Sending More Troops to Iraq

[DungeonMaster6]

Does any one agree with Bush, that sending more troops to that God-forsaken place is the answer?

[gagged_Louise]

No, definitely not. I've been against that war since day one and expanding the number of troops in this miserable conflict won't help, but I can see that a quick retreat (let's say: no US or UK troops left by end of this year) would guarantee civil war and further massacres. That's what's happening already: the bloodshed is appalling.

I really don't see how Bush is going to be able to find a way forward to this: throwing in more troops won't help and pulling back sharply and telling the Iraqi government to do it themselves: well, the political price in the Senate and in the next elections will be much too high, won't it? *sigh* Not being American, my POV is a side view but I've been following the war on terror since 9/11 and even before with much interest and unease.

[cariad]

I did not like it when the first troops went in, and I do not like the idea of more going in. However, particularly as I have a family member who is frequently out there, I do not like the idea of the troops there being under resourced in terms of manpower. The idea of a rapid withdrawal is unacceptable, in terms of the situation it would leave, and I understand the heightened level of casualties to troops as they do so.

I hope someone, somewhere finds an acceptable answer.

cariad

[MasterRob{cali}]

Well, there is really no reason we need more troops, it means that many more targets. I back all military people that are in harms way, however at the end of this Iran or Syria will have control of Iraq. There is and has been a civil war there. We need to train their troops get out let them take care of them selves.

We cannot be the rescuer of the world, doing so places us in these positions. No one wants to hear this but we are back in another Viet Nam. If the Saudis would take care of their own fears we would have backed them, but they want us to do their work for that oil.
Thank You
MR

[DungeonMaster6]

I recently read a bumper sticker that read: Quagmire accomplished.

That's exactly what we have here. I don't like the idea of sending more of our troops over there, but we can't just pull out either, because the Iraqis are not prepared to defend themselves fully. But there will come a day when they must be. Just last week the Iraqi army was in a battle and asked for assistance from the U.S. We can't abandon them now. Al Qaeda must be dealt with.

But commiting 21,500 more troops is not the way to do it. U.S. forces will be engaged in bloody street fighting that will not resolve the ongoing turmoil and the sectarian and ethnic strife. The anti-American insurgency will not be deterred.

[TomOfSweden]

Well, there is really no reason we need more troops, it means that many more targets. I back all military people that are in harms way, however at the end of this Iran or Syria will have control of Iraq. There is and has been a civil war there. We need to train their troops get out let them take care of them selves.

We cannot be the rescuer of the world, doing so places us in these positions. No one wants to hear this but we are back in another Viet Nam. If the Saudis would take care of their own fears we would have backed them, but they want us to do their work for that oil.
Thank You
MR

Was the invasion really the result of trying to save the world? If the invasion would have been officially led by a muslim nation and with a broader coalition, and not stressing into war before the allies are ready, things might have turned out a lot different. I mean, both Germany and France was ready to invade, but not on Bush's terms. This invasion was more the result of Texan machismo, rather than a genuine will to save the world. USA isn't the world police, they're too busy being the kind of the hill rather than having a focus on creating a stable political world.

Bush is a born again Christian. He talks constantly about god. The Arabs know it. He's completly and totaly the wrong guy to lead an invasion of a muslim country. USA is not the land of the free. It's the land of Christianity. Yes, I know the paper says something different. Denying it is just stupid.

My two cents.

[mkemse]

No, this whole issue started why our President Lied" abou WMD, and please some one correct me if i am wrong, but if my memory is correct, prior to invading Iraq, I believe our leader told us "We go in, do what we need to and we will be out within 90" that was 4plus years ago, it was a mistake to go in, a mistake to stay and I do not believefor 1 second sending inmore troops will solvethe issue, their is a Civil War going on, we have no right ot be their, I do not think thet Mailki Governemnt has the courage to od what it needs to, and as long as we are therethere is no reason for him to do anythin,g IT IS OUR TROOPS dying not his troops only his civilians.
The Unites State as a Nation has to stop "Policeing The World" everytime sometime something happens, we need to starttaking care of our own.
We spend a billoin a month in Iraq if i am not mistaken yet we have disabled and seniors here that can't afford their own medication
The HUGE UPSIDE to all of this is our President only has 1 1/2 more years in office
We can't win in Iraw, we can loose and like Viet Nam, let's with drawl with diginity before our nation hasd none left, we have lost the respect of nations world wide
Lasty Mr Bush will not support governemt funding of Stem Cell research,because as he puts is, "It distroys life" yet he will support the funding of killings of millions of people and 3,000+ service Men and Women of this Great Nation, what is the difference, why will he allow killing in Iraq which will cure nothing yet no support Stem Cell Research to aid milloins here, even Nacy Regan supports stem Cell Research as Did Bill Frist before the November elections both CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS, the will support funding to kill people in Wars but no to save people lives here through research, hello???

[Miraculix]

Hmmmm... he really said "we are out of Iraq in 90 days"?

I thought he meant 9000 days... Because so far its 1400, and counting.

[mkemse]

Yes, when He first announced we would be going into Itaq he said we would be in and out in 90 days not 4 years but 90 days, I am also intrigued by a photo he took 3 months after we invaded when he landed on an Aircraft Carrier, got out of a Fighter Plane in a flight Suit with a big banner across the side that said "Mission Accomplished" would someone please enlighten me as to what mission was accomplish??

[Miraculix]

*thinks carefully... "screw up the nation"?

[DungeonMaster6]

"9/11, WMD's, democracy, completing our mission." These are the reasons Bush has cited for attacking and staying in Iraq.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, there were no wmd's, Iraq has become a democracy, so what then is "our mission"? I have thought from the beginning and I have no reason to change my opinion. Our mission is to control Iraq's oil.

[TomOfSweden]

Stop picking on Bush for the WMD's. It wasn't the only reason and half the known world was prior to it prepared to send troops for the "other reason", (ie Saddam being a total cunt and Iraq being a fascist terrorist state in the worst possible sense).

I still can't understand the amazingly botched diplomacy by USA that caused most of Europe not to send troops. Insulting France and Germany was so amazingly clumsy and unecesary.

[mkemse]

If you look at recent news stories and polls less then 32% of American's support Bush and this now is starting to include people of his own party, Richard Nixon's approval rating was higher prior to his resigning over Watergate then Bush's is now
Why, WMD's was 1 of the Main reason the USA went in EVEN after the Inspectors said there where none or any evidence of there every being any
No WMD's were not the only readon to go it, but they were the reason he gave to us as American Citizens'
I can't not think curently of any Country the USA has NOT allientated over this War, at 1 time we as a Country and were respected World Wide, now outside of British and Tony Blair we have lost all credabilibty in the world, plus, the United States needs to stop Policeing the world everytime a country does not do what WE want them to
We need to take care of Americans, our own people before we help other Nations, hell, what other Country on this planet offered ANY assistance to us after 911?? NONE, I do not remember 1 country on this planet sending in any assitance to us after this tragedy
As the saying goes "If you want your Country completely rebulit and modernized, get into a War with the UNITED STATES, they will rebuild it for you" we always have, we always will
We have money as a Nation to bomd Iraq but we have no money to help our own homeless, or help our seniors afford medication or medicial bills

[DungeonMaster6]

The reason France did not support us is because they were getting their oil from Saddam Hussein and they don't want the U.S. controlling Iraq's oil, which I firmly believe has been and still is our mission.

[mkemse]

I agree, especialy considering that the Unites Stes and 2 other countries just signed an "agreement" with Mailki, giving the United States and a couple other countries control over 75% of their Oil, if it ever gets pumped and shipped, but what we have done in Iraq for 4 years is still inexcusable

[MrWonderful]

Is it just a coincidence that Texans got us into Vietnam and Iraq? Probably not. A cowboy mentality just does not work when it comes to foreign policy. At least it hasn't since Teddy Roosevwelt was President.

[gagged_Louise]

As George W Bush went on an official visit to Britain in late 2003 - greeted by a wave of peacefully disapproving rallies - I saw a superb cartoon on the web, in three pic frames:

Bush and Blair are visting the Queen's London residnece and Blair tells Bush "These Buckingham Palace guards never flinch."

Bush whispers to the guard his side of the story: "Saddam had WMD and was gonna use them"

Guard in bear cap breaks into a fit of laughter, and Blair tells Bush "I stand corrected."

I agree with DM that the whole WMD thing has been a hoax, an excuse, and so was the supposed link to al-Qaeda. Saddam was a secular dictator, not a religious one: his regime hunted down people they saw as dangerous islamists/shiites and they would have hanged Osama bin-laden if he had been found in Iraq sometime in the ´90s. And of course there was no question about the US military advantage; who would have doubted that the US would be able to topple Saddam in 90 days at any time after 2000 if only given the room to wage the war full-on? (compare: who would doubt Russia could mow down any of its neighbours if it weren't ultimately checked by any other force, by NATO or by treaties?) But it's one thing to win the war, in military terms, and another to win peace. Bush and Pentagon seem to be doing neither, these days.

