Forget Michael Moore: THIS is why we are in Iraq

[Borealis]

Surely after one reads Lucretius' post and Borealis' post we would learn that the Middle East isn't a place to fool around with, for example not a good place to build a nation. Surely we would learn that almost all of our operations in the middle east have done more harm that good. Surely we would recognize the fact that our actions, which are perceived by them as an attack on the Islamic faith, thus worthy of Jihad, give terrorists more material for recruits. Right? Is it just me or do I place too much faith in humankind's ability to think rationally?

Actually, what's being said about the Middle East today is no different than what was said about Germany and Japan sixty years ago. That turned out pretty well, in the end. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.

The same will happen in the Middle East; Iraq is in a nascent phase of its self-determination; they've essentially elected a Constitutional Convention, not a full-blown government. The elected officials' primary responsibility will be to set up the Iraq republic/democracy/whatever according to the needs of the people. They'll also run the country for the time being, of course, but they will, in time, have an Iraqi Constitution ready to present to the people. It won't happen overnight; it won't happen next month. But it WILL happen.

Saying that 'there's no point in doing anything because we're just making them mad' is like saying there's no point in trying to live because you're going to die eventually anyway. Life itself is worth living, and freedom is worth fighting for. Of COURSE we're making the jihadists mad; they don't WANT the Iraqis to be free, because then other people will want to be free, and the fearmongering imams and people like Al-Zarqawi and Bin Laden won't be able to drag so many impressionable young people into a path of self-destruction for the vicarious satisfaction of evil men.

I say keep on fighting them, and fight them all the harder; they are LOSING, and they will continue to do so. CNN can't change that; neither can Zarqawi. The sooner they lose, the sooner American troops can go home, and the sooner terrorism will be defeated throughout the region.

 

[ShawnaAnn]

That number doesn't seem right, 5 million deaths?

a staggering 5 million executions were made...

Alright, 5 million deaths over 40 years

5,000,000/40

Which brings it at 125,000 deaths per year.

Avg 342.4 deaths per day.

In the Iraq war
Over 1.5 years we killed (at least) 10,968 civilians plus 1,482 of our own troops.

(10968+1482)/1.5

And the Iraq war brought an average of 8,300 deaths per year.

Avg 22.7 deaths per day in Iraq.

That is a 1500% difference in daily death ratios...

So, my point is, how can 342 people die every day in these mass graves, opposed to today's war zone of 22.7 people per day?

I think somone here is exaggerating.

 

[tdcharles]

Borealis
But there is a major difference you are forgetting: radical Islamists are driven by a religion (ideology) that promotes war (Sahinh Bukkari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 594; Qu'ran 5:33; Qu'ran 9:5) and gives special rewards for being a martyr (70 virgins, 70 wives, and eternal hapiness). Since it is God's call in certain circumstances, they have no problem dying for their cause. Contrast this with Nazi Germany and Japan, they were relatively secular and their respective religions, assuming they had one, didn't promise such a thing. Quite simply we can't win against the Muslims.

Don't be so sure about who's losing. We are billions of more dollars in debt, our soldiers' death toll is over one thousand, our reputation to the rest of the world has plummeted, and we still haven't caught Osama Bin Laden. We conquered Iraq, but Iraq is riddled with problems (for instance the Shiites won in a landslide victory last election, not a sign of a healthy democracy), and we have to cover the costs. We are encouraging Muslims to use a dangerous ideology that hasn't been put to practical use for centuries, that actually promotes terrorism--this is a fact, not a conjecture. And besides, to the radical muslims it doesn't even matter if they're losing, they're fighting for a just cause and Allah will surely reward them for it, meaning no matter how hard we hit, they'll still be coming back. It is financially impossible to continue this policy.

The problem with democracy in Iraq is a social one. There are two very culturally different groups that make up Iraq. The shiites are the majority. In democracy the majority makes the decisions. The shiites will almost always be the ones in power, and in fact that's how it is now, as I previously mentioned. I fullly expect civil war.

 

[Borealis]

But there is a major difference you are forgetting: radical Islamists are driven by a religion (ideology) that promotes war (Sahinh Bukkari, Volume 2, Book 26, Number 594; Qu'ran 5:33; Qu'ran 9:5) and gives special rewards for being a martyr (70 virgins, 70 wives, and eternal hapiness). Since it is God's call in certain circumstances, they have no problem dying for their cause. Contrast this with Nazi Germany and Japan, they were relatively secular and their respective religions, assuming they had one, didn't promise such a thing. Quite simply we can't win against the Muslims.

Are you familiar with the Shinto religion? The Japanese believed that their Emperor was a god; they were fanatical enough to fly planes into American ships (Kamikaze pilots, remember?), and they only surrendered because Truman ordered two of their cities nuked; otherwise they had every intention of fighting to the last man in defense of the Japanese islands. Tell me, how does that differ from what the jihadists are doing?

Any enemy can be defeated; any war can be won...as long as your cause is a good one and you never fall away from it. The jihadists are living a life based on the pursuit of evil ends; America and its allies, both international and Iraqi, are fighting for freedom. They WILL beat the jihadists in the end. To believe otherwise is to deny the human desire for freedom everywhere in the world.

Don't be so sure about who's losing. We are billions of more dollars in debt, our soldiers' death toll is over one thousand, our reputation to the rest of the world has plummeted, and we still haven't caught Osama Bin Laden.

The lowest casualty rate of any war in America's history should be cause for celebration, not condemnation. Why don't you ask some of the soldiers who are currently serving in Iraq about how the war's going? Warsong is one of them; he's a poster on this board. As for Bin Laden, he's been reduced to sending videotapes instead of bombs; he might not be caught, but he's been all but neutralized. And America's reputation in the rest of the world rises only in direct proportion to their president's pandering to Europe and the UN. Pardon me if I don't consider that a virtue.

We conquered Iraq, but Iraq is riddled with problems (for instance the Shiites won in a landslide victory last election, not a sign of a healthy democracy), and we have to cover the costs.

Oh, please! They did most of the voting, remember? The Sunnis hardly participated; how does that translate to a Shi'ite landslide? Besides, the Shi'ites barely have a majority of the parliamentary seats. The system they're using at this point is more strongly reminiscent of the Canadian system rather than the American one. The Shi'ites got a large majority of the popular vote...because the Shi'ites are the majority of the population. They only have 140 of the 275 seats. That makes their 'landslide victory' much less impressive.

