# Excellent Special on Iraq



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 21, 2007)

Dude,

I do forgive you, but only because you're in North Carolina, which I visited a few yrs ago and found to be a beautiful, warm place! 8)


----------



## JSMason (Feb 21, 2007)

Hummmm, I just came accross some interesting stats comparing military deaths in Iraq since 2003 (about 3,133) to 4 years under Clinton durring "peacetime" :
1,245 in 1993; 
1,109 in 1994; 
1,055 in 1995; 
1,008 in 1996. 

That's 4,417 

This is not an attack on Clinton, but it brings some of the stats Mr Ware is touting into a different perspective.
All these deaths are tradegies, and the Men who died serving were all valiant (even if their mission was questionable)

Neither one of these stats do anything to fix the problem though. I'll keep on watching...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 21, 2007)

Of course these numbers pale in comparison to the number of Iraqis killed since the beginning of this 'war of liberation'... :roll:


----------



## JSMason (Feb 21, 2007)

This is actually pretty good.

You know what, this dude Ware has titanium testicles. He sounds Australian, those guys are crazy (eg Steve Erwin). I bet you a nose joke or two wouldn't even phase this guy. 

But Yes Sir, He's a brave soul, Hat's off. I keep watching later


----------



## JSMason (Feb 21, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Feb 21 said:


> Of course these numbers pale in comparison to the number of Iraqis killed since the beginning of this 'war of liberation'... :roll:



Yes, You're right.

I'm afrid though if we just bail, it will be a mutli-million person masacre just like vietnam. 

it's a tough one


----------



## JSMason (Feb 21, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Feb 21 said:


> only because you're in North Carolina, which I visited a few yrs ago and found to be a beautiful, warm place! 8)


You must not have been here durring the Hurricanes vs the Buffalo Sabres game. Folks were getting pretty ugly here.

Also, there is that old Canadian law that states that you must be nice to whomever has the Stanley Cup.


----------



## JSMason (Feb 21, 2007)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq 

Man, this is the kind of thing that just gets you sick to your stomach. Roll out the stretchers boys, it's gonna be a long night.


----------



## david robinson (Feb 21, 2007)

Us Aussie's aren't crazy.
Look where we picked to live.............
The only problem i see is that we crawl up the US's butt much too often.
Like with Iraq.
We shouldn't be there, at all, ever.

You guys are in the "Hot Zone".

Sure, we don't have a big music industry (any more), but what we have is a beautiful country in which to live.
Living well is what life's all about, after all, err, and music's second.
Third is my girlfriend Mabel, she's a sheep.

Seriously, my heart goes out to all those families who have lost loved ones to this stupid conflict.
Regards, David R.


----------



## Herman Witkam (Feb 22, 2007)

At least Australia had the nerve to give up the light bulb o-[][]-o

Now if we would all do that....


----------



## JSMason (Feb 22, 2007)

david robinson @ Thu Feb 22 said:


> Us Aussie's aren't crazy.
> Look where we picked to live.............
> The only problem i see is that we crawl up the US's butt much too often.
> Like with Iraq.
> ...



Boy, I'd better shut up least I offend my Outback brethren. I was actually feeling quite a bit of admiration in my heart when I typed that word "Crazy". 

I saw Steve Erwin lie down in a nest of Komodo Dragons one time, and the only word that popped into my mind was "Crazy". Mr Ware here has walked into a nest of creatures that are far more dangerous and probably far less merciful than the aforementioned Dragons. Super Crazy !!!! 

Anyway, Aussies, crazed or otherwise, are definitely cool in my book.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 22, 2007)

> At least Australia had the nerve to give up the light bulb



The problem is that fluorescent lighting makes me irritable. Compact fluorescent bulbs are better than overhead fluorescent lighting, especially when you use a nice shade, but there's something about both the flicker and the quality of the light that makes my brain hurt.

I'm irritable to start with, of course, but I'm certainly not one of those HUAs who believe global warming is just a liberal plot by Al Gore and that we don't have to conserve energy.

****

Iraq: too horrible to fathom.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 22, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Feb 21 said:


> Of course these numbers pale in comparison to the number of Iraqis killed since the beginning of this 'war of liberation'... :



Of course these numbers pale in comparison to the numbers of Iraqi's killed by Saddam Hussein. I refer the hundreds of thousands of military people killed by his adventurism/expansionism in Iran and Kuwait and of course the thousands upon thousands tortured, gassed, and murdered by his regime.

I don't have a problem with the _principle_ of liberating a country from a bloodthirsty regime or tyranny (for example France and even Germany in WWII - no, not a perfect analogy but it's not a bad thing to stop ethnic cleansing or political killings.) 

The problem in Iraq (exacerbated by US blunders such as dismantling the Iraqi army so it could not keep order) is that ancient tribal and religious animosity remain and appear to be far more important to many people than democracy. If there is a good solid reason why we should not have gone in there, that's it. It's not a good thing to leave a situation worse than you found it.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 22, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Thu Feb 22 said:


> ...If there is a good solid reason why we should not have gone in there, that's it...


Well, that and the fact that the war was clearly illegal.

International law states that there are three valid situations for a country to go to war:
* The country has been attacked.
* An attack on the country is imminent
* Action was approved by the UN Security Council

The US Administration claimed many things, but they never claimed that an Iraqi attack was imminent. In fact they were open that the Bush Doctrine was one of "preemption". 

The thing is, unilateral preemption is illegal under international law, unless approved by the UN Security Council.

Of course, the UN lacks the power to enforce international law in this case. Much as Congress lacks the political will to enforce that the Administration abide by the Constitution. 

But that's another matter...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 22, 2007)

That all sounds good in principle, Dave. But I have to ask why the world did nothing to stop the killing in Rwanda, which we could have easily done (since they were using machetes), why we're doing nothing in Darfur (more difficult), why we allowed, say, Hafez Assad in Syria, Idi Amin in the '70s, Stalin (who was the champion), the disappearances in Argentina, Greece, Haiti, even the Dominican Republic at times...or for that matter why the world is doing little in Africa to save sick and starving people - which wouldn't require an invasion at all.

We did stop the killing in Yugoslavia, and of course Hitler was stopped in WWII. But in general morality has absolutely nothing to do with international relations; and while everyone is offended by Saddam Hussein, it is certainly way, way down the list of motives in this case.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 22, 2007)

Another interesting perspective: who is losing, and who is winning?

