Did anyone see this...

[Housedoctor]

It was on sky two in the UK. Very interesting info.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6cT0AgZC58Q

[orion900]

Just answer the following Questions? Who started this war? Who supported terroristism, who used chemical weapons on his own people and the Iranian people? Who shipped hundreds of weapons (WMD) to Iran just before the attack on Iraq in 2003? Who claimed to have killed hundreds of individuals in countries outside of Iraq? Who organized a group on Internal Security/Special Iraqi forces to killed a former President in Kuiwait? Who attacked Kuiwait and Iran, causing hundreds of Thousands of Deaths?

The answer is Iraq under the previous leadership.

Most progressive or liberial individuals forget these Questions and answers? They hate all of America or Americans or Westernism or Capitalism or George Bush, and it is so much easier to forget the real answer, isn't it.

Oh and how much oil is coming to America from Iraq today, is it really worth the amount of Blood/Lives, Money, materials which this War cost the United States? Isn't more Oil going to non supporting Nations, than is going to the United States? What about the freely elected government the United States supports in Iraq? What about the Many times Americans tried to make peace in the UN with the former Leader of Iraq?

And for One more Question: Why do they (Liberials and Progressives) support leaving Iraq, which will caused hundreds of thousands of Deaths, in an increasing bitter civil War, between different Iraqi groups, supported by outside Middle Eastern Nations. But they want the United States to sent troops and aid to stop the Killing and fighting of the Civil War in Darfar, in Sudan, Africa?

The Liberials and Progressives just want power. They care very little about the truth.

Orion

[Dinewbie]

What a B.S. "documentary". Was this paid for by CNN? It is convenient that he only sought out people that had his exact anti-American point of view. I guess his thesis would be "The world was a better place with Saddam terrorizing his neighbors and killing his own people" I also liked how he said that the events of 911 were somehow "convenient". Only convenient for conspiracy theorists. Hey I know, Bush blew up the levies in N.O. as well just to rid the world of another looming threat......swamp talk jibberspeak

[miketaylor]

Who killer MILLIONS of innocent Iraqi's? (Yes, more than a million iraqi's dead - According to the Iraqi gov, over 5% of the initial population have been killed by the 'Freedom fighting' (LOL) americans.)
AMERICA. And they wonder why the rest of the world hates them so much LOL
Some country - We're free, we'll invade Iraq (After already botching the Afgan war, which, by the way, youre still bombing), on the grounds of WMD's!!!!
Did you find any? No.
Do Iraqi's live better now? No.
Did Amerca start a war Illegally? Yes.
Was saddam a bad guy? Yes.
Oh yer. Land of the free.

The UK is part responcible too, im not denying that, but if was definately an american initiative. And you say this is rubbish? I don't have time to listen to 45mins about why to dislike america. I dont need it. I already have my problems, some of which are linked to Iraq.
Just remember, the blood of MILLIONS of Iraqi's is on YOUR hands. I protested againt the war. I was there, I did my best to show idiots why it was a bad idea. And you know what? The UK now agrees it was a bad idea. Thats what I like about the UK, they can admit when they were qrong about something.
oh yer, its ih-rahk. Not Eye-Rayk.

[Ialdoboath]

I try to make a point of not engaging in the war discussions, but your post is so inflamatory I had to respond.


Just answer the following Questions? Who started this war?

George Bush. It was, by definition, a "pre-emptive strike".. meaning started by the US.

Who supported terroristism,

Saddam was alienated by the terorist groups who saw him as a secular sell-out. Bin Laden had called for Saddams death.

Who used chemical weapons on his own people and the Iranian people?

Saddam used chemical weapons on a town that was overtaken by Iran at the time. It was not a strike "on his own people" per ce, it was an attack on an Iraqi town that was controlled at the time by Iran. He was after the Iranians and considered his people there as collateral damage.

Who shipped hundreds of weapons (WMD) to Iran just before the attack on Iraq in 2003?

First time Ihave heard they were shipped to IRAN... people usually say Syria. Regardless, the bio weapons Saddam had were old and well past usability. Read the UNSCOM reports.


Who organized a group on Internal Security/Special Iraqi forces to killed a former President in Kuiwait? Who attacked Kuiwait and Iran, causing hundreds of Thousands of Deaths?

Kuwait had blocked the oil pipelines from Iraq just prior to the invasion. Saddam could not ship oil out via the water because of Iran and could no longer use the pipeline because Kuwait had stopped it. Iraqi assets (oil) was frozen in-country and their economy was decimated because of Kuwait. What Saddam was looking for in Kuwait was not their oil wells, but access to shipping his oil out.

The Iran war was funded and backed by the US so Saddam could fight a proxyy war for them.

The answer is Iraq under the previous leadership.

Most progressive or liberial individuals forget these Questions and answers? They hate all of America or Americans or Westernism or Capitalism or George Bush, and it is so much easier to forget the real answer, isn't it.

No, I do not hate Americans, I hate ideolistic neo-cons who think they should change the world with bullets alone.

Oh and how much oil is coming to America from Iraq today, is it really worth the amount of Blood/Lives, Money, materials which this War cost the United States? Isn't more Oil going to non supporting Nations, than is going to the United States? What about the freely elected government the United States supports in Iraq? What about the Many times Americans tried to make peace in the UN with the former Leader of Iraq?

When Bush was running for governor of Texas he said "I do not need to control Iraqi oil to make money from it. I just need to stop it from hitting the market." Take a look at the price of oil now compared to any time before the Iraq war and you will see that he was right. I'll find the link for that in a bit.

And for One more Question: Why do they (Liberials and Progressives) support leaving Iraq, which will caused hundreds of thousands of Deaths, in an increasing bitter civil War, between different Iraqi groups, supported by outside Middle Eastern Nations. But they want the United States to sent troops and aid to stop the Killing and fighting of the Civil War in Darfar, in Sudan, Africa?

Because the US strategy in Iraq has not yielded peace in over 3 years of trying. If nothing changes these people will die no matter what. They ARE dying as we type.

The Liberials and Progressives just want power. They care very little about the truth.

The truth is the US did not have to go to Iraq at all. Had you not people would still be living under an "evil regime" (but at least they would be LIVING) and the US would be untouched by Saddam. The no-fly zone would still be in place, and eventually diplomatic and intelligence efforts would have brought Saddam down without the loss of a single US soldier.

The hundreds killed every week.. tortured, skulls drilled and bodies left on the roadside are worse that Saddams oppression. The middleclass have had to flee the country, the economy is gone, and the country is in ruins.

THIS is the truth I have a problem with.
Orion

[Seaview]

Great post Ialdoboath.

[Ialdoboath]

Great post Ialdoboath.

Thanks... but I have a feeling I am about to be scewered.

[thegujju]

Nice post Ialdoboath but expect a backlash lol.

[frankielovesdinar]

Thanks... but I have a feeling I am about to be scewered.


no skewering here... always appreciate hearing a point of view that has had some thought put into it.

[miketaylor]

Nice one Ialdoboath!
Good to see a fellow Brit (lol unlike the Americans, them and their independance!) helping others see it the way it is!

