Iwant8,
Sorry for the length of this, but damn, it is good stuff.
>Look at the Iraq situation this way...for the cynics and those who believe the war was unjustified at least legally we are more than concerned with the precedent that has been set with this invasion. Our ever expanding role in the Middle East is being laid out before us on a scale that many people do not like. Long ago are the days of isolationism and with the U.S. appearing to be the aggressor in many middle eastern countries (regardless of their leaders' positions) what is to stop other less stable countries from dragging the U.S. into wars many of our own leaders believe they could afford taking such risks?<
I would say their personal health would prevent them from doing that. Turn the question around: Why would any leader of a middle eastern country now confront us? For example, Kaddafi in Libya. He has suddenly become very friendly.
>What is to stop them from attacking us HERE?<
Disruption of their command stucture, and ability, nuts and bolts, to wage a terrorist strike here. Their operation has obviously been severely degraded from out actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. But of course, the possibility still exists that they will hit us here. But I don't think so. Another strike here would only serve to reignite the US population desire to see the terrorists defeated.
Their MO is more to crawl into holes, let the heat subside, and wait for a more suitable time to strike. The key is to keep the heat on.
>Has this invasion actually stopped the terrorists from believing what they do?<
No, and I am afraid that will never be the case. The Wahhibists have been taught from a very young age that we are infidels, and must be killed. For most of them, this is truly a fight to the death. Not unlike the Japanese during WWII. For them, there is no negotiation.
>Has it been the same men who hijacked our airplanes that are killing Iraqis and U.S. and coalition? Or is it others that share the same beliefs and have been given more reasons to wage war with the U.S.?<
That is the point. The Wahhabists do not need any more reason to attack the west. Whether New York, Madrid, Bali, Africa, whatever, they will strike western targets as they can, if we give them the opportunity to do so.
Here is a good link that gives the plain history of the Wahhabi movement:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/wahhabi.htm
This one is rather long, but shows how Wahhabism bastardizes the Muslim faith:
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/suwahhab.html
Here is a good interpretation of Wahhabism from a moderate Muslim:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html
And finally, a brief on the threat of Wahhabism:
http://www.meforum.org/article/535
There are very few peace loving Muslims, non-Wahhabists entering the fray. In fact, there are not too many peace loving Wahhabists entering the fray. The vast majority of terrorists are men and women who have been taught to hate. Thankfully, it is a very small percentage of the overall Muslim population.
The peace loving, non-Wahhabists have proven, and are proving every day, that they do not agree with the west-hating tenets of the terrorists. Most Muslims are great people, just like anyone else.
>So while you believe it's worth it and the reasons were more than justified 9/11 might be more than just the can o worms that lead to the Iraq invasion, but moreover an arguable justification for other countries to be wary of U.S. foreign policy and further promote hatred toward the U.S.<
Once again, for the people causing the problems, there is no other justification needed, other than their religious leaders calling for Jihad. They believe when they blow themselves up, or ride a plane into a building, that they go directly to heaven.
Surely, few in any country wants war. And surely, the people of any middle eastern country will be wary of the US. But that does not mean we should not keep the pressure on, in the correct places.
As far as the European countries that oppose US actions, they must deal with their own actions. They have been horrendous traitors to everything good. I would think their press, and people, would want full investigations of the actions of the various governments, in support of Saddam.
>Nothing is black and white and in Iraq we're seeing an array of things gone wrong. <
And things gone right. In war, things are always far from perfect. But by any measure, this has been about the best that history has to offer.
>That kind of offense and suffering should not be brought upon any people of any nation. There is hell to pay yet and the U.S. is no longer the patriotic true hero country that saved the world from Hitler.<
But is that not because of the way it has been portrayed, both in the US and Europe? Why have the details been presented by the press, in a light that paints the US as bad as possible? Given things like 50 NY Times front page stories on the prison scandal, saying the US is worse than Hitlers concentration camps, Stalin's gulags, etc, while blatently false, does turn minds.
