What is the point in any of us addressing it? It won't matter. We'll still be told how "The War In Iraq" was a good thing. "The Happy Iraqis", etc, etc, ect...

I'll repost my comments from BHW's post here because I think it sums it up very clearly:

It goes back to this:

There are a lot of actual Iraqis in Iraq.

There are a lot of guns in Iraq.

When are the "Iraqis in general" with guns going to turn on the "specific elements within Iraq " which are behaving like uncivilized shits and keep blowing the Americans who are trying to help the "Iraqis in general"? Really, where are the mass walks and demonstrations of Iraqis who are FOR the US?? Hmmm?

They're cowards? Fear of retaliation? Then if you cannot fight for YOUR OWN FREEDOM, you do not deserve it. Period.

American Troops should not be used to fight someone else's war... be it the president's or the Iraqis. I know some people will roll their eyes at me saying what I always say but that doesn't make it any less true:

Where was the US in all the other counties that had "problems" and tyrants before now? Nigeria? Etreia? Rwanda? North Korea? Cuba? Guatemala? ETC... ETC... Why are the Iraqis any more "special"? At least in the other countries I named, save for Cuba and North Korea, you had the people fighting their own wars. What the HELL has Iraq done?

FUCK ALL.

So what am I going to say when our boys and girls, both civilian and military get shot, burned up, and mutilated? We're doing this for the deserving happy Iraqis because you know in the long run, the US will be oh so much better off.

To be blunt- It's bullshit.

Heard on the news tonight about the the new US embassy in Iraq will employ over 3,000. It will be the biggest US embassy in the world (because you know, unlike the more civilized western Europe, the US embassy in Iraq is basically providing social service and rebulidign infrastructure for the "happy iraqis" that small town america doesn't even have access to).

One only hopes that we don't revisit that embassy evacuation in Saigon oh so long ago.

Vietnam kicked America's ass.
The planning was shit. The execution was shit. A little backwater smacked the US good and hard.

Once again, where are the "happy Iraqis" who are helping? The police force? They just want money and a job. Translating Seabiscut for Iraqi children to read? What the hell?

And the president says he's going to hand everything over in June. Even the Republicans are saying that Bush has not laid out or discussed a clear exit strategy.

You know why?

There isn't one.

FUCK IRAQ.

I think the whole Iraq mess is going to end up the biggest disaster America has done in the last 100 years. It's already practically there.

Why did we attack Iraq, who had no WMD, and who was not in a position to terrorize the U.S.? Because Iraq oil is problematic for Saudi oil. And Dubya's family is really just an extension of the Saudi royal family (House of Bush/House of Saud.)

I find it arrogant and presumptuous that we can even think, let alone speak out loud that democratizing Iraq is ultimately good for the U.S. So this world should be remolded into something U.S.-compatible? Everything should mesh, and ultimately be absorbed into our system or not work otherwise? Who do we think we are, Bill Gates?

What I saw on tv the other day was haunting and will stay with me for a long time. It's not often you see what looks like a very large charred brisket in smoldering underwear dragged through the streets, with 12 year olds flattening it with their boots. But I have yet to see ANYTHING at all that PROVES that Iraq was a major source of terrorism. Yes, they had their camps, but SO DOES SAUDI ARABIA.

Murder is murder, and I hope this does not go unpunished, and I wish for the same gruesome deaths for the killers. But in terms of the 'general public sentiment' of Iraqis, I can't help but feel that they see the obvious, that which the average American can't or refuses to see.

Like Boom, I don't buy demonizing the Iraqis, or most Muslims, at all. It is possible to condemn the accesses of extremists who do things like kill people and then burn, dismember the body or drag it through the streets. But, most Iraqis are no more willing to do such a thing than anyone else is. The other element is of course, the soliders have to be there to suffer such awful consequences. In my opinion, they should not be there. Does that redeem the horrid behavior of some people in Fallujah last week? Absolutely not. But, as in Somalia, it undoes the myth that Second and Third world peoples love invasions by the America military. They don't.

Eric, I did make a brief reference to Fallujah on one of David Flanagan's threads. I said I was happy that he had not posted another entry about how grateful and overjoyed the Iraqis are that the occupying forces are there. But, as soon as the furor dies down, I expect to see another entry of that sort. The Right seems unable to process the evidence that Iraqis did not send an invitation.

Vietnam never "kicked America's ass." The casualty ratio was something like 20:1. This, despite fighting the war with one hand tied behind our back.