Losing:
* Iraqis - Estimates are that hundreds of thousands died. There are now between one an two million Iraqi refugees.
* Soldiers - Over 3,000 dead. Many more wounded.
* American tax payers - What exactly are we getting for our trillion bucks? Oh yeah. Debt.

Winning:
* Oil companies - Sure they don't have access to Iraqi oil, but it's off the market. That, plus instability, means higher prices - and astounding, record breaking profits. They see the Iraqi oil as money in the bank. And that's why the Administration won't leave. If we can't have the oil, no one can.
* Military suppliers and contractors - The military budget spirals up with no end in sight - and the Iraq war isn't even included in the budget. That's funded with separate bills. And just like the premise of Canadian Bacon, the Military Industrial Complex need enemies. And Iraq is where those enemies are motivated and trained.
* Banking - Who do you think is making all of these loans? China to a large degree. The demand for loans keeps interest rates high worldwide.

So, while many people feel that we are losing the war, Bush's constituents win, win win. Why would he want to change a thing? - other than to accelerate his "winning" strategy. It's good times in Bush-land.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 22, 2007)

I think this great sovereign nation of ours should go right on in anywhere if there is butchery going on regardless of any international law. For example the recent genocide in Rawanda which made the Nazi's rate of slaughter seem glacial. Where was the UN? What is the international law regarding that? I care more about human lives than any law if it doesn't protect them. Internatiional law is flauted daily by too many countries to count. Israel was just attacked and responded and roundly condemned by the international community.

My point remains that I agree with the _principle_ of military intervention to stop genocide. Also don't forget that Saddam had indeed flauted UN resolutions for decades. He may have complied with destroying his WMD's finally but he was not known for his adherance to international law (gassing Kurds) or UN resolutions.

This is not an excuse for any deception or cleverness on the part of the Bush administration (or Clinton or Nixon or Bush I or Carter or Johnson or Kennedy - all glorious practioners of the art.) The plan to get Saddam was in place before GWB even took office with 9/11 and the WMD argument used as a pretext. Oldest trick in the book to use fear to justify military buildup or action as in the cold war when the industrial military complex made lots of people very rich.

The purpose of my argument is to insist on a case by case evaluation of any situation. It's one thing to say we shouldn't have gone in Iraq (which most Americans believe now) and another to say we would never go into a Rawanda because military action is inherently evil and should never be considered or even prevented because of any law.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 22, 2007)

By the way it's not true that Stalin was the champion. Mao hasòµ¤   Rn‘µ¤   Rn’µ¤   R


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 22, 2007)

I don't know if this is true or not, but if so, it's pretty brazen...

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0222-21.htm


----------



## Hans Adamson (Feb 22, 2007)

JonFairhurst @ Thu Feb 22 said:


> I don't know if this is true or not, but if so, it's pretty brazen...
> 
> http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0222-21.htm


I feel sick...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 22, 2007)

Sure it's true, Jon. "PSAs" they're called - contracts that are normally for undeveloped countries, unlike Iraq which had a going oil industry (to say nothing of the third largest reserves in the world). The following story came out a couple of weeks ago, but this has been well known for quite a while.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2132569.ece (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/mid ... 132569.ece)

I'm surprised anyone is surprised, frankly. As I said, morality is way down the list of reasons for wars.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 22, 2007)

> Of course these numbers pale in comparison to the numbers of Iraqi's killed by Saddam Hussein. I refer the hundreds of thousands of military people killed by his adventurism/expansionism in Iran and Kuwait and of course the thousands upon thousands tortured, gassed, and murdered by his regime.



I'm not even sure he was adventurist/expansionist, Dave. His main reason for invading Iran, as far as I've read, was because he was afraid Ayatola Khomeini would export the Iranian revolution into his country. And he invaded Kuwait because they were threatening to flood the market with oil, lowering the price at a time when he desperately needed money after the long war with Iran.

Not a nice guy, though.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 23, 2007)

Whatever his reasons Nick he certainly ventured beyond his borders resulting in the deaths of a million Iranians reportedly (many by gas.) And how many thousand of his own troops in that war and the first Gulf war? - several hundred thousand. That level of mass death is over. Too many people are dying still even if that number is exponentially smaller than the above. People's memory seems short to me if they forget the carnival of death that went on in that region for a very long time. Americans may be split on the virtues of Saddam's absence but I can't imagine a single Iranian wishes he were back and very few Iraqi's eccept maybe relatives in the Bath party.

No, it's good he's gone. The issue is, how soon can we be gone and some semblance of a secure country remain.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 23, 2007)

It's glad he's gone, yet I'm having a really hard time jumping for joy.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 23, 2007)

Since you're all quite a captured audience, as they say, I thought more than a few of you would enjoy this 90-minute documentary on Tehran/Iran by the BBC. I haven't seen it all myself, but check it out:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4679426685869498072 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 5869498072)


----------



## almacg (Feb 23, 2007)

As Nick said, the war was never about morality. Ridding the world of Saddam Hussein, was just a smokescreen so that the Governments could steal the Iraqi's oil. 

If you don't like another countries leader, you can't just bomb their country into the ground. Imagine for example, France bombing and invading America because it had 'WMD's' and did deals with Saudi Arabia, a country which has terrible human rights violations. This of course, would result in the destabilisation of the entire US, and would result in millions of deaths. This basically is what has happened in Iraq, with the added insult that it was only about making rich people even richer.

Saddam Hussein may have been an evil dictator but I think Iraq was a million times better off with him in power. He stopped the Sunnies and Shiite factions from battling against each other. In other words, he kept the country stable. I'm not saying this was an ideal situation, as he was responsible for lots of deaths, it is however worth noting that so are George W Bush and Tony Blair. 

A lot of people quite frankly supported the war to begin with, then changed their mind when we started 'losing'. I was shocked at the time (I was only 15) that in my class everyone but me and one other person, supported bombing Afghanistan. A lot of these people were smart, and would get good grades in school. Yet they seemed to think that bombing the crap out of a country was a good thing. This kind of ideology still exists in the majority of people I think; people seem not to be able to empathise with anyone who can't speak their language. If an Irish person bombed London (which happened a few times) No Englishman would ever suggest bombing Dublin. If it happened to be a person from Asia, 95% of people would support bombing their country. There exists essentially, racial hatred in the majority of people, even so called 'smart' people.