[fantassy]

I know this is truly terrible, but I have thought from the beginning that Bush dragged us into war in Iraq is a way to distract the nation from his inability to catch Osama and those really responsible for 9/11. If he hadn't started the war, he wouldn't have been re-elected. Aweful to suspect our commander-in-chief of sacrificing American lives for policial reasons, isn't it?

fantassy

[TomOfSweden]

We need to take care of Americans, our own people before we help other Nations, hell, what other Country on this planet offered ANY assistance to us after 911?? NONE, I do not remember 1 country on this planet sending in any assitance to us after this tragedy
As the saying goes "If you want your Country completely rebulit and modernized, get into a War with the UNITED STATES, they will rebuild it for you" we always have, we always will
We have money as a Nation to bomd Iraq but we have no money to help our own homeless, or help our seniors afford medication or medicial bills

All countries on the planet offered to send help and USA turned them down. Both after 9/11 and after katrina. Do your homework before whining. USA behaves like they're the king of the hill and doesn't need anyone else, still even now with their huge deficit. But then again nationalistic macho babble seem to turn most US citizens on. I mean why else vote for Bush?

[mkemse]

USA behaves like they're the king of the hill and doesn't need anyone else, still even now with

at time this is correct i did do my homework
I am not whininig, simply stating what i have read and hear, i live in the usa
the reason bush was re-elected is that if anyone reads US history, no President in our entire history has EVER been voted out of office, regardless of their performance when this country has been at War
I appriciate your comments and remarks, the reality is the sooner the US stops bulling other countries around the world and tries to set up other governemns they way WE want them to be, the sooner the USA will stop alienting other countries, outside of England and Tony Blair, name 1 other countryright now that repects the United State,most repect was lost after we invded Iraq, what we should of done was negotiate with Iraq, Iran ect for a settlemnt, as Jim Baker Baker who headed the Iraq think tank said "At times you must negotiate with your enemey's, even Republicans has told our Presdient to talk to Iran, Syria, ect but Mr. Bush says NO
Mr. Bush must alwayshave it his way, and I imagine in 2008 the peole of this GReat Nation I live in will say "Enoughi s Enough" and push republicans out of control all together the Dems may not have proven yet what they can and will do, but the Repubicans over th last 6 years have proven what they wILL NOT do big difference
As I said we need to start taking care of our own people before we police the world
Thanks again for your comments

[mkemse]

Also if you look back to Bush's 1st term, he did NOT win the election he did not get a Majority of the votes, the United State Supreme Court put him in office after they had trouble with vote totals in Florida so he did not even win his first term, the office was given to him

[TomOfSweden]

no President in our entire history has EVER been voted out of office, regardless of their performance when this country has been at War


This just proves my point. US voters aparently get a hard-on over nationalistic babble, no matter how non-sensicle or dangerous it is.

For the record. I was all for the invasion of Iraq. It's completly beyond me how Bush managed to fuck it up so badly. USA under Bush did absolutely everything wrong.

I still remember the speech Bush held on the aircraft-carrier proclaiming victory and thanking god for helping the US troops win. What kind of a derranged lunatic is he? Did he not understand that the whole Arab world was watching and that he in that instant was pissing every muslim in the face. He did shit like this at every possible chance he got. No, shit that country is in a mess now, and in a religious civil war.

Acting a bit remorseful, drawing atention to and apologising for the civilian deaths might have been a smoother move. But, no. They did nothing of the sort. Not once. They never did. The US high command just assumed they'd be thanked by the Iraqui people no matter what and where completly non-plused when the people they'd just dropped bombs on where in a bad mood. Surprise, surprise.

Saddam wasn't all bad. There was plenty of great things the Baath party did for the Iraqui people, (that the US invaders didn't do). Just because Western media liked to portray him like Adolf Hitler doesn't make it true. I'm not saying he was a good leader, but by just getting rid of him USA doesn't automatically become the friends of the Iraquis and assuming that they would be, (as they did) is just plain derranged.

I don't for the life of me understand how US voters ever thaught it was ok that nearly the whole war was financed by USA. I just don't get it? What was so bad with letting France and Germany make some demands and have them pay for half? Instead Bush thaught it was a better idea to call them coward poopy pants and make sure not to have them on-board. That's just plain retarded.

Hubris is never good.

edit: Almost forgot. When USA took Baghdad and that US soldier put the US flag over the statue of Saddam. I mean, what where they thinking. Granted that it was just the action of one dim witted soldier and not US policy. I'm sure it errased the smiles of many an Iraqui. Liberation turned to occupation in a second. But that pretty much set the tone of what was to come and the high command never once commented it or apologised for it, which would have been the clever thing to do. It's not a about grovelling, only doing the smart thing to keep people happy. Kind words cost US tax payers nothing.

[MasterRob{cali}]

Well who’s right whose wrong; don’t mean a thing to the combat person went you are the middle of a firefight. Two things usually run thought your mine. 1) I am not going home face up feet first. 2) My buddy next to me on both sides, I will protect as they will for me.
So here is my lean on this, We USA mainly, which being in over 30 countries with only an artic being only continent haven been to. I wouldn’t ever leave this great country; we have been and done stupid things I admitted this openly. But I know of no other country that any other country that needs help ask first for that help and we give it. Hell even to our enemies go figure huh.
So the USA is in Iraq not as a forces to win the war on terrorism, as the is in Afghanistan
We are there as a mercenary force (UK also) cause the Saudis has no balls to do for them self. They are the ones who are scared and afraid of Saddam. Pure simple fact no one really has though of. I personally think 21000 troops will do nothing to solve this problem. Yes they will help out take a little pressure off the ones who have been there day in day out maybe 2nd tour maybe 3rd. We need to push for training the Iraq’s army, talk to Iran and Syria as they are going to be more or less running Iraq went we do leave. Which means this we have to win is BS, we lost there went three things happen 1st By invading Iraq we fulfilled Osama`s vision that we would invade a muslin oil rich country. 2nd We didn’t have enough troops on ground at first, 3rd was went Bozo (bush) had his picture taken on the carrier saying Mission Accomplish.
So do we need more troops yes 3 years ago went we first went in. Not now, it’s to late and only going to give them more targets to shoot at.
TomofSweden not sure what paper you are reading, but we did accepted money and such from many countries, even Sumatra who gave us 1500 dollars. This would be in the ballpark of a million. But seeing that country was dam near wipe out with the tsunami as an American I though as well as the others 200+ million that was a great thing they gave us. Oh that we did send back, as it wasn’t because we are the best king of the world; it was they needed it more then us. This is another reason Tom we send or do not accept stuff, from countries that really cannot afford to send.
Thank you all for listen to me
Master Rob

[TomOfSweden]

TomofSweden not sure what paper you are reading, but we did accepted money and such from many countries, even Sumatra who gave us 1500 dollars. This would be in the ballpark of a million. But seeing that country was dam near wipe out with the tsunami as an American I though as well as the others 200+ million that was a great thing they gave us. Oh that we did send back, as it wasn’t because we are the best king of the world; it was they needed it more then us. This is another reason Tom we send or do not accept stuff, from countries that really cannot afford to send.
Thank you all for listen to me
Master Rob

Naturally, you know these things better than I do, living in the country. I just know that Sweden and all Scandinavian countries offered lots of money and trained personel to help out in both occasions and where turned down twice. Like most countries we offer our help very fast and get a bit surprised when it's turned down. Funny that USA accepted help from Sumatra and not Sweden.

[cariad]

This is a great discussion which is at times getting very close to getting overly emotive. Please distinguish between fact and opinions and take extra care over how you express your opinions.

Thank you - in other words - play nicely!

cariad

[TomOfSweden]

This is a great discussion which is at times getting very close to getting overly emotive. Please distinguish between fact and opinions and take extra care over how you express your opinions.

Thank you - in other words - play nicely!

cariad

I'm going to go right ahead and feel like the target here and apologise if I miffed anybody. Sorry, in that case. peace and love :)

[mkemse]

my apologies to anyone offended, my statements an remarks and fact are based on information i heard and read, if i am wrong with any of it and offended anyone I apologize
The facts I listed regarding Bush's 1st Term his being given the Office Of President is a Fact not Fiction, the issue of no Incumbent President being voted out whilewe were or are at war was information I researched on line as well as froma friend who has a PH.D. in US History from the University Of Illinjois, if i missed stated any fact my apologies, i trustthe scources I use,d but as is in life peole can be wrong with their fact and figure.
If was NOT my nitention to get overly emotional. but also keep in mind, being an American Citizen born andraised here, the issues do tend to be more emotional for me then those not residing inthe United States
Again, if any of my facts are incorrect and or I offended anyone my apologies to those offended
Hope everyone has a great 2007 and that the USA is out of Iraq ASAP

[TheDeSade]

Im a Texan and proud of it. I am also pretty liberal in my social views. I have met GWB on a couple of occasions and have never been terribly impressed with either his intellect or his ability.