And as for the Hitler reference, there were attempts to paint our support of the removal of Hitler as wrong. Still today, there are accusations against FDR, insinuating a desire by him for Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor, and that his administration ignored threats! Much the same crap as the unfounded accusations against Bush on 9/11.
It used to be that the victors wrote history. But since the US has been a world power, anyone can write history, from their own perspective, whether it fits with the facts or not. Get a clue as to how and why Bush is being portrayed as he is, especially in Europe. Follow the money. In the US, it is more political.
For example, the press has tried to tie the childish acts of a few people, to an administration rule. When obviously, that was the only prison, out of many where suspects were held, that had any reported violations. But that is not pointed out.
The above is just one example. There are many others. Even more in the European press. The question should be, why is the press so desperate to paint the US as it has?
>You keep bringing up the Duelfer's report. If anything the Duelfer's report should have taught you that the sanctions on Iraq had worked, Saddam no longer had the chemical and biological programs, but only wanted surrounding neighbors to think he still had the capabilities<
Actually, it taught me that the sanctions and inspections were not only not working, but would NEVER have worked. The words of Saddams on hencHydromaxen proved this. HE had a plan and system to defeat the sanctions and inspections. It was a folly, played out in the world press. Not only was Saddam not cooperating, but he would have come back with more and worse weapons, with much better delivery systems, which he was openly working on. That is what the Duelfer report shows.
As has been proven throughout history, the longer it takes before a tyrant of the ilk of Saddam is braced, the worse the consequences for all involved. Whether a year, two, five or ten, at some point, Saddam would have created disaster on a level not yet seen. Whether you like the decision to invade or not, you, your children, and grandchildren will never have to face that risk.
>...and while he wanted to resume the programs and got the corruptive assistance if you will from countries like France and Russia he still only made around 18 billion dollars.<
You are getting close. What was the actual situation before the war? Saddam was going for the removal of ALL sanctions, with the support of the mentioned European governments. If not for 9/11, and the US and UK, he could have gotten the sanctions removed, without ANY inspections, and gotten his oil production, and therefore revenue back up. He had already squirreled away BILLIONs of illegal dollars from the OFF program. He was prepared to get back on the path to his aims immediately.
>He was barely keeping his regime together.<
That is not true. Where did you see that? He ruled his party with an iron fist. Nobody, and I mean nobody braced him. As far as the Kurds and Shites, they had no chance whatsoever to overthrow Saddam, due to inferior weapons and lack of cohesion and organization. The attempt in '91 was a bloodbath for the Shites. And Bush Sr did nothing of his promise to support them.
>Had the U.S. exposed what was going on with the Oil for Food program earlier, had we diplomatically worked with Russia, France, etc on fully supporting the economic sanctions on Iraq maybe an invasion would not have occurred.<
See, that makes no sense. You put in on the US to expose the crimes of Saddam, in collusion with France, Russia, Germany, and China. Why is that? These countries did not WANT Saddam removed, because they knew their loans would be in jeopardy, their oil contracts would probably not be honored, and they would no longer make the illicit gains from illegal trade. These countries were already violating resolutions that they signed on to. Why would they support something contrary to their goals? Why would they do anything other than stonewall? Colin Powell was dealing directly with them, trying to remedy the situation. He was baffeled by their responses. Well, we now know why.
Once again, the crimes for this situation are in other countries, not the US.
>These are all things that would have taken less time than Saddam's supposed threat would have taken to effect us. And yes global markets make sanction efforts difficult and you may think an attack on the U.S. would have occurred had we waited any longer, but at the same token waging a war makes such a thing impossible to work and sanctions had accomplished the task of vastly weakening Saddam's weapon programs.<
Please remember, these countries were all for removing ALL sanctions against Saddam. They were moving in the completely opposite direction. They were all for making him as powerful as possible, in the name of MONEY. Hell, it would not surprise me if they wished Saddam would have become the Pan-Islamic leader.