The American public simply abandoned the troops, with a very vocal section calling them baby-killers and spitting on them when they returned home from their tour-of-duty. This destroyed morale, and the politicians lost their nerve. An exit-strategy was sought after, and found, and Vietnam was abandoned to the Communists, who rule it to this day.

Something similar may happen in Iraq. To the credit of the anti-war folks, they have not sunk to the level of slandering our men and women in uniform. (They slander the current administration instead.)

But a highly vocal minorty is constantly belittling the effort as pointless and hopeless. This is damaging morale, as well as public support.

Bush (or Kerry) might very well cut-and-run in 2005 (or shortly thereafter), leaving the briefly-liberated Iraqi people to once again fall under the thrall of a brutal dictatorship. The only difference is that this time it will be Shia radicals a-la Iran instead of Sunni lunatics.

The Right seems unable to process the evidence that Iraqis did not send an invitation.

*standing ovation*

fall under the thrall of a brutal dictatorship. The only difference is that this time it will be Shia radicals a-la Iran instead of Sunni lunatics.


Their problem. They don't want that to happen, then THEY can do something about it.

But a highly vocal minorty is constantly belittling the effort as pointless and hopeless.

Not pointless and hopeless, but a detour from the actual road we should be taking.

So now the 'loss' of Vietnam is the anti-war protesters fault. And here we are gearing up to make the disaster of Iraq, the anti-war protesters fault. Damn, why can't we all just support the idea of the U.S. invading the country of our choosing and why can't we all see the 'righteousness' of Americanized nation building???? What else are we supposed to do, folks, give up our hummers?

Too bad we can't all support the decisions of the Pres. no matter what they are. What is this free country coming too?

Disclaimer: This is a sarcastic comment to an ideology, nothing more.

RJ: "Bush (or Kerry) might very well cut-and-run... leaving the briefly-liberated Iraqi people to once again fall under...a brutal dictatorship. The only difference is that this time it will be Shia radicals a-la Iran instead of Sunni lunatics."

So what's wrong with that? We 'give' them democracy, who the hell do you think they're going to "vote" for?

In case you haven't noticed, they're voting every day, except instead of a fake count like we had in Florida, they're using roadside bombs, mass marches, and burned American bodies.

I'm seriously beginning to wonder what's keeping us from pulling out and leaving them to rot in their own shit?

WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE GONE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I repeat: We never should have gone there in the first place. Especially when Bush & Co. had everything planned except the days and months and years after "liberation."

We'll never win this with 130,000 military. I doubt that we could win it with half a million. Imagine a foreign army occupying California. Jeesus, give 'em AK-47s and RPGs, and the Crips and Bloods alone could kick the ass of any army in the world!

No, we won't win in Iraq; not in a year or a decade. It's a no-win, folks. (Too bad our fearless leaders don't read history: occupations are ALWAYS a no-win.)

So eventually, Bush Jr. will have to drop a few H-bombs and incinerate the country just to save face and show that even testicles are bigger in Texas; it's only a matter of time.

The end game in Iraq is a nuclear bomb.

Do we do it sooner -- or later?

(Or better yet, maybe Bush and Cheney should dress up in those little flight-suit costumes and go over there show us how it's supposed to be done. They can put on cowboy hats and ride the Big One from the bomb-bay of a B-52 all the way onto Main Street in Fallujah. They wanted it so bad, let those criminals die for it. Slim Pickens would have.)

REPORTER: "President Bush, now that weapons of mass destruction -- your main justification for going to war in Iraq -- appear to be non-existent, what possible reason can you have for putting American lives at risk and draining the American treasury?"

PRES. BUSH: "umm... um... I can no longer sit back and allow infiltration, indoctrination, subversion, and an international conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!"

Iraqi male: What was that flash over there?

Iraqi cleric: I believe it came from Fallujah.

Iraqi male: Holy shit. Fallujah is gone, man!

Iraqi cleric: No! Wait! Now they're coming for us!

Iraqi male: What do we do?

Iraqi cleric: We either die or surrender.

Iraqi male: Tell me, oh wise one, is it really true we'll have all those virgins in Heaven?

Iraqi cleric: I don't know; I'm not sure; it's one of those 'literal vs metaphorical' arguments that comes down to interpretation.

Iraqi male: (puts up hands and screams) I SURRENDER! I SURRENDER!

