I already am upset at the deficit. But if Bush is going to bankrupt us, he might as well help some people out in the process. (Other than his corporate buddies, that is.)

You're right, my post said conservatives want to restrict us. I didn't say they have. I said they wanted to. If they got their way, we would have no abortion, or gay marriage, or stem cell research. That's ridiculous and unconstitutional intrusion into our lives.

The American voters didn't give a damn about gay marriage until it was brought up by Republican strategists and right wing lobbyists. They're the ones who wrote the Marriage Amendment, and they're the ones that pushed for it.

Partial birth abortions are pretty gruesome, but there are certain circumstances where they're needed, like if the mother's life is in danger. Of course, I consider capital punishment gruesome as well, but that's another story. The President has never said outright that he wants all abortions banned, but I also know he's not an independant person and relies on the information and support from the people who do want it banned.

It's not a question of gay marriage or abortions or this or that. It's a question of how far you want the government getting involved in your life. It's easy to be against something when you're not affected by it. There are many girls out there who were against abortions until they realized they needed to get one. There are parents out there who were against gay marriage until they found out their children were gay. You would think that Dick Cheney, based on his ideology would be against gay marriage, and yet, he's not. Interesting, eh?

You're right, my post said conservatives want to restrict us. I didn't say they have. I said they wanted to. If they got their way, we would have no abortion, or gay marriage, or stem cell research.

This sentence is an "outright" falsehood! We DO NOT want to! Stop going to DU.

DU?

DU?

"Democratic Underground" (gag, puke, spit) as if you didn't already know that.

It was predicted Iraq had vast stores of WMD. Rumsfeld even said he knew where they were.

And they did indeed find stores of chemical weapons (made in Germany). Vast stores were never "predicted", only a weapons program was. And indeed, they were right.

It was predicted after the initial battle was over, Iraqis would shower us with rainbows and gumdrops.

And they did. The elected president of Iraq has also thanked the coalition for the liberation. And the elected government has asked the US to stay in Iraq. How exactly did you think the gratitude would materialize?

It was predicted the entire operation would cost no more than $50 billion. It's in the hundreds of billions of dollars now. A billion dollars a week.

I don't remember any predictions about the costs. Source?

It was predicted the insurgency would be short lived. Cheney said it was in it's 'last throes.' And that was over a year ago.

So what? Israel has been fighting terrorism for 60 years. Iraq is the second democracy in the region and will likely have the same problem.

Giving up Iraq because the terrorists are not is a stupid strategy.

It was predicted Iraqi oil would pay for the war, and more. Iraqi oil production is below what it was pre-war.

Actually, the only connection made between the war and oil money as made by the left, not Bush's supporters.

It was claimed Iraq and al Qaida were connected. Truth is, Saddam hated al Qaida and bin Laden, and would never allow them in his country. He wouldn't allow any outside force to exert influence in Iraq.

It was claimed that Iraq and terrorism were connected. And they were. Incidentally, why do you think the terrorists are now attacking Iraqis but weren't doing so when Saddam was in power?

It was predicted (by Rumsfeld) the war would doubtfully last more than 6 months.

The war is over. What we find here is terrorism against the population. That will probably remain for a good few years.

So what's your proposal? Hand over Iraq to the terrorists?

Looks like we're on the same page for a change. Glad to see you back.

#50 by Leauki

Looks like we're on the same page for a change. Glad to see you back.

Thanks!

And they did indeed find stores of chemical weapons (made in Germany). Vast stores were never "predicted", only a weapons program was. And indeed, they were right.

Actually, in his address to the UN, Colin Powell said Iraq produced 8500 of anthrax, and estimated it could have produced 25,000 liters. He said they made 4 tons of VX (the stuff that can kill you with a single drop). He said they had 500 tons of ‘chemical weapons agents.’ He said there’s no evidence Iraq ever stopped it’s nuclear weapons program. I would call this massive amount of weapons ‘vast stores.’
All of this was either destroyed a decade ago and accounted for, or there is no evidence of it ever existing. All they found were degraded and unusable weapons that were remnants of the Iran-Iraq war that were sold to Iraq by our allies. (Many speculate we gave Iraq these weapons ourselves.) And there is no evidence Iraq was working on any WMD program.