>The idea of regime change has never been something this country has stood for or allowed until now.<
What? Hitler, Germany? Tojo, Japan? Kennedy with Castro, Cuba? Noriega, Panama? Baby Doc, Haiti? Liberia? Yugoslavia? I am sure there are many others. Just all I could think of off hand. The US has, for at least the last 65 years, actively supported our interests around the world, even when our interests are best served by regime change in another country. The same can be said for any other world power, Russia, UK, France, et al.
>It is not the U.S. job to force out through war/aggression the leader of any nation no matter what the leader has done however apparently now it is.<
You are correct. It should be the job of the UN. But the UN does not work in most cases. The members of the Security Council, including the US, abdicate their moral responsibilities in the name of other things such as money or power, or friends (US-Israel). The problem is, they all have veto power. Therefore, if something is to be addressed, it must be through coalitions of the willing. Under current UN structure, there is no other way.
And others are correct, lack of UN action in Africa is horrendous. It is the planets greatest sin. But it is not only the US's sin.
It IS however, the job of any US administration to protect the security of the country and it's citizens. The president takes an oath to that effect. There are many presidents that you could indict for not taking that oath seriously enough. But surely not the current president.
>At some point the Iraqis are going to say get out, oh and apparently they have already. The situation the U.S. helped creat is proving to be on par or worse than what Saddam could have ever done.<
How can you say that? Are you familiar with exactly what Saddam did in his reign? Do you really credit the US actions for the subsequent terrorist attacks against the Iraqi civilians? How absurd!
The coming Saddam trial, hopefully will be very enlightening to show exactly how bad Saddam was and is. He is/was demented. As I have said, we will never know exactly how bad Saddam could have been in the aftermath of 9/11. And I am thankful for that.
I have seen nothig where the consensus of the INTERIM Iraqi government has asked us to leave. It would seem that they should at least finish their constitution, and have their first, full elections before that is decided.
>"Fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here." When have we ever fought anyone here since ?<
I do not understand that statement.
>Because of a highly suspect insinuation between the attacks on 9/11 and Saddam and Al-qaeda the invasion of Iraq eventually will signify the reasons behind regular attacks on our own soil.<
We shall see. If the Wahhabists can be reduced in number, and the peaceful Muslims turned against the Wahhabists extremists aims, then we will not have to worry about attacks here.
>I mean before it was communism and now it's our turn I suppose for many of the same reasons. It's a nice silly thought to actually believe that the war on terror is actually about getting rid of terrorism when war is about the last thing that can get rid of it.<
So, the question becomes, how would you get rid of it? Sing Kumbaya? We did not respond to terrorist attacks by military means for decades, and the problem became worse. Since military action began, the US has had no attacks. The evidence so far points to the efffectiveness of military action.
As I see it, the other track is for the west to entirely withdraw from any contact with the Muslim world. But then, that would give the extremists time to gather their forces, create new and worse weapons, and attack the infidels in their own time. That is the oft stated goal of the extremists. To kill all the infidels, Christians, Jews, any non-Muslim. I do not believe you truly understand the threat we face.
>It must be nice to believe that it's better to get rid of a tyrant who has never attacked our soil before finding and punishing the one group and man responsible for 9/11. How is it possible to be 100% dedicated to finding Usama bin Laden and getting rid of Al-Qaeda through a war in Iraq?<
Well obviously, it does not require the entire fucking US military to hunt for one man. That is absurd. Military minds come up with the numbers they feel will be most effective in whatever situation, including the hunt for Osama, and Iraq. I do not have the experience to refute their policies, do you?
Further, we have GREATLY reduced both the number, and effectiveness of Al Queda. They are truly a shell of their former self. They are hiding in holes. They appear not to have the capability of striking US soil at this time. Saddam surely does not.
>Let them come in to Iraq and die oh yeah meanwhile innocent Iraqis die needlessly something we argued was a reason to invade Iraq.<
No, it is not needlessly. It is for freedom. FUCK, the founders of the US died for what? Freedom, yes. But what was the all consuming reason? Taxation without representation! Iraqis have much better and greater reasons for fighting and dying. Oppression from the people that would totally control their lives. The same tyranny that was present in Iraq and Afghanistan before the war.