One more thing, even though Tony Blair is essentially an evil bastard who represents the worst governent that England has had in a long, long time (England is basically falling apart, Im not just angry with their foreign policy) he STILL got voted in again! Democracy just DOESNT work!

VIVE LA REVOLUTION! o=< ~o) 

Someone was saying that there was a lot of violence in the middle east before the war began. Well, didn't the CIA depose the first democratically elected leader of IRAN!

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp

The turmoil of the middle east has been fueled by the CIA, and the British government for a very long time. There is no wonder that these people are angry. 

The CIA is actually responsible for some truly HORRIFIC acts... But does this justify invading America? NO! 

One more thing : I vote for locking Tony Blair up for all eternity! o-[][]-o


----------



## almacg (Feb 23, 2007)

http://www.doublestandards.org/mackay1.html

We need to sort out of own countries before we 'sort out' the rest of the world!

I saw most of that BBC report. Very informative. They are very politically motivated people, you think they would ever elect Tony Blair in 3 times?! I doubt that!


----------



## david robinson (Feb 23, 2007)

Thank you, Ned for posting this topic.

Bush, Blair and Australia's J. Howard, are not running anything.
It's the big business concerns that run governments nowadays.
and your all right about stealing the oil.
the above "people" and, i use the term loosely are mere puppets.
the bloke who owns "MySpace" has more real direct power.
in Australia, we have a government that is trying to usurp the domain of doctors in our society.
this "ain't on".
medicine and people's well being should never be a policital issue.
david r.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 23, 2007)

If you believe the war was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, setting up a democracy in the region to cause other countries to follow suit, and protect ourselves from terrorism, you'll disagree with me. But if you believe as I do that this was mostly about oil security (not only, but mostly), you'll believe that the best way to prevent this from happening again is to adopt a forward-thinking energy policy.

We are going to run out of oil that's easy to get at even if global warming doesn't get us first, so it's time to start investing billions and billions in all the promising technologies on the horizon. It's much cheaper to do it now than later, so we may as well get started. And just using a little biodiesel isn't going to cut it.

Of course, there will probably always be a reason for countries to go to war, but I do think this is the immediate lesson of Iraq - leaving aside the lesson that mankind should have learned thousands of years ago: war is insane.


----------



## david robinson (Feb 23, 2007)

hi there, again.

just so you guys know the facts.

People, like the late Steve Irwin, are exceptions here in Australia.
And i didn't say he was an exceptional person. He wasn't.
most of everything he did that got into the news were stunts, to promote his wildlife park.
Although in the grand scheme of things my opinion of him doesn't count, i will say i thought he was a bit of a wanker.
Aussies are not like him at all, or Paul Hogan, Dame Edna, Kylie or Olivia, to name a few. The abovementioned and more are showbiz types, and will do most anything for a buck, including "promoting" Australia overseas.
If you believe these people, i've got a harbour bridge and funny looking opera house here in Sydney i can sell you.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 23, 2007)

By the way, I also agree with you, Ned. These countries were carved up arbitrarily after WWI by people who'd never even been to them.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 23, 2007)

David...are you really saying that all Aussies aren't named Bruce or Sheila and don't spend their days throwing shrimps on the barbie?! 

>8o >8o


----------



## david robinson (Feb 24, 2007)

Nick, you'd certainly hope so, wouldn't you?

Mabel, my girlfriend (she's a ewe) says to say "hello".


----------



## Alex W (Feb 24, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 24 said:


> David...are you really saying that all Aussies aren't named Bruce or Sheila and don't spend their days throwing shrimps on the barbie?!
> 
> >8o >8o



prawns mate... not shrimps :roll:


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 24, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Feb 23 said:


> If you believe the war was about getting rid of Saddam Hussein, setting up a democracy in the region to cause other countries to follow suit, and protect ourselves from terrorism, you'll disagree with me. But if you believe as I do that this was mostly about oil security (not only, but mostly), you'll believe that the best way to prevent this from happening again is to adopt a forward-thinking energy policy.



I think Iraq was a chess move that included all of the above. Strategically it places US forces in everyone's back yard over there which would have a chilling effect (as in _chill out everyone_.) Oil-wise it was like _Hey don't piss us off or we won't but any oil from you cause we're sitting on a whole bunch right now._ You can see how someone thought this would send several powerful messages to the region in a language they understand: force. Unfortunately the down side of inflaming anti US sentiment, destabilizing the region instead of settling it, inviting foreign fighters in, antagonizing Europe, confirming US global ambition, turning loose a civil war while bringing misery to the populace and mireing our military in an intractable conflict (thus eroding confidence and support at home) is almost all we have reaped instead.

So our not-so brilliant chess move has been met by an almost perfect countermove from everyone from Iran to Bin Laden to Hamas to Syria to North Korea and even Moscow and China. In chess this is called a blunder and the word seems to apply here barring some sort of miracle.

US motives may have varied from noble to nefarious depending on the various personalities involved. Kennedy may have had noble intentions in going into Vietnam but the arms manufacturers saw only green (and it wasn't the color of a free Vietnamese countryside.) Profiteering and seizure of assets has always been a part of any war. There will be a howl from the world if we do anything but get out of there as soon as possible and without any grubby hands of US business hanging on.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 24, 2007)

I agree with all of the above. The only argument is what percentage each of those factors played in the decision.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 24, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Feb 24 said:


> The only argument is what percentage each of those factors played in the decision.



Exactly. The truth could be almost too much to bare.


----------



## JSMason (Feb 24, 2007)

almacg @ Fri Feb 23 said:


> As Nick said, the war was never about morality. Ridding the world of Saddam Hussein, was just a smokescreen so that the Governments could steal the Iraqi's oil.



This makes no sense to me. Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to buy the oil???
Have we forgotten about the 14 UN resolutions, the invasion of Kuwait, The gassing of the Kurds, the $25,000 dollars paid to suicide bombers who killed Jews... ??? ridiculous.

If Bush were really wanting to steal the oil, couldn't he have just gotten on the "Oil for Food" list like many other UN Leaders who were actually stealing oil??.

