You star with "Let us briefly analyse ..." which sounded promising, but then launched into a loaded screed of suppositions.

Please spare the such use of the term "analysis" and derivatives thereof.

>>I am of the opinion that this will not happen and instead the "War on Terror" will continue. Those that put forth the lies that instigated it are still in power, so how could any possible positive change occur?!<<

Positive change comes when terrorists and their supporters are crushed, marginalized, ostracized and removed from power. I know that will put you out of a job as a pro-terrorist propagandist, but I can live with that.

Dave

You said it all Dave...
I couldn't agree more!

D L

I agree with Dave as well. It is extremly naive to think that "The West only need to pull out of Iraq, end the �War on Terror� and compile a fair agreement for Palestine, as true peacekeepers would." The issues that the terrorists have with the West run much deeper. An honest and careful analysis would make this clear to you. Instead, you chose to parrot back the same old information. Next time, if you use the term analysis, try to actually analyze something.

The War on Terror SHOULD continue until it's won. Whether it WILL or not seems more doubtful every day.

Please recall that this particular conflict was not begun when the US and its allies entered Iraq, but after years of escalating murder by terrorists, until one such act finally claimed enough lives. (On 9/11/2001, in case you forgot.)

I'd like to see one of these folks analyze their own motivations for rejecting known fact and instead embracing a destructive fantasy that makes little or no logical sense.

Dave

The falsehoods of the Iraq War--your opinion is guarnteed by the blood of fighting men and women. John Kerry was chariman of Intelligance Committee, Bill Clinton as president and all senitors voted for war because of 911 terrorist attacks that have and had links to Iraq. Iraq had WMD--even the muggs, thuggs and thieves at the UN say so! Give over it! And by the way Socialism is a failed form of government. Get over that! And the opinion polls never call a fair and balanced cross section of the citizens of this country. They only call the minority liberal "enlightened" mush for brain cowards that have never done anything for this country buy live off of the government. Enjoy your selves this to shall pass. And that is a true statement because the Democrats are a dieing party without ideas, leaders or a vision. (If you don't count tax and spend.)

"after years of escalating murder by terrorists"

The same could be said about the exploits of the USA. If we are to crush, marginalize, ostracize and remove from power terrorists and their supports, then this is merely following the methods of GW Bush, which apparant have NOT worked. in actual fact the situation has got worse wth the increase of attacks in Iraq and elsewhere.

It does not cease to amaze me that there is a majority of individuals that support the actions of USA as if their methods are correct. Obviously ignoring that the motivations for the actions taken and the results achieved, far differ from the objectives that were originally promoted.... and anybody that disagrees to them is a "pro-terrorist"... lol

The problem with the “War on Terror� is that we are trying to fight an ideology. I would think that after going through the Cold War for so long that we had learned our lesson on fighting ideology. You can’t do it through military force. The only way we got ourselves out of the Cold War was through Regan’s tactic of spending money on defense so that the other side would have to do the same until one of you runs out of money. Okay, so that ended the Cold War once Russia ran out of money, but the ideology of communism behind it is still alive, especially in Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea. It will be the same if we “win� the War on Terror. We may pull out of the Middle East eventually, but that ideology will be very hard to kill. The most we can do is try to do is show them something better than a life of hate and terrorism. I think if we are going to continue to occupy Iraq we should get the whole world involved using the UN. This will show people, especially those in disfavor of our occupation of their country, that the whole world is against this ideology and that the whole world wants to help. But Bush’s reluctance to allow the UN to help hardly at all makes us look more like imperialistic occupiers than the peace loving people we truly are.

Jamal narrow the scope on this big subject. Trust me there is a lot of factual information to use against the promoter of freedom.

The number of supporters of the war in Iraq is dwindling as the days go by.

Bush lost his credibility many times over. Once you loose credibility you can't get it back. Unless your Bill Clinton durring the impeachement where his approval rating shot up to 60%.

Only ones left are the hard right supporters, misinformed, and the profiteers. I don't think Bush believes he is winning this war on terror, much less rebuilding Iraq.