Why is it that Iraqi men continue to sign up for the police and military in ever increasing numbers? They get it! They do not want to return to the days of an oppressive government.
>Yeah...and all of or even an amount close to all terrorist networks are supposed to go to the one place they probably won't do much other than die?<
No, but any cooperation is I am sure, appreciated.
>Eventually the only thing that will be realized by the terrorist networks is that the U.S. is now just as if not more vulnerable right now than it was on 9/11.<
How do you figure that?
>Meanwhile the U.S. will be contemplating invading Iran...Boy the U.S. sure does have an awful long list of enemies....and for no reason whatsoever either. strange. Things are going to change one way or another but I hope things will change through more peaceful manners. If I see Fox News or CNN or MSNBC or CBS news starting to sound eerily familiar towards Iran like the way it started with Iraq a few years back I'm not sure what the hell this country will do. We're just can't take it.<
Yes, we can take it. The citizens of the US are generally made of strong stuff. We can do what must be done. Please do some research, and find out exactly what we are fighting. Find out what the true threats are. You have every right to castigate the Bush administration, and US policy, whether you are informed or not. But at least find out what the risks are.
>I don't think we will in fact. It's a representative government and while it's not a true democracy if the people don't believe we should have invaded Iraq now there shouldn't even be talks of going to war with Iran. Whether it's the right or wrong decision we'll pay the consequences no matter what. I think the people would be right to not support the next aggressive campaign in the Middle East.<
I can say with a fair amount of comfort: If Bush feels Iran is a threat, and that negotiation will not bring about the end of their nuclear program, he will at the very least, bomb the shit out of them. Also probably target their leadership. There probably will not have to be a ground war, since the Iranian populace generally opposes the Mullahs anyway.
And as always, if the case is presented in full, and information is constant, the US population will support the government in any military action.
Bigger
Sorry for the length of this, but damn, it is good stuff.
>Look at the Iraq situation this way...for the cynics and those who believe the war was unjustified at least legally we are more than concerned with the precedent that has been set with this invasion. Our ever expanding role in the Middle East is being laid out before us on a scale that many people do not like. Long ago are the days of isolationism and with the U.S. appearing to be the aggressor in many middle eastern countries (regardless of their leaders' positions) what is to stop other less stable countries from dragging the U.S. into wars many of our own leaders believe they could afford taking such risks?<
I would say their personal health would prevent them from doing that. Turn the question around: Why would any leader of a middle eastern country now confront us? For example, Kaddafi in Libya. He has suddenly become very friendly.
>What is to stop them from attacking us HERE?<
Disruption of their command stucture, and ability, nuts and bolts, to wage a terrorist strike here. Their operation has obviously been severely degraded from out actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. But of course, the possibility still exists that they will hit us here. But I don't think so. Another strike here would only serve to reignite the US population desire to see the terrorists defeated.
Their MO is more to crawl into holes, let the heat subside, and wait for a more suitable time to strike. The key is to keep the heat on.
>Has this invasion actually stopped the terrorists from believing what they do?<
No, and I am afraid that will never be the case. The Wahhibists have been taught from a very young age that we are infidels, and must be killed. For most of them, this is truly a fight to the death. Not unlike the Japanese during WWII. For them, there is no negotiation.
>Has it been the same men who hijacked our airplanes that are killing Iraqis and U.S. and coalition? Or is it others that share the same beliefs and have been given more reasons to wage war with the U.S.?<
That is the point. The Wahhabists do not need any more reason to attack the west. Whether New York, Madrid, Bali, Africa, whatever, they will strike western targets as they can, if we give them the opportunity to do so.