And they did. The elected president of Iraq has also thanked the coalition for the liberation. And the elected government has asked the US to stay in Iraq. How exactly did you think the gratitude would materialize?

They did? Did I miss that part? Right after we took Baghdad, regional fighting broke out which we were in the middle of. Nothing says ‘thanks for liberating us’ than to start bombing each other and the ‘liberators,’ eh? I’d say real gratitude would be for everyone to work together to fix the damage of the war, and the damage of Saddam. Real gratitude wouldn’t have had Iraqis looting just days after their ‘liberation.’

I don't remember any predictions about the costs. Source?

A quote from the Wall Street Journal: “On September 15th 2002, White House economic advisor Lawrence Lindsay estimated the high limit on the cost to be 1-2% of GNP, or about $100-$200 billion. Mitch Daniels, Director of the Office of Management and Budget subsequently discounted this estimate as “very, very high” and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion.”

So what? Israel has been fighting terrorism for 60 years. Iraq is the second democracy in the region and will likely have the same problem. Giving up Iraq because the terrorists are not is a stupid strategy.

The ‘so what’ is that he made a strong statement that ended up being not only false, but the complete opposite of what happened. The ‘insurgency’ has gained strength, and attacks have increased. The terrorists aren’t giving up because we’re not opposing them enough. Guerrilla tactics are easily defeated with large numbers. We simply don’t have enough troops in Iraq, and they weren’t trained to fight guerilla warfare, nor is their equipment made for guerilla warfare. (For example, the M16 is over 3 feet long; not exactly maneuverable in a Humvee. It also clogs easily in the sandy environment. Many soldiers even ditch the M16 for the Kalishnakov. They lack body armor and vehicle armor, and what is being supplied weighs the Humvees and tanks down so much they don’t even use it.) While I hate to have to send more troops to Iraq, it’s the only way to win. There weren’t enough to being with (as evidenced by the fighting that ensued early on) so now we’re paying the price.
And Iraq is the second democracy? Egypt? Jordan? Lebanon? Pakistan and Afghanistan to some extent? Those aren’t democracies? Just because their government don’t agree with our policies, and aren’t the American model of democracy doesn’t make them any less democratic.

Actually, the only connection made between the war and oil money as made by the left, not Bush's supporters.

A quote from Deputy Defense Secretary during a House Committee on Appropriations Hearing on Supplemental War Regulation: “There’s a lot of money to pay for this that doesn’t have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people…and on a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50 and $100 billion over the course of the next two or three years…We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” That was in February of 2003. Iraq oil production is way below what it was prewar, and there is no change of it financing it’s own reconstruction anytime soon.
Here’s one from Donald Rumsfeld: “If you [Source: worry about just] the cost, the money, Iraq is a very different situation from Afghanistan…Iraq has oil. They have financial resources.” That was from the Fall of 2002.

It was claimed that Iraq and terrorism were connected. And they were. Incidentally, why do you think the terrorists are now attacking Iraqis but weren't doing so when Saddam was in power?

They were? Terrorists are in Iraq because we’re there. They weren’t doing it beforehand because Saddam wouldn’t allow it. As I said, and as the recent Senate report said, Saddam not only had little, if any, contact with al Qaida he hated them. He would never allow any outside group to be in his country and take away his own influence and power. The terrorists who are there now weren’t terrorist before the invasion, but joined the local militias and terrorist groups to fight us and each other.

The war is over. What we find here is terrorism against the population. That will probably remain for a good few years.