My opinion goes here :

We were sold a bill of goods about the necessity of a military solution in Iraq. There was no reason to invade this country, there was no reason to stay and there is no good reason to escalate our involvement at this point.

There is no military solution to the problem of international terrorism.

Our biggest and most pressing problem is not Al Queda, Hezbollah or any of the other half dozen self proclaimed radical islamic groups. Our biggest and most pressing problem is the fact that 70% of our domestic oil consumption is dependent on, basically six countries, two of which are admittedly hostile to the United States (Venezuela, Iran) Two of which are on shakey diplomatic grounds (Mexico, Nigeria) and one who, in my opinion is questionable (Saudi Arabia) and one who should be one of our closest allies (Canada). For your information, you can look at the list of the top 15 oil importers to the US here (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html)

Were it not for the economic and societal drain caused by the war in Iran, we would more than likely be posting an excess in the federal budget rather than record deficits.

If Iran and North Korea were not almost positive that the US cannot sustain another major military action in the world, we would be much closer to a diplomatic resolution to the problems in these two countries.

OK . . I could go on . . but I think you get the feel for my stance on the Bush presidency and his brand of diplomacy and leadership.

Climbs down off soapbox and kicks it back under the table.

// RANT OFF//

TDS

[mkemse]

Desade,

thanks for your imput
the other reality is that the country elected Bush in 2004 for 4 more years we arestuck with him til 2008 him for 1 /12 more years no impeachable offenses i have seen but i could be far worse, Cheney could be in charge (as if he isn't already)

[Dorkalicious]

Mkemse had a point when saying that we should focus more on our own problems here before worrying about other's.

So far, my POV is that we got into this war because of oil. Not because of the 9/11 attacks (though that is what a lot of people believe -- I feel that the 9/11 attacks were planned so that a spark would ignite and there would be a more "founded reason" for the war)...

Honestly, we need to find a way to use resources that will not be exhausted and are healthier for our planet, especially when it comes to vehicles (yes, I understand we have found some ways, but obviously they have not hit mainstream :) )

*le sigh*

[MasterRob{cali}]

Sorry all didnt think we were not playing nice,,,,

[Sextoymaker]

*thinks carefully... "screw up the nation"?

Have we not so far?

[TomOfSweden]

I am no nationalist at all. I don't see borders or nations. Just people. Some of us live under opression, and some of us live in democracies. I think we should help our brothers and sisters if we can. Saddam and his Baath party where opressing innocent humans and the only viable solution I can see was an invasion. Never mind WMD's if there are people to help.

If you share my world view, (which I'm going to assume most do). Here's a question to all of you who where against the invasion. How else could we have helped the Iraqui people get rid of Saddam? Iraq wasn't going to go anywhere with him at the helm, where they?

I still think Iraq will come out on top and be a stable democracy. It might take 10 years and a civil war. But the truth is that democracy is still the best way to control beligerent neighbours and of the three ethnic groups in the country, none has majority all by themselves, which is the perfect setting for a stable democracy.

It's allready getting better. Trade is up. Universities are getting more aplicants. I'm sure the insurgents will stop blowing people up. Simply because they have nothing to gain from keeping it up. People aren't evil, just stupid.

That doesn't change that Bush and USA could have dealt with the situation better.

[mkemse]

Bush even despite his own advisers and recoomendations should have approached whole situation from the diplomatic standpoint first, if every concievable diploat channel dried up and invasion was the last option, the isutation may be different but more important whole world could then have aid "Yes he tried every diplomantiic ave available with no success" As james Baker of the Iraq inquest committe said, even f Bush did NOt and still does not wantto talk directly to Iran, Syria ect as Baker put i about 3 weeks ago, "There are times when you have to you have to talk to your enemy's even if you do not want to Bush needs to talk with Syria, Iran and surrounding countries and get off his"High and Mighty" soap box until we do Iraq will continue to detriorate and wewill continue to fight in a war and will not win Anyone Remember Viet Nam

[DungeonMaster6]

I think this has been a civilized discussion. A lot of good points have been made. Even us perverts have some serious feelings about the dratted war in Iraq.

[mkemse]

DungenMasters6,

Thanks forthe kind words above, i also believe this whole thread has been cililized hard for alot of people to understnad our feelings possibly do to the fatc thatalot of site users do not live in American and do not see daily the out cry of us Americans in the paper and on the news daily, butthis is just assumption
More importantly nobodu has threatenend anyone just expressing our views, a GOD GIVEN RIGHT IN TH EUSA ANYWAY

[fantassy]

"I am no nationalist at all. I don't see borders or nations. Just people. Some of us live under opression, and some of us live in democracies. I think we should help our brothers and sisters if we can. Saddam and his Baath party where opressing innocent humans and the only viable solution I can see was an invasion. Never mind WMD's if there are people to help.

If you share my world view, (which I'm going to assume most do). Here's a question to all of you who where against the invasion. How else could we have helped the Iraqui people get rid of Saddam? Iraq wasn't going to go anywhere with him at the helm, where they?"

Please don't take offense, but I don't share your world view, Tom. I do see borders - they imply that those within the borders share some things in common - perhaps culture, religion, attitudes toward women, attitudes toward family, etc., and, most important - a common identity. I cannot save the whole world, so those borders give me a framework within which I can focus my attention. It is not my country's obligation to help all people who suffer under a dictator's oppression. It is my country's obligation to act in the best interest of its citizens. Often, that means helping a fledgling democracy or helping people to establish a democracy. But not always. We certainly don't overthrow every oppressive dictator - look at Cuba, North Korea, etc. However, the key word is HELP not "invade". Surely we have learned that a democracy is not an easy system of government. The people have to want to work together and be willing to compromise and often overlook their differences. A successful democracy cannot be imposed upon a people. That was another major screwup on the Bush administration's part - they failed to recognize that there was no internal rebellion in Iraq. The Iraqi people do not appear willing to compromise. They do not appear to share the common identity as Iraqies; instead they appear to align themselves religiously.

"I still think Iraq will come out on top and be a stable democracy. It might take 10 years and a civil war. But the truth is that democracy is still the best way to control beligerent neighbours and of the three ethnic groups in the country, none has majority all by themselves, which is the perfect setting for a stable democracy."

Unless I've been misinformed (which isn't impossible), the Shites do hold a majority - and they are dominating the current "democracy" that has been establised. Personally, I believe the Shites are suckering Bush into providing as much equipment and training as possible, so that they will be well positioned to prevail in the civil war after the Americans leave.

"It's allready getting better. Trade is up. Universities are getting more aplicants. I'm sure the insurgents will stop blowing people up. Simply because they have nothing to gain from keeping it up. People aren't evil, just stupid. "

History shows people will do evil things in the name of religion, and we are dealing with factions who have religious motivations for fighting each other in Iraq. This has been a chaotic region for thousands of years. No reason to think people will become reasonable now. In addition, it has been reported that fewer children are going to school and women who were professionals under Saddam's regime have been losing their rights and freedoms under the Shite-led democracy.

"That doesn't change that Bush and USA could have dealt with the situation better."

I wholeheartedly agree with you there, Tom.

fantassy

[TomOfSweden]

"I am no nationalist at all. I don't see borders or nations. Just people. Some of us live under opression, and some of us live in democracies. I think we should help our brothers and sisters if we can. Saddam and his Baath party where opressing innocent humans and the only viable solution I can see was an invasion. Never mind WMD's if there are people to help.

If you share my world view, (which I'm going to assume most do). Here's a question to all of you who where against the invasion. How else could we have helped the Iraqui people get rid of Saddam? Iraq wasn't going to go anywhere with him at the helm, where they?"

Please don't take offense, but I don't share your world view, Tom. I do see borders - they imply that those within the borders share some things in common - perhaps culture, religion, attitudes toward women, attitudes toward family, etc., and, most important - a common identity.


I recomend you reading about the two philosophers Fichte and Herder. They pretty made up modern nationalism all on their own. This idea that people within the same nation had more in common than with people outside the country is very new and has always been bullshit. All people are different. You really don't need to go very far within the same nation to find people radically different. The only reason people tend not to see the differences, is because they don't focus on it. Once you drop the nationalistic filter, I'm sure you'll also just see people.