[hammerhead]

What a load of garbage!!!! I made it thru about 2:55 minutes before I had had enough.
Maybe we should all try for truthful reporting, instead of letting the "liberal media" ruin our days. the real culprit in all this is the United nations. As is their policy, they need to justify their position in the world for domination and control, while letting innocent people die, the real criminals ship out weapons and cover their a**es by trying to insert a useless, non-functioning police force on the people that aren't afraid of them.
The UN has outlived it's usefulness in our world, in fact, many of the members are bigger criminals than the people they are trying to police (I refer to the "food for oil" scandal).
the sad part, is the United States covers most of the operations costs run up by the leaders of the UN...I don't hear the liberals b*tching about that!!!

[TiredOfWork]

Thanks... but I have a feeling I am about to be scewered.

I don't agree with any of that, but I'll give you this....:lmao:

[Dinewbie]

No need to skewer anyone over thoughtful and intelligent "debate". I just hate conspiracy theories about this war. Sick of 'em. Economically driven warfare is not a new concept or a conspiracy. Right or wrong, it's a fact of life. And who is the high ranking Dem. party member that keeps bringing up impeachment? What a moron. Leave us with Cheney as Pres. Yikes!

[orion900]

Thanks... but I have a feeling I am about to be scewered.


You bring up some very interesting points:


Still you haven't answer my Questions:

Did Iraq attack Kuwait? Did Iraq attack Iran? Did Internal Security/Special Forces try and Kill A Former President of the United States, while on a Official state visit to Kuwait (the current United States President Father.) Also didn't Iraqi Security forces provided training for some of the Terriorist attacking Western Nations?


And attacking and killing ten thousands of Iraqi citizens (Kurds) with chemical weapons, there was no fighting going on at the time in the area. This was verified by UN reports, and News Media. There can be No Defense of this Action.

Nations are like people they can take only so much, didn't United States try to talk with the Former Ruler of Iraq? Did they try to work out countless Peace agreements, which were broken one after another by Iraq?

Didn't the United States established a freely elected government in Iraq?

And what will happen when the United States, leaves Iraq, will Iraq become a greater nation, Free and Powerful, making it's way in the World. Or will it break apart into different parts, fighting each other, taking orders from some powerful leader from afar?


Thank you for your reply,


Orion

[Ialdoboath]

You bring up some very interesting points:


Still you haven't answer my Questions:

Did Iraq attack Kuwait? Did Iraq attack Iran? Did Internal Security/Special Forces try and Kill A Former President of the United States, while on a Official state visit to Kuwait (the current United States President Father.) Also didn't Iraqi Security forces provided training for some of the Terriorist attacking Western Nations?


No idea about the attempt to kill a former pres. First I have heard of this story. I will research. (I actually love research...)

As for the rest, even if we see it in its harshest light, does this justify the unilateral invasion of Iraq? I mean, if it had all happened in Peru instead of Iraq, would you feel an invasion were warrented? Would we feel we had to invade if Peru invaded Bolivia or Brazil? Do we need to invade Columbia because the government is in bed with drug dealers? Or Panama if...er, never mind. We did invade them.

I submit to you that even the worst case scenario of Saddams idiocy to humanity is regional in scope and did not justify the lives and expense of the people of the United States. It is cause for retaliation, no doubt about it. But war is a heavy handed solution. Regan (et.al) won the Cold War with words, diplomacy, and good old fashioned back-room CIA black ops. If they can take the Kremlin and the KGB down with these tools, I suggest that the USA coul readilly have handled Saddam without the need to invade.


And attacking and killing ten thousands of Iraqi citizens (Kurds) with chemical weapons, there was no fighting going on at the time in the area. This was verified by UN reports, and News Media. There can be No Defense of this Action.

Nations are like people they can take only so much, didn't United States try to talk with the Former Ruler of Iraq? Did they try to work out countless Peace agreements, which were broken one after another by Iraq?


Absolutely. I never said Saddam didn't need to be dealt with. He did. But I suggest to you that destroying the entire country in a war was not the easiest or most preferable solution to his stupidity. We already contrrolled 1/3 of his country at the time we invaded... I don't think it would have been hard for the CIA to help a revolution along or have Saddam slip on a banana peel and fall on a bayonette. 15 times.

Didn't the United States established a freely elected government in Iraq?

Before the invasion Iraq was the only deomocratically elected gov. in the region. (except for Israel of course) The problem was that the elections were fixed, but the electoral process was there to be built on. (Note that Saddam was rel-elected by a landslide not long before the invasion).

And what will happen when the United States, leaves Iraq, will Iraq become a greater nation, Free and Powerful, making it's way in the World. Or will it break apart into different parts, fighting each other, taking orders from some powerful leader from afar?

Fast forward your worst case scenario. Iraq breaks into 3 countries... Kurdish, Sunni (allied with Saudis) and Shia (allied with Iran). The 3 are no longer in open warfare, but sectarian tensions rub raw between the states. Maybe small wars betwween the two and arguments about resources and water rights. US interests are secured no matter what, brokering oil deals with each group as an independant state.

Is preventing this scenario from happening worth the money and lives sacrificed?

[NobodyYet]

Ialdoboath,
I can't help but wonder why you have invested in the Iraqi Dinar. By reading your posts I would have guessed that, from your perspective, profiting from the current circumstances in iraq would be a slight against your principles.

If I felt that the current situation in Iraq was a result of illegal or immoral actions I would not feel right about cashing in on it. Just a thought.

[everwiser]

The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was not "unilateral". "Uni" implies "one" and/or "alone". There were several countries that allocated military resources to the Iraq conflict although not as many as in 1991.

[Whats_UP]

When Bush was running for governor of Texas he said "I do not need to control Iraqi oil to make money from it. I just need to stop it from hitting the market." Take a look at the price of oil now compared to any time before the Iraq war and you will see that he was right. I'll find the link for that in a bit.


Well??

[Mucho Dinaro]

Thanks... but I have a feeling I am about to be scewered.

Oh.....screwered??? I hope not, but there is much more to it than what you posted and some is not exactly accurate. I just happen to see it differently and yet I am well aware that ALL OF US are oblivious to ALL the facts, so it's really hard to get all excited either way. Hope you don't feel screwered...:)

[COACH JACK]

You bring up some very interesting points:


Still you haven't answer my Questions:

Did Iraq attack Kuwait? Did Iraq attack Iran? Did Internal Security/Special Forces try and Kill A Former President of the United States, while on a Official state visit to Kuwait (the current United States President Father.) Also didn't Iraqi Security forces provided training for some of the Terriorist attacking Western Nations?


No idea about the attempt to kill a former pres. First I have heard of this story. I will research. (I actually love research...)

As for the rest, even if we see it in its harshest light, does this justify the unilateral invasion of Iraq? I mean, if it had all happened in Peru instead of Iraq, would you feel an invasion were warrented? Would we feel we had to invade if Peru invaded Bolivia or Brazil? Do we need to invade Columbia because the government is in bed with drug dealers? Or Panama if...er, never mind. We did invade them.

I submit to you that even the worst case scenario of Saddams idiocy to humanity is regional in scope and did not justify the lives and expense of the people of the United States. It is cause for retaliation, no doubt about it. But war is a heavy handed solution. Regan (et.al) won the Cold War with words, diplomacy, and good old fashioned back-room CIA black ops. If they can take the Kremlin and the KGB down with these tools, I suggest that the USA coul readilly have handled Saddam without the need to invade.