We are encouraging Muslims to use a dangerous ideology that hasn't been put to practical use for centuries, that actually promotes terrorism--this is a fact, not a conjecture. And besides, to the radical muslims it doesn't even matter if they're losing, they're fighting for a just cause and Allah will surely reward them for it, meaning no matter how hard we hit, they'll still be coming back. It is financially impossible to continue this policy.

What ideology are you talking about? Can you clarify this? And as for the radical muslims, it might not matter to them if they're losing, but it should matter to you. They promised a virtual holocaust if people dared to vote; their rhetoric proved to be largely empty. People went to vote BECAUSE they were threatened; they recognized that the terrorists were the frightened ones.

The problem with democracy in Iraq is a social one. There are two very culturally different groups that make up Iraq. The shiites are the majority. In democracy the majority makes the decisions. The shiites will almost always be the ones in power, and in fact that's how it is now, as I previously mentioned. I fullly expect civil war.

Well, considering there is a civil war going on right now, I'd say your expectations have been met. But your pessimism about Iraq's future borders on contempt for their ability to accept democracy and freedom as viable ways of running society. People said exactly the same things about Germany and Japan sixty years ago; they also said the exact same things about another nascent democracy a while back. They were wrong about Germany, they were wrong about Japan...and they were wrong about the United States of America.

They will continue to be wrong about Iraq.

 

[Lucretius]

An eminently logical, if not-so-pleasant, reason. The results weren't pleasant, but what was the alternative?

I recently read a good book on the Iran-Iraq War. I believe the U.S. was not supposed to get engaged physically. Saddam Hussein also vied for peace EIGHT TIMES, and Iran wouldn't even consider peace. I believe if the United States could have helped persuade Iran to accept one of these peace deals, things would have gotten better. One of the problems was, well the problem that started it off was, ignoring the Al-Shattr (I believe that is the river's name) borders. Iran and Iraq each had a part of the river they controlled, but Iraq arbitrarily went on their side, and Iran got ****ed off. What resulted were some pretty crazy bombing raids on border towns.

The main point is, Saddam wanted peace. I know that sounds odd because, hey, it's Saddam! If we could have helped make peace instead of just putting more fuel into the fire I think we could have saved a lot of Middle Eastern lives. If you didn't know, Iran was really into that whole "human-wave" tactic of sending 14 year old kids in to set off land mines.

I agree, Khomeini was a nut-job. And, as you put it, he was aided by an American government that wanted to meddle in Iran's affairs instead of leaving the Shah, who by all accounts was as pro-Western a leader as the Middle East had seen in a long time, to his own devices. I find it very odd that many people will complain about America meddling in Arab affairs today, and blaming America for Saddam Hussein's reign of terror, but completely ignore Jimmy Carter's role in enabling Saddam's rise by enabling Khomeini.

I dont think it's as much "ignoring" as it is "not much of an issue", at least because we are in Iraq right now, and Khomeini died about half a decade ago. The United States also set up the government in South Vietnam in the war (at least for a while it stayed up). No one remembers that. If we invade a certain country, the history of the U.S. affairs in it will come back to haunt the few educated ones there are left in this country.

He wasn't a bad president, period.

You are entitled to your own opinion.

His handling of the Cold War can be boiled down to a simple phrase: he won. And he won despite the negative attitude of every media outlet in America, every intellectual's belief that the Cold War was unwinnable, and despite the continuing urging from left-wingers to 'make deals' with the Soviets instead of ending their totalitarianism once and for all.

Yes, he effectively ended the Cold War, but he also prolonged it. He would not accept about 4 treaties that Michel Gorbachev would have agreed to, because he was so bent on saving his missile defense plan. The Star Wars plan was folly and Reagan knew it, but he wanted to preserve it somehow because he was always afraid of a "possible strike", just like many Americans are today.

Do you remember Iran-Contra? He lied about making illegal deals with Iran to the American people!

As for his fundamentalism, if being religious makes a bad president, then I suppose they were all bad presidents, since every single one of them was religious; there has never been an atheist president.

I plan to be the first atheist president. There is a different between religious and fundamentalism. Reagan was always talking about some kind of doomsday occuring.

To add to his bad list, don't forget about the record deficits he caused. Many people lost their jobs because of his action, lots of Americans starved. Of course, the economy did recover later on in his term, but one thing he needed to learn about budget was that a balanced budget is good.

I'm not defending the Iran-Iraq war; I'm condemning the reasons it had to happen in the first place, much the same as I condemn the reasons WWII was necessary.

WWII was necessary because 1) There was genocide being commited before our involvement. 2) German subs attacked U.S. ships. 3) The Japanese bombed us.

Iran was necessary for 1) Money. 2) Money interests in the Middle East. 3) Keeping our friend Saddam in power.

Not really. I have a bone to pick with him because of his inept handling of the economy, not to mention the fact that because of him Khomeini turned Iran into a terrorist state. That bothers me for some reason.

Heh, good points. Still, I don't think Reagan was any better. He messed with the economy too, and he helped Saddam stay in power.

Because the double-digit unemployment and skyrocketing inflation and interest rates had NOTHING to do with Carter's defeat.

Oh, I am sure it had something to do with his loss. However, I do not believe it would have given Reagan the victory he needed.

Prove that without referring to a tin-foil-hat website.
Is Wikipedia.org okay?

Iran-Contra was badly handled. No arguing there. However, that has nothing to do with whether or not Reagan was a good president. He reduced taxes, America's economy jumped out of the Carter-era mudslide and did a complete 180°, and defeated the Soviets and ended the Cold War without shooting a single bullet or missile. THAT made him a great president.

How do illegal foreign affairs have nothing to do with a man's presidency? The economy did not jump out. Look at the early 80's.

The Cold War was called the Cold War for a reason. It was one of those wars you didn't have any real casualties in. It wasn't just Reagan who proceeded through it without shooting. If you want to think Reagan is a good president you can, I won't change your mind.

 

[Lucretius]

Actually, what's being said about the Middle East today is no different than what was said about Germany and Japan sixty years ago. That turned out pretty well, in the end. It didn't happen overnight, but it did happen.

Germany and Japan were not the same thing. Near the end of the war, people in Germany got pretty sick of Hitler, who was unreasonbly deciding NOT to surrender. His top generals even tried to kill him, but the plan failed. Japan was nuked into submission. Iraq has been strongly rebelling against 1st world nations' attempts to change their government for hundreds of years now. They kicked the Briish out in the 1920's and 30's. We're next.

The same will happen in the Middle East; Iraq is in a nascent phase of its self-determination; they've essentially elected a Constitutional Convention, not a full-blown government. The elected officials' primary responsibility will be to set up the Iraq republic/democracy/whatever according to the needs of the people. They'll also run the country for the time being, of course, but they will, in time, have an Iraqi Constitution ready to present to the people. It won't happen overnight; it won't happen next month. But it WILL happen.