A great example is Germany. South Germany and North Germany have almost nothing in common. Same situation in Italy. That didn't prevent Bismark and Garibaldi uniting them using the most stupidly vulgar and illogical reasoning possible. People fall for it because they like the idea of having something in common with their neighbours more than others, even though it really is bull shit.

People are affiliated into groups and belong to different cultures. But those aren't confined within the borders of a nation. Those work on many different levels and people can belong to a variety of different cultures and sub-cultures.



cannot save the whole world, so those borders give me a framework within which I can focus my attention. It is not my country's obligation to help all people who suffer under a dictator's oppression. It is my country's obligation to act in the best interest of its citizens. Often, that means helping a fledgling democracy or helping people to establish a democracy. But not always. We certainly don't overthrow every oppressive dictator - look at Cuba, North Korea, etc. However, the key word is HELP not "invade". Surely we have learned that a democracy is not an easy system of government. The people have to want to work together and be willing to compromise and often overlook their differences. A successful democracy cannot be imposed upon a people. That was another major screwup on the Bush administration's part - they failed to recognize that there was no internal rebellion in Iraq. The Iraqi people do not appear willing to compromise. They do not appear to share the common identity as Iraqies; instead they appear to align themselves religiously.


I think democracy can be imposed on people. All people want power. Democracy gives most people power. Easy. People align themselves to whatever organisation seems to be most likely to give them most power. People like power because it gives stability and security. I'm sure they are aligning themselves religiously because they think it'll help them reach their goals of stability and security.




"I still think Iraq will come out on top and be a stable democracy. It might take 10 years and a civil war. But the truth is that democracy is still the best way to control beligerent neighbours and of the three ethnic groups in the country, none has majority all by themselves, which is the perfect setting for a stable democracy."

Unless I've been misinformed (which isn't impossible), the Shites do hold a majority - and they are dominating the current "democracy" that has been establised. Personally, I believe the Shites are suckering Bush into providing as much equipment and training as possible, so that they will be well positioned to prevail in the civil war after the Americans leave.


From the CIA world fact book.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html#People

Ethnic groups
Arab 75%-80%, Kurdish 15%-20%, Turkoman, Assyrian or other 5%

Religious affiliation
Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%

The kurds vote for kurds and only Arab Shia vote for the Shia parties and same with Sunni.

That doesn't give either side majority.




"It's allready getting better. Trade is up. Universities are getting more aplicants. I'm sure the insurgents will stop blowing people up. Simply because they have nothing to gain from keeping it up. People aren't evil, just stupid. "

History shows people will do evil things in the name of religion, and we are dealing with factions who have religious motivations for fighting each other in Iraq. This has been a chaotic region for thousands of years. No reason to think people will become reasonable now. In addition, it has been reported that fewer children are going to school and women who were professionals under Saddam's regime have been losing their rights and freedoms under the Shite-led democracy.


You forget evolution and education. They have access to unrestricted Internet. Don't judge a whole nation on what the stupid people in it do. They're people. People learn. And history has also taught us that social evolution speeds up if there's another successful example to steal ideas from. The French Revolution and it's effect on European democratisation, is a great example. Or the development of the Asian tiger economies last century.

In 1889 Sweden was among the poorest countries on earth. We where poorer than India. From the 1950'ies until now, it's per capita among the richest. Changes can be rapid.



"That doesn't change that Bush and USA could have dealt with the situation better."

I wholeheartedly agree with you there, Tom.

fantassy

Nice that we agree on something :)

[mkemse]

Plan and simply put, the United States had no right going into Iraq, we can not go around forcing our will on everyone in the World
And if you have noticed and heard or read the news over the last few days the President is starting to loose even the support of alot of the members of his own party over this

[TomOfSweden]

Plan and simply put, the United States had no right going into Iraq, we can not go around forcing our will on everyone in the World
And if you have noticed and heard or read the news over the last few days the President is starting to loose even the support of alot of the members of his own party over this

Yes, but what right had Saddam to opress the Iraquis? That right has to be wayed against USA's, (or anyone elses) right to invade. It's not like Saddam was elected or anything. I've never understood the international worship of national soveriegnity. If people are being misstreated in other countries by their dictatorial rulers, I'd say that gives us the right, in the same way as inequalities within our countries make us upset. I am not a cultural relativist at all.

[mkemse]

you do not invade a country due to the oppresion of others, like we always do, you negotiate, talk you your enemies if need be and use diplomatic efforts first, we have never even attempted to use diplomace in Iraq or any of it's neighbors, as they have said "There are times when you MUST talk to your enemies, we did with Russia years ago, we should have before we invaded, if all elese fails and every concievable effort has been made to rsolve the issue has failed, then and only then (unless you are attacked which Iraq has not done, they have neer attacked the USA) then you CONSIDER other options
if we did invade a country JUST for human rights oppersion the United States would have to invade virutaly every country on earth, not all but most
The US has to stop policing the world, Afghanistan is different Al Quida is based there, the Taliban is based there, they attacked on on 911, this has nothing to do with 911 and ever agency in the United States has said countless time that neither Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 911

[TomOfSweden]

you do not invade a country due to the oppresion of others, like we always do, you negotiate, talk you your enemies if need be and use diplomatic efforts first, we have never even attempted to use diplomace in Iraq or any of it's neighbors, as they have said "There are times when you MUST talk to your enemies, we did with Russia years ago, we should have before we invaded, if all elese fails and every concievable effort has been made to rsolve the issue has failed, then and only then (unless you are attacked which Iraq has not done, they have neer attacked the USA) then you CONSIDER other options
if we did invade a country JUST for human rights oppersion the United States would have to invade virutaly every country on earth, not all but most
The US has to stop policing the world, Afghanistan is different Al Quida is based there, the Taliban is based there, they attacked on on 911, this has nothing to do with 911 and ever agency in the United States has said countless time that neither Saddam or Iraq had anything to do with 911

I'm sorry but there's a couple of holes in this post.

1) After the first Iraq war, about 10 years of negotiations followed where Saddam proved without a doubt that he just laughs at the suffering of his people. And since he made the people of Iraq suffer all the sanctions while his life-style was unimpaired I don't see how any more negotiations could have helped. 10 years of negotiations is a long time.

2) USA doesn't have to police the world on their own. The other democratic nations are more than willing to help out. The problem with Iraq was that USA wanted to dictate all the terms for how the post-war should be run. With France and Germany being as pompously blown up about their national pride as USA, (especially France) it wasn't hard to see where it would fail. This is all down to diplomacy and letting the sulky kid in the corner get their way for the good of the group. This is the realities of international diplomacy. Either you kiss everybodies ass, or you're on your own. With Germany and France out of the picture, getting the UN to come around is dead in the water. Having the UN on-board I think is vital for image reasons.

I think the democracies of the world should get together and police the world. It will make the world a better and safer place for one. I think it's very dangerous letting the dictatorships opress their people and invade others as they please. I also think it's very dangerous having one nation as a wild gun, (USA) just firing wildly at anything that they concieve is a problem. Negotiation and concensus between the democratic nations before taking action I believe is very important. The problem with USA's aproach is that it pisses everybody off. Not only do they waste enormous sums of money on their police actions. They aren't making any friends in the process, which should be a major goal, right?

3) How do you know Al Qaeda exists at all? As far as I know there's not been a shred of evidence that it's one organisation at all. I think it's more likely just something militant Islamists say they represent when they do their shit, in order to get more press and to give the impression of belonging to something larger.

The guy who blew up the bomb in London was Jamaican. I doubt you could find any ties to Saudi Arabia. He got no training or money from any external source. It was just one guy who was inspired to do it by one imam.

The guys who blew up the Madrid bombs where Maroccan, and the guy who suplied them with bombs was Spanish. It doesn't really give the impression of being very organised, does it?

As far as stoping Al Qaeda, I'm sure the Afghanistan invasion was a waste of money. But it did topple the Taleban, and that must be worth something. They where total cunts.

[Rabbit1]

Yes, but what right had Saddam to opress the Iraquis? That right has to be wayed against USA's, (or anyone elses) right to invade. It's not like Saddam was elected or anything. I've never understood the international worship of national soveriegnity. If people are being misstreated in other countries by their dictatorial rulers, I'd say that gives us the right, in the same way as inequalities within our countries make us upset. I am not a cultural relativist at all.