Here is a good link that gives the plain history of the Wahhabi movement:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/gulf/wahhabi.htm
This one is rather long, but shows how Wahhabism bastardizes the Muslim faith:
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/suwahhab.html
Here is a good interpretation of Wahhabism from a moderate Muslim:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html
And finally, a brief on the threat of Wahhabism:
http://www.meforum.org/article/535
There are very few peace loving Muslims, non-Wahhabists entering the fray. In fact, there are not too many peace loving Wahhabists entering the fray. The vast majority of terrorists are men and women who have been taught to hate. Thankfully, it is a very small percentage of the overall Muslim population.
The peace loving, non-Wahhabists have proven, and are proving every day, that they do not agree with the west-hating tenets of the terrorists. Most Muslims are great people, just like anyone else.
>So while you believe it's worth it and the reasons were more than justified 9/11 might be more than just the can o worms that lead to the Iraq invasion, but moreover an arguable justification for other countries to be wary of U.S. foreign policy and further promote hatred toward the U.S.<
Once again, for the people causing the problems, there is no other justification needed, other than their religious leaders calling for Jihad. They believe when they blow themselves up, or ride a plane into a building, that they go directly to heaven.
Surely, few in any country wants war. And surely, the people of any middle eastern country will be wary of the US. But that does not mean we should not keep the pressure on, in the correct places.
As far as the European countries that oppose US actions, they must deal with their own actions. They have been horrendous traitors to everything good. I would think their press, and people, would want full investigations of the actions of the various governments, in support of Saddam.
>Nothing is black and white and in Iraq we're seeing an array of things gone wrong. <
And things gone right. In war, things are always far from perfect. But by any measure, this has been about the best that history has to offer.
>That kind of offense and suffering should not be brought upon any people of any nation. There is hell to pay yet and the U.S. is no longer the patriotic true hero country that saved the world from Hitler.<
But is that not because of the way it has been portrayed, both in the US and Europe? Why have the details been presented by the press, in a light that paints the US as bad as possible? Given things like 50 NY Times front page stories on the prison scandal, saying the US is worse than Hitlers concentration camps, Stalin's gulags, etc, while blatently false, does turn minds.
And as for the Hitler reference, there were attempts to paint our support of the removal of Hitler as wrong. Still today, there are accusations against FDR, insinuating a desire by him for Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor, and that his administration ignored threats! Much the same crap as the unfounded accusations against Bush on 9/11.
It used to be that the victors wrote history. But since the US has been a world power, anyone can write history, from their own perspective, whether it fits with the facts or not. Get a clue as to how and why Bush is being portrayed as he is, especially in Europe. Follow the money. In the US, it is more political.
For example, the press has tried to tie the childish acts of a few people, to an administration rule. When obviously, that was the only prison, out of many where suspects were held, that had any reported violations. But that is not pointed out.
The above is just one example. There are many others. Even more in the European press. The question should be, why is the press so desperate to paint the US as it has?
>You keep bringing up the Duelfer's report. If anything the Duelfer's report should have taught you that the sanctions on Iraq had worked, Saddam no longer had the chemical and biological programs, but only wanted surrounding neighbors to think he still had the capabilities<
Actually, it taught me that the sanctions and inspections were not only not working, but would NEVER have worked. The words of Saddams on hencHydromaxen proved this. HE had a plan and system to defeat the sanctions and inspections. It was a folly, played out in the world press. Not only was Saddam not cooperating, but he would have come back with more and worse weapons, with much better delivery systems, which he was openly working on. That is what the Duelfer report shows.
As has been proven throughout history, the longer it takes before a tyrant of the ilk of Saddam is braced, the worse the consequences for all involved. Whether a year, two, five or ten, at some point, Saddam would have created disaster on a level not yet seen. Whether you like the decision to invade or not, you, your children, and grandchildren will never have to face that risk.
>...and while he wanted to resume the programs and got the corruptive assistance if you will from countries like France and Russia he still only made around 18 billion dollars.<
You are getting close. What was the actual situation before the war? Saddam was going for the removal of ALL sanctions, with the support of the mentioned European governments. If not for 9/11, and the US and UK, he could have gotten the sanctions removed, without ANY inspections, and gotten his oil production, and therefore revenue back up. He had already squirreled away BILLIONs of illegal dollars from the OFF program. He was prepared to get back on the path to his aims immediately.