You think Iraq is going to run their own country? Hah! We're doing the same thing there as Afghanistan. Take Karzai for example. He is nothing more than an American puppet. He has many common business interests with the American government. He is a ****** president too. He wants to stop the opium production in Afghanistan by giving the opium manufacturers amnesty? Oh yeah, the Taliban are resurging there too. You should read the AOP (Afghan Online Press) sometime.

Your view on Iraq is pretty much wishful thinking. You really should learn about Iraq's history, so you know the U.S. is set to repeat what the British did in the 20's. You can't shove democracy down someone's throat.

Saying that 'there's no point in doing anything because we're just making them mad' is like saying there's no point in trying to live because you're going to die eventually anyway. Life itself is worth living, and freedom is worth fighting for. Of COURSE we're making the jihadists mad; they don't WANT the Iraqis to be free, because then other people will want to be free, and the fearmongering imams and people like Al-Zarqawi and Bin Laden won't be able to drag so many impressionable young people into a path of self-destruction for the vicarious satisfaction of evil men.

This whole War on Terrorism is a pointless war that saps trillions of dollars out of America, and ends thousands of lives. We already know this. How are you supposed to fight terrorism when your actions spawn hundreds of terrorists every day? It's like a whack-a-mole game, when you whack one mole, two more pop out. Stop with the "we love freedom". The U.S. has been shoving freedom down people's throats for a century. Look at what the U.S. did in the Philippines in the 1890's and early 1900's. We slaughtered the "insurgents" wholesale and forced a government to meet in the Philippines to retain order. The Filipino's hated it. Emilio Aguinaldo, the guerrilla leader who was seen as a "terrorist" in our eyes, was fighting for his people's INDEPENDENCE. Every country we have invaded wants us OUT. We are not the world's police. The way you use the word freedom it is only a word. Nothing more.

I say keep on fighting them, and fight them all the harder; they are LOSING, and they will continue to do so. CNN can't change that; neither can Zarqawi. The sooner they lose, the sooner American troops can go home, and the sooner terrorism will be defeated throughout the region.

Oh I love that. "They are losing." "They are getting desperate!" The attacks have been getting worse and worse. Soldiers die everyday. The casualties are low? So what?! Oh, comparatively, less Americans died in WW2 and Vietnam combined than the Russians did in WW2, so I mean, American casualties in those wars wasn't a big deal at all!

Zarqawi is not the sole person responsible for this. The people you deem "insurgents" are the Iraqi people. Not all of them of course; some have families they want to protect. They want us out. Americans have little knowledge of the Arabic language and almost no respect for their customs; and they are very religious. How do you think the Iraqi's like us? You've been seeing too much footage of "The Statue Pull-down".

 

[Lucretius]

Are you familiar with the Shinto religion? The Japanese believed that their Emperor was a god; they were fanatical enough to fly planes into American ships (Kamikaze pilots, remember?), and they only surrendered because Truman ordered two of their cities nuked; otherwise they had every intention of fighting to the last man in defense of the Japanese islands. Tell me, how does that differ from what the jihadists are doing?

Are you suggesting we nuke them into submission? I mean, that's the only thing that worked with Japan, as you said.

Any enemy can be defeated; any war can be won...as long as your cause is a good one and you never fall away from it. The jihadists are living a life based on the pursuit of evil ends; America and its allies, both international and Iraqi, are fighting for freedom. They WILL beat the jihadists in the end. To believe otherwise is to deny the human desire for freedom everywhere in the world.

Your problem is you have this black-and-white view of international affairs. They are either "with us" or "against us". If a nation doesn't want to be part of this war there is no "neutral". It's "You're helping the terrorists!"
As for the "international cooperation" many nations have dropped out and the few that remain send nice things like — well, everything but soldiers.
Britain is about the only one that sends more than a few men.

The lowest casualty rate of any war in America's history should be cause for celebration, not condemnation. Why don't you ask some of the soldiers who are currently serving in Iraq about how the war's going? Warsong is one of them; he's a poster on this board. As for Bin Laden, he's been reduced to sending videotapes instead of bombs; he might not be caught, but he's been all but neutralized. And America's reputation in the rest of the world rises only in direct proportion to their president's pandering to Europe and the UN. Pardon me if I don't consider that a virtue.

I have a friend in Iraq. He says that place is hell on earth and that the U.S. needs to get out. As for Bin Laden, I suggest you read some books about him. He doesn't just bomb things every second. His strategies are much more cunning. Read the 9/11 Commission Report. It took Bin Laden almost 6 years to pull off 9/11. Don't think because he is sending video tapes he isn't planning something. I personally think he will die from dialysis soon lol. His kidneys don't even function without that machine next to him.

Oh, please! They did most of the voting, remember? The Sunnis hardly participated; how does that translate to a Shi'ite landslide? Besides, the Shi'ites barely have a majority of the parliamentary seats. The system they're using at this point is more strongly reminiscent of the Canadian system rather than the American one. The Shi'ites got a large majority of the popular vote...because the Shi'ites are the majority of the population. They only have 140 of the 275 seats. That makes their 'landslide victory' much less impressive.

This is going to really **** off some people. The Sunni's have always had no power in Government. They still have no power in government. Wow, things have really changed!

What ideology are you talking about? Can you clarify this? And as for the radical muslims, it might not matter to them if they're losing, but it should matter to you. They promised a virtual holocaust if people dared to vote; their rhetoric proved to be largely empty. People went to vote BECAUSE they were threatened; they recognized that the terrorists were the frightened ones.

Lol "the terrorists" , "the insurgents". Your mind is too black-and-white. There is some grey. Sure there will be people going along with the U.S. There were in the 1920's with Britain. The system will collapse a few years later, because the Iraqi's will get sick of the U.S. installed puppet government, while their elected officials give the U.S. rights to the oil fields.

Well, considering there is a civil war going on right now, I'd say your expectations have been met. But your pessimism about Iraq's future borders on contempt for their ability to accept democracy and freedom as viable ways of running society. People said exactly the same things about Germany and Japan sixty years ago; they also said the exact same things about another nascent democracy a while back. They were wrong about Germany, they were wrong about Japan...and they were wrong about the United States of America.

There is democracy, and then there is "U.S. shoving their democracy down peoples' throats." They don't have contempt for government. Just forced foreign governments. We are doing just that. Japan and Germany were different. Read my previous post.

They will continue to be wrong about Iraq.