I have to agree with you Tom ---if we had done the right thing in the 1940s they may have been millions of Jews still alive ----the stick your head in the sand approch to world politics usually comes back and bites you on the ass ---Both of my son's have been to Iraq as I did in the first Gulf conflict ---and both of them said and I quote "we should have gone in sooner" they believe we should be there ---As does almost Every Marine I have talked to that has been there ---it is easy to sit here safe in your living room and second guess what should or should not be done---and the politicians that go for a visit to see first hand what is going on---What a Crock----they never get down and dirty with the people of the land ----Right or Wrong ---is no longer a question that should be asked ----We are there ---Lets do what it take to Win ---or all the soldiers and Marines will have gave their life in vain

Lets support the troops and quit fighting about if we should or should not be there ---both Democrats and Republicans --Supported the war when it began ---yes maybe on faulty intel but that is not unusual if you have ever been in the Military ---

just my opinion ---from a personal side ---one of my sons is back there now and I as so proud of both of them ---they volunteered -----and doing what needs to be done

But the war will never be won with politics-----or keeping things from our troops that could save lives just because it was not made in the US or fully tested by the US ----We should be taking notes from Israel they have been fighting terrorist for years we are the new kids on the block in this kind of war

[mkemse]

I do suport our troops 100% i always have i always will, what i do not support is our having gone in to to Iraq start with, that's all and adding 20,000 troops at this point will make no difference only more body bags to come back

[TomOfSweden]

We should be taking notes from Israel they have been fighting terrorist for years we are the new kids on the block in this kind of war

I'm not so sure that would be such a good idea. It's not like the Israelis are winning. They're still knee deep in suicide bombers.

You can't beat terror with guns. I'm not being a hippie here. It's the nature of it. There's nothing or nobody to attack. The Islamic militants are fighting with weapons that can be bought or built cheaply.

It's not like religion is going to go away in a hurry. People being motivated by imaginary future rewards has shown to be quite hard to combat. The people who fund these fighters are just ordinary people, (ordinary in the inconspicuous sense).

So basically taking away the means, money or manpower is a futile project. Which is pretty much what wars are all about.

I'm not going to pretend like I have a clue on how to solve the problems in Israel, but settling it with fighting doesn't seem to work. Maybe another tactic might be more useful, (Like making Israel/Palestein a secular state might perhaps be a start? hint hint)

When it comes to Saddam, I couldn't and still can't see any other strategy than an all out invasion that would have worked. But these two issues are completly unrelated. There's absolutely no link between them. I aplaud Bush and USA for carrying it through. I might have opinions on method, but it's always easier to bitch and whine from the back row than being the guy up-front actually getting his hands dirty.

[Rabbit1]

no you can not beat terrorism by being reactive ---you have to hunt them down and destroy their very being ---Israel wanted to do that but again world opinion stopped them just like politics stop us ---in other words you can not just be there ----you have to declare war on terrorism and mean it ---go into any country that supports them ----or hide them ----you have to make it so terrorism does not pay ----and sponsoring or sheltering them does not pay ----

now we have a choice to make ---fight the terrorist in Iraq or let up and pull out and wait for them to regroup and come here ---our boarder are so vast that there is no way to guard them all ----

so instead of soldiers and Marines dying we can watch innocent women and children die here again ----yes I believe more troops should be send to Iraq ---but I think until the political bounds are let loose and let them do the job --it is a waste of time --except since we have been fighting terrorist over there ---there have been no major attacks here ----and it is not our increased security that has done it ---that is a joke ---

[TomOfSweden]

no you can not beat terrorism by being reactive ---you have to hunt them down and destroy their very being ---Israel wanted to do that but again world opinion stopped them just like politics stop us ---in other words you can not just be there ----you have to declare war on terrorism and mean it ---go into any country that supports them ----or hide them ----you have to make it so terrorism does not pay ----and sponsoring or sheltering them does not pay ----

now we have a choice to make ---fight the terrorist in Iraq or let up and pull out and wait for them to regroup and come here ---our boarder are so vast that there is no way to guard them all ----

so instead of soldiers and Marines dying we can watch innocent women and children die here again ----yes I believe more troops should be send to Iraq ---but I think until the political bounds are let loose and let them do the job --it is a waste of time --except since we have been fighting terrorist over there ---there have been no major attacks here ----and it is not our increased security that has done it ---that is a joke ---

You can't hunt down something that doesn't exist? Terrorists are just ordinary people until the moment they strike. The guy who blew up the London bombs had no history with the police at all of doing anything violent ever. Anticipating that or declaring war on guys like that is impossible. Richard Read, (the shoebomber) was your typical neglected kid just looking for trouble. If it hadn't been this it would have been something else he went to jail for.

The only thing for fighting terrorism is that the people who turn to terrorism is almost exclusively from the extreme working class and very poorest areas in the world. The extreme bottom scraping of losers in the world. These people don't have the education to do it with any stealth, and can therefor much easier be caught. But as we all know, it doesn't work every time. Most people who get caught for trying to do terrorist acts have no history at all.

Besides 9/11 has there ever in history been any terrorist act even comparable? Sponsoring and harboring terrorists isn't really a problem is it? Besides Taleban and Osama, Kadafi harboring Carlos the Jackal and Idi Amin harbouring the guys who took the Israeli cruise ship hostage. What else is there? All these countries have all changed since then anyway. It's done and if it happens again we can deal with it then. But what now?

I doubt Osama and his buddies can do so much more damage. They're wanted all over the globe and all their assets are siezed. They're completly castrated. Regroup? What do you mean with regroup? Who?

Never mind the US borders. I'm 100% sure USA is riddled with people willing to die for the cause allready. All it needs is one guy anywhere. How about the UNA bomber. One guy inside the borders did plenty of damage.

Terrorism never pays. It's not why people do it. I'm sure muslims become terrorists for the same reasons young white boys become nazi skinnheads. Losers desperate to matter in the world. Desperate for anybody giving a shit about their seemingly worthles existance. That's what we need to adress. How do we get young boys having trouble in school a chance to do something worthwhile in their lives instead of turning to this shit. That's how we combat terrorism.

Islam is intrinsically oposed to suicide bombings. It says in the Koran that people who commit suicide go to hell. These are just total fuck-ups confused in life.

Just nuking the shit out of any Palestinian doing anything naughty and driving the country deeper into poverty by blocking their ports, I'm not sure was such a bright move. My guess is that it breeds terrorists rather than combating it.

I think it's better to focus on preventing more people to become terrorists than to hunt down the known ones. The ones who are wanted for it can't do anything else but to stay in hiding anyway. They're not doing any damage doing that are they? And we save money. I'm sure all this focus on terrorism is just making it more attractive for the lost young souls in the world.

[mkemse]

I truley believewhen it coe to Security and dealing with and handling terorism the wholeworld can take an example from Israel, i do not believe anyone does it better and lot of nations look to them for help and knowledge
Ben_Gurien Airport may be the safest in the world when it comes to dealing with Terrorists

[Timberwolf]

For the record, in terms of whether the USA should be in Iraq or not is a very long since moot point: you're already there, and at this point it is really a debate with no purposeful outcome to be had. The only question is what to do now. I don't see pulling out any time soon as a realistic option. Your government chose to go in, how you've got to finish what you started. The fact that it turns out (as every new generation seems to forget) that war isn't as romantic as they make it in the movies, and that it happens to have got hard, is no excuse to pull out now. The job that was started now has to be finished. You want to breed a new generation of hate? Pull out, and watch the consequences.

There's still a very good chance that Iraq is going to degrade into a civil war. That could get very ugly if another foreign power decides to back one of the groups the Americans view as "extremists", and the Americans would almost certainly back the Shiites. Of course then the Americans will say "stay out of the war" to the new foreign power, which would look about as credible as Pee Wee Herman as the King of England.

However, an American millitary pull out at this point, and I'd mortgage my house and bet on that war. The factions in Iraq qould decend into chaos within 24 months. With them in, yes it will be long, it will be ugly, but at least there's a chance for a democracy. Some of America's big enemies like Iran and North Korea talk big but know they can't win if they actually get into a firefight. Whether it's a legitimate democracy or another puppet democracy in the South American vein, only time will tell.

Tom says:
"Terrorism never pays. It's not why people do it. I'm sure muslims become terrorists for the same reasons young white boys become nazi skinnheads. Losers desperate to matter in the world. Desperate for anybody giving a shit about their seemingly worthles existance. That's what we need to adress. How do we get young boys having trouble in school a chance to do something worthwhile in their lives instead of turning to this shit. That's how we combat terrorism.

Islam is intrinsically oposed to suicide bombings. It says in the Koran that people who commit suicide go to hell. These are just total fuck-ups confused in life.

Just nuking the shit out of any Palestinian doing anything naughty and driving the country deeper into poverty by blocking their ports, I'm not sure was such a bright move. My guess is that it breeds terrorists rather than combating it.

I think it's better to focus on preventing more people to become terrorists than to hunt down the known ones. The ones who are wanted for it can't do anything else but to stay in hiding anyway. They're not doing any damage doing that are they? And we save money. I'm sure all this focus on terrorism is just making it more attractive for the lost young souls in the world."