And attacking and killing ten thousands of Iraqi citizens (Kurds) with chemical weapons, there was no fighting going on at the time in the area. This was verified by UN reports, and News Media. There can be No Defense of this Action.

Nations are like people they can take only so much, didn't United States try to talk with the Former Ruler of Iraq? Did they try to work out countless Peace agreements, which were broken one after another by Iraq?


Absolutely. I never said Saddam didn't need to be dealt with. He did. But I suggest to you that destroying the entire country in a war was not the easiest or most preferable solution to his stupidity. We already contrrolled 1/3 of his country at the time we invaded... I don't think it would have been hard for the CIA to help a revolution along or have Saddam slip on a banana peel and fall on a bayonette. 15 times.

Didn't the United States established a freely elected government in Iraq?

Before the invasion Iraq was the only deomocratically elected gov. in the region. (except for Israel of course) The problem was that the elections were fixed, but the electoral process was there to be built on. (Note that Saddam was rel-elected by a landslide not long before the invasion).

And what will happen when the United States, leaves Iraq, will Iraq become a greater nation, Free and Powerful, making it's way in the World. Or will it break apart into different parts, fighting each other, taking orders from some powerful leader from afar?

Fast forward your worst case scenario. Iraq breaks into 3 countries... Kurdish, Sunni (allied with Saudis) and Shia (allied with Iran). The 3 are no longer in open warfare, but sectarian tensions rub raw between the states. Maybe small wars betwween the two and arguments about resources and water rights. US interests are secured no matter what, brokering oil deals with each group as an independant state.

Is preventing this scenario from happening worth the money and lives sacrificed?
I just wonder how the Canadiens would have reacted to a 911 reigning down on Toronto, Lord forbid, vs. NY? A couple of good points made by you but so much misunderstood as well. The entire picture and thought process after 911 was pretty much rapped up in a one sentence made by our President, " you are either for us or against us".

[Ialdoboath]

Ialdoboath,
I can't help but wonder why you have invested in the Iraqi Dinar. By reading your posts I would have guessed that, from your perspective, profiting from the current circumstances in iraq would be a slight against your principles.

If I felt that the current situation in Iraq was a result of illegal or immoral actions I would not feel right about cashing in on it. Just a thought.


I think you may be thinking I am more adhemant that I am. I was merely talking worst case scenarios. I have long ago given up on any idealism, and from the time Bush was elected (long before 9/11) I had been saying the US was going into Iraq. I see many things in life as forgone conclusions that I have no control over, so why not profit where I see the possibility? If it is off someone else's actions, legal or illegal, makes little difference to me.

[Ialdoboath]

The invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was not "unilateral". "Uni" implies "one" and/or "alone". There were several countries that allocated military resources to the Iraq conflict although not as many as in 1991.
It was not the coalition that his father had going in the first time, and it was opposed by many, many countries.

[Ialdoboath]

That's kinda how I see it. As I said in my first post I normally avoid these conversations and only bit into this one because it was so one-sided and demeaning to anyone who disagreed with it.


Oh.....screwered??? I hope not, but there is much more to it than what you posted and some is not exactly accurate. I just happen to see it differently and yet I am well aware that ALL OF US are oblivious to ALL the facts, so it's really hard to get all excited either way. Hope you don't feel screwered...:)

[Ialdoboath]

I make my living critisizing and chopping up religions. I have had my share of death threats from Muslim extremists (and moderates actually). So the idea of murderous Muslims is a rather personal one for me...

So, what would I do if terrorists had bombed the CN Tower in Toronto? I would assume that 19 idiots bought into a stupid version of Islam and smashed a plane into a building. Very akin to what I thought when terrorists blew 280 Canadians on an airplane over the Atlantic a few years back. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182) People are stupid, sometimes homicidally so. It's the world we live in, and it's the world we have always lived in. Anything "good" or "happy" you create in life made despite the realities around you.


I just wonder how the Canadiens would have reacted to a 911 reigning down on Toronto, Lord forbid, vs. NY? A couple of good points made by you but so much misunderstood as well. The entire picture and thought process after 911 was pretty much rapped up in a one sentence made by our President, " you are either for us or against us".

[Ialdoboath]

Still hunting for the original quote from his campaign years ago. Been a long time since I looked it up. (Plus my garage just about collapsed this afternoon so I have spent much of the day rebuilding it.)

Anyway, I will find it at some point. It was around everywhere a in 2004.

I did just come across another Bush quote where he says the terrorists will do exactly the same thing with the oil that he was talking about years ago. It was in a conversation with Rush:

Bush said that he was "worried that rival forms of extremists will battle for power, obviously creating incredible damage if they do so; that they will topple modern governments, that they will be in a position to use oil as a tool to blackmail the West."

"People say, 'What do you mean by that?'" The president continued. "I say, 'If they control oil resources, then they pull oil off the market in order to run the price up, and they will do so unless we abandon Israel, for example, or unless we abandon allies.'"


Link (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15473.htm)



When Bush was running for governor of Texas he said "I do not need to control Iraqi oil to make money from it. I just need to stop it from hitting the market." Take a look at the price of oil now compared to any time before the Iraq war and you will see that he was right. I'll find the link for that in a bit.


Well??

[orion900]

Would the United States have invade any other Nation for the same reasons, was this War justified by the the past actions of the United States?

The United States in the past has started War for much less, the War of 1812, Spanish/American War of 1898, Mexican War in 1840's, the senting of American Marines to Central American Nations in the 1920's and 1930's. I won't discuss the actions of the CIA during the Cold War of the 1950's thur the 1980's. When a Nation plans to attack another nation, such as trying to kill former leaders, giving aid to terrorist groups, or failing to follow UN agreements about weapons. Wars start over policy of people running the governments. Remember World War I was started over the death of two people.


Thank you for your answers to my Questions. I will try to answer some of your Questions as stated:

The United States has detroyed Iraq?
1. Before the War, the Iraqi people required Food Aid from the United Nations. Remember the Oil for Food United Nations program. So you can't lay that on the United States.

2. Most of the damage done during the First Gulf War was only partly repaired. Huge parts of the economic life of Iraq was never repaired by the previous government. There was almost no economic development during the past twenty years in oil, energy, or power. A large part of the reason for this was the previous government's effort to increase the size of the Iraqi military.

3. Yes, the War of 2003 did huge amount of damage in citizen's property and other state organized properies, but repairs have been done since that time.

Why didn't the CIA remove the previous leadership? Remember We Won the Cold War. It would have been better than going to War and destroying Iraq?

1. God know's they were trying, how many times did they miss him? The first night of the War in 2003, they bombed a location which they were told by local agents he was at. How many failed attempts at him? And if the intel/CIA people couldn't get the WMD location or numbers right, how are they going to remove the leader of the goverment in Iraq?

2. Why not start a revolt in Iraq. Try that right after the First Gulf War, didn't work out, just got a lot of people killed, and created a Stronger Central Government in Iraq.

The previous government was freely elected by the Iraqi people?