Was Clinton trying to steal the oil when he dropped more bombs on Baghdad than Bush Sr. did ???



almacg @ Fri Feb 23 said:


> Imagine for example, France bombing and invading America because it had 'WMD's'


 HAAAA!!! You do have a big imagination



almacg @ Fri Feb 23 said:


> Saddam Hussein may have been an evil dictator but I think Iraq was a million times better off with him in power. He stopped the Sunnies and Shiite factions from battling against each other. In other words, he kept the country stable.


at what price ???? Do you think that before we took him out, Saddam was just sitting in his rose garden reading poetry ???Count the mass graves, what exactly was the average money spent per Iraqi on health care??? ($1.70/year). 
Women could not even go to school. I wish the Iraqis could have taken out Sadaam themselves, but they were utterly defenseless.



almacg @ Fri Feb 23 said:


> I'm not saying this was an ideal situation, as he was responsible for lots of deaths, it is however worth noting that so are George W Bush and Tony Blair.


 Guess What ??? Last I checked it was Muslims blowing up Muslims. I don't think anybody can give you a straight answer about how many Iraqis have actually died. What percentage of that total were actually killed by Americans??




almacg @ Fri Feb 23 said:


> One more thing : I vote for locking Tony Blair up for all eternity! o-[][]-o


 But you have no problem with terrorists who strap bombs on their children and send them out to kill innocent people ??? Or drive car bombs into busy markets, or fly planes into buildings with 30,000 people in them.

It's arguments like this that just muddy the waters. Bush is gone in 2 years, Blair is leaving sooner than that I'm sure. Let's focus on how we get the hell outta there without getting a couple of million people slaughtered in the process like what happened in Vietnam.

Can't you Boys come up with some solid proof that Bush and Blair are stealing oil. Hell, Brittney Spears can't even take a dump without the press jumping all over it and running the story for days. You'd think they could put together some solid evidence that proved that Bush has got his hands in the till.

I am in the ridiculous position of defending Bush. An utter waste of my time. But everyone so far has completely ignored terrorism as the root of this war. You see, I refuse to live in the shadow of the fear of terrorism. If it's not confronted it will eventually be in your face, or mabey your kids faces, whatever. It's like Churchill said, "You voted for peace but you shall have war". Looks like he was quite right.

I'm not defending Iraqi invasion either. I can not justify my security at the price of so many innocent Iraqi lives. But you may as well start weaning yourselves off of the Bush hatred thing seeing as how he'll be gone soon enough.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 25, 2007)

If you read this thread you'll see that nobody's forgotten anything about Saddam Hussein. He was absolutely disgusting and he was a big nuiisance, no question.

Again, morality was part of the reason for the invasion. But it played a very, very small role. And terrorism is a total red herring, as is why or whether Clinton bombed Baghdad. Same with the 14 UN resolutions; it's been well established that WMD wasn't real - and you don't have to hate Bush to agree with that.

Dave's last post about oil is a big part of the explanation of why we couldn't just put our names on the list. This was a bigger strategic move than that.


----------



## Hermitage59 (Feb 25, 2007)

JSMason @ Sat Feb 24 said:


> almacg @ Fri Feb 23 said:
> 
> 
> > As Nick said, the war was never about morality. Ridding the world of Saddam Hussein, was just a smokescreen so that the Governments could steal the Iraqi's oil.
> ...



Hmmm, interesting hypotheses.
I vote for locking Blair, Bush, and the cronies up too, and that's after appearing in front of an international war crimes tribunal.
Why?

Because as nations (along with others) our history, often bloody, and tempered in the fires of evolution, has led us to the point where we can have some justification for calling ourselves civilised, at least in a 'western' sense. And when govts, politicians, administrators, lobby groups, and media collude to ignore those civilised principles, then any action that is taken does NOT represent civilised principles, and is therefore bereft of any sizable CIVILISED justification. It's a sad fact that those civilised peaceful principles we 'ordinary' folk hold important, and in many ways, cherish, are gleefully ignored time and again by vested interests and religious or empirically determined lobby groups, as suits their particular purpose at the time.
In the US after the tragic twin towers incident, Bush aggressively pushed through the 'Patriot Act', riding as he did on the wave of 'consent' from a population still in shock and reeling from the emotional blow such an event delivered, to a people that, up till that point, could watch in reasonable safety, similar events happening in other parts of the world. This piece of legislation was entirely successful in muting, and in some cases silencing, the propensity from media and critical commentators alike to question the actions of the administration. And since then, as history shows us, no dissent was tolerated, as media owners went AWOL from their oft touted responsibility of 'holding the decision makers to account.' It happened in Britain too, and its no coincidence that several media publications in both countries share a common owner. (Four countries if you include the same owner's partial interests in Canada and Australia.)

Then as lie after deceit after doctored document emerged, the natural instinct to question was muted enough to allow the warmongers and lobby groups to take hold, and riding on the same wave of post twin tower shock, push through an fabrication that we know now, was so far removed from the truth, as to be out and out fantasy. There's plenty of recorded evidence for this, as a google will show. 

To say that disagreeing with govts, (in the case of Iraq), is to automatically imply some sort of approval or consent towards terrorists and savages that blow up innocents in the opposing position, is a complete nonsense, and a reflect of the stark choices that so many in the US and UK administrations effectively use to, yet again, stifle dissent. . 
Black and White? 
If you're not with us you're against us? 
We're doing this with OUR god's blessing? 

Ring any bells?

The horror of the current situation in Iraq leaves no one looking 'good.' The verifiable deceit practised on all sides means Iraq, its perpetrators, the UN, Warlords, Religious fanatics on all sides, and arms dealers, will all be part of a less than civilised example of how far we still have to go along the path of evolution, to put enough instinctive distance between ourselves and bone waving neantherdals standing on a hill, gleefully clutching their latest 'prize.'

And who suffers the most?
The innocents in Iraq? Men, women and children, who, like us want peace, civilised friendship with other human beings, and a chance to feed their families, and enjoy their lives?
Or the families of those service personnel, who, believing in the cause of freedom for all, and liberty for the oppressed, send their sons and daughters into a conflict that has, bluntly, little to do with noble causes, and everything to do with averice, greed, power and control?

I'm suprised you're surprised at the premise that Oil was at the heart of the decision to go to Iraq. And with the exposure of the 'London Letters' as they were called, the decision to go to Iraq was made BEFORE the Twin towers incident, and not after as Bush, Blair, Cheney, Brown, Rice, Rumsfeld, Reid, and others would have you beleive.
It's a fact, and has been proved, before both governments tried to limit the publication of this particular truth under the 'contrary to national security interests' legislation present in both countries that protects those who have something to hide.