There's more sense in these paragraphs than I care to restate so I'll just nod and leave it at that. I do disagree partially with the last point he makes though. Let's not forget that Osama Bin Laden does remain a criminal mastermind who has more than his share of crimes to answer for. No reason to give up the hunt for justice because it happens to be difficult. Aside from that though, a lot of stuff I agree with.

[Timberwolf]

"Ben_Gurien Airport may be the safest in the world when it comes to dealing with Terrorists"

Nice safe airport (well if you consider a legion of armed officers pointing guns at your head for putting a bag down "safe"), but I doubt very much you'd voluntarily ride a public bus in downtown Tel Aviv if you could avoid doing so.

[TomOfSweden]

There's more sense in these paragraphs than I care to restate so I'll just nod and leave it at that. I do disagree partially with the last point he makes though. Let's not forget that Osama Bin Laden does remain a criminal mastermind who has more than his share of crimes to answer for. No reason to give up the hunt for justice because it happens to be difficult. Aside from that though, a lot of stuff I agree with.

Mastermind? I'm guessing you have watched one too many James Bond movies. If Osama was smart, he wouldn't be into this shit. Gearing your whole life toward being against anything is what stupid losers do. The smart ones build stuff and make the world better. He's educated for christ sakes. He doesn't have the excuse that a poor uneducated street urchin, rejected by life has. He should definitely know better.

9/11 didn't need any intelligence behind it. All it needed was the will to carry it out and a couple of guys willing to die for the cause. What makes Osama different is that he had access to vast sums of money. But they're all gone now. He's disinherited by his family and all his assets are siezed. The little money he has left I'm sure has run out by now. He's probably just living off his super star-dom in the militant Islamic scene and smootching off his pals. People like that turn pathetic pretty quick.

Anybody who comes close to him get labeled as terrorists in an instant, basically ruining their whole lives. How many resourceful and smart people do you think is likely to hang out with him now? I'm sure he can live a pretty comfortable life in some cave in Afghanistan and evade the US watchdogs for all eternity.

Terrorist-strikes needs very little money and very little intelligence behind it. The only thing that is crucial is to not be wanted by the cops. Osama is totaly worthless to his own cause now. He might boost his ego by releasing some more videotapes calling for a Jihad, but I think we've seen the last of him being part of any future acts of terrorism. But that's just my own humble theory.

[mkemse]

Timberwolf,

I appreciate you rpoint, all I was tryint osay is from the stand point of Security at Airports to my knowledge nobody doesi t better the Israel, i have no issuewith armed soldiers walking aroundwith guns, I wouls rather have them in the termenals were they can be seen, the on a plane after ittakes off
Look at what happened ajust afewdays ago, with that child from I believe TExs, he was a sstoaway on an airplane and made 3 diferent flights undectected and Southwest Air says "We are looking into it" Suppose he had been a terrorsit and not a child
I do not believe any airport in the USA is 100% safe, however ifi had a choice do to security in place between taking off on a flihht in the United States or Ben_Gurien, I would likely choose Ben_Gurie, Armed security is VRY intimidating but i would rather be imtimated and secure before boarding then after, as I would know at Ben_Gurien that there is virtual no chanceo f a security breach there, other US airports can not make that claim, that security is 100% guaranteed, Israels may not bee 100% but i can assure you it is much closer to 100% then any airport inthe USA

[DungeonMaster6]

Rabbit, I certainly share your relief that one of your sons returned safely from Iraq and I pray the other one does as well. I had a son-in-law stationed in Afganistan for a year, who has also returned unscathed.

Let's get something straight here. Saddam Hussein was a loathsome person who did terrible things to his own people. So I was not sorry that he was toppled and ended up swinging at the end of a rope.

But, what he did do, was keep Al Qaeda( Yes Tom they do exist) out of Iraq. And he controlled an enormous oil operation. And yes, at one time I believe he did have wmd's, but the UN weapons inspectors couldn't find any when they went in, so evidently Saddam did comply with the order to destroy them.

But Bush was so determined to attack Iraq that he ignored their report, attacked and stood on an Aircraft Carrier declaring a swift victory.

But, he we are four years later still struggling in this quagmire with over 3 thousand American troops killed with no end in sight. Is sending in more troops the answer? The military brass didn't think so. The Iraq commission didn't think so. But this warmongering president thinks so.

Down deep, I do want us to win and if sending 21,500 more troops will accomplish that, I'd say go for it! But considering what has oocurred since our invasion, I have my doubts.

[Rabbit1]

I have trouble seeing the news ---while the cameras capture pictures of hundreds of armed people not in the military or police force carring around automatic weapons ---and you know what ---our military are not allowed to disarm them ----

how can you win a war when there are rules that allow anyone to carry weapos like that in the streets ----

Who is the enemy? when a us soldier or marine shoots a bystander by mistake ---it is on the news for weeks ----when terrorist kill hundreds of their own people with bombs and rifle attacks --it gets maybe 10 minutes of coverage on the news ----

Terrorism is very old --much like the form of the KKK here in the past ---used to keep people in line ---it was used in Vietnam --by the north to keep the southern people in line ---it can be stopped ---but you have to hunt down the sponsors ---

We have taking alot of funds ---but what we took is a drop in the bucket ---when you have countries like Iran and others ---oil rich counties supporting Terrorism ---yes we singled out Iraq and Afganastan ----but the words of the President at the time have not been followed ----if you sponsor or harbor terrorist then you are against US ---when we cut off all aid and trade with those counties and if that does not do it ---go farther ---

What do you think would have happened if we had not stopped Isreal during the first Gulf war? do you think they would have left Saddam in power?

Were did we have the right to interfer and ask them not to defend their country from rocket attacks? Politics have made the war a mess ---just like it did in Vietnam --and one sided news reporting ----

God help us if we show weakness and pull the troops out this time ----the Vietcong did not come after us ---but terrorist will

[Dorkalicious]

To me, it just seems like another Vietnam (obviously with a lot of other aspects). I don't think there is any "win" there for us. As much as losing a war hurts an ego, it really looks like the best route is to pull out. Perhaps I am wrong...

Just my two (other) cents...

[mkemse]

I have a question if anyone knows the answer
I heard a few weeks back maybe a month ago that Bush had said that when his father was in office, that Saddam had ordered an assiination attepted on his father and that the invasion aside from everything else was also to serve as payback for what the current Bush said was thelleged plot or attempt to kill his father while George Sr. was in office, has anyone hear this or know anything about it
Nt making an issue out of this, just wondering if anyone heard this or knows about it

[MasterRob{cali}]

Rabbit, I think one reason we left him in power after the first war, is that the CIA told every one we can take him out, but who will replace him, his sons? chemiacl ali? etc... So we new of his dealings however we also could, did and contiuned to keep him in check.

MR

[MasterRob{cali}]

mkemse,
I have heard of this. it goes way back to went gw took office. But thata s lame excuse also LOL, hell what presdient hasnt had some one who wanted him dead.

[Rabbit1]

well like I said ---god help us if we pull out ---as the USA will become another Target as soon as they can regroup ---think of car bombs going off in the local mall parking lots ---and being afraid to ride the bus here ---911 was bad but just a small taste of what terrorism can be ---if they are busy using their resourses in Iraq --not much left for here ---we may not have stoped them but we sure slowed them down

[MasterRob{cali}]

Iraq, it’s just a training ground for them now since we went in and made it a great school on how to do it. Bombs going off is a scary thing but OK city, and mail bombs have been raining on us for years, its just was easy to over look as disgruntle people, went it was a form of terrorism so we been facing it for a long time.
So being some one who was places were we never were, we cannot cut and run but we can also train and release control of major areas we occupier now, and start to leave a smaller foot hold there, we should be talking to Iran as we could gain some help as we know Iran is hurting or will be in 8 years went there out of Oil. Hell I’ve said it they are getting the country anyways might as well see if we cannot at lease get a smile before they say fuck you, just a though .

Later
Master_Rob

[TomOfSweden]

But, what he did do, was keep Al Qaeda( Yes Tom they do exist) out of Iraq. And he controlled an enormous oil operation. And yes, at one time I believe he did have wmd's, but the UN weapons inspectors couldn't find any when they went in, so evidently Saddam did comply with the order to destroy them.


Ok, Al Qaeda have existed. But what's your evidence for them still existing and being the part of or controlling any international terrorist organisation. Is there any hard evidence for it? I'm guessing it's just a media myth to sell more papers.