1. No it wasn't, there was only one person/party to vote for, the ruling party controlled the election. There was no rule of Law, no real courts, no legal protection.


Last Answer.

Why was there a need for the invasion of Iraq, or better stated "Liberation of Iraq from a monster" because after 12 years of dealing with a government which had violated all the agreements and treaties it had signed, there was fear that United State would be attacked by Iraq using Weapons of Mass destruction, and that a truly free and peaceful Iraq would be better than the last 25 years of suffering.

So United States's Administration was wrong no WMD, no peaceful Iraq, and distrust and anger directed at the United States all over the World. United States forced to stationed a growing number of Military forces in Iraq, growing United States Public anger over the war.

Was it worth it? Maybe yes or Maybe no, in time we will find the Answer, just remember that after every major failure in American foreign policy, and yes this was a major failure of policy by the United States, we as a nation and people become stronger and smarter.

Thanks for your reply, and opinion, we must agree to disgree on some issues. Please contract me with any information you find. I wish only the very best for the Iraqi people.

Orion

[Ialdoboath]

Kudos. I only wish the dialogue I hear on other boards and in the press could be as respectful as yours here. Really, that is what I feel si the most important aspect.

People and politicians will always disagree. But this is democracy. The reason I dropped into this debate was because of the very one-sidedness of the issue as portrayed... the idea that only idiots disagree with Bush. Very intelligent people can and do disagree for honorable reasons. The discourse is the important thing... the means to achieve agreement through debate.

Extremists are people who want it their way or no way. Democracy is about negotiating and understanding both sides of an issue (even if you do not agree) to create a working society.

An eagle has a right wing and a left wing so that it can fly straight. The same is true of America.



Would the United States have invade any other Nation for the same reasons, was this War justified by the the past actions of the United States?

The United States in the past has started War for much less, the War of 1812, Spanish/American War of 1898, Mexican War in 1840's, the senting of American Marines to Central American Nations in the 1920's and 1930's. I won't discuss the actions of the CIA during the Cold War of the 1950's thur the 1980's. When a Nation plans to attack another nation, such as trying to kill former leaders, giving aid to terrorist groups, or failing to follow UN agreements about weapons. Wars start over policy of people running the governments. Remember World War I was started over the death of two people.


Thank you for your answers to my Questions. I will try to answer some of your Questions as stated:

The United States has detroyed Iraq?
1. Before the War, the Iraqi people required Food Aid from the United Nations. Remember the Oil for Food United Nations program. So you can't lay that on the United States.

2. Most of the damage done during the First Gulf War was only partly repaired. Huge parts of the economic life of Iraq was never repaired by the previous government. There was almost no economic development during the past twenty years in oil, energy, or power. A large part of the reason for this was the previous government's effort to increase the size of the Iraqi military.

3. Yes, the War of 2003 did huge amount of damage in citizen's property and other state organized properies, but repairs have been done since that time.

Why didn't the CIA remove the previous leadership? Remember We Won the Cold War. It would have been better than going to War and destroying Iraq?

1. God know's they were trying, how many times did they miss him? The first night of the War in 2003, they bombed a location which they were told by local agents he was at. How many failed attempts at him? And if the intel/CIA people couldn't get the WMD location or numbers right, how are they going to remove the leader of the goverment in Iraq?

2. Why not start a revolt in Iraq. Try that right after the First Gulf War, didn't work out, just got a lot of people killed, and created a Stronger Central Government in Iraq.

The previous government was freely elected by the Iraqi people?

1. No it wasn't, there was only one person/party to vote for, the ruling party controlled the election. There was no rule of Law, no real courts, no legal protection.


Last Answer.

Why was there a need for the invasion of Iraq, or better stated "Liberation of Iraq from a monster" because after 12 years of dealing with a government which had violated all the agreements and treaties it had signed, there was fear that United State would be attacked by Iraq using Weapons of Mass destruction, and that a truly free and peaceful Iraq would be better than the last 25 years of suffering.

So United States's Administration was wrong no WMD, no peaceful Iraq, and distrust and anger directed at the United States all over the World. United States forced to stationed a growing number of Military forces in Iraq, growing United States Public anger over the war.

Was it worth it? Maybe yes or Maybe no, in time we will find the Answer, just remember that after every major failure in American foreign policy, and yes this was a major failure of policy by the United States, we as a nation and people become stronger and smarter.

Thanks for your reply, and opinion, we must agree to disgree on some issues. Please contract me with any information you find. I wish only the very best for the Iraqi people.

Orion

[Whats_UP]

Hind site is always 20/20.....leaders have to make the tough decisions in the here and now, they don't have that luxury...and of course the woulda/shoulda crowd is always there to point fingers and say they could of done it better.....go figure.

[Ialdoboath]

Hind site is always 20/20.....leaders have to make the tough decisions in the here and now, they don't have that luxury...and of course the woulda/shoulda crowd is always there to point fingers and say they could of done it better.....go figure.

The Iraq war prompted the largest war protest in history on the eve of it starting. I don't think they can be accused of "woulda/shoulda"... it was clear at the start that many people did not want this war.

[streetdisciple]

2 Chronicles 7:14
'if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.'

[Whats_UP]

The Iraq war prompted the largest war protest in history on the eve of it starting. I don't think they can be accused of "woulda/shoulda"... it was clear at the start that many people did not want this war.


You must mean other countries......."oil for food program" ring a bell?...... and a true elected leader does just that "leads" based on the information at the time.......that's what I would expect him/her to do and like I said, second guessing is real easy for anyone to do.

[Ryan Express]

I hate to weigh in on this, but....I can't stand it.

Everyone's opinions about this war are based on perception. Perception is built on media snippets designed to shape a point of view. Saying something over and over again does not make it so.

I don't think anyone will ever know (outside of the leaders/advisers of the nations involved in this conflict) ALL of the reasons why this war started and continues to go on. Strategic issues, curtailing future conflicts, etc. have not been brought out in the various worldwide media opines regarding this conflict.

This conflict is tragic, but may-and I say may (because I don't believe I possess all of the facts)-be necessary. I have to put my faith in my government that there are real issues that necessitated our involvement in this conflict.

For those outside the US-do me and other Americans a favor and lose the attitude. Americans have come to the aid of many peoples, for little or no consideration, over our history. Americans are a representative people of all nations, forever inclusive (on the whole)-a mutt of a people, trying each day to live in and build a better nation-and world.

Sometimes there is a price to pay for trying to build a better world.

For those of us American citizens-let's lose the "liberal" crap. Dismissing opposing opinions on the basis of being a "liberal" is not only condescending, but it, in fact, the easy way out of facing legitimate opposing opinions.

I have faith that this conflict will eventually work out for the best. I just don't think any of us have all the information needed to assess this matter with any degree of certainty.

Peace out.:huge:

[BILLYG]

It was not the coalition that his father had going in the first time, and it was opposed by many, many countries.

Ialdoboath, it seems to me that many of the countries that joined "Bush 41"'s coalition were benefitting GREATLY from the corruption that was the U.N.'s "Oil for Food" program @ the time of 43's invasion. Realizing that the gravy train is about to end would bring about resistance on my part as well...JMO.

