It will be the United States who pressures North Korea into giving that program up -- nobody else.[/color][quote][b]

Diplomacy was not fully explored in the Iraq case because of a small group of people at the head of the White House wanting to rush in and I?m sorry to say for the people of Iraq it backfired on America in a possibly big way.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Not fully explored? Cloricus...this is almost humorous in the ignorance it displays of world affairs.

Diplomacy was "explored" for [b]twelve years[/b] before Gulf War II. Even [i]after[/i] Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was thwarted, the country didn't cease WMD development.

I've already gone over all of this in a previous comment above, so I won't repeat it here. But, needless to say...there was probably [i]too much[/i] diplomacy in Iraq's case. The situation with Iraq was allowed to drag on for far too long with no consequences. This kind of display only emboldens countries like North Korea -- who see the UN as a toothless tiger who only wants to negotiate and never take action against lawbreaking nations.[/color][quote][b]

No clean water, no power, no food, no phones, no law and no support. They had all of these [b]basic[/b] things under the Saddam regime, even if he coursed them to be dependant it still kills off your argument that they are some how better off.
But it comes down to which is better, dying from malnourishment while you are a child or living with oppression? [/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Did you know that Saddam Hussein cut the power to Baghdad as the war first began? He no doubt wanted to blame that on the US authorities. However, they did not actually cease the power in Baghdad -- instead, they came along to fix it up afterwards.

Secondly, phones are up and running. As are cellphones -- cell networks are increasing proliferation in Iraq at a rapid pace.

Thirdly, no law and no support? Wrong. There are now more than [b]70,000[/b] Iraqi police on the streets. All of them were trained by the United States in a very, very short period (from the end of the war until now). And yet, either you don't know this, or you aren't crediting the US for succeeding in such a massive undertaking. Most of the police, by the way, are also operating with five times more wages than they previously had. Where are those wages coming from? The United States. All-new police cars were also donated to the entire Iraqi police force.

I would also mention that all of the hospitals pre-war are now operating, and new hospitals are being built (some are already erected and operating).

I don't mean to paint things as so rosey that they're perfect; that is obviously not the case. However, it is easy to discredit the US and to avoid facts here. Let's be realistic, folks.[/color][quote][b]

This is what I mean when I say America has screwed up running the country; if they had been able to be organised and had these basic things running Iraqis would most likely have moved over to being on their side. This hasn?t happened. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]That's a pretty silly comment, Cloricus. For multiple reasons.

Firstly, I do agree that the US didn't plan well enough for the post-war conditions in Iraq. However, I have solid information behind my opinion -- you only have adolescent, anti-Bush rhetoric behind yours.

Secondly, [i]most[/i] Iraqis are on America's side. It's a small few -- particularly Batists and foreign terrorists -- who aren't. It's easy to say that most Iraqis aren't on America's side when you think about the terrorism that has occurred in Iraq. Unfortunately, this is the same as viewing the situation through a synthetic prism -- it's very far from accurate and it doesn't present a complete view of a very diverse and large nation.[/color]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]No clean water, no power, no food, no phones, no law and no support. They had all of these [b]basic[/b] things under the Saddam regime, even if he coursed them to be dependant it still kills off your argument that they are some how better off.
But it comes down to which is better, dying from malnourishment while you are a child or living with oppression? This is what I mean when I say America has screwed up running the country; if they had been able to be organised and had these basic things running Iraqis would most likely have moved over to being on their side. This hasn?t happened. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]Well, I was going to add a long winded response to this statement, but all the facts that I would relate would just be redundant after reading James' post (which included all the basic facts that I know multiplied by 5 or so, lol). The only point I would like to add is that Saddam was known for periodically shutting off utilities (power, water) to various cities and blaming it on so called "espionage" by the US/UN in order to control his people's opinions toward the US/UN. It seems as though you are attempting to make Saddam out to be a benevolent dictator, he wasn't.

Cloricus, are you just anti-war period...if so I understand the passion (not the point) behind your replies...if not why do you constantly rely on out- dated information (that sometimes is based on zero fact) to conduct your arguments? No offense but it seems to have become a constant trend.[/color]