[mkemse]

yes they still exit, the have a web site and pepole in Pakistan and Afghanstan have seem member but turn nobody in out of fear of their lives,
Bin Laden is alive and al Qaeda will laways exist it may loos power overthe years but it is like cancer it willl always exist in 1 form or another, the Talaban still exisits they are talking about send a surge of 15,000 there to figth them now and then ews reported tonight nbe it right or wrong that if Iran does not stop its Nuclear program the US hasa plan to invade them as well

[TomOfSweden]

yes they still exit, the have a web site and pepole in Pakistan and Afghanstan have seem member but turn nobody in out of fear of their lives,
Bin Laden is alive and al Qaeda will laways exist it may loos power overthe years but it is like cancer it willl always exist in 1 form or another, the Talaban still exisits they are talking about send a surge of 15,000 there to figth them now and then ews reported tonight nbe it right or wrong that if Iran does not stop its Nuclear program the US hasa plan to invade them as well

I can make an Al Qaeda web site tomorrow. That doesn't prove a thing. There was a Dutch guy last year accused by the CIA for making a reqruitment video for Al Qaeda. When he was interogated he said it was just a joke, (which should have been obvious to anybody since it was really very silly). But it was still head-line news all over the world, (that a Al Qaeda operative had been siezed by CIA). The fact that Al Qaeda sells so much newspapers should make you a hell of a lot more critical of what you read. Unsurprisingly, him not being a part of Al Qaeda didn't make the head-lines.

I'm still going with my theory that it's just something militant muslims say they're a part of to seem more menacing. Even though there's no network connecting anybody.

Just compare them to real intelligence organisations of the world. They suck at keeping secrets. Watergate!!! Considering the nature of Al Qaeda, it should be super easy to lean on somebody who wants out. But they off-course haven't found anybody who talks, because there's off-course nothing to say. If the mafia can't keep infiltrators out. What makes you think a bunch of religous loons can? It just doesn't make sense.

The Taleban is on the upsurge in Afghanistan because they can provide security. In a way the govornement today can't. In politics it always comes down to the real basic practical issues and never ideology. Am I more safe/rich/healthy/educated now than I was during the last regime? It's the same reason the Islamic courts are taking power in Somalia. I doubt any of this has a basis in Aghanis or Somalis being any more religious than anybody else.

I doubt USA will invade Iran. There's no political will, money or troops to do it. I'm assuming Bush has spent USA's terrorist-fighting carte blanche. We'll see, because I doubt Iran will stop enriching uranium.

edit: How about this for good news on Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6283975.stm
It seems the Sunnis are realising it's better to be in than out from parliment.

[Timberwolf]

"I have trouble seeing the news ---while the cameras capture pictures of hundreds of armed people not in the military or police force carring around automatic weapons ---and you know what ---our military are not allowed to disarm them ----"

Funny, I seem to remember the membership on this site was quite happy with the right to bear arms when it came to places like Detroit, Portland Maine, or Portland Oregon.

[mkemse]

Timberwolf,
Please correct me if i am wrong, but my understnading is our troops are not alowed to disarm anyone as they do not want use involved. Or to create additoin issues
As Robert Ripley (The Robert Ripley Of Ripley's Believe It Or Not Fame)once said "Strange But True" if in factths is correct, if so it is amazing that wecan fight in a War but not be allowed to Disarm the enemy, as i said i am not sure if this si corect it is my understanding

[Timberwolf]

The mere fact an Iraqi citizen owns a firearm doesn't make them your enemy. And anyone who doesn't see that needs to take a very hard look in the mirror.

[MasterRob{cali}]

I agree, Tinberwolf as here in the USA I would say there are 2 firearms per person avg. thinking some people don’t understand that carrying a weapon is a right of passage for most. many places in the world.
We need really to just back out of Baghdad and turn over the city to the Iraqis and pull back into biap and camp victory. With that move we will stop most of the violence. There still be some but most part with us out of the way both sides, will lose there main focus on why they are fighting each other.

[mkemse]

The right to bear arm in the Unites States is guranteed by our Consitution, the only issue I have with this is that I see NOT REASON for any private citizen to own a fully autmatic assult rife, these are used only to kill notto hunt, i have ener seem as duck or deer fire back at a hunter so a standard rigfe should do just fine
I strongly disagree with those who say we also be alowed to own and bear fully or semi automtic assult riles, i know some will disagree but as most people tell you, unless you are a gun collector their is no reason to own a uzi, AK47 ect. I donot believe in guns, i do believe intheright o own one if one chooses to do so i do have a HUGE issue withhosewho own the othertype fire arm the full automtic assult rifle kind, no reason for private owner ship expect as a collection and not for actual use

[TomOfSweden]

The right to bear arm in the Unites States is guranteed by our Consitution, the only issue I have with this is that I see NOT REASON for any private citizen to own a fully autmatic assult rife, these are used only to kill notto hunt, i have ener seem as duck or deer fire back at a hunter so a standard rigfe should do just fine
I strongly disagree with those who say we also be alowed to own and bear fully or semi automtic assult riles, i know some will disagree but as most people tell you, unless you are a gun collector their is no reason to own a uzi, AK47 ect. I donot believe in guns, i do believe intheright o own one if one chooses to do so i do have a HUGE issue withhosewho own the othertype fire arm the full automtic assult rifle kind, no reason for private owner ship expect as a collection and not for actual use

Interpreting the US constitution as suporting AK47's and handguns is pretty stupid. When that was writen, the weapon refered to was a musket. That is off-course what the constitution suports, nothing else. The method of fighting with a musket is radically different than modern weapons. There's just no comparison.

I may not live in the US, but the constitution isn't very hard to read and is pretty clear.

[mkemse]

TomOf Sweden,

I know that and you know that, but the NRA (National Rifle Association) contends that the Comstituions allows ANY type fire ARMS, they said they will not support a ban of semi or fully automatic because the right to carry them is in the Unted State Contitution, that was the reason i said what I did, sory i was not complete

[Guest 91108]

If the contentions are were applied to everything else that is governed by the constitution then progress would be halted in many areas so the idea of handguns and automatics not being applicable fails in my eyes.
Also, the 2nd goes along with a militia. the revolution was fought by those we had the technology of their time.. not past time.. so put that into todays technology is not much difference and very hard to argue.
two flawed postings imo.

[MasterRob{cali}]

Constitution of the United States

Adopted by convention of States, September 17, 1787;
Ratification completed, June 21, 17881
(Current through 1995)
Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Article I: The Legislative Branch
Article II: The Executive Branch
Article III: The Judicial Branch
Article IV: Relations between the States
Article V: The Amendment Process
Article VI: General Provisions, Supremacy of the Constitution
Article VII: Ratification Process

Amendments to the Constitution:
The Bill of Rights

Amendment II: Right to bear arms and militia.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just a quick look at the constitution, what is said, and the second Amendment of the bill or rights, No where is a certain kind of weapon is mention, so to simple say musket, and mean you have not full though it out as our fore fathers, was smart enough to leave that kind of short comings out of the constitution.
Thank you if you like to learn more, I will be happy to send you a copy of the whole constitution.

[Princi]

I would also add, for those who want limit the established 2nd amendment rights (like so many of our rights have been limited in the past 70 or so years,) a simple notion; if you disarm the populace, the only groups that would be armed would the government agents and criminals. I can think of no two groups that I would be more vigilant against than the aforementioned groups. If that means owning and training "assault" rifles than so be it. Also, could those who are opposed to the ownership of "assault" rifles define what an "assault" rifle is?

Regards,
Princi

[mkemse]

I would define an assult rifle as a rife such as a AK47, Uzi,like rifle these 2 specific model are dated as rapid fire multiload gun who when the trigger is pressed it continue to shoot rounds til it runs out (genenral 30 rounds or more) continuos firing, unlike a hunting rifle which requires reload after 1-2 rouds, I see no partical reason to own an uzi, AK47 or any rapid 30 + round gun for huntining the deer, rabbit ect are not going to fire back at you
for hunting unless you are hunting human prey, a standard 1-2 round rifle should do fine for a deer, rabbit, ect, and not a 30+ roundcllip
please ocrrectm e if thisdefinition is not correct
I have no issue with gun ownership neevr had never will, i do have an issue with guns that fire a 30+ round clip for home or leasure ownership, collector yes no, hunting no, why do you need a 30 round clip rapid fire gun to shoot a deer?? or a rabbit or any other animal you are hunting
I am also not sure that our for father pictutred rapid fire guns when they gave us the right to bear arms, a musket yes, a 2 round riflee yes, a rapid clip 30+round gun, i do not think so, maybe i am wrong

[Princi]

why do you need a 30 round clip rapid fire gun to shoot a deer?? or a rabbit or any other animal you are hunting
I am also not sure that our for father pictutred rapid fire guns when they gave us the right to bear arms, a musket yes, a 2 round riflee yes, a rapid clip 30+round gun, i do not think so, maybe i am wrong

In advance, forgive the long post.