[Finn]

You bring up some very interesting points:


Still you haven't answer my Questions:

Did Iraq attack Kuwait? Did Iraq attack Iran? Did Internal Security/Special Forces try and Kill A Former President of the United States, while on a Official state visit to Kuwait (the current United States President Father.) Also didn't Iraqi Security forces provided training for some of the Terriorist attacking Western Nations?


No idea about the attempt to kill a former pres. First I have heard of this story. I will research. (I actually love research...)

As for the rest, even if we see it in its harshest light, does this justify the unilateral invasion of Iraq? I mean, if it had all happened in Peru instead of Iraq, would you feel an invasion were warrented? Would we feel we had to invade if Peru invaded Bolivia or Brazil? Do we need to invade Columbia because the government is in bed with drug dealers? Or Panama if...er, never mind. We did invade them.

I submit to you that even the worst case scenario of Saddams idiocy to humanity is regional in scope and did not justify the lives and expense of the people of the United States. It is cause for retaliation, no doubt about it. But war is a heavy handed solution. Regan (et.al) won the Cold War with words, diplomacy, and good old fashioned back-room CIA black ops. If they can take the Kremlin and the KGB down with these tools, I suggest that the USA coul readilly have handled Saddam without the need to invade.


And attacking and killing ten thousands of Iraqi citizens (Kurds) with chemical weapons, there was no fighting going on at the time in the area. This was verified by UN reports, and News Media. There can be No Defense of this Action.

Nations are like people they can take only so much, didn't United States try to talk with the Former Ruler of Iraq? Did they try to work out countless Peace agreements, which were broken one after another by Iraq?


Absolutely. I never said Saddam didn't need to be dealt with. He did. But I suggest to you that destroying the entire country in a war was not the easiest or most preferable solution to his stupidity. We already contrrolled 1/3 of his country at the time we invaded... I don't think it would have been hard for the CIA to help a revolution along or have Saddam slip on a banana peel and fall on a bayonette. 15 times.

Didn't the United States established a freely elected government in Iraq?

Before the invasion Iraq was the only deomocratically elected gov. in the region. (except for Israel of course) The problem was that the elections were fixed, but the electoral process was there to be built on. (Note that Saddam was rel-elected by a landslide not long before the invasion).

And what will happen when the United States, leaves Iraq, will Iraq become a greater nation, Free and Powerful, making it's way in the World. Or will it break apart into different parts, fighting each other, taking orders from some powerful leader from afar?

Fast forward your worst case scenario. Iraq breaks into 3 countries... Kurdish, Sunni (allied with Saudis) and Shia (allied with Iran). The 3 are no longer in open warfare, but sectarian tensions rub raw between the states. Maybe small wars betwween the two and arguments about resources and water rights. US interests are secured no matter what, brokering oil deals with each group as an independant state.

Is preventing this scenario from happening worth the money and lives sacrificed?

It is well known that Sadam did attempt an assasination of former President George Bush--unfortunately I believe this may have had a role in the current Presidents Iraqi thought process. This was not a unilateral attack on Iraq do you remember the months of UN hearings and debates do you remember the word coalition many countries supported the overthrow of Sadam. France and Russia did not support the effort primarily for thier own interests--they both were making a great deal of money in Iraq.

The claim that the US led the overthrow of Sadam, who by the way was judged and hanged by his own people, for oil is just ridiculous. There are many more countries importing oil from Iraq than the US. The HCL if ever passed will involve open bidding and contracts to the highest bidder no guarantee the US gets anything.

There are a lot of reasons to question this war but to suggest that controlling oil was the motivation is not well thought out and shows a somewhat uneducated bias.

[BlindSquirrel]

Point and counter point are both welcome, I'm sure somewhere in the middle is the truth to all this. I just want to make some money to pay my bills that's all. I hate to see people die for any cause, war is hell anyway you look at it, we didn't invent it and it will be here long after we are gone.

[BILLYG]

Point and counter point are both welcome, I'm sure somewhere in the middle is the truth to all this. I just want to make some money to pay my bills that's all. I hate to see people die for any cause, war is hell anyway you look at it, we didn't invent it and it will be here long after we are gone.

BlindSquirrel, well stated... Very true about war, unfotunately.:crying:

[orion900]

Point and counter point are both welcome, I'm sure somewhere in the middle is the truth to all this. I just want to make some money to pay my bills that's all. I hate to see people die for any cause, war is hell anyway you look at it, we didn't invent it and it will be here long after we are gone.

Wise words, thanks for the Reply. Also by owning the Iraq Dinar you are supporting the Iraq people dream of free enterprise. When Individuals created there own wealth, by work, property, education, they become powerful and stronger, they take control of the issues of a Nation, and become truly free.

Thanks for the outstanding Reply.


orion

[NobodyYet]

Kudos. I only wish the dialogue I hear on other boards and in the press could be as respectful as yours here. Really, that is what I feel si the most important aspect.


I'll second that. :)

[orion900]

The Iraq war prompted the largest war protest in history on the eve of it starting. I don't think they can be accused of "woulda/shoulda"... it was clear at the start that many people did not want this war.

This statement is incorrect, sorry there have been many more larger organized protest against many other Wars, First the Russia Invasion of Eastern European Counties in the late 1940's, millions of people marched against communism all over the World.

The riots and protest against the Vietnam War in the 1960's, in Europe, Asia, North American and China all part of the youth movement which changed the social system in most of the world's culture. This was huge, almost 1/8 of the planet's population, at some point during the youth movement.


Also who were against the war? In American, just after 911, very few elected leaders were willing to vote on the record against this War on Terror. Also your Statement " It was clear that many people didn't want this War." Look at the vote in Congress, only the liberial progressive Wing of the Democratic Party voted against the war. Until the last Congressial Election, 2006, the Bush Administration had widespead support, in Congress, and with the American public.

Leaders make decisions, not the public, news media will report the facts and issues, and after a limited period of time, the public will control the whole issue by an election, this happens in a free and open Republic.

Also have you found any information of the Attempted Murder of the First President Bush, by Iraqi Special Forces during A State Visit to Kuwait.

Also during the First Gulf War, Large number of Iraqi Aircraft escaped to Iran, any plane which stayed in Iraq were destroyed by USAF, can be verified by News Media. Several months before the invasion of Iraq in 2002, almost a hundred Iranian Official Government trucks departed Iraq for Iran, there are some reports that the truck carried weapons systems, ie: rockets, chemical warheads other WMD items, verified by News Media, Wire Service.

Can there be a Unified Centralized Iraq State, or when the United States departs the area, will it break apart? I know the history of Iraq and that of Iraq was dream of some British Colonial Government leader, started after World War 1. That it was part of the Ottoman Empire for over two hundred years, and divided into three different parts, ruled by a governor from Istabul.

Just some more information, would like to hear your side of this issue.


Orion

[Ialdoboath]

This statement is incorrect, sorry there have been many more larger organized protest against many other Wars, First the Russia Invasion of Eastern European Counties in the late 1940's, millions of people marched against communism all over the World.

The riots and protest against the Vietnam War in the 1960's, in Europe, Asia, North American and China all part of the youth movement which changed the social system in most of the world's culture. This was huge, almost 1/8 of the planet's population, at some point during the youth movement.