Iraqi cleric: Me too! Please Mr. Friendly American Liberator, don't turn my town to ash! We surrender!

======== * * * ==========

By the way: Shark will be announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Presidential election later this week.

Too bad our fearless leaders don't read history: occupations are ALWAYS a no-win.

Except Japan and Germany. And S. Korea. And the former Yugoslavia. And...

By the way, Shark, I agree that we did not have to go there. It was, as I have said before, optional. (Four-Star General Wes Clark agrees with me, by the way.)

But, since we voted, through the Congress, to go there, we are now obligated to stick around until the job is done. It'll be tough, and ugly, and bloody, and expensive. But the mission must be accomplished.

To do otherwise is to essentially surrender, and that would embolden the terrorists worldwide.

Well, first, we killed probably 70% of males over 16 in Germany, and we bombed their country to smithereens.

Then we dropped atomic bombs on two of Japan's largest cities.

In Iraq, well...

IT COULD WORK.

RJ: It'll be tough, and ugly, and bloody, and expensive. But the mission must be accomplished. To do otherwise is to essentially surrender, and that would embolden the terrorists worldwide.

So, RJ, you're enlistment age, right?

If you talk the talk, you should be willing to walk the walk.

Been nice workin' witcha!

Here's the rub...

You probaly could nuke Iraq... and there would STILL be islamic terrorist.

Once again, you have GOT to understand that their culture is NOT our culture and at this point in time, there is no meshing with it. They need to figure out where they are going within themselves before the rest of the world can deal with them.

So, RJ, you're enlistment age, right?

If you talk the talk, you should be willing to walk the walk.

Been nice workin' witcha!

We have an all-volunteer military. True, I did not volunteer. But, as an American, I have a right to my opinion, and my free speech.

If the draft was reinstated, I would go. Not to Canada, but to the military.

But the draft has not been reinstated. And it won't, for political reasons. So I am allowed to continue my university studies and continue working full-time in the private sector without having to go to a foreign land and deal with lunatics.

I don't think that speaks ill of me. Rather, I think it speaks very well of the men and women doing America's job in Iraq.

Maybe we should never have gone there. I dunno. But we are there. And we need to finish the job.

ROFL!

Even though Shark posted the 'gotcha,' it is hilarious seeing RJ Elliott trying to wiggle out of that.

The key is, as Bowden (and RJ) said using the example of Somalia, that leaving, backing down, backing off, etc, is EXACTLY the wrong thing to do on every possible level. Speaking of recalling history: do we not recall bin Laden's manifesto of just a few years ago where he ridiculed America's weakness for turning and running from Somalia after a similar incident there?

This horror, again as Bowden points out very specifically, is EXACTLY intended to send a message, and it is critical that we send an even more overwhelming message that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated now, or ever, and that Iraq will become a country ruled by law, a constitution, individual liberty, and eventually, democracy.

"About 6,000 interviews were carried out in total, half in Autumn last year and half this Spring, in a project run by Oxford Research International.

Seventy per cent of people said that things were going well or quite well in their lives, while only 29% felt things were bad.

And 56% said that things were better now than they were before the war. "

"In the poll of Iraqis, nearly 80% favoured a unified state with a central government in Baghdad; only 14% opted for a system of regional governments combined with a federal authority.


BRITISH OPINION POLL

British views of the war

The majority was even bigger among Iraqi Arabs, but for the Kurdish minority, the situation was reversed, with more than 70% backing a federal system.

There is an existing Kurdish regional government in the north, the powers of which were recognised by Iraq's interim constitution, signed last week."

"The survey shows overwhelming disapproval of political violence, especially of attacks on the Iraqi police but also on American and other coalition forces."

"But among Arabs, nearly one in five told the pollsters that attacks on coalition forces were acceptable.

About 15% say foreign forces should leave Iraq now, but many more say they should stay until an Iraqi government is in place or security is restored.

Looking back, more Iraqis think the invasion was right than wrong, although 41% felt that the invasion "humiliated Iraq".

But by ethnicity, only one in three Arabs believed their country was liberated - compared to four out of five Kurds. "

"This poll indicates that Iraqis strongly support a unified country with strong leadership. They don't want to see the country divided up and they don't want to see an Islamic government."

Regaining security is rated as by far the highest priority at 85%, followed by holding elections for a national government (30%), ensuring the majority of Iraqis can make a decent living (30%) and reviving the economy (28%).