I think this comes down to a misinterpretation of what the 2nd amendment (and indeed in a broader sense much of the constitution) was intended to do. Hunting is not the primary reason why this amendment was constituted. Those who insisted that the 2nd amendment be part of the bill of rights were principally concerned with the ability for citizens to protect themselves. The colonies were basically agrarian economies and did not require hunting to feed themselves (that hunting was part of these societies is incidental to this specific debate.) The most critical concern was the recent experience that the founding generation had with the British and there aggressive attempts to confiscate weapons. There was also the reality of western expansion and the new, perceived, "enemy" which was the native population. To add to this was the foreign threat to the new nation of the British (the former rulers who were aggressively looking for a way regain control), the Spanish (who were looking for a way to reassert the quickly fading dominance), and increasingly the French (who were act less and less like an ally.) Defense, individual liberty, and a deep distrust of government power (whether local or foreign) was the driving force behind the articulation and constitution of the right to self defense as enumerated in the 2nd amendment. Furthermore, the 2nd amendment does not grant this right, it simply recognizes the rights that had naturally accrued (and deemed universal) during the period of "Salutary Neglect" (the period of non-intervention in the colonies by the English crown.) This is a fundamental misinterpretation of the rights enumerated by the constitution; these are not rights granted, but rights that pre-existed the American state and fully articulated by the constitution.

Regards,
Princi

[TomOfSweden]

If the contentions are were applied to everything else that is governed by the constitution then progress would be halted in many areas so the idea of handguns and automatics not being applicable fails in my eyes.

A very good point. This is hard to argue with.



Also, the 2nd goes along with a militia. the revolution was fought by those we had the technology of their time.. not past time.. so put that into todays technology is not much difference and very hard to argue.
two flawed postings imo.

And now we're down to the basic philosophy of gun control. Which is basically waying the effectivity of a future needed revolution against increased murder rates. Which is equally hard to argue either for or against and is derailing the subject so I'll just leave it.

[mkemse]

I know hunting was not a thought with th ammedment, all in am saying is in 2007, i see no logical real for rapid fire assult weapons with 30+ round clips to be legal to own and used, what purpose do they sreve beyond killng, my intention was simpy to say if you want to own a handgun (registered) or a rifle(registered) fine, but why a assault rifle?? that was my omly question, i am not didsabreeing withtheright obeararms, i am doing so with 30 round clip gun,s if you go back to the days of prohibition, it would be similar to say "Let's all everyone who wants to bear arm the right to own and use "Tommy Gun" why??

[mkemse]

The only reason I even brough this up is that the NRA and most gun enthusiast always use the this ammendment the 2nd to justify owning and using assult rifles with a 30 round clip saying "The constitution guarantees us the right now bear arms" no disagreement here, the disagreement is the TYPE of arms you bear hope this clear this up

[mkemse]

I do not own a gun, i probably will never own a gun, i have no need to BUT i will defend with my life the right for someone who wants to and believes in it their right to own a gun or rifle (registered with knowlege how to use it) just not rapid fire guns with clips
If my neigbor wants to own a gun or a rifle fine with me no issue here, if he wants to own an assault rapid fire gun with clips, then YES i have a BIG ISSUE with that

[Guest 91108]

so if we limit the civilian we should limit the military as then they are not equally armed?
do you see how this goes against one versus the other.
That is why we can't disarm in other countries.

And there really is no such thing as assault rifle .. this was born out in congress and is why the assault weapons ban died. smiles so that should have ended that type discussion. as for automatics if one wishes to go through ATF and seek the required documentation and license for a Class III that lets you own autos and machine guns then i have no problem with it. I have an application going through the process now.

[mkemse]

Wolfscout,

I agree with you but you are getting a licence for it and have the knowledge to use it and know when and where to, i mean those who have them with no licence or knowledge how to use them, they have them just to have them
One question if there is no such thing as an assult rilfe how do you differentiate between a 2 round rifle and a 30clip rapid fire rifle, i am asking not bieng rude
What is your feeling about those who own rapid fire rifle, no licence for it, no knlwedge how to use it and no intentions of doing either
And I disabgree, the reasom\n the assault weapons band died is that the NRA OWNS congres, what they want they get, that is when the Brady Bill never passed, the gun lobby is the biggest and strongest in the nation
Even conservative such as Nacy Regan and Sra Bradt want the Brady bill passed but the NRS killed it, and nobody is goin to say that Nancy or Sara are just left wing liberals who wan this, very much to the contrary,neither are liberals or ever will be
A Few years back, cuhck heston was the chairman of the NRa at their convestion he raised a rifle over his head and talking about the ban said "Over my dead body" I have always wonder what chuck heston would say or do if his son, or grand child were killed with a handgun or rifle
I do apploaud you for your process on your gun, as i said i may not agree with your action but i defend with my life your right to do it, and you are doing it the corect way
Hope you have a nice day

[Guest 91108]

I think you shouldn't have to have a license for it.
And it really doesn't matter if it holds one or a drum of 75 or a belt of 500.
you're talking the citizen versus the criminal.
the citizen should be able to own whatever.
look to the businesses and where the criminals get them .. there's your problem. not the rifle.

[Princi]

I am with Wolfscout. Furthermore, there is no language within the constitution that allows for the regulation of firearms. Like many powers the federal government has, it is a usurped power. Regulating away, or otherwise limiting, the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves will not further the cause of less criminal activity. Criminals will acquire weapons regardless of what the prevailing laws are, that is why they are criminals (because they do not abide by the laws.) The criminal element aside, my concern would come more from armed government agents. As government accrues more power (unconstitutionally and often illegally) it becomes more corrupt. As power centralizes there are fewer and fewer forces to hold the centralized authority in check. To paraphrase Lord Acton; power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. An armed populace is a powerful countervailing force to centralized power. This is the reason why we have seen historically tyrannical and authoritarian/totalitarian regimes strip the populace of its weapons and prohibit the right to bear arms (this can be seen during the Tokugawa period in Japan, when only the Samurai were allowed to be armed [outside of the standing army], Stalin stripping the ability of the citizens to protect themselves, Hitler (first with the Jews, then I believe the rest of the German population,) the British leading up the Revolution in the colonies, etc.) Ultimately, in a free society, the individual is responsible and has the right to protect themselves; this is a philosophical issue.

Regards,
Princi

[Masterspet]

Usually I don't post but honestly I could use the support and this seemed like a good window into it. My Master is in the army.He's in basic right now. Basicully it ended up being the fastest way for him to pay off his debts, pay for school, and get the money so that he can marry me. Not because he believes in the war or wants to kill Iraqi's or anything silly like that. He also wants into the FBI and thinks that being an army officier might help. Now that I've explained all that.

I hate Bush's plan. Everyone but him seems to know it's a bad idea. It seems like he knows he has little time left in office and the next president is going to be democratic and so he can do whatever he wants. I worry when highly religious people are elected. It seems to me like he just has a personal thing againest Musliams and is out to get them all. There is no way this war can be done. We can take down govenrnments which we have done but now we're just fighting a relgious group. We are fighting people who don't care if they live or die or how many innocent people get hurt because they think they are doing God's will. Sorry the discussion has kinda shifted by this point but there are my two cents.

[cariad]

Welcome to Forums Masterspet and what an eloquent post to launch yourself with. I have given my very limited penny's worth on the Iraqi matter much earlier and will not repeat what I said; but I did wish to give you a big cyber hug and wish you and your Master happiness and protection.

Please draw on this community for the support you need, and if you have not already done so, you might like to consider popping into the chatroom, where relationships are also fostered.

cariad

[mkemse]

Princi,
One reason the Constiution may not have limits on fire arms is that when it was draw up over 200 years ago, I would imagine no thought was given to future weapons, I am sure our fore fatherdid not inviosion, assualt rifles, hand guns, crinades ect
Yes while it offer no specific weapons guaranteed beside arms, what type would they have invisioned

[Masterspet]

Well the founding fathers did prepare for things that they could not imagine that being the elastic clause but the problem with that is it is so open for interpretaion that it is easy to abuse.

BTW Thanks for the Support although I can't chat :( I'm a college student and chat rooms are firewalled by our network.

[cariad]

BTW Thanks for the Support although I can't chat :( I'm a college student and chat rooms are firewalled by our network.

Forget about the right to carry arms - that is an abuse of your rights!

*grins*

Well, not being in the chatroom will give you more time to explore the threads here, and perhaps even jump in the mad whirl of the Fun and Games section.

cariad

[mkemse]

I also just heard on the new (2-20-07) that British Prime Minister Tony Blair will announce in the next few days that he is pulling at least 1,500 of his own troops out and brinig them home, no one will replace them
Not sure atthis point a surgewill help, they are in the middle of a civil war
the Maliki Gov. needs to show it's BALL and take control of his country