Well, if the media are to believed at the time the rally against this war surpassed all other protests in numbers. Of course, countnig on media for accurate statistics (in WW1 or now) is rather idiotic. We'll say there was "a bunch".

Also who were against the war? In American, just after 911, very few elected leaders were willing to vote on the record against this War on Terror. Also your Statement " It was clear that many people didn't want this War." Look at the vote in Congress, only the liberial progressive Wing of the Democratic Party voted against the war. Until the last Congressial Election, 2006, the Bush Administration had widespead support, in Congress, and with the American public.

Bush had the support of the people as commander in chief out of national pride and a strong sense that you had to back your commander-in-chief, not because of his policies. The decsision to go into Afghanistan was supported and lauded around the world as a justified reaction to 911. Iraq was a different matter.

I, for one, am on record as being against the Iraq war for the reasons given at the time. Most people in my circle repeated the mantra that there were no WMD's. The UN inspection team said there were no WMDs. Hanz Blitz, the chief inspector, said there were no stockpiles of WMDs. (Though he accurately said there would be rusty rockets found buried with worthless warheads of old chemicals). There was a lot of dissenting opinion, some of which was coming from CIA but was silenced. Iraq seemed railroaded and impetious to me. Saddam was not going anywhere, and I sincerely felt at the time that Afghansistan should have been addressed first (and finished) before taking on any other major offensives.


Leaders make decisions, not the public, news media will report the facts and issues, and after a limited period of time, the public will control the whole issue by an election, this happens in a free and open Republic.

A free and open republic is also characterized by checks and balances and accountability. Bush has really degenerated these checks and balances in his two teerms, centralizing the power of the administration to act unilaterally... more like a king than a president. I can not think of another president of the US who has had as much freedom to act as he has. The right wing complain about how evil the left are for trying to write a useless and ineffective budget hat they knew would be vetoed, and you consider this a huge opposition to the power of the presidency. Bush has never, ever had to deal with real and effective opposition fromt he other branches of government the way Regan or Bush Sr. did. It seems less like a republic and more like hedgemony.


Also have you found any information of the Attempted Murder of the First President Bush, by Iraqi Special Forces during A State Visit to Kuwait.

Not yet... spent most of today trying to replace the frame of my garage piece by piece without having the whole thing collapse on me. So far, so good. But I am not parking in it yet...

Also during the First Gulf War, Large number of Iraqi Aircraft escaped to Iran, any plane which stayed in Iraq were destroyed by USAF, can be verified by News Media. Several months before the invasion of Iraq in 2002, almost a hundred Iranian Official Government trucks departed Iraq for Iran, there are some reports that the truck carried weapons systems, ie: rockets, chemical warheads other WMD items, verified by News Media, Wire Service.

Can there be a Unified Centralized Iraq State, or when the United States departs the area, will it break apart? I know the history of Iraq and that of Iraq was dream of some British Colonial Government leader, started after World War 1. That it was part of the Ottoman Empire for over two hundred years, and divided into three different parts, ruled by a governor from Istabul.

I agree with you... in the end I blame most of the problems in the middle east on ignorant English cartographers. I also see the GCC as an attempt to re-form the Ottoman Empire under a flag of unified currency and common welfare.


Just some more information, would like to hear your side of this issue.


Ta.

[rykpa]

You left out Syria's, Lebanon's and Russia's parts.

See article that I referenced in another forum...

Russia Moved Iraqi WMD
Charles R. Smith
Thursday, March 3, 2005
Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon
According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.
"I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.
According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam's arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon's Bekka valley.
"While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon," stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.
"I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq," stated Shaw.
Shaw's assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Moscow Paranoid About WMD
Shaw's information also backs allegations by a wide variety of sources of Russia's direct involvement in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. One U.N. bioterrorism expert announced that Russia has been Iraq's "main supplier of the materials and know-how to weaponize anthrax, botulism and smallpox."
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Robert Goldberg cited former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, who stated that Moscow supplied Baghdad with fermentation equipment to produce biotoxins.
According to Spertzel, the Russians on the U.N. inspection team in Iraq were "paranoid" about his efforts to uncover smallpox production.
Goldberg noted that no country has "done more to rebuild" Saddam's chemical and biological weapons programs or "been more aggressive in helping hide the truth" than Russia.
It is a fact that Saddam Hussein rose to power backed by Russian weapons and Russian money. Saddam was in debt to Moscow for over $8 billion for the arms he purchased from Russia when he was captured by U.S. forces.
The primary Iraqi chemical weapons were VX nerve gas and mustard gas, a blistering agent, both obtained from Russia.
According to the book "Russian Military Power," published in 1982, "It is known that the Soviets maintain stocks of CW (chemical weapons) agents."
The two primary Russian chemical weapons in the 1982 Soviet inventory were the nerve agent "VX" and "blistering agents - developments of mustard gas used so effectively in World War I."
Russian Chemical Weapons in Iraq
Iraq did most of its WMD killing using Russian-made MiG and Sukhoi aircraft equipped with chemical sprayers. In addition, Saddam used French-made artillery and helicopters to dump gas on Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds.
Iraq obtained Russian delivery systems and the same inventory of Russian-made chemical weapons at the same time. Iraqi SU-22 Fitter attack jets were armed with Warsaw Pact-designed bombs filled with chemical weapons. Iraq used these Russian jet fighters to drop chemical weapons on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war.
Iraq tried to use these SU-22 jets during the 1991 Gulf War, but they were detected and destroyed on the ground before they could launch a deadly chemical attack.
Other Russian weapons found with chemical weapons include the FROG-7 missile, 122 mm rockets, 152 mm artillery and the M-1937 82 mm mortars. All the Iraqi artillery missiles, rockets, shells and mortar rounds filled with chemical weapons are of Russian design.
Iraqi forces were trained by Russians in the use of chemical weapons and equipped by Russia with anti-chemical suits. The Iraqi armed forces were trained, equipped and supplied with the proper logistics to perform chemical warfare by Russia.
Lebanon and Syria
The arming of Iraq with such weapons has a direct impact on events today in the Middle East. The presence of former Iraqi WMD systems in Lebanon raises serious questions surrounding the Feb. 14 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Many blame Syria for Hariri's murder.
However, the possibility that Hariri discovered the location of the Iraqi WMD systems inside his country lends some credible backing to a Syrian assassination effort to silence him.
In addition, the sudden sale of advanced missile and other weapons to Damascus by Moscow also supports the allegation that Syria is hiding something for Russia.
Russian weapons makers have previously insisted on hard, cold cash payments for their missiles, especially after the fall of Saddam and the collapse of credit deals done with Baghdad. More importantly, the Syrian economy is in bad shape, making it difficult for Damascus to come up with the required money for advanced Russian weapons.
Instead, it now appears that Moscow has extended both very good terms and no down payment required to Syria for an extensive purchase of advanced missiles and weapons. This is in contrast to weapons sales to other "good" Russian customers such as China, which can afford to pay up front for weapon systems.
CIA Failed
There is no question that the Russian effort to remove Iraqi WMD systems was the most successful intelligence operation of the 21st century. The Russians were able to move hundreds of tons of chemical, biological and nuclear materials without being discovered by CIA satellites or NSA radio listening posts.
"There is a clear sense on how effective they were," noted Shaw.
"The fact that the CIA did not know shows just how successful the Russian operation was," he concluded.
RADIO AND TV SCHEDULE
Charles Smith will be on:
The Jerry Hughes Show on Friday, 3/4/05, at 3 p.m. Eastern time. Show information at http://www.cilamerica.com.
The Charlie Smith Show on the American Freedom Network on Monday, 3/7/05, at 11 a.m. Eastern time. Show information at http://www.americanewsnet.com/

[rykpa]

Saddam paid families of suicide bombers in Israel- a widely known fact.