Nah, you've got a something wrong. America's nation-building attempts have failed everytime. Let's list a few, shall we?

Cuba
Philippines
Haiti
Somalia
Afghanistan
Germany
Japan
Bosnia
Nicaragua

What's next on the failures list?
Iraq

 

[Matthew777]

I don't support the war in Iraq. This thread was just my desparation to figure out a reason of why we are there.

 

[Borealis]

Are you suggesting we nuke them into submission? I mean, that's the only thing that worked with Japan, as you said.

Nukes won't be required. The Japanese armed forces were strong enough to continue a full-scale ground and air war for another two years. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced the Japanese civilians that the war was futile. The Iraqi civilians already want the war to end, and they DON'T want Zarqawi and his gang winning it.

Your problem is you have this black-and-white view of international affairs.

No, I just recognize evil when I see it.

They are either "with us" or "against us". If a nation doesn't want to be part of this war there is no "neutral". It's "You're helping the terrorists!"

I don't see it that way; Canada's not helping the terrorists. My government is just ignoring them, hoping they'll go away. It's the old 'ostrich' strategy, and it doesn't work.

As for the "international cooperation" many nations have dropped out and the few that remain send nice things like — well, everything but soldiers.

Moral support is important as well. And considering that it was largely the Eastern European countries who sent troops, the same countries that chafed under Soviet totalitarianism for decades and recognized the evil in Iraq as being much the same thing, I'd put a little more stock into their view of the war rather than a bunch of insulated ivory tower academicians in America who trade in theories and speculations without concerning themselves with little details like reality.

Britain is about the only one that sends more than a few men.

Stunningly enough, most countries don't have that many troops to begin with. Most countries don't have a hundred thousand troops to spare. So they send a single battalion instead of a task force. It doesn't change the fact that they are helping in a very visible and real way.

I have a friend in Iraq. He says that place is hell on earth and that the U.S. needs to get out.

I've met several people who have served there. Is your friend in the military? My contacts were, and all of them are firmly convinced that they are there for the right reasons. They are dealing with children who've lost several family members to the depradations of Hussein and Zarqawi's lunatics.

As for Bin Laden, I suggest you read some books about him. He doesn't just bomb things every second. His strategies are much more cunning. Read the 9/11 Commission Report. It took Bin Laden almost 6 years to pull off 9/11. Don't think because he is sending video tapes he isn't planning something. I personally think he will die from dialysis soon lol. His kidneys don't even function without that machine next to him.

True. His death will be mourned by very, very few people. But look at the reality of the situation; he's been cut off from most of his organization, he's a fugitive in the Pakistani mountains, and a lot of his top-level people have been killed or captured or otherwise eliminated as threats. He's crippled, and it will take time to get his organization back up to strength...time his kidneys aren't likely to give him.

This is going to really **** off some people. The Sunni's have always had no power in Government. They still have no power in government. Wow, things have really changed!

The...Sunnis have always had NO power in government? What do you think the Baathist party was? The Shi'ites were the majority, but the minority Sunnis were Hussein's people. THEY ran the show for decades, and slaughtered Shi'ites on a daily basis. Not to mention the Kurds, who had their own share of suffering. I suggest you do a bit more research before making such an erroneous statement.

Lol "the terrorists" , "the insurgents". Your mind is too black-and-white.

My mind is just fine. I've got a lot of experience at looking at things like this. I'm a history student, and I've seen a lot of the same sort of thing in the past. That's why I recognize the patterns.

There is some grey. Sure there will be people going along with the U.S. There were in the 1920's with Britain. The system will collapse a few years later, because the Iraqi's will get sick of the U.S. installed puppet government, while their elected officials give the U.S. rights to the oil fields.

And what is your proof that the Iraqi government is going to give the US all rights to the oil? Do you have facts, or just wild guesses fueled by the paranoid fantasies of leftists like Michael Moore?

Nah, you've got a something wrong. America's nation-building attempts have failed everytime. Let's list a few, shall we?

Cuba

That was actually the same sort of thing Carter did in Iran, where the American government tried to force concessions from the government and then supported a revolutionary who then turned on them. Carter didn't learn from the lessons of Castro; that's why Khomeini gained power.

Afghanistan

Isn't it a bit early to say this? Afghanistan is only slightly ahead of Iraq. They've just barely got a Constitution written. You're going to write them off already?

Germany
Japan

Germany's post-war development was hampered by the rampant influence of European socialists in Britain and France, not to mention the communists in East Germany. Japan, with only America as its primary post-war influence, turned its economy around within a few years and today is one of the world's economic powers. How exactly did America fail there?

What's next on the failures list?
Iraq

Too early to tell. And you're far too young to be that pessimistic; leave that to old fogeys like me.

 

[Milla]

Moral support is important as well. And considering that it was largely the Eastern European countries who sent troops, the same countries that chafed under Soviet totalitarianism for decades and recognized the evil in Iraq as being much the same thing, I'd put a little more stock into their view of the war rather than a bunch of insulated ivory tower academicians in America who trade in theories and speculations without concerning themselves with little details like reality.

Oh, please. Speaking of "little details like reality", have you ever lived in Eastern Europe? Have you studied in depth the politics of Eastern European nations, or experienced their politics firsthand? It's little to do with empathizing with those under Hussein's rule and a big pile more to do with currying favor with the USA, to strengthen ties with the Western sphere of influence instead of the Eastern. If they were so concerned with liberation, their troops sent to Iraq would not be only token numbers. Consider the percentages of number of troops sent compared to total military force of various nations: http://www.pwhce.org/willing.html#troops Latvia, the post-USSR nation with the most troops sent, sent only 2.09% of the nation's own troops. Poland, the Eastern European country with the second highest percentage of troops sent, sent just 1.02% of its total troops. Whoooooooooooooooo.

 

[Lucretius]

Nukes won't be required. The Japanese armed forces were strong enough to continue a full-scale ground and air war for another two years. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced the Japanese civilians that the war was futile. The Iraqi civilians already want the war to end, and they DON'T want Zarqawi and his gang winning it.

I've heard the Japanese were going to surrender because the war was going terribly in Europe, and Japan couldn't make it on it's own. Perhaps the Occident just liked to portray it as a kind of "Custer's Stand", and that killing millions of civilians was an honorable way to end a war.

No, I just recognize evil when I see it.

Don't you think that sounds… a little… well… stereotypical and devoid of real meaning? The word evil is applicable to select people, but if you classify a group of people as evil, then you sound a little, well… stereotypical, and it loses its meaning. This whole Good Vs. Bad thing simplifies a complex operation. There is a grey.