If terrorism isn’t war, then what is it? Terrorism is a tactic of war just like any other. The ‘insurgency’ is just an extension of the initial invasion. Iraqis who opposed our presence, and foreign fighters saw that America isn’t prepared for guerilla warfare. We weren’t in Vietnam, and we still aren’t. So they decided that’s exactly the tactic they would use. And the terrorist attacks are against the Iraqi population along with our troops, journalists and others.

So what's your proposal? Hand over Iraq to the terrorists?

If you’re so confident in the Iraqi government, hand it over to them. The administration is more than happy to say they’ve trained 250,000 Iraqi soldiers, and will have trained over 300,000 in a short time. According to the troop levels we have now, it’s more than enough. And now that the Iraqi government has control over the Iraqi military, they can handle it, right? You said the war is over and all the attacks are against Iraqis, so what do they need us for?

And to clarify, I never heard of the Democratic Underground before it was mentioned above. I went there, and wasn’t very impressed.

They did? Did I miss that part?

That was what I thought. It was very likely, given your opinion on the matter.

But the real question is: would the fact that the Iraq actually WANT the US to be there and that they have said so in free elections change your opinion?

I don't think so.

As early as 2004, surveys have demonstrated that majorities in Iraq want America to leave, and our immediate withdrawl would increase security in their country. Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland conducted a poll of the Iraqi population in January of 2006. 67% said our withdrawl will increase security. 87% want a timeline. Only 23% believe we would leave even if we were asked.

47% of Iraqis approve of attacks on our soldiers, 23% strongly approve. 33% of Iraq doubt the legitimacy and fairness of the elections they had. 94% of Sunnis doubt the fairness of them.

In a poll by ABC and Time in December of 2005 found 2/3 oppose our presence in Iraq, and only 44% think their country is better off. That means up to 56% of the country liked Iraq better when Saddam was there, or see no difference. Half believe our invasion was wrong to begin with.'

Poll after poll show unfavorable opinions towards America, it's partners, our actions, and our presence.

So yes, if they wanted us there, I'd say we should try to tough it out a little longer. But most Americans want us out or at least a timeline for withdrawl, and most Iraqis want us out right now.

As early as 2004, surveys have demonstrated that majorities in Iraq want America to leave, and our immediate withdrawl would increase security in their country.

A survey has shown that the withdrawal would increase security in their country?

How does a survey show THAT?

But tell me why, why would Shi'ites and Sunnis stop killing each other just because the (non-Sunni, non-Shia) Americans were gone?

Shi'ites and Sunnis have killed each other for decades. Specifically, when Saddam was in power, Shi'ites were killed by the hundreds of thousands (don't try to argue your way out of this, they found the mass graves). Why exactly would that suddenly stop?

Perhaps you are reading fantasy surveys. That would explain why you read surveys that predict the future (rather than represent opinions).

But be that as it may, what IS representative is how Iraqis voted. And oddly enough they voted for people who totally contradict your surveys. Now isn't that odd?

Vote after vote showed support for the liberation and support for a continued presence.

If you think that Iraqis believed that Iraq was better off under Saddam, you live in a fantasy world. If you believe that the claim is also true and that Iraq was actually better off, you are not better than those who deny the holocaust. It's a lie, it's inhumane, and it's plain evil and disrespectful.

(BTW 44% for one answer doesn't mean that everybody else supports the other choice. You must not read many polls if you have never come across "undecided" or "no answer".)

So yes, they want the US there and the US should stay longer. And your fantasy surveys, which contradict Iraqi elections AND logic AND make predictions rather than represent opinion won't change that.


What the Iraqi president says:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007289


What life under Saddam was like:

http://massgraves.9neesan.com/

(It's very unlikely that the majority of Iraqis, the Shi'ites, want that back. That's like saying that Jews miss the holocaust. THINK before you believe such nonsense!)


As for the terrorists, they do not attack American troops, they usually attack Shia mosques and religious ceremonies held open-air. If you really believe that these attacks will stop just because the Americans can't help the Shi'ites any more, you will have some explaining to do.