SH thumbed his nose at the US and UN fo ryears and it is now coming out taht he did indeed have ties with al Qaeda, despite the message that you have been inculcated with my "Rather", et. al.

I'd go on, but it is not necessary.

Oh, yeah, see the article that I reprinted on another post on this forum. Russian assistance. That alone should answer a lot.

[rykpa]

Expect what is deserved.

The idea of giving it more time is absolutely laughable by itself and nearly worthy of trashing the entire message.

[orion900]

The Current Administration doesn't work well with the other Branches of Government in the United States.

The reason that the current Administration doesn't work well with the Democratic Congress or Democratic Controlled Courts is easy, he was never recognized by the Democratic Leaders or Members as a Truly Elected President. Only after 9-11, did they try to work with him on any real important issues, and show any kind of respect for the office of President. Also this President has been under attack by the News Media from Day One while being in the White House? America is divided into two very different nations, and the balance was about 50 half is Traditional Conservative and the other half is Progressive Liberial. And there both views in both parties.


As for the justification of going to War.. We agree to disagree on this Issue.

I would like your opinion on the current view that Iraq has a huge amount of reserves of Oil under ground, (Media Reports States they could have the largest oil reserves in the World), just waiting for some Giant Foreign Oil Company to come in and find it. That the three different ethnic groups, will all agree to support the current Iraqi Central government, and it will freely sent the money to all the different groups without any problems (HCL). This will end most of the violence in Iraq?

Shouldn't there be some funding already organized, in Iraq, governing the Oil sites, Why are the funds not going to the Central Government in Iraq?

What is your opinion on the long term success of the oil program, HCL, future Oil development? Many on this Web site feel that Oil Production, profits from it, are the answer to the many problems of Iraq.

Thanks,

Orion

[Ialdoboath]

I need to address each point seperately, so please bare with me here...


The Current Administration doesn't work well with the other Branches of Government in the United States.

The reason that the current Administration doesn't work well with the Democratic Congress or Democratic Controlled Courts is easy, he was never recognized by the Democratic Leaders or Members as a Truly Elected President. Only after 9-11, did they try to work with him on any real important issues, and show any kind of respect for the office of President. Also this President has been under attack by the News Media from Day One while being in the White House? America is divided into two very different nations, and the balance was about 50 half is Traditional Conservative and the other half is Progressive Liberial. And there both views in both parties.

Agreed. Actually this is a world-wide trend over the last 100 years. A split between conservative and liberal extremes. This is what Communism and Capitalism was about. Same with Socialism and Democracy. Both make perfect sense to the individual who believes them but each starts from a different premise/assumption.


As for the justification of going to War.. We agree to disagree on this Issue.

Oakalie.

I would like your opinion on the current view that Iraq has a huge amount of reserves of Oil under ground, (Media Reports States they could have the largest oil reserves in the World), just waiting for some Giant Foreign Oil Company to come in and find it. That the three different ethnic groups, will all agree to support the current Iraqi Central government, and it will freely sent the money to all the different groups without any problems (HCL). This will end most of the violence in Iraq?

The sunni/shia violence is a new issue in Iraq, and through the middle east in general. Before the Golden Mosque was bombed the sects lived fien next to each other in Iraq as they do in many, many countries in the world. They do not love each other, but normally your sect does not matter that much to Muslims. This is really a fight between the House of Saud and the Revolutionary Guard for control of the region, using tempers and politics in Iraq as a battleground. IMHO, Iran (Rep. Guard) will lose horribly.

Shouldn't there be some funding already organized, in Iraq, governing the Oil sites, Why are the funds not going to the Central Government in Iraq?

Kirkuk and the Kurds consider themselves seperate from the nation of Iraq, and they have a lot of oil. They are only part of Iraq because the English cartographers mentioned earlier neglected to draw them a state called Kurdistan when they redrew the region after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. These folks want to take care of their own business and do not want a central government in Baghdad interfering.

The Sunni have less (if any) oil, so they want the spoils of the country equally divided no matter what so they do not lose out on the oil trade.

The Shia think they own the whole show no matter what, so they're a problem. They want a central government that takes in all the money and hands out what they feel is "just". They also feel that aligning with Iran is a good idea and would create a Shia corridor through Iran, Iraq, and Syria. (A fact that the House of Saud are acutely aware of).

What is your opinion on the long term success of the oil program, HCL, future Oil development? Many on this Web site feel that Oil Production, profits from it, are the answer to the many problems of Iraq.


My thought is that no matter how you slice it Iraq will survive as a nation, even if it is divided into respective "provinces" reflecting the sects. As small nation states they would get picked off by their neighbors and eventually Baghdad would be run by either Tehran or Ridyah. Probably Ridyah.

I think the nation will do very well for itself eventually, but not just in oil. Tourism will be HUGE with all the holy sites. They have some of hte only fresh water in the region (and arible land). There's a lot more than oil in this, and the folks arguing abot it know this. No one would be fighting if there wasn't a payday to fight for.

Orion

One last comment for the right wingers who I've been discussing with. As you all well know I am a soicialist-leaning left winger.
As such I have often been taking you right wingers to task on issues, and critisizing your attack on all things Democratic and left wing in the states.
Tonight I had the occasion to watch your Speaker of the House (Pelosi) in action and I have to say, you right wingers do have a point. This woman is an out and out moron. I thought you were just being hard on her because she was a dem. Nope... this woman has all the savvy of a three day old egg salad sandwich.
Please, do not judge all left thinking folks by this... "example".

[BILLYG]

I need to address each point seperately, so please bare with me here...



One last comment for the right wingers who I've been discussing with. As you all well know I am a soicialist-leaning left winger.
As such I have often been taking you right wingers to task on issues, and critisizing your attack on all things Democratic and left wing in the states.
Tonight I had the occasion to watch your Speaker of the House (Pelosi) in action and I have to say, you right wingers do have a point. This woman is an out and out moron. I thought you were just being hard on her because she was a dem. Nope... this woman has all the savvy of a three day old egg salad sandwich.
Please, do not judge all left thinking folks by this... "example".

Ialdoboath, I don't. I, personally, "judge" liberals, and conservatives for that matter, on content and CIVILITY as well as character. Ialdo, you sir have presented your ideas and arguments in just such a civil manner. As a result there has been, in my opinion anyway, a very healthy exchange of ideas and opinions as expressed on this thread. A VERY WELCOME CHANGE!!!:) :happy64:

Thanks, and keep up the great posting that you have come to be known for.