I don't see it that way; Canada's not helping the terrorists. My government is just ignoring them, hoping they'll go away. It's the old 'ostrich' strategy, and it doesn't work.

Canada rules Everyone in the U.S. makes fun of Canada, probably because hey are jealous of their free drugs and what-not. I figured since you were a republican, you would have fully agreed with Bush's "You're either with us or against us" slogan.

Moral support is important as well. And considering that it was largely the Eastern European countries who sent troops, the same countries that chafed under Soviet totalitarianism for decades and recognized the evil in Iraq as being much the same thing, I'd put a little more stock into their view of the war rather than a bunch of insulated ivory tower academicians in America who trade in theories and speculations without concerning themselves with little details like reality.

The Europeans sent lots of troops? Britain. Let's see. France and Germany were opposed to the war. The British government wanted to send troops but the citizens opposed it. The Italians opposed it. Spain was in, but pulled out. The smaller countries have very few men there. But, as Bush said, "DON'T FORGET ABOUT POLAND!"

Stunningly enough, most countries don't have that many troops to begin with. Most countries don't have a hundred thousand troops to spare. So they send a single battalion instead of a task force. It doesn't change the fact that they are helping in a very visible and real way.

Actually, most countries just don't want to waste good men in a bad war.

I've met several people who have served there. Is your friend in the military? My contacts were, and all of them are firmly convinced that they are there for the right reasons. They are dealing with children who've lost several family members to the depradations of Hussein and Zarqawi's lunatics.

Yes, my friend is in the military. They deal with children who have been blown up by American cluster bomblets. You know, when a kid is missing both arms due to American bombing, I tend to think, well "They don't really like America that much." Saddam killed many of his own people, but the Iraqi citizens didn't need us once he was gone. They wanted us out, and they still do. What the U.S. is doing right now is what Bertrand Russell would call "Forcing one's help on another person."

True. His death will be mourned by very, very few people. But look at the reality of the situation; he's been cut off from most of his organization, he's a fugitive in the Pakistani mountains, and a lot of his top-level people have been killed or captured or otherwise eliminated as threats. He's crippled, and it will take time to get his organization back up to strength...time his kidneys aren't likely to give him.

We don't know where Osama is. Once we screwed up in Tora Bora he got away. The Taliban got away too. We keep saying "We killed his top officers." You know how easy it is for that group to get recruits now that the U.S. has become even more of a hated presence in the Middle Eastern world? We're like The Great Great Satan now. Our actions spawn terrorists every day. How can you win a war where you kill one terrorist and make a thousand more?

The...Sunnis have always had NO power in government? What do you think the Baathist party was? The Shi'ites were the majority, but the minority Sunnis were Hussein's people. THEY ran the show for decades, and slaughtered Shi'ites on a daily basis. Not to mention the Kurds, who had their own share of suffering. I suggest you do a bit more research before making such an erroneous statement.

Yeah, I did make an error here. What I meant to say was, the Sunnis and the Shiites are going to go at it like two mice in a cage. They did have power under Saddam, but now that all the repressed Shiites have the power there is going to be a lot of vengeance going down. Besides, they won't work with the government the U.S. has pressed upon them. They kicked out the British form in the 1920's and they will with the U.S.

My mind is just fine. I've got a lot of experience at looking at things like this. I'm a history student, and I've seen a lot of the same sort of thing in the past. That's why I recognize the patterns.

Then you should recognize the pattern of Occidental nation-building attempts in Iraq—and how they all failed.

And what is your proof that the Iraqi government is going to give the US all rights to the oil? Do you have facts, or just wild guesses fueled by the paranoid fantasies of leftists like Michael Moore?

The U.S., like Britain tried to do in the 1920's, brought in ex-patriates and people who they understood to be leaders. They understood wrong. The people they hired just worked hand-in-pocket with the occupying government and drained resources out of the country. Besides, we got Afghanistan, installed Karzai, and now we have an oil pipeline for UNOCAL. Odd huh?

That was actually the same sort of thing Carter did in Iran, where the American government tried to force concessions from the government and then supported a revolutionary who then turned on them. Carter didn't learn from the lessons of Castro; that's why Khomeini gained power.

I meant the Spanish-American War.

Isn't it a bit early to say this? Afghanistan is only slightly ahead of Iraq. They've just barely got a Constitution written. You're going to write them off already?

Read the Afghan News. The Taliban are resurging, the U.S. and Afghani troops are dying like mad. Even the opium problem isn't solved.

Germany's post-war development was hampered by the rampant influence of European socialists in Britain and France, not to mention the communists in East Germany. Japan, with only America as its primary post-war influence, turned its economy around within a few years and today is one of the world's economic powers. How exactly did America fail there?

Point taken. The U.S. did do good stuff in these two countries. However, this is different. This was post-war aid, not imperialism.

Too early to tell. And you're far too young to be that pessimistic; leave that to old fogeys like me.

I can be pessimistic all I want

 

[Borealis]

I've heard the Japanese were going to surrender because the war was going terribly in Europe, and Japan couldn't make it on it's own. Perhaps the Occident just liked to portray it as a kind of "Custer's Stand", and that killing millions of civilians was an honorable way to end a war.

You heard wrong. WWII is a special study for me, both the war and the home front. I love that era. But as for the Japanese, remember, this was a military that considered POWs sub-human for having so little honor that they surrendered rather than die fighting. Read about the Bataan Death March, or the Rape of Nanking. Rent the movie, 'Bridge Over the River Kwai' to get a small idea of what life was like in a Japanese POW camp. These are people who saw suicidal pilots as honorable; Kamikaze pilots who survived were disgraced. The entire military culture was oriented (pardon the pun) around honor and victory; death was preferable to surrender. They were NOT going to surrender to the Americans until the bombs fell.

Don't you think that sounds… a little… well… stereotypical and devoid of real meaning? The word evil is applicable to select people, but if you classify a group of people as evil, then you sound a little, well… stereotypical, and it loses its meaning. This whole Good Vs. Bad thing simplifies a complex operation. There is a grey.

So...Nazis weren't evil? Not every individual Nazi was a frothing maniac, I will agree. But the ideals espoused by the Nazi Party and acted upon during their twelve years of power were unquestionably evil. Not misunderstood, not poorly applied; they were EVIL. The same can be said about the terrorists who are killing Iraqi civilians while claiming to be fighting for them.

Canada rules Everyone in the U.S. makes fun of Canada, probably because hey are jealous of their free drugs and what-not. I figured since you were a republican, you would have fully agreed with Bush's "You're either with us or against us" slogan.