If you need even more proof, then google Halliburton, and AIPAC, and Chevron, and BP, and Channel 4 UK, and Doctor David Kelly, and spend the day going through the information available.
This article from the Independent is only one of several documents that have surfaced pertaining to the oil war in Iraq.
The most horrifying thing for me is, the deaths of so many human beings on all sides who shared a common aspiration of peace and friendship. It's not only religious and political savages in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein, who destroyed the dream for so many, but those shouting loudest, claiming to uphold these principles, who are, in reality, as savage and monstrous in their actions, as they so gleefully send so many young men and women to their deaths, all for profit and power and glory, and all so easily recorded as 'collateral damage', a monstrous phrase that has little to do with civilised principles, and everything to do with self interested management of information that we 'ordinary folk' get.

Nick is right. Getting rid of Hussein was a smokescreen.

Just two roubles worth,

Alex.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Feb 25, 2007)

Hermitage,

Are you even free to talk about Putin?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 25, 2007)

Jack Weaver @ 25/2/2007 said:


> Hermitage,
> 
> Are you even free to talk about Putin?



Not quite sure what the point of that question is, unless it's just a little threadjacking. If so, it might be better to start a new Subject instead of moving on to other topics. Seems like there's enough meat in the subjects of Iraq and Iran to feed this particulary thread.


----------



## Hermitage59 (Feb 25, 2007)

Jack Weaver @ Sun Feb 25 said:


> Hermitage,
> 
> Are you even free to talk about Putin?



Erm....yes.

Freely.

There's no problem with debate here at all, and despite the machinations of media outlets in other countries, Russia IS a democracy in progress, there ISN'T old Soviet flags everywhere, and contrary to the same external agenda, people here are NOT remotely interested in another Cold War or a revival of the 'good old USSR'. They ARE interested in making money and getting ahead in life, and there is a growing enthusiam here about the future prospects for this country. The middle class here, just as an example, is twice the size it was twelve months ago.

It's the agenda of the perception of Russia that Vlad Putin gets irritated about, particularly when it doesn't deal with fact, but an engineered policy of this country as the 'evil bear' , and the 'ex-soviets.' (I could write at some length here about all the former soviet republics gleefully fostering and administering the soviet system with the same enthusiasm as russians did, or remind you that the worst excesses and horrors of the soviet era were committed and ordered by Stalin with help from Beria, both of whom were Georgians, and who are still idolised in Georgia by a large chunk of the population. Bush and Blair's new 'democratic' friends.)
If you want to debate something, go right ahead. But i suspect, and i did post proof here sometime ago (related to a speech Putin gave, and the 'translation' you guys got) that what get's said and done here, is put through some sort of ' political filter' before you guys read about it.
Russia's not perfect, and Yeltsin's stupidity didn't help at all, but it's certainly nowhere near as bad as corporate media makes out, and there's a LOT of misleading info about this country that gets past off as truth.
If you guys want a summary of the Chechen situation, for example, i'll write it. 
But it may not be what you, the CIA, MI5, The Soros foundation, Exxon, BP, Chevron, particular russian criminals, and the President of Georgia and his pals, etc... want to hear.

Ned's right, Jack. You want a debate about Russia, the criminals, the corporates, the media, the oil companies, the Chechen 'freedom fighters', Ukrainian 'Businessmen and women', foreign intelligence services (there's an oxymoron) posing as 'NGO's', etc....I'm up for it.
But it's not relavent to this thread.


Just two more roubles worth,


Alex.


----------



## Hermitage59 (Feb 25, 2007)

JSMason @ Sun Feb 25 said:


> and you do not have to be a Bush lover to understand, the intelligence, bad as it was, was all we had at the time, and the entire world believed it (well, let me rephrase, even jaq chiroc believed it at the time)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



JSMason, you might want to review your opinion of the intelligence. The profound factors stated as reasons to go to war were WMD's in 45 mins, and a dossier 'clearly' outlining the 'threat' that S. Hussein posed. WMD's in 45 mins were proved to be beyond the capability of Iraq at the time, and no evidence of ANY potential was found. Indeed, even the chemical attacks that Hussein cruelly carried out against the Kurdish people in the north were administer clumsily from 44 gallon drums, pumped by hand.
The dossier, dressed up in all it's finery, was presented as the definitive intelligence services proof that Hussein was planning something monstrous. But it transpired the dossier was written by a student as a part of a speculative 'what if?' exam scenario in a californian university, and this only came to light in the UK at least, when a TV station (Channel 4) found it on the web, and went digging. On top of that, the late Doctor David Kelly, a weapons inspector who was acknowledged as one of the leading authorities on Iraq, weapons and their capabilities, gave an interview, denouncing the UK government's 'adaptation' of the said dossier, saying it was being twisted to sound a lot worse than it was, and edited to fit for purpose. (And he was then exposed to the press in a manner that he felt left him with a shattered career, and he subsequently 'committed suicide'.)
Chirac had his own motives for not going to war in Iraq, but when the dossier was exposed as a fake prior to the decision being taken, he was firm in saying no. Whatever you may think of him or the French people, the fact remains they were right, and given the contents of the article in question, even more so.
Add to that the infamous 'London letters' about pre 9/11 advance planning to invade Iraq, considered the 'weaker' of the two possible options, (the other being a stronger and more resilient Iran), and it's not hard to envisage a massive 'smoke and mirrors' exercise in spin and deceit.

The article in the Independent may or may not be accurate. Given the sources it comes from, and the reluctant confirmation from the current Iraqi Oil Minister, wrapped up in the media 'spin of enthusiasm' for such a move, invites the horrific possibility that our governments may have behaved monstrously in 'our' names, and that's tough to think about, or consider. It's also possible that many may be in denial, so to speak, for fear of being perceived as 'unpatriotic', for daring to question an enitre administration's motives.
That didn't stop protesters when Vietnam was on, but i suspect we live in a different world today, and the enthusiasm for principled revolution isn't what it used to be.

Two more roubles worth,

Alex.


----------



## Hermitage59 (Feb 25, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Thu Feb 22 said:


> The problem in Iraq (exacerbated by US blunders such as dismantling the Iraqi army so it could not keep order) is that ancient tribal and religious animosity remain and appear to be far more important to many people than democracy. If there is a good solid reason why we should not have gone in there, that's it. It's not a good thing to leave a situation worse than you found it.