The attacks against Shi'ites happened under Saddam and they happen now (although much less). Why they would end if America left might be obvious to you, but probably not to them.


http://www.shianews.com/hi/europe/news_id/0000435.php

Just tell me again that these people want Saddam back. Did you even care to read anything about Saddam's Iraq?


The terrorists killed several thousands Iraqis since the invasion. That is less than what Saddam killed every year. But it's still too much. But to blame America for the fact that Sunni terrorists still kill Shi'ites and that Shia militias kill Sunnis is just ridiculous.

Sorry I haven’t responded sooner. I lost my internet connection for a few days, and then I couldn’t find this thread for a little bit. I don’t even know if anyone is still checking, but if so, Here’s my loooong reply.

---Adamness

No problem; I was just enjoying the back-and-forth and hoping you'd show up again. The game's afoot.....

Nope. It’s not our place. We tried being world police, and look what we got for it. 3,000 dead American civilians, and 2,700 dead American troops.

Where have you been? We've been the world police since the end of the last World War. We've been in Europe for sixty years, protecting them from Soviet aggression. Why we're still there, I have no real clue, other than the fact that we pay a lot of rent to our hosts and they don't want us to leave. How's that for irony? We lay down the lives of our men for them, and pay them to let us do it.
How about Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Grenada, Central America, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Iraq (twice). Somalia. Kosovo. Liberia. Haiti. Lots more in between. The Marines spent a few months in the late 80's chasing communist rebels in the Phillipines.
We've spent decades fighting other people's wars for them, but when we want to do some ass kicking and name taking of our own, oh no! That can't be! We're so evil; such bullies and cowards, picking on poor little Sadaam like that. It's a crock.

While I realize the UN is essentially useless, we live in a world where an international force is needed. That’s why Bush pushed the idea of the ‘coalition of the willing,’ despite it being a farce. (Come on, do you think Moldova’s 12 troops did anything?)

So, if the UN is useless, why should anyone bother with them? The League of Nations operated all through WW2, issuing papers and directives, but no one listened because they were a failed body. Just like the UN.
They protect the rights and soverignty of dictatorships and work against the democracies. Why let them be the governing body when they do nothing productive?

If we're not the world's police force, why should it then be our responsibility to act against the rogue states that raspberry the UN? Make up your mind.

Iran, a tyrannical rogue state governed by a theocracy which favors and supports terrorism and murder, is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power. N. Korea reportedly already has nuclear weapons. Why doesn't the UN do something about them? Why do you criticize and whine about us doing nothing (reply #32, second comment) when it's the UN, as the "international force", that should be acting?
Besides, what is the UN, besides a coalition of the willing? How many countries committed a token number of troops to the UN "action" in Bosnia? But they're to be admired, right?
What's the real, brass tacks difference between that and what Bush called for? Let me tell you: he's Bush. That's the difference. If the UN had called for it, it would have been hailed as a noble crusade; a worthy effort. But no....it was Bush, so it's bad. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland had nothing on modern international politics.

If you like the ‘one war at a time idea,’ where does Iraq come from?

We're fighting Islamic terror. Iraq was a supporter of terrorism and harbored many of its purveyors. Besides that, as I said somewhere above, he spent 12 years telling the whiners in the UN where to stick their resolutions. He got what he deserved, left over from Bush 41, who sadly trusted the UN.

I’m not saying we need to invade them, but we do need to engage them. In a press conference a couple months ago, Bush was asked something about how North Korea gained the capacity to make 6-10 nuclear weapons. Rather than explain, he acted like he didn’t know this happened, and questioned the premise

I agree with you here; I'm not a Bush bot. He needs to do a lot. But once again, if the UN is to be the Internatiional Force, why should it be us that has the responsiblity to face Korea down at all? We're not the world's police force, right? Let the UN do it.

All experts, including those in the White House, acknowledge North Korea can produce more weapons since Bush took office.