>He was barely keeping his regime together.<
That is not true. Where did you see that? He ruled his party with an iron fist. Nobody, and I mean nobody braced him. As far as the Kurds and Shites, they had no chance whatsoever to overthrow Saddam, due to inferior weapons and lack of cohesion and organization. The attempt in '91 was a bloodbath for the Shites. And Bush Sr did nothing of his promise to support them.
>Had the U.S. exposed what was going on with the Oil for Food program earlier, had we diplomatically worked with Russia, France, etc on fully supporting the economic sanctions on Iraq maybe an invasion would not have occurred.<
See, that makes no sense. You put in on the US to expose the crimes of Saddam, in collusion with France, Russia, Germany, and China. Why is that? These countries did not WANT Saddam removed, because they knew their loans would be in jeopardy, their oil contracts would probably not be honored, and they would no longer make the illicit gains from illegal trade. These countries were already violating resolutions that they signed on to. Why would they support something contrary to their goals? Why would they do anything other than stonewall? Colin Powell was dealing directly with them, trying to remedy the situation. He was baffeled by their responses. Well, we now know why.
Once again, the crimes for this situation are in other countries, not the US.
>These are all things that would have taken less time than Saddam's supposed threat would have taken to effect us. And yes global markets make sanction efforts difficult and you may think an attack on the U.S. would have occurred had we waited any longer, but at the same token waging a war makes such a thing impossible to work and sanctions had accomplished the task of vastly weakening Saddam's weapon programs.<
Please remember, these countries were all for removing ALL sanctions against Saddam. They were moving in the completely opposite direction. They were all for making him as powerful as possible, in the name of MONEY. Hell, it would not surprise me if they wished Saddam would have become the Pan-Islamic leader.
>The idea of regime change has never been something this country has stood for or allowed until now.<
What? Hitler, Germany? Tojo, Japan? Kennedy with Castro, Cuba? Noriega, Panama? Baby Doc, Haiti? Liberia? Yugoslavia? I am sure there are many others. Just all I could think of off hand. The US has, for at least the last 65 years, actively supported our interests around the world, even when our interests are best served by regime change in another country. The same can be said for any other world power, Russia, UK, France, et al.
>It is not the U.S. job to force out through war/aggression the leader of any nation no matter what the leader has done however apparently now it is.<
You are correct. It should be the job of the UN. But the UN does not work in most cases. The members of the Security Council, including the US, abdicate their moral responsibilities in the name of other things such as money or power, or friends (US-Israel). The problem is, they all have veto power. Therefore, if something is to be addressed, it must be through coalitions of the willing. Under current UN structure, there is no other way.
And others are correct, lack of UN action in Africa is horrendous. It is the planets greatest sin. But it is not only the US's sin.
It IS however, the job of any US administration to protect the security of the country and it's citizens. The president takes an oath to that effect. There are many presidents that you could indict for not taking that oath seriously enough. But surely not the current president.
>At some point the Iraqis are going to say get out, oh and apparently they have already. The situation the U.S. helped creat is proving to be on par or worse than what Saddam could have ever done.<
How can you say that? Are you familiar with exactly what Saddam did in his reign? Do you really credit the US actions for the subsequent terrorist attacks against the Iraqi civilians? How absurd!
The coming Saddam trial, hopefully will be very enlightening to show exactly how bad Saddam was and is. He is/was demented. As I have said, we will never know exactly how bad Saddam could have been in the aftermath of 9/11. And I am thankful for that.
I have seen nothig where the consensus of the INTERIM Iraqi government has asked us to leave. It would seem that they should at least finish their constitution, and have their first, full elections before that is decided.
>"Fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here." When have we ever fought anyone here since ?<
I do not understand that statement.