Bill

[usakidd]

What a load of garbage!!!! I made it thru about 2:55 minutes before I had had enough.
Maybe we should all try for truthful reporting, instead of letting the "liberal media" ruin our days. the real culprit in all this is the United nations. As is their policy, they need to justify their position in the world for domination and control, while letting innocent people die, the real criminals ship out weapons and cover their a**es by trying to insert a useless, non-functioning police force on the people that aren't afraid of them.
The UN has outlived it's usefulness in our world, in fact, many of the members are bigger criminals than the people they are trying to police (I refer to the "food for oil" scandal).
the sad part, is the United States covers most of the operations costs run up by the leaders of the UN...I don't hear the liberals b*tching about that!!!


Well said, Hammerhead.

You hit on an important key factor to most of the world problems when you mentioned the UN, Which stands for the "United Nothing"
This group is made up of countries of which approximately 80% of them are muslims. These are the countries that want to see Israel and America wiped off the face of the map.
The UN is a good place to start cleaning up.

[Whats_UP]

Ialdoboath, I don't. I, personally, "judge" liberals, and conservatives for that matter, on content and CIVILITY as well as character. Ialdo, you sir have presented your ideas and arguments in just such a civil manner. As a result there has been, in my opinion anyway, a very healthy exchange of ideas and opinions as expressed on this thread. A VERY WELCOME CHANGE!!!:) :happy64:

Thanks, and keep up the great posting that you have come to be known for.

Bill


Agreed.....reminds me of the old democrats one could sit down with and have an "issues" discussion......;)

[rykpa]

She is not the first. Being close down wind from her ilk has me jaded completely toward the DEMs.

She is simply a fair representation of the DEM party, IMO. Her lack of depth is no surprise to me.

[COACH JACK]

The Iraq war prompted the largest war protest in history on the eve of it starting. I don't think they can be accused of "woulda/shoulda"... it was clear at the start that many people did not want this war.
The many Democratic leaders, from Bill Clinton to all the rest, profoundly echoed the need to eliminate the Saddam threat before we went to war. The strongest protests came from France and others who were in bed with Saddam.

[Artemus]

Is this Mike guy drunk? Maybe just a typical lib.............

[orion900]

Thanks for the Reply:



One last comment for the right wingers who I've been discussing with. As you all well know I am a soicialist-leaning left winger.
As such I have often been taking you right wingers to task on issues, and critisizing your attack on all things Democratic and left wing in the states.
Tonight I had the occasion to watch your Speaker of the House (Pelosi) in action and I have to say, you right wingers do have a point. This woman is an out and out moron. I thought you were just being hard on her because she was a dem. Nope... this woman has all the savvy of a three day old egg salad sandwich.
Please, do not judge all left thinking folks by this... "example".[/quote]


I also have observed some discussions from other Nations, one comes to Mind, Canada's Parliment concerning the Issue of Health Care programs, and the government's lack of funding for the Program, the discussion from Right was very poor, also most childlike, can't understand how anyone could vote for them. Also Canada's new ban on the evil old light bulbs, is very funny. So is shows there are nuts on both sides.

In the United States, most Citizens have views, on both sides of the political Map, some may support Traditional issues such as Anti -Tax, pro growth and Development, while still supporting Liberial issues such as abortion and civil rights. On the other hand you have Republicans who support Pro Government Control, Pro Tax, and are Anti-War, who support limits on Free speech. In the past, most elected leaders worked along the same lines, would support and vote for some issues, wouldn't support other's, right now we have strict party voting in United States Congress, there is little movenment on issues, very little freedom of discussion, between sides, very sad state of affairs for our Nation.


Also thanks for you observations on Iraq, I feel you are correct about long term growth in Small Farming, and development of Farming in Iraq, due to the Water resouces in the Nation. Can't see tourism growing anytime soon. I have seen reports that some of the world's oldest religions, member population are being forced out of Iraq, is this true? Very Sad if so. Iraq is losing a great national teasure.

A Question about investing in Dinar's, are there any problems with your local Government about investing in Iraq Dinars? What about Taxes if it RV's. I had a friend who received several million Dinar's from a dealer, and the next day received a visit by the FBI, who wanted information on why he was buying Iraqi Dinar's, my friend told him all about the Wonderful World of Iraqi Investing. FBI agent wanted the phone number of the Dealer, maybe for himself?

Thanks

Orion

[Artemus]

Good reply Orion,

You don't sound like a lib to me, more like a thinking Democrat with opines that differ. Nothing wrong with that......

One has to remember that todays libs are not of the old definition, Pelosi and Kerry and Kennedy are good examples, not to mention Sharpton.

Have a good day.

[Dinewbie]

Is this Mike guy drunk? Maybe just a typical lib.............

Mike Taylor, move to France where you can be around like minded, hate filled idiots.

[Ialdoboath]

Good reply Orion,

You don't sound like a lib to me, more like a thinking Democrat with opines that differ. Nothing wrong with that......

One has to remember that todays libs are not of the old definition, Pelosi and Kerry and Kennedy are good examples, not to mention Sharpton.

Have a good day.

I agree that these people are, for the most part, annoying. I kinda want to wrest control of the word "liberal" away from people like this so we can have less polarization and more compromise and discussion... you know, what politics is SUPPOSED to be about?

FYI... I am not pro-tax. I think your tax bill should be itemized, explaining exactly where every dollar is going, and I think you should have a little check box next to the item that allows you to opt out of paying for any service you do not use or support. Very "liberal" idea... you do not force taxation on anyone without explanation and accountability.

[orion900]

I agree that these people are, for the most part, annoying. I kinda want to wrest control of the word "liberal" away from people like this so we can have less polarization and more compromise and discussion... you know, what politics is SUPPOSED to be about?

FYI... I am not pro-tax. I think your tax bill should be itemized, explaining exactly where every dollar is going, and I think you should have a little check box next to the item that allows you to opt out of paying for any service you do not use or support. Very "liberal" idea... you do not force taxation on anyone without explanation and accountability.

I think that all over the world, everyone can agree on that, would love to see a level itemized tax. Of Course government would never do that.

Of course the term Liberal means different things to different Individuals, I think of the term from the 1950's, doesn't have the negative label on it, back in my youth, Social Advancement for Races, Free Education, Union Rights, Voting Rights, Social Security, 40 hour Work Week, hourly Wage, GI bill, and so many other programs. When you think of Great US Presidents you normal don't place labels on them, but aren't FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK and Lincoln and Wilson all Liberials?

I think of myself in the middle, right next to Sam Nunn, or maybe Ruby Guianni.

Sorry off the topic.....

Orion

[Whats_UP]

I think that all over the world, everyone can agree on that, would love to see a level itemized tax. Of Course government would never do that.

Of course the term Liberal means different things to different Individuals, I think of the term from the 1950's, doesn't have the negative label on it, back in my youth, Social Advancement for Races, Free Education, Union Rights, Voting Rights, Social Security, 40 hour Work Week, hourly Wage, GI bill, and so many other programs. When you think of Great US Presidents you normal don't place labels on them, but aren't FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, JFK and Lincoln and Wilson all Liberials?

I think of myself in the middle, right next to Sam Nunn, or maybe Ruby Guianni.

Sorry off the topic.....

Orion




The old dems put their country first instead of the party....not that way anymore......seems to be hate, power, polls (in that order)......oh and Lincoln was a republican.....:)