And only just over a third of people report that their electricity supply is good. "

Source

"March 15 - A year after the bombs began to fall, Iraqis express ambivalence about the U.S.-led invasion of their country, but not about its effect: Most say their lives are going well and have improved since before the war, and expectations for the future are very high."

"The poll finds that 78 percent of Iraqis reject violence against coalition forces, although 17 percent - a sixth of the population - call such attacks "acceptable." One percent, for comparison, call it acceptable to attack members of the new Iraqi police.

There are huge differences in these and many other questions between Arab Iraqis, who account for 79 percent of the population, and the Kurdish minority (17 percent). Forty percent of Arabs say it was right for the United States to invade; that soars to 87 percent of Kurds. Just one-third of Arabs say the war liberated rather than humiliated Iraq; it's 82 percent of Kurds. Thirty percent of Arabs support the presence of coalition forces, again compared with 82 percent of Kurds. Positive views of the invasion also are held disproportionately in the south of the country, as well as in the Kurdish north."

"On a personal level, seven in 10 Iraqis say things overall are going well for them - a result that might surprise outsiders imagining the worst of life in Iraq today. Fifty-six percent say their lives are better now than before the war, compared with 19 percent who say things are worse (23 percent, the same). And the level of personal optimism is extraordinary: Seventy-one percent expect their lives to improve over the next year."

"As noted, 51 percent oppose the presence of coalition forces - but that doesn't mean most want them withdrawn immediately, likely because of security concerns. Fifteen percent of Iraqis say the forces should leave the country now; by contrast, 36 percent say they should remain until a new government is in place; 18 percent, until security is restored."

Source

"The positive attitudes and the high expectations and optimism are quite striking, with majorities telling us their lives are going well," ABC polling director Gary Langer said. "Expectations carry risks, however. If these are unmet, there could be political consequences."

On a personal level, seven in 10 Iraqis said things are going well for them and more than half - 56 per cent - said their lives are going better than before the war, compared with 19 per cent who said things are worse.

Seven in 10 said they expect their lives will be better a year from now, with more than one-third predicting they will be much better."

Source

boomcrashbaby,

"Why did we attack Iraq, who had no WMD, and who was not in a position to terrorize the U.S.?"

When were we able to 'prove' this....before or after we invaded? Why, after of course, so to use this as a reason against the war is just a bit dishonest. Everyone, including the UN, thought that they did have WMD's, they were used on their own people and Saddam never provided any proof that they were destroyed (as required by the UN). What else could they think? What would any reasonable thinking person think?

"I find it arrogant and presumptuous that we can even think, let alone speak out loud that democratizing Iraq is ultimately good for the U.S."
I disagree, if a Democracy is established in the region, it will give hope to citizens of the surrounding nations that they too, could have a democracy. This will put pressure on the governments to change, pressure from within, by it's own citizens. This would not only create an economic boon for the citizens there but also would give them an accurate idea of how America works. This could be a HUGH effort on the war on terror. If the oppression is removed from the citizens, they will have hope for the future. How many would then decide that 'strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing themselves up' is their best course of action?

"So now the 'loss' of Vietnam is the anti-war protesters fault."

Not their fault, but they played a BIG role the loss of morale. How do you think soilders felt when they saw Jane Fonda sitting on the Viet Cong's anti aircraft gun, knowing that she was supporting the enemy? Then seeing the 'riot's' going on back home, the way they were treated by anti-war protestors when they returned home? What effect do you think that would have on their morale? This unrest put a lot of political pressure on the government officials find a way out of Vietname. It weakened their resolve to do what is necessary to win. Anti-war protestors played a huge role in Vietnam, but the partisan 'political power-grab' did too. The constant sniping between parties, the constant spinning to paint the 'other' party as being in the wrong for their own political power.

Do you honestly not see how the anti-war protestors could have a negative impact on soldier's morale?

Shark,

"Well, first, we killed probably 70% of males over 16 in Germany, and we bombed their country to smithereens.

Then we dropped atomic bombs on two of Japan's largest cities."

That does tend to make it easier to win, but we are trying to take the high road and not 'bomb them into dust', this is why we are experiencing a higher mortality rate. If we only did high altitude bombing like in Bosnia we would have a much lower death rate, but then again, we are wanting to turn Iraq back over sooner than 5 years....

re: Bombs, dust, and destruction

Debbie: "That does tend to make it easier to win, but we are trying to take the high road and not 'bomb them into dust', this is why we are experiencing a higher mortality rate."