>Because of a highly suspect insinuation between the attacks on 9/11 and Saddam and Al-qaeda the invasion of Iraq eventually will signify the reasons behind regular attacks on our own soil.<
We shall see. If the Wahhabists can be reduced in number, and the peaceful Muslims turned against the Wahhabists extremists aims, then we will not have to worry about attacks here.
>I mean before it was communism and now it's our turn I suppose for many of the same reasons. It's a nice silly thought to actually believe that the war on terror is actually about getting rid of terrorism when war is about the last thing that can get rid of it.<
So, the question becomes, how would you get rid of it? Sing Kumbaya? We did not respond to terrorist attacks by military means for decades, and the problem became worse. Since military action began, the US has had no attacks. The evidence so far points to the efffectiveness of military action.
As I see it, the other track is for the west to entirely withdraw from any contact with the Muslim world. But then, that would give the extremists time to gather their forces, create new and worse weapons, and attack the infidels in their own time. That is the oft stated goal of the extremists. To kill all the infidels, Christians, Jews, any non-Muslim. I do not believe you truly understand the threat we face.
>It must be nice to believe that it's better to get rid of a tyrant who has never attacked our soil before finding and punishing the one group and man responsible for 9/11. How is it possible to be 100% dedicated to finding Usama bin Laden and getting rid of Al-Qaeda through a war in Iraq?<
Well obviously, it does not require the entire fucking US military to hunt for one man. That is absurd. Military minds come up with the numbers they feel will be most effective in whatever situation, including the hunt for Osama, and Iraq. I do not have the experience to refute their policies, do you?
Further, we have GREATLY reduced both the number, and effectiveness of Al Queda. They are truly a shell of their former self. They are hiding in holes. They appear not to have the capability of striking US soil at this time. Saddam surely does not.
>Let them come in to Iraq and die oh yeah meanwhile innocent Iraqis die needlessly something we argued was a reason to invade Iraq.<
No, it is not needlessly. It is for freedom. FUCK, the founders of the US died for what? Freedom, yes. But what was the all consuming reason? Taxation without representation! Iraqis have much better and greater reasons for fighting and dying. Oppression from the people that would totally control their lives. The same tyranny that was present in Iraq and Afghanistan before the war.
Why is it that Iraqi men continue to sign up for the police and military in ever increasing numbers? They get it! They do not want to return to the days of an oppressive government.
>Yeah...and all of or even an amount close to all terrorist networks are supposed to go to the one place they probably won't do much other than die?<
No, but any cooperation is I am sure, appreciated.
>Eventually the only thing that will be realized by the terrorist networks is that the U.S. is now just as if not more vulnerable right now than it was on 9/11.<
How do you figure that?
>Meanwhile the U.S. will be contemplating invading Iran...Boy the U.S. sure does have an awful long list of enemies....and for no reason whatsoever either. strange. Things are going to change one way or another but I hope things will change through more peaceful manners. If I see Fox News or CNN or MSNBC or CBS news starting to sound eerily familiar towards Iran like the way it started with Iraq a few years back I'm not sure what the hell this country will do. We're just can't take it.<
Yes, we can take it. The citizens of the US are generally made of strong stuff. We can do what must be done. Please do some research, and find out exactly what we are fighting. Find out what the true threats are. You have every right to castigate the Bush administration, and US policy, whether you are informed or not. But at least find out what the risks are.
>I don't think we will in fact. It's a representative government and while it's not a true democracy if the people don't believe we should have invaded Iraq now there shouldn't even be talks of going to war with Iran. Whether it's the right or wrong decision we'll pay the consequences no matter what. I think the people would be right to not support the next aggressive campaign in the Middle East.<
I can say with a fair amount of comfort: If Bush feels Iran is a threat, and that negotiation will not bring about the end of their nuclear program, he will at the very least, bomb the shit out of them. Also probably target their leadership. There probably will not have to be a ground war, since the Iranian populace generally opposes the Mullahs anyway.
And as always, if the case is presented in full, and information is constant, the US population will support the government in any military action.
Bigger