Well, let's properly spread the blame here; they couldn't make any at all before Clinton took office.

So when the UN fails to act, it becomes America’s responsibility?

According to what you've written on this thread, it does. But then when we act, we're the bad guy for usurping UN authority. But then, if we DON'T act, we're still the bad guy for not standing up and doing our part as the Lone Superpower. Once again, make up your mind. Which do you want to be the world's protector? US or UN?

One of the reasons the UN is weak is because we ignore it.

This is crap. We're one country; if the UN---the UNITED NATIONS----truly had any power at all, we'd just be another spear carrier in the cast.

So you think there should be international anarchy? No rules for each other to abide by, and no body to oversee everything?

But yet even as you say this, you agree that the UN is useless. Make up your mind.
They don't oversee a damn thing. They dither, they run in place and they bitch (mainly about us), and that's about it.

Or maybe create a completely new international institution? Something else?

How about NO international institution? We've lived through 60 years of world history repeatedly being told how crucial and necessary the UN is; so much so that many people actually believe it. Talk about lies being spoon-fed to the people.

Somehow we got all the way to the 20th century without a worldwide governing body. We united ourselves and fought two world wars without any interference from any unified international body other than that created by and for the wars.
The US later stared down the Soviets and eventually saw them pass on into history, and all without UN help. In fact, the UN issued resolutions opposing Reagan's actions. We ignored them, to the world's benefit.
Without UN interference, Sadaam might well have been ousted in '91, and this whole thread would be moot. Hell, it wouldn't even have been written.
What of any REAL and lasting significance and good has the UN ever really done? They were supposed to bring an end to tyranny, injustice, war and poverty in the world. Look around. They've failed. Miserably.

I’d say the Balkan conflict was a success. Leaving troops somewhere is a sign of failure?

It is in this case; the UN was supposed to mediate a peace. What happened?

And Korea was 50 years ago. I don’t think it’s fair to judge them by what happened so long ago.

What's that got to do with anything? Failure is failure. Failure to acheive victory is failure to achieve victory.
The Edsel came out fifty years ago, too. It was a failure. I don't think Ford has any plans to revive it, though.
Nixon's presidency is still castigated by those on the Left, even though it's been 32 years since he resigned. That's a long time. Should we retthink or redo the whole Watergate thing and see if it's still just as screwy today as it was then? How about DaVinci's Flying Machine? It failed. How many centuries has it been, though? Maybe we shouldn't judge; try it again and see if it works now.
Should we try invading N. Korea again? Try it once more in a more modern era and see how things go? Better ask the UN first.

Do we blame our own government for segregation, and even slavery, so many years ago?

Some do. Ask the good Rev-r-unt Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farakhan that question.

I'm going to bed in a few here, and I'll finish the rest of this as I can. For the moment, though, I want to answer this one:

For the short term, maybe not. But these prisons and accusations of torture take something away from America that will tarnish our image forever. All America has is it’s image of freedom and equality and mercy. I’d rather be loved by the world rather than 100% secure. Absolute security is impossible when the Constitution is properly followed (ahem), so we should at least have support of the world. We’re going to be attacked no matter what we do, so why not be the moral leaders. At least nobody would be able to say “they deserved it.”

On 9/11 there was dancing in the streets of every nation in the Middle East. America finally got what they deserved. This was just after the "good decade" you referred to, where everyone in the world loved us and lauded us.
It's all Bush's fault, right? He was in office, after all. Sure, for 8 months. Clinton had just spent 8 years. Who's more at fault?
Adamness, America has never, ever, been "loved by the world". No matter what you do, you're going to offend someone and make someone mad. Support your allies, you'll make enemies there. Ease off on that support to appease your new foes, you piss off your allies.
We have spent generations feeding, clothing, rebuilding and healing the world. What has it gotten us? Dancing in the streets after the towers fell.

I can't figure out whether your head is in the sand or the clouds.

More later.