Don't be fooled by the elephant; I only took it so I could post in the Republican Safehouse. Note the flag; I'm Canadian (conservative, yes, but not Republican). Don't assume that I agree with George Bush on everything. However, when it comes to dealing with terrorists, sitting on the fence is a very uncomfortable option, particuarly when it's so bloody crowded with Europeans.

The Europeans sent lots of troops? Britain. Let's see. France and Germany were opposed to the war. The British government wanted to send troops but the citizens opposed it. The Italians opposed it. Spain was in, but pulled out. The smaller countries have very few men there. But, as Bush said, "DON'T FORGET ABOUT POLAND!"

EASTERN Europeans. Poland included. And again, these are countries that simply don't have vast armies like America, China and Russia. France and Germany were too busy siphoning off Oil-For-Food money to care about the populace. The Italians haven't been any good in a fight since about 250 AD. The Spanish government had its own problems, and anyone electing a socialist government knows full well that they're going to cower in the corner instead of standing up for principles.

Yes, my friend is in the military. They deal with children who have been blown up by American cluster bomblets. You know, when a kid is missing both arms due to American bombing, I tend to think, well "They don't really like America that much." Saddam killed many of his own people, but the Iraqi citizens didn't need us once he was gone. They wanted us out, and they still do. What the U.S. is doing right now is what Bertrand Russell would call "Forcing one's help on another person."

So...all those people who were begging the Americans to stick around to ensure their safety during the election were just kidding?

We don't know where Osama is. Once we screwed up in Tora Bora he got away. The Taliban got away too. We keep saying "We killed his top officers." You know how easy it is for that group to get recruits now that the U.S. has become even more of a hated presence in the Middle Eastern world? We're like The Great Great Satan now. Our actions spawn terrorists every day. How can you win a war where you kill one terrorist and make a thousand more?

Tora Bora wasn't screwed up; John Kerry used that in the campaign and twisted the truth around to make Bush look bad. And if the US is even more hated among the Arab populations, why is Libya suddenly playing nice? Why is Syria sweating bullets at the prospect that their own people and the Lebanese are suddenly going to want the same choices the Iraqis have?

Please, PLEASE don't be sucked in by the leftist rhetoric that we're creating thousands of terrorists every day. If that were the case, Iraq wouldn't have had ANY voters, because they would all have either been terrorists or dead. In point of fact, it's become much harder for the terrorists to recruit from the Iraqi populace; that's why they're importing terrorists from Jordan and Iran.

Yeah, I did make an error here. What I meant to say was, the Sunnis and the Shiites are going to go at it like two mice in a cage. They did have power under Saddam, but now that all the repressed Shiites have the power there is going to be a lot of vengeance going down. Besides, they won't work with the government the U.S. has pressed upon them. They kicked out the British form in the 1920's and they will with the U.S.

The US did not force anyone to vote; they did not force anyone to run for office, and they did not force anyone to support a certain candidate. Allawi's party didn't even win the most seats; his party came in SECOND. The Americans simply offered Iraq the choice, the option to vote. The Iraqi people themselves made the choices.

Then you should recognize the pattern of Occidental nation-building attempts in Iraq—and how they all failed.

Indeed they did...which is why this one will work, because Bush is doing it differently.

The U.S., like Britain tried to do in the 1920's, brought in ex-patriates and people who they understood to be leaders. They understood wrong. The people they hired just worked hand-in-pocket with the occupying government and drained resources out of the country. Besides, we got Afghanistan, installed Karzai, and now we have an oil pipeline for UNOCAL. Odd huh?

Karzai was elected by the majority of the populace. If you're going to call him illegitimate, you'd better call George Washington illegitimate as well, because he got about the same percentages Karzai got.

Don't judge what's happening in Iraq based solely on what happened before, because the situation is different today. It's being handled differently, and all the CNN pontificating and New York Times blustering won't change the truth. They can't even hide it anymore.

I meant the Spanish-American War.

Ah. Not my area of expertise.

Read the Afghan News. The Taliban are resurging, the U.S. and Afghani troops are dying like mad. Even the opium problem isn't solved.

Well, the opium situation will probably be solved at the same time the Colombian cocaine problem is solved, i.e., not during our lifetimes. Don't blame Bush for that. The Taliban aren't resurging; they're down to a trickle. Again, it's not as bad as the mainstream media is portraying it.

Point taken. The U.S. did do good stuff in these two countries. However, this is different. This was post-war aid, not imperialism.

So is the current situation in Iraq.

I can be pessimistic all I want

Yes, but you'll get wrinkles sooner.

 

[Milla]

EASTERN Europeans. Poland included. And again, these are countries that simply don't have vast armies like America, China and Russia.

Poland has a military force of over ten million troops. They have sent about 2,500 troops to Iraq. Eastern Europe is not knocking themselves out. I can't see any other way to take it than as a token gesture toward the USA rather than a genuine effort to take action in Iraq. As I said in my last post.

The Taliban aren't resurging; they're down to a trickle. Again, it's not as bad as the mainstream media is portraying it.

May I ask how you know this?

 

[Doorak]

Got no idea how to post links. I found a couple concerning Iraq, and from everything i've read. The majority of the Western Media say theres minimal casualties, on all sides, this i find to be utterly perposterous. Considering some of the things i've seen on news, like the blowing up of hospitals, apartment blocks etc. i find the vast majority of the figures of dead utterly supifying. So here's like one of the sites i found, im sure it's a leftie publication and all these right wingers will say so, and simply dinounce it as such.

I've also got a question to whomever might be able to answer it, last i heard about it was over a year ago and i've not heard anything since. Concerning the US and the International Criminal Court (was it even the ICC) and their refusal to sign on to allow American War criminals to be tried as such, their condition. That America soldiers to be discluded from such a court. Now there's a good idea. Lets try every nation's war criminals, but american war criminals are allowed to carry on unpeached.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110904A.shtml

 

[S Walch]

....wasn't the war supposed to have finished like, over a year ago?

 

[Lucretius]

You heard wrong. WWII is a special study for me, both the war and the home front. I love that era. But as for the Japanese, remember, this was a military that considered POWs sub-human for having so little honor that they surrendered rather than die fighting. Read about the Bataan Death March, or the Rape of Nanking. Rent the movie, 'Bridge Over the River Kwai' to get a small idea of what life was like in a Japanese POW camp. These are people who saw suicidal pilots as honorable; Kamikaze pilots who survived were disgraced. The entire military culture was oriented (pardon the pun) around honor and victory; death was preferable to surrender. They were NOT going to surrender to the Americans until the bombs fell.