Gee, kinda sounds like politics is restraining an all-out military victory. Hmm, when was the last time we heard that?

mmm... lemme think...

Oh yeah, VIETNAM!

Shark:

So, in your opinion, we just should nuke the fuckers? Or daisy-cutter major Sunni cities into rubble? Or MOAB Baghdad?

Look, I know you don't think we should have been there in the first place. That's a reasonable opinion.

But we ARE there. So what do we do now?

A) Nuke 'em all. That'll get the French on board...

B) Bomb civilians without any remorse. That'll win some fucking hearts and minds, the subhumans!

C) Do what we're doing now, avoiding civilian casualities while going after extremists.

or

D) Run away like a French school-boy and scream "We're sorry! We're sorry!"

Which is it? Or do you have an "E"?

E. phase 1: EXIT IMMEDIATELY.
phase 2: Line the entire Iraq border with land mines, barbed wire, and a gigantic wall (built by Halliburton, of course).
phase 3: Step back and watch.
phase 4: Videotape the results from various vantage points along the wall: sell it on late night cable as "Iraqis Gone Wild". Give profits to families of the 9/11 dead and casualties from Bush's Blunder.

================
heh.

Actually RJ, I was responding to Debbie's implicit point that, ONCE AGAIN, politics is wagging the military dog in a war.

Example: Almost every 'expert' now says we need more troops, but the political fallout from that might lose Bush an votes or an election (?)

I'm trying to avoid the ol' "Liberals Made Us Lose Another War" crap when this thing spirals further into a disaster resembling Vietnam.

Twasn't "our" fault.

PS: "BRING OUR BOYS HOME NOW!"

BTW: I'm willing to bet that before it's all over, we'll 'be forced' to bomb Iraq into the stone age.

As the car transmission guy says in that old TV commercial:

"Pay me now -- or pay me later."

If we're going to do it, let's do it now.

I think the current escalation of hostilities is THE critical phase of this. If we can get things under control now without widespread bombing, then a corner will have been turned. We are actually being helped by the fact that these groups are funtioning as groups, where they can be dealt with collectively. We must succeed in capturing and/or killing Al-Sadr and crushing his militia, and we must take control over Fallujah.

funny, when you think of this: if the US didn't go to war, iraq would've been better off with saddam.

aye, US troops have been killed in iraq. and US civilians. and a lot more iraqis. come to think of it, who's country is it?

personally, i like the wall and land mines idea.

"funny, when you think of this: if the US didn't go to war, iraq would've been better off with saddam."

based on what? Would this be from personal experience? Is this claim based on personal interviews, what was your polling sample? Polls that I've read say the opposite, that most Iraqis have great hope for the future, 70% say that things will be better in a year.

Maybe we should poll the families of the victims that were uncovered in the mass graves, I'm sure they all want Saddam back.

Shark,

Personally, I think we should level the sunni triangle, but I'm not running things.

boomcrashbaby: "Why did we attack Iraq, who had no WMD, and who was not in a position to terrorize the U.S.?"

Debbie: When were we able to 'prove' this....before or after we invaded? Why, after of course, so to use this as a reason against the war is just a bit dishonest.

That's the silliest thing I ever heard. You don't go try to prove a death row inmate is really guilty AFTER you kill him.

Everyone, including the UN, thought that they did have WMD's.....What else could they think? What would any reasonable thinking person think?


The U.N. I saw on tv didn't know if they had WMD. That is why there were inspectors, that is why people wanted time to find out if they were destroyed or not. This rationale of let's justify a war based on a suspicion is terrifying.

boomcrashbaby: "I find it arrogant and presumptuous that we can even think, let alone speak out loud that democratizing Iraq is ultimately good for the U.S."

Debbie: I disagree, if a Democracy is established in the region, it will give hope to citizens of the surrounding nations that they too, could have a democracy.

Because of course, they want to be like us.

This will put pressure on the governments to change, pressure from within, by it's own citizens. This would not only create an economic boon for the citizens there but also would give them an accurate idea of how America works.

Damn, can't they just see we are superior? Once we can convince them of that (by force if necessary), then maybe they will just see we are a misunderstood superpower.

If the oppression is removed from the citizens, they will have hope for the future. How many would then decide that 'strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing themselves up' is their best course of action?