An excerpt from Mikiso Hane's book on Peasants, Rebels and Oucasts, the underside of modern Japan, talking about the Tokugawa period (1600-1868) reads as follows - "Whilst its initial motivation for building a rich and powerful nation was defensive in nature, Japan soon joined the Western powers in competing for political and economic gains on the Asian continent. Increasingly, however, such a policy led to conflicts of interest with those Western powers, including a United States that, while professing the highest moral and idealistic motives, pursued a foreign policy of economic imperialism. The significance of the United State's "open-door policy" towards China - adopted in the name of international justice but, in fact, designed to protect U.S. economic interests in that country - was not lost on the Meije leaders."
Oh dear, what has changed except the substitution of the countries involved?????

Hey, Jamal, you big prick! The actions of the USA are aimed at terrorists, and at governments. Our armies went to Iraq to fight the Saddam regime, ie, his armies. The same is true of the Israelis. They attempt to locate and kill known terrorists/leaders. Sometimes in both cases there are civilian fatalaties, ie, collateral damage. It is unfortunate, and both Israelis and Americans believe that. Your Palestinian/Islamic terrorists do not (primarily) target governments, armies and leaders. They target civilians. That is digusting. I don't care if your aim is to provide heaven on earth, if your means are to blow up random people who have no control over events, then I hope you all go to hell.

It is because of the means employed that most Americans, while we sympathize with the plight of the Palestinian people, do not in the slightest sympathize with Yasser Arafat and what he stood for. Americans do not like to see people left without a home, without land, without jobs.

But we also do not give homes, land, and jobs to murderous SOB's as a way to get them to stop killing other people. NO, we seek them out and kill THEM to make them stop killing other people. Thus the War on Terror.

In my opinion, the FIRST place Bush should have sent the Marines after Afghanistan would have been Ramallah.

Following 9/11, the "War on Terror" has raged; reportedly to neutralize the activity of international terror groups and nations considered to support them. The War in Iraq was originally billed as an effort to dispose of Saddam Hussein for refusing to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors, possessing WMD, and end his oppression and genocide against Iraqis, by regime change. With a merelyhazy link made between Sadaam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, it has shifted to become a "War on Terror"...

Just so you don't think I'm a total Bushie, I think this is spot on. Up to that point.

I DO think Bush used the War on Terror as an opportunity, politically, alongside the WMD strategiery (sp?)to get us into Iraq. I think that was very wrong. MAYBE not an impeachable offense. Maybe...

However, unlike most people you will hear those words from, I do think we should have gone into Iraq. We should have done it in '91. Then we should have done it in '92 when Saddam began to break the terms of the cease-fire. Then again in '93, '94, '95, you get the idea. Even CLINTON thought it to be a worthy idea, if he couldn't bring himself to the action. Clinton made it US Policy to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein and his government.

Bush used the 9/11 attacks as a spring board for something that should have already been taken care of. That he transparently did so is why the world hates him, and why the Left is so vociferously against this war.

And the whole "Nation-building" thing needs to stop. That is BS. Iraqis will do what they will, and what they want, despite whatever the pinheads in DC want. MOST LIKELY, what the Iraqi's want is not US Civil Law circa 2005. Too bad.

Bunny.

Your posts (multiple) evidence that you are a prime example of those with double standard regarding the "War". It is not good enough to regard death and slaughter as "collateral damage", if you're going to start condeming when the other side kills civilians too. I hear too many time Iraqi civilian deaths regarded as "accidents" and "unintentional", but its a different story when people from the West are killed!

You see, people want to promote their support for Bush and his so called "War on Terror" and thats fine. But the fact remains that USA has committed countess acts of terrorism in the past 100 years, not to mention supporting the terrorism of Israel against the Palestiniens. And lets not forget that it was an Israeli that committed the first bombing in the region! Nevertheless, USA have been very subjective in who they support, for various reasons of military, political and economic strategism.

I agree that Saddam Hussain should have been taken out during the Gulf War. Because he was not (for various reasons), this does not justify lying to go back into Iraq, as it was clearly done. Either way, Saddam Hussain was not a threat to the West, and the so called "regime change" has achived minimally for the Iraqi people, alongside the countless death and destruction they are now subject too. As you said yourself "Iraqis will do what they want". Therefore, there is no justification for invading Iraq, either before or after the fact.