I will have to do more reading.

So...Nazis weren't evil? Not every individual Nazi was a frothing maniac, I will agree. But the ideals espoused by the Nazi Party and acted upon during their twelve years of power were unquestionably evil. Not misunderstood, not poorly applied; they were EVIL. The same can be said about the terrorists who are killing Iraqi civilians while claiming to be fighting for them.

Falling to propaganda, being forced to adhere to the party or get shot, I don't consider the normal German citizens who were just too stupid or could not do anything about it to be evil. Misguided, not evil. We are killing Iraqi civilians while "fighting for them". Does that make U.S. soldiers evil?

Don't be fooled by the elephant; I only took it so I could post in the Republican Safehouse. Note the flag; I'm Canadian (conservative, yes, but not Republican). Don't assume that I agree with George Bush on everything. However, when it comes to dealing with terrorists, sitting on the fence is a very uncomfortable option, particuarly when it's so bloody crowded with Europeans.

You seem pretty republican to me

EASTERN Europeans. Poland included. And again, these are countries that simply don't have vast armies like America, China and Russia. France and Germany were too busy siphoning off Oil-For-Food money to care about the populace. The Italians haven't been any good in a fight since about 250 AD. The Spanish government had its own problems, and anyone electing a socialist government knows full well that they're going to cower in the corner instead of standing up for principles.

Uh, their PEOPLE were against the war. I can't find a single european nation that's people backed the war. I don't event think Britain did.

So...all those people who were begging the Americans to stick around to ensure their safety during the election were just kidding?

You get one side of the story and think it's the whole thing? Think the Iraqi parents that have seen their kids die by US cluster bombs, bullets, etc. want the U.S. to stick around? You should read some more news. Not too long ago the U.S. accidentally bombed some guys house in Afghanistan and killed 10 of his family members (mostly children) because they thought he had a terrorist in his house. Think he wants us around?

Tora Bora wasn't screwed up; John Kerry used that in the campaign and twisted the truth around to make Bush look bad. And if the US is even more hated among the Arab populations, why is Libya suddenly playing nice? Why is Syria sweating bullets at the prospect that their own people and the Lebanese are suddenly going to want the same choices the Iraqis have?

If Tora Bora wasn't a screw-up, why didn't we get Osama? He was stuck there and he got away. Perhaps to prolong the war because the people want Osama's blood and Bush is going to try and go through every other nation to try and get it.

Please, PLEASE don't be sucked in by the leftist rhetoric that we're creating thousands of terrorists every day. If that were the case, Iraq wouldn't have had ANY voters, because they would all have either been terrorists or dead. In point of fact, it's become much harder for the terrorists to recruit from the Iraqi populace; that's why they're importing terrorists from Jordan and Iran.

Iraq would have some voters. I didn't say everyone in Iraq was going to be a terrorist. There are more countries in the Middle East than Iraq. Terrorists still attack U.S. soldiers. We have deaths almost everyday now, which grew from a trickle of a few a week. But, let me guess — "they're getting desperate!"

The US did not force anyone to vote; they did not force anyone to run for office, and they did not force anyone to support a certain candidate. Allawi's party didn't even win the most seats; his party came in SECOND. The Americans simply offered Iraq the choice, the option to vote. The Iraqi people themselves made the choices.

We gave them a choice. The only choice. The choice that would work for us. They voted for that choice. I love puppet governments.

Indeed they did...which is why this one will work, because Bush is doing it differently.

We seem to be shoving democracy down their throats. If we wanted to help them, we would have taken Saddam out at their own behest and then left. It's not like we have to babysit them or they will sink into utter chaos. They're a tough people. Tougher than you seem to know.

Karzai was elected by the majority of the populace. If you're going to call him illegitimate, you'd better call George Washington illegitimate as well, because he got about the same percentages Karzai got.

Karzai was about the only person running. Everyone else that did run was unheard of. He got in because he was the only one anyone had heard of. The U.S. made his name heard so he could get voted in. Now we have the oil pipeline in Afghanistan. Hurray for democracy!

Don't judge what's happening in Iraq based solely on what happened before, because the situation is different today. It's being handled differently, and all the CNN pontificating and New York Times blustering won't change the truth. They can't even hide it anymore.

I don't watch TV news. It's all ****. FOX news seems to change the facts all the time though (I see it at the sports club, makes me want to vomit). Do you use FOX as your news source?

Ah. Not my area of expertise.

Wasn't mine until I learned about it in school a week ago, lol.

Well, the opium situation will probably be solved at the same time the Colombian cocaine problem is solved, i.e., not during our lifetimes. Don't blame Bush for that. The Taliban aren't resurging; they're down to a trickle. Again, it's not as bad as the mainstream media is portraying it.

The taliban is resurging. They're talking with Afghanistan's government right now. You should read the AOP news.

So is the current situation in Iraq.

This isn't post-war. Iraq didn't even have an army. Their "army" collapsed in less than a month of Bush's blitzkrieg. If the war was over, people would have stopped dying in such great numbers.

 

[Borealis]

Falling to propaganda, being forced to adhere to the party or get shot, I don't consider the normal German citizens who were just too stupid or could not do anything about it to be evil. Misguided, not evil. We are killing Iraqi civilians while "fighting for them". Does that make U.S. soldiers evil?

Of course not. And I thought I'd made it clear enough that I was referring to the IDEALS of the Nazi Party as being irredemably evil. And while I won't disagree that American soldiers have unintentionally killed Iraqi civilians, how many Iraqi civilians have been targeted and killed by imported terrorists like Zarqawi's bunch? They've been blowing up civilian targets; Zarqawi went on record as calling democracy 'evil.'

You seem pretty republican to me

Some people think so. Eventually I hope to escape the socialist nightmare that is Canada and head south of the border to someplace sane.

Uh, their PEOPLE were against the war. I can't find a single european nation that's people backed the war. I don't event think Britain did.

So what? With all the anti-American propaganda spouted in the European media on a daily basis, of COURSE the people were against the war. France's leaders were shouting from the hilltops how America was being unilateral and ruining the 'peace process.' Then we found out they were on the take. How much play did THAT get in the French media? Same for Germany and Russia.

You get one side of the story and think it's the whole thing?

Being in North America, the only way to get THAT side of the story is to go look for it; it doesn't exist in the mainstream media, does it? When's the last time CNN did an exposé on the happy Iraqi citizens?