In my opinion, this the near the heart of the matter, Dave. The control and influence tribal and religious leaders have over the local populations is near absolute. And when we consider just how poorly educated, and misinformed the locals are generally, particularly when viewing the planet in general, and it's a recipe for problems and misunderstanding. 
We can define democracy as we perceive it, but if a child, for example, is constantly and relentless educated with loyalty, and honour to his or her community or religion, as above all else, even to the ' salvation of personal sacrifice' that is the precursor to suicide bombing, it's not hard to see why the motivation of those people is bewildering, and at odds with our own perceptions of what constitutes a community.
Going in there, as you put it, was always going to be challenging, and a lack of understanding of the strength of tribal and religious bonds has only intensified those bonds to the extent that the people become almost intractible,at least to our definition of what is tolerance, honour, and civilised behaviour. 

Regards,

Alex.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 25, 2007)

> All due respect, Sir, you are wrong. Hussein had WMDs and He used them on his own people. Historical fact !!!



That is a historical fact, you're absolutely right. But at the time of the current invasion he didn't have them and wasn't using them.

Again, nobody is sorry to see him out of power (although I found the hanging absolutely disgusting, but that's another story). That's not the issue.


----------



## alanb (Feb 25, 2007)

JSMason @ Sat Feb 24 said:


> I don't think anybody can give you a straight answer about how many Iraqis have actually died. What percentage of that total were actually killed by Americans??



From the "CRS Report for Congress" http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22126.pdf



> [...]
> 
> *Iraqi Civilian Casualty Estimates*
> 
> ...



[footnotes omitted].


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 25, 2007)

And you will find sources that refute the refuting.

The only thing we outsiders know is that the number is high.

Also note that your report was from two years ago and that it was a "report for Congress." The latest report is from the UN, and it says 100,000 or something.


----------



## alanb (Feb 25, 2007)

No question about it -- this was just meant to be a starting point... a list of sources to check for the requested data. 

The Lancet Report was very much in the news in recent months... No matter whose data are the most accurate, the numbers are enormous. 

I also feel that the U.S. and the rest of the ostensible coalition of the ostensibly willing are responsible not only for the deaths resulting directly from our firepower but from all of the subsequent violence in the wake of the social/political/security vacuum that we created. 

No matter how you slice it, more civilian Iraqis have been killed by the U.S. military (and by its better-paid, better-equipped private-sector 'security' forces) than civilian Americans were killed on 9/11. I think of that, every day, when I look out my apartment window at the part of the sky that used to be filled nobly by the WTC...


----------



## JSMason (Feb 25, 2007)

Hey Folks. 

I just wanted to say that I really appreciate the spirited debate here. I seem to be the lone wolf on my side, and that's ok.
none of what i'm saying should be taken as personal, and i have the utmost respect for all u fine folks.

over at KVR they would have been quoting green day lyrics and sending me off to americansarestupid.com by now. Thanks for being civil. i just hope i'm not coming across as dogmatic and think that i have all the answers. I don't, i'm not the smartest guy in the room by far.

this typing stuff takes me forever, so i may not be able to hang with this debate much longer, because it's taling way to much time. 

Anyway, i just wanted to let you all know i appreciate the passionate and civil manner in which we have "waged" this debate


----------



## JSMason (Feb 25, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Sun Feb 25 said:


> JSMason @ 25/2/2007 said:
> 
> 
> > These are the central reasons why we went to war.
> ...



Iraq harbored and supported terrorism. we thought they had WMD stockpiles... all the reasons i listed above. this is why we invaded

WWII: Japanese drop bombs in a sneak attack on pearl harbor. How the hell did we end up on Normandy beach??? Where's the connection??? 

Why should we negotiate with any terrorist organization. These guys don't want anything from us, they just want us dead, how do you negotiate with that 
??? 
how much good has it done Israel to negotiate with Palastine ?? 
how much good did negotiations do us with North Korea ???
As much as i wish it would, i see no hope in negotiations. I wish everyone was as reasonable and intelligent as you are Ned, but i honestly don't think talking will do a damn bit of good.

Heck, the UN sat around yapping about Heusin for 12 years, that did as much good as a playboy to a blind man (non-braille version, of course)


----------



## JSMason (Feb 25, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sun Feb 25 said:


> > All due respect, Sir, you are wrong. Hussein had WMDs and He used them on his own people. Historical fact !!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree, Hussein's hanging, not that he didn't deserve it, made me sick to my stomach. I was gonna write a blues tune calles"Saddam's Swing" but i just can't celebrate violent sticking death. 

Believe me Mr Batzdorf, I'm looking forward to the day when we beat our swords into plow shares. (Oh Crap !!! I just actually got a tear in my eye)


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 25, 2007)

JSMason @ Sun Feb 25 said:


> I seem to be the lone wolf on my side, and that's ok.



No your not. Things are not so black and white. I have never been bothered by the _There were no WMD's _issue. The plan to get Saddam was in place long before 9/11 or the WMD alarm. One could argue the recent Gulf war is an attempt at completing the first Gulf war where dozens of countries fought (which would seem to justify it on an international scale.) So even though the WMD evidence didn't pan out, I certainly don't have a problem conceptually with ousting a mass murderer who has employed WMD's and started a few wars where over a million people have died. Not to mention the tens of thousands of his own people tortured and killed by his various death mechanism's and so on. 

People that are upset by business interests, resultant spoils of war, political deception within democratic sytems etc., perhaps don't realise they're hoping for several firsts in the history of man. These things are a part of all wars and the governments who wage them. The US actually has one of the better track records in world history with things like the Marshall Plan and the reliquishing of conquered lands back to local control. (Yes we have our share of backing the wrong horse in China, Vietnam, South America and many other places if you want to sight bad US behaviour.)

The problem with the current war is not that it was a bad idea to hang the hangman Saddam. It's whether we have set people free to rule themselves or kill themselves.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 26, 2007)

> Iraq harbored and supported terrorism. we thought they had WMD stockpiles.



Actually neither of those statements is true.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 26, 2007)

> I have never been bothered by the There were no WMD's issue. The plan to get Saddam was in place long before 9/11 or the WMD alarm. One could argue the recent Gulf war is an attempt at completing the first Gulf war where dozens of countries fought (which would seem to justify it on an international scale.) So even though the WMD evidence didn't pan out, I certainly don't have a problem conceptually with ousting a mass murderer who has employed WMD's and started a few wars where over a million people have died.