I take my earlier comment back. THIS is the silliest thing I ever heard. From what I understand of world news, they are not strapping themselves with explosives and blowing up their own oppressive government. Hello? What news do you watch? So when a young Palestianian girl blows herself and an Israeli bus up, she's really saying 'I want to be just like you!'

Do you honestly not see how the anti-war protestors could have a negative impact on soldier's morale?

Taken to the extent of the protests in Vietnam, yes. But I have yet to hear of anybody who is blaming the troops or resorting to the level of protests from that era. So I do not see it as comparable. Furthermore we are free to dissent in this country and perhaps we should train our troops to not only be able to survive an attempt on their life but some criticism of the administration as well.

Riff: "...if the US didn't go to war, iraq would've been better off with saddam."

On a certain level, your point is valid. Powerful dictators often keep the ethnic and 'outlaw' tensions in check. What's better for the ol' Law & Order than a murderous facist with an iron fist?!

(see Yugoslavia, post-Tito for more.)

BTW: This makes the point that leaving Iraq to "containment" and focusing on Arghanistan would have been a much more effective way to fight the terrorists.

As it is now, we've got TWO anarchist nations that are breeding terrorists like fruit-flies.

Thanks, George!

boomcrashbaby: "Why did we attack Iraq, who had no WMD, and who was not in a position to terrorize the U.S.?"

Debbie: When were we able to 'prove' this....before or after we invaded? Why, after of course, so to use this as a reason against the war is just a bit dishonest.

Two words: SCOTT RITTER.

(Oh, wait, he was an opportunist, a traitor, and selling a book.)

Nevermind.

"I take my earlier comment back. THIS is the silliest thing I ever heard. From what I understand of world news, they are not strapping themselves with explosives and blowing up their own oppressive government. Hello? What news do you watch? So when a young Palestianian girl blows herself and an Israeli bus up, she's really saying 'I want to be just like you!'"

No, she is saying that she prefers death to the current life that she is living.....duh, not to difficult to understand is it?

Or that she's so filled with hate, she wants to kill as many of the "enemy" civilians if she can. Plus, the bonus: heaven!

I wonder how many male virgins -- er, raisins -- she gets.

If she just preferred death, she'd kill only herself. Instead, her real goals are to 1) murder Jews 2) become a martyr.

I'm not saying that the Palestinians don't have legitimate gripes about many things, but when they slaughter civilians, I turn my ears off.

"Because of course, they want to be like us."

No, but I'm sure that they don't want to be tortured, imprisioned for disagreeing with their government, have their families tortured and killed because they criticized their government. Are you thinking that they couldn't possibly want any type of freedoms, they actually enjoy watching their loved ones be raped, tortured, and killed. I'm sure they all dream of being imprisoned for most of their life. As kids, I can just imagine them dreaming of the day that they too can be gassed to death in a mass murder of their entire towns, or maybe herded into a ditch and shot to death while the bulldozers warmed up so they could cover them efficiently. Is what you are thinking?????

"Damn, can't they just see we are superior? Once we can convince them of that (by force if necessary), then maybe they will just see we are a misunderstood superpower."

You obviously feel the need to be flippant in your remarks...

"I take my earlier comment back. THIS is the silliest thing I ever heard. From what I understand of world news, they are not strapping themselves with explosives and blowing up their own oppressive government. Hello? What news do you watch? So when a young Palestianian girl blows herself and an Israeli bus up, she's really saying 'I want to be just like you!'"

My, you are really full of yourself... No it has nothing to do with being like me. They strap bombs to themselves because they don't think that their current life is worth living. Some of that is because they are so oppressed that they are willing to become 'martyrs'....notice how the LEADERS never seem to want to be martyrs.... hmmm, funny isn't it. They all want to live, they surround themselves with citizens in an attempt to manipulate others into not taking them out.... Quite telling, they obviously don't think that their own life is that bad, but then again, they are the ones in charge.... imagine that. The only ones strapping the bombs to themselves are the ones that have no hope for the future.

"Actually RJ, I was responding to Debbie's implicit point that, ONCE AGAIN, politics is wagging the military dog in a war."

Shark, you are correct in this, politics should be put aside during times of conflict and the focus should be on the country as a whole and not on individual political parties...unfortunately that will never happen.

Some of that is because they are so oppressed that they are willing to become 'martyrs'....The only ones strapping the bombs to themselves are the ones that have no hope for the future.

Some of them honestly believe they have no hope for the future. But some of them know better and murder other people anyway.