As you seem to be somewhat misguided about the situation in Israel, you may find it of interest to consider an article I have included on my blog.

Bunny, your comment in #14 is dead on. That's exactly it. Bush did the right thing with transparently weak excuses for it because he didn't think he could sell the real reasons for what he did and the result is a spurious loss of credibility from the world's gullible, proving that he probably needed to lie to them to get the job done - but should have lied better. Ironic at the very least.

>>It does not cease to amaze me that there is a majority of individuals that support the actions of USA as if their methods are correct.<<

Wrong. They support the US not because the methods are correct, but because the objectives are correct. The methods are debatable.

>> Obviously ignoring that the motivations for the actions taken and the results achieved, far differ from the objectives that were originally promoted.... and anybody that disagrees to them is a "pro-terrorist"... lol<<

Well, it is pretty simple. If we're fighting a war on terror and you're against doing so, then you're kind of by default pro-terror.

Dave

>>Your posts (multiple) evidence that you are a prime example of those with double standard regarding the "War". It is not good enough to regard death and slaughter as "collateral damage", if you're going to start condeming when the other side kills civilians too. I hear too many time Iraqi civilian deaths regarded as "accidents" and "unintentional", but its a different story when people from the West are killed<<

This shows a profound misunderstanding of why certain deaths are considered regrettable but acceptable and others are not. When innocent people are killed as a side effect of war, despite the best efforts of the warmakers not to harm them, this is a regrettable accident. When soldiers are killed in war, this is part of the cost of making war. When innocents are targeted by terrorists and deliberately killed, this is an act of barbarism. The difference is entirely in intent. Soldiers who accidentally kill civilians when trying not to have no intention of doing harm. Terrorists who target civilians and kill them on purpose intend nothing but harm. The former unfortunate and should be prevented, the latter is inexcusible and those who accept it should be exterminated.

Dave

Dave..

so are you implying that the end justifies the means?

If yes, there has been no "end" yet to make such an assumption. If any "end" is to come which may not be foe a few years at least, will the death and destruction have been worth it. Not to mention that none of the objectives will be met by the USA, if current standards continue!

And on your last point, the war has to actually be against "terror", for you to be able to class somebody as "pro-terror" for supporting.

As the famous quote goes, "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"... and that goes for both Iraqi and USA soldiers.

>>so are you implying that the end justifies the means?<<

No, the end is the end and the means are the means. The means have to be justified, and if they are not too unreasonable and the end is achieved and is a good end, then they are justified. If the means become excessive and the end is not achieved then it's all just a clusterfuck and someone takes the fall for it.

>>If yes, there has been no "end" yet to make such an assumption. If any "end" is to come which may not be foe a few years at least, will the death and destruction have been worth it. Not to mention that none of the objectives will be met by the USA, if current standards continue!<<

The 'end' exists whether it's been achieved yet or not. It's the objective, and the mission isn't over until it's either achieved or abandonned. The death and destruction thus far have been relatively light if looked at realistically. A good outcome will excuse them easily at this point.

>>And on your last point, the war has to actually be against "terror", for you to be able to class somebody as "pro-terror" for supporting.<<

I see no evidence that it isn't.

>>As the famous quote goes, "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter"... and that goes for both Iraqi and USA soldiers.<<

Yes, but freedom fighters don't target civilians to terrorize the population they are trying to free. That type of activity makes them thugs and terrorists and nothing more.

Dave

The end can not "exist" as it was based on a false objective. Therefore, any idea we had of the end may not be what we think it to be. There may be possible/desired outcomes, but then again, we can not be sure what the objectives actually are as the goalposts have already shifted on at least one occasion. Furthermore, no widespread positive outcome has been achieve so far by this intervention.

On your last point, are the USA then nothing more then thugs and terrorists as they have also been found to target and torture civilians. Before you answer, I'll remind you that there are various reports about US soldiers leaving bombs in Civilian districts, toturing unconvicted prisoners in prison, and i may be mistaken on this last one, but I seem to remember reading a story about at least one soldier that had been either court martialed or investigatd for commiting unlawful acts against civilians.