Dave.

You've read the PNAC website - the "think tank" of all the people who ended up in the Bush administration's foreign policy department (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and on and on). They concocted a radical ideology based on the idea that the US has a right to do whatever it takes, including launching pre-emptive wars, to maintain our superiority in the world (to curtail "the rise of a rival superpower"). Closely tied to that is our right to "energy security" (there's an article about this by James Baker, who of course is also involved in all this even though he doesn't have an official title right now).

Now, if you happen to believe that ideology, okay. But there's no debating whether or not it's radical.

I personally believe it's both immoral and irrational, and I believe the evidence shows that this is mainly a substitute for a forward-thinking energy policy - way, way beyond just the spoils of war, as you see it. Furthermore, I believe that if the American voters had understood the PNAC agenda, they wouldn't have voted for it. The Democrats should have been screaming bloody murder about it, not voting to allow it!

But you're right that it's not black and white. Again, this ideology isn't the whole reason we're there. I'd even say that "they tried to kill my daddy" is part of it (i.e. continuing the first Gulf war). As I said, that war was also very much related to "energy security." Nobody wanted Saddam Hussein to move on to Saudi Arabia - another country with a government with bad human rights behavior, even though they're not Saddam Husseins.

As to your idea that there's nothing wrong with getting rid of people like Saddams... well, let's go back to what I posted earlier. Why are we then standing by in areas where we really could do something? It turns out we are somewhat involved in Somalia - and you only have to look at the map to see why - but what about other African countries where people are starving like crazy and they're dying of AIDs?

I don't think anybody would argue with your idea that getting rid of bad guys is a good thing to do if you can do it without bringing anarchy (i.e. if the price is right). But unfortunately that's also not the whole story.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 26, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 26 said:


> > Iraq harbored and supported terrorism. we thought they had WMD stockpiles.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually neither of those statements is true.



Yes we didn't go in there for either of those reasons. The administration fashioned their own Gulf of Tonkin resolution out of those _facts_ and sold it to the American people. What they should have done is just made their case and said they wanted to go in there for strategic reasons (and listed them.) If you think about it this would have slowed down the process and allowed a national debate. In that debate hopefully someone would have said _I can see how you think this would be a real answer and perhaps cause a domino effect creating democracy's... it won't...they don't want it...it will be an awful excercise in futility and tie our hands while more legitimate threats strengthen their hands._ Indeed there where such voices but not heard or regarded. It was a railroad job (and I am someone who supported it but now consider I was ill-informed as to the nature of those who would emerge to take the reigns in that country.) Heck, Hillary supported going in and even John Kerry.

The US Government should never again use fear tactics to start a war as they have done in the past.


Edit: reading your post now Nick


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 26, 2007)

> The US Government should never again use fear tactics to start a war as they have done in the past.



Right on, Brutha!


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 26, 2007)

Really the lack of intellectual vigor needed in this whole case was just not there. The reason the American public has turned against this thing is it's so obvious to them what the dynamic is over there between the factions.


----------



## JSMason (Feb 26, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 26 said:


> > Iraq harbored and supported terrorism. we thought they had WMD stockpiles.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually neither of those statements is true.



Yes it is. 25,000 per suicide bomber... I call that supporting terrorism.

When the millinum bomber fled the US, he escaped to Iraq.

Al Zar-Cow-EE (i gotta learn to spell that) was there as early as 2002, before we invaded (Zarqawi- there we go-yeah for cut and paste)

Have you read the 911 report ??? obviously not. It says there was a definite relationship
between Al Quieda and Iraq (It also says Iraq didn't participate or collaborate on 911, but that is not germain to this point)

Now here is the motherload, awesome web page
Quotes, photos, video stills, documents, cancelled checks, court decisions, massive footnotes- all of it proves That Heussin harbored and supported terror

http://www.husseinandterror.com/

So YES!!!! Iraq supported and harbored terrorists


----------



## JSMason (Feb 26, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Mon Feb 26 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 26 said:
> 
> 
> > > Iraq harbored and supported terrorism. we thought they had WMD stockpiles.
> ...



We did have a national debate, democrat demanded it. The congress overwhelmingly agreed and the war went forward. Now those dems who voted for the war are running for president


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 26, 2007)

JSMason @ Mon Feb 26 said:


> We did have a national debate...


Yes but not a properly informed debate. How much did you here about the Shia vrs. Sunni problem and that there would be hell to pay to get these people to play ball? Or that foreign interests would not only do everything they could to sabotage any success but in fact be highly successful themselves in doing it. What reputuable government source stood up and said _Folks I guarantee you this will be an ongoing nightmare that will go long past the initial military defeat of Iraq_? You could chalk it all up to another intelligence failure and drop every other issue as valid or invalid. Now that the American people _are_ properly informed by witnessing the reality on the ground there they feel different in large part.

If there is a success story it's the Kurds who have done very well for themselves and behaved also. I'm very glad for them. I'm glad Saddam is gone. I honestly hope a self governing state may emerge with everyone playing ball - and - all foreign interlopers erradicated and the Iraqi people finally benefitting from their country's natural resources.

Yes Nick our development of alternative fuels is decades behind and it is a huge key to independence from foreign oil.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 26, 2007)

JSMason @ Mon Feb 26 said:


> We did have a national debate, democrat demanded it. The congress overwhelmingly agreed and the war went forward. Now those dems who voted for the war are running for president


Yeah, I remember those days. If you didn't support the war you were a hippie who loved the terrorists, didn't support the troops and hated America. And, if you weren't a citizen, you risked being "disappeared". If you posted an opinion against going to war on a forum, you got flamed for even bringing up the topic, or flamed by the people who were "passionate" about wanting to go to war. The media hosted general after general, but virtually no leaders of the peace movement. After the biggest peace march in history, Time magazine ran a small photo deep within the magazine. News anchors wore flags on their lapels and asked few tough questions. If you were in the administration and didn't follow in lock step, you lost your job. The exodus at the CIA was unprecedented. And, if you were in a public position, you risked being swift-boated. (Ask Mr. Wilson and Mrs. Plame.) The only time during my 26 year career that any of my employers specificallyu directed us to not talk about politics at work was during the run-up to war. "It" (anti-war sentiment) might offend somebody.