And some are educated and are NOT poor or oppressed and still fly planes full of civilians into buildings full of civilians. Mohammed Atta comes to mind.

The only ones strapping the bombs to themselves are the ones that have no hope for the future.

What is your reasoning for why they are bombing western influences, rather than their oppressive government?

Are you thinking that they couldn't possibly want any type of freedoms, they actually enjoy watching their loved ones be raped, tortured, and killed. I'm sure they all dream of being imprisoned for most of their life. As kids, I can just imagine them dreaming of the day that they too can be gassed to death in a mass murder of their entire towns, or maybe herded into a ditch and shot to death while the bulldozers warmed up so they could cover them efficiently. Is what you are thinking?

No, Debbie, my line of thought does not even go along with that at all.

Here you are trying to convince me that they are oppressed because they can't speak out against their government, yet when I try to speak out against my government, the response is that I am harming innocent soldiers. There is an attempt to surpress my voice with guilt rather than imprisonment. I am using the same freedoms that you want them to have.

Their governments are based on their religions. I was raised a Christian. I still believe in God but have distanced myself from the church and do not believe in organized religion as anything more than a tame version of what they have over there. And I truly believe to establish a government founded on religious beliefs leads exactly to the type of life they have over there.

But what do we have over here? We have judges who want to put their scriptures and their biblical commandments on courthouse walls for ALL Americans of all faiths to be subject to. They want references to their god to be ingrained in patriotic songs. They want their unproven concept of creationism to be taught as fact. They want to discriminate against other Americans and deny them certain civil liberties, rights and privileges because those individuals do not fit into their definition of what is 'biblically' right (gay marriage for example). They want to define this religious philosophy into the U.S. constitution.

We are the most violent nation in the industrialized world. Our hate crimes against orientation, race and religion (anti-semitism, et. al.) all stem from religious interpretation. How about we fix our own problems first, before we go try to reshape the world into our own mold?

Oppression is oppression. A platypus by any other name is just as fucked up.

Debbie: Personally, I think we should level the sunni triangle, but I'm not running things.

Nuke em all and the camel they rode in on. Here we go.

Because Americans will be gone and they will be in control of their government again, or so they think.

Polls that I've read say the opposite, that most Iraqis have great hope for the future, 70% say that things will be better in a year.

Because Americans will be gone and they will be in control of their government again, or so they think.

Boom-
Guilt or hurt feelings may make you feel bad, but I disagree that they constitute oppression. If your convictions are shattered by criticism, you might question the strength of your convictions rather than blame those you disagree with.

I said surpress. I don't equate surpression with opression.

As far as opression goes, we DO have it in this country, just not on the scale of the Islamic world.

Noted, either way, my point remains the same.

As does mine, and I should point out to others, if interested, that my convictions are not shattered. They are still there, just as strong. I don't see where it even looked like my convictions were crumbling truthfully.

debbie: "based on what?"

how about the 300 or so men and children killed in fallujah after the mutilation of the US civilians?

300 for 4? excellents odds, just not for the people of iraq.

Shark, that does sound better. well, better than getting capped in the ass by a bunch of white folk that be pokin' around where they not supposed to be pokin'.

My family is a military family and we believe in what we are doing. However, I feel that a great deal of countries dislike americans for many reason's. I think that the time has come for the U.S. to not involve ourseleves in any Foriegn affairs, and only take care of own Nation and our dedicated allies. I believe, if we develope alternative sources of energy, we could then introduce these new sources into our society at an alarming rate. Instead of spending money on war, we could be using the money to build and give these new sources of energy to all americans. In doing so, the U.S. will become even stronger in many way's. We will never need to depend on foriegn oil, we will have cleaner air, americans will have more money in they're pockets, and I believe the rest of the world might begin to start trusting us more. Oil would never be the worlds argument why we are involved in others affairs.
I believe that when and if we leave Iraq, it will be a horriable mistake on both sides. When we finally leave Iraq, the country will go into civil war between many factions, and more innocent Iraqi people will die. Afterwards, people all over the world will blame the U.S. because of our early withdrawl. I believe when good men do nothing(U.S.) evil will prevail. I am also disappointed in many of our soldiers who complain about doing their duty. The U.S. Is one of the only volunteer countries and therefore I believe soldiers should just obey. When becoming a soldier, you are aware of what you are giving up, and know that one day you might go to war for no matter the reason. I understand that there are many reservations about war, but when entering the services you cant believe your just going to sit on the sidelines.