Think the Iraqi parents that have seen their kids die by US cluster bombs, bullets, etc. want the U.S. to stick around? You should read some more news. Not too long ago the U.S. accidentally bombed some guys house in Afghanistan and killed 10 of his family members (mostly children) because they thought he had a terrorist in his house. Think he wants us around?

Did I say that the pro-American sentiment was monolithic? I don't recall doing so. But the MAJORITY are VERY pleased with what's happening in their countries right now. And since Iraq and Afghanistan are now democracies, the majority does, in fact, rule.

If Tora Bora wasn't a screw-up, why didn't we get Osama? He was stuck there and he got away. Perhaps to prolong the war because the people want Osama's blood and Bush is going to try and go through every other nation to try and get it.

That's a pretty broad stretch, and rather libelous as well. Osama got away; it happens. HE won't last much longer anyway; those kidneys, remember?

Iraq would have some voters.

Not 58% turnout.

I didn't say everyone in Iraq was going to be a terrorist. There are more countries in the Middle East than Iraq. Terrorists still attack U.S. soldiers. We have deaths almost everyday now, which grew from a trickle of a few a week. But, let me guess — "they're getting desperate!"

As you said, they aren't Iraqis. They are coming from other Middle Eastern countries that are indeed desperate to prevent democracy from taking root in that region. How happy do you think the Saudi leaders are about it? How about Syria? Jordan? Iran? These are countries whose leaders rule by threat of force; the people have never even dreamed that they might one day be free to make their own choices. Now, suddenly, they're seeing Afghanistan and Iraq, two of the worst dictatorships in the Middle East, have been given the chance to be free, and they see men like Zarqawi going ballistic at the thought that Muslims might actually choose a different path than the slavery they've had.

How many of those terrorists are fighting for Iraq? How many of them are being sent to their deaths by dictators who want to kill democracy in Iraq before it spreads to their own countries?

We gave them a choice. The only choice. The choice that would work for us. They voted for that choice. I love puppet governments.

Excuse me? Allawi didn't win, remember? America gave them all the choices they could handle. You can choose to see it as no real choice, but considering how many parties and candidates were running, your argument won't hold up.

We seem to be shoving democracy down their throats. If we wanted to help them, we would have taken Saddam out at their own behest and then left. It's not like we have to babysit them or they will sink into utter chaos. They're a tough people. Tougher than you seem to know.

Yes, they are indeed a tough people. But here's the problem: leaving as soon as Saddam was taken down would have created utter anarchy. Can you imagine what life would be like in Iraq under those circumstances? Do you really think they would have sorted it out on their own? Eventually, perhaps...after the entire country had been razed to the ground by a horrifying civil war. And I can guarantee you this: the Iranians would have moved in right away and taken over. How does that prospect strike you?

Karzai was about the only person running. Everyone else that did run was unheard of. He got in because he was the only one anyone had heard of. The U.S. made his name heard so he could get voted in. Now we have the oil pipeline in Afghanistan. Hurray for democracy!

Oh, right...it's all about oil, that's all it ever was. Hey, did you hear about who got the first contracts for Iraqi oil development and distribution? Turkey and Canada. How does that fit in with the 'war for oil' theory?

I don't watch TV news. It's all ****. FOX news seems to change the facts all the time though (I see it at the sports club, makes me want to vomit). Do you use FOX as your news source?

See the flag? I've never seen Fox News; it only recently arrived in this country, and I'm not paying the kind of rates necessary to get cable television. So no, I don't use Fox News. I use my brain, and my researching skills.

The taliban is resurging. They're talking with Afghanistan's government right now. You should read the AOP news.

Talking with the government is a far cry from running it. That's not a resurgence, that's a white flag. They have no popular support, they have no base to run things from; they're all but done.

This isn't post-war. Iraq didn't even have an army. Their "army" collapsed in less than a month of Bush's blitzkrieg. If the war was over, people would have stopped dying in such great numbers.

Read up on post-war Germany. Actually, read up on the Battle of the Bulge, the biggest land battle America fought against Germany. Late 1944-early 1945, the Americans were getting ready to push into Germany to finish it off. The Germans launched a HUGE attack instead, driving American troops back along a front a couple of hundred miles long. But that was all they had, and the American, British and other Allied troops fought back and drove the German armies back. That was it for the Germans; Hitler killed himself only a short while later as the Russians closed in on Berlin, and they surrendered soon afterwards.

In any major war, you'll find that the losing side often has one last, desperate thrust to try and salvage their position; in Vietnam, it was the Tet Offensive, which was in fact a total American victory that Walter Cronkite and other media voices clamed was a defeat. Had they told the truth, America wouldn't have turned so viciously on the war, and North Vietnam would have surrendered (as they were planning to do until the anti-war movement in America convinced them to keep fighting).

Like I said, read some history; what's happening in Iraq with the terrorists is no different from the Battle of the Bulge. It's their big effort to salvage a losing cause. And they will fail.

 

[Doorak]

Seriously mate. Nice piece of propaganda. Some of it was resonably accurate, but the vast majority is utter garbage. Why don't you move to america so you can live with people who are more inclined to you're point of view. Fox didn't get to canada until recently? mate even in australia we've had it for a few years, and we live half a world away.

I think you should read up on a bit of history before you say anything about war.

 

[Borealis]

Seriously mate. Nice piece of propaganda. Some of it was resonably accurate, but the vast majority is utter ****.

I'll file that insightful comment in the appropriate drawer. Why don't you cite a few examples of my 'utter ****?'

Why don't you move to america so you can live with people who are more inclined to you're point of view.

I will someday. But I can't right now, so I do what I can from here. I just find it funny that you'd suggest this, when I hear the other side of the argument so often (Why don't you lefties leave America since you like those other countries so much more?)

Fox didn't get to canada until recently? mate even in australia we've had it for a few years, and we live half a world away.

And your point is? The CRTC would not allow Fox News into Canada; I'm not making that up.

I think you should read up on a bit of history before you say anything about war.

'Mate,' I've been reading history since I was six years old. I've studied wars that you haven't heard of. So you'll excuse me if I laugh at your condescending and uninformed opinion.

 

[Amurphycat]

Iraq is not the only, and not the worst for being know for killing..
(Maybe you didn't know, but Iraq actually had some of the better hospitals in the worlds- Maybe you should talk to some people who have lived there????)
Africa, has been non-stop for a longer time...

OIL, economy, corporate gain(oil buddies)and building a stronger america(without care for cost), Is the purpose for the war... I think that is almost obvious.....WMD's turned to, fighting insurgents, then to bringing democracy.

I can support hope and peace, but I can never support the corperations who are have made and are making money off of this, this is wrong, so wrong. This is corperate warfare.