The mass hysteria and perceived peer pressure were unprecedented in my lifetime.

There was debate in Congress, but the political pressure to give in to war (though not to declare it) were enormous. 

The sad thing is that few lessons were learned about how to prevent such panicked thinking and political brow-beating. In fact, I would guess that certain think tanks have refined their methods, based on the experience.

As said above, we have had a good, open debate here. I wish that the same had been true in general in 2002 and 2003.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 26, 2007)

> So YES!!!! Iraq supported and harbored terrorists



And that's the reason for the war in your opinion?


----------



## JSMason (Feb 26, 2007)

Dave Connor @ Mon Feb 26 said:


> JSMason @ Mon Feb 26 said:
> 
> 
> > We did have a national debate...
> ...





You are right Mr Connor. We did not consider the aftermath of this mess and right now it seems that it will never end. 

We should have know the Iranians were gonna jump in and try to destablize the region. We should have been able to see the bloodshed of innocent Iraqis. No, we defiantly have made some serious miscalculations concerning Middle Easterners and many innocent people have paid for it with their blood.

But I think there is hope for Iraq. 80% of the violence in Iraq is within 50 miles of Baghdad. The vast majority of Iraq is doing fine and having huge economic growth.



Dave Connor @ Mon Feb 26 said:


> Yes Nick our development of alternative fuels is decades behind and it is a huge key to independence from foreign oil.


If I were elected president (fat freakin chance of that), I would make alternative fuel the centerpiece of my defense plan. I don't know of any single thing that would make us safer and more secure than homegrown fuel. 

Here's a bit 'o history: After WWII, we rounded up, tried, and executed all the German Nazis we could get our hands on. We did not pursue any Arab Nazis because we feared losing the mid east as an oil supplier. One of these Arab Nazis, directly connected to the German Nazis, went back to Iraq and started the Baathist party. Khayrallah Tulfah- uncle AND father-in-law of our dear old pal, Saddam Heussin... and you thought us folks in the good ol south were inbred

My point being, our problems with arabs and oil go waaaaaaayyyyy back

If you are into history at all, Here's a good site that chronicles Islamic Jihad since about 1914. http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/saddam_en.html


----------



## JSMason (Feb 26, 2007)

JonFairhurst @ Mon Feb 26 said:


> JSMason @ Mon Feb 26 said:
> 
> 
> > We did have a national debate, democrat demanded it. The congress overwhelmingly agreed and the war went forward. Now those dems who voted for the war are running for president
> ...



I had the exact opposite experience. I was going to NCCU, very liberal, very anti-war. I wouldn't talk politics at work either way unless i was very comfortable with the individuals i was talking to. 

I was a producer at WPTF here in raleigh. I was running a redskins game on sept 11th no less. I got into so bad with one of the news guys, that it almost ended in violence. He kept screaming like a mad man to the point that i could no longer here the broadcast. this went on for several minutes. I said nothing more to him, but he just keptscreaming and screaming. finally i stood up, grabbed him by his shirt collar and had to threaten to physically toss him out of the booth if he didn't shut up. I am not a violent person, at all, so i kinda shocked myself, but i was starting to fear for my job because i simply could not hear over all his shouting...

I will never discuss politics at work again !!!


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 26, 2007)

JSMason @ Mon Feb 26 said:


> I will never discuss politics at work again !!!


Not a bad policy.

In general where I worked, there were like minded people who would regularly talk politics in the break room, or hallways. Some were like minded. Some weren't, but people were respectful of one another, and generally took an analytical approach. (Not that people wouldn't get a bit frustrated at times. No matter what we say, people around us don't generally change world views.)

From the tone of the announcement, it was the people in earshot who were offended.

The funny thing is, the people who have talked politics over the years - even those diametrically opposed - really like one another! We get to try out our arguments, learn where they fall apart, learn what news gets spread around both Red and Blue State blogs, and see where we have common ground. We often seek one another out to go to lunch and share the latest about our lives and families. 

But in 2002/3 we really felt silenced. And if The People are silenced, the leaders do whatever the h3ll they want...

Anyway, wild story about coming near to blows. Even the best boxers choose their sparring partners carefully!


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 26, 2007)

> We should have know the Iranians were gonna jump in and try to destablize the region. We should have been able to see the bloodshed of innocent Iraqis.



Well, if you buy the ideology, this was going to set an example for Iran - and Syria, etc. - that would cause them to set up democracies too. Democracies don't breed terrorism, and we were going to spread democracy.

It's a noble thought, but unfortunately it never had a chance of working. You only have to look at the Palestinian territory - a democracy - to see that hopelessness is the main thing that breeds terrorism. And the Balkan war was a recent enough example of what happens to different factions that all of a sudden aren't held together by force.

Joseph Biden thinks we should make it three countries and be done with it. I guess they'd have to set up an oil company that each of the three had equal shares in. Maybe that would be the best solution, assuming Turkey could be made to accept it, which is unlikely.


----------



## Dave Connor (Feb 26, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Feb 26 said:


> Joseph Biden thinks we should make it three countries and be done with it. I guess they'd have to set up an oil company that each of the three had equal shares in. Maybe that would be the best solution, assuming Turkey could be made to accept it, which is unlikely.



One can understand this option and tend to agree with it. Saudia Arabia will be none to happy with the defacto increase of Iranian influence and power is my guess. They have already started saber rattling at any move by the Iranians to take advantage of the situation even as it is now. I wonder how long a period of time it would be before all out war between Bagdad and the lower third of the country would ensue.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Mar 14, 2007)

Another excellent video on iRack:

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=PuEDwcfJPSk


----------



## Dave Connor (Mar 14, 2007)

Very very funny.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Mar 14, 2007)

It was Douglas Feith who, as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, provided the "alternative intelligence assessment" from the Pentagon that helped lead us into Iraq.

Gen. Tommy Franks described Feith as the "f---ing stupidest guy on the face of the earth" (Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack, p.281)

Did you know that after 9-11 Feith wanted to attack Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, because the terrorists wouldn't expect it?!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3890-2004Aug15.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Aug15.html)

Webster's should simply define "Neo-Con" as "pathological, with a thirst for blood". 

This administration is sick.


----------



## zonobono (Mar 14, 2007)

and


> and Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore),



funniest thing i read in a while. funny in the sense of ultimately stupid.


8)


----------

