Quoted: I truly support every man and woman regardless of race, nationality, branch of service, or religious or political background who has to put on that uniform and leave the safety and security to put themselves in harms way to protect us from those who wish to do us harm. I was in full support of going after bin Laden after the USS Cole and going into Afghanistan after 9/11. I am a card carrying Republican who voted for George W twice. I admit, at first I didn't agree with the war in Iraq because it looked like he was finishing up what his dad had started and it looked suspicious when no weapons of mass destruction had been found. But I saw photos of what Saddam had did to the Kurds and from that point I found it to be just. Saddam was a real terrorist and if given the chance I am sure he would have supplied Serin and VX gas to terrorist networks to strike at America and her true Allies. I believe that those who kept Saddam supplied after the first Gulf War also helped him to move his stash of bio and chem weapons to Syria to keep UN inspectors from finding it. As far as Iran being a terrorist country well remember back to the 70's and 80's when they funded terror groups like Hamas, the PLO, and Abu Jihad against the "Great Satan" aka the US. Or lets not forget about North Korea sending its own advisors into Sudan and Colombia to train Marxist rebels. They all seek to destroy America and our allies but when a natural disaster occurs they look to us for help with humanitarian aid and money.

When will the WMD crap ever stop? Saddam destroyed his WMDs after the 1st Gulf War and this was verified by the U.N. with "99% certainty." It was only that 1% that was unaccounted for, but considering how corrupt Saddam's regime was, that shouldn't come as a surprise. They may have been used on the Iranians, they may have been used on the Kurds, or they may have been obliterated in a bunker during the American bombing campaign. Yet some people want to think that Iraq had thousands of tons of WMDs right up until the last second before the American invasion, when suddenly, Saddam moved them all to another country "just to make America look bad." That's hilarious. In otherwords, America, with all of its satellite pictures of WMD storage facilities (supposedly presented to the world by Colin Powell), let Saddam truck out hundreds of tons of WMDs and destroy every trace of those facilities from having ever existed. Do any of you guys actually believe that? If you do, I'd gladly sell you the Golden Gate Bridge.

Don't get me wrong, Saddam was a very bad guy. Yet America is the WRONG country to remove him. Here's a few reasons explaining why:

1) Saddam rose to power with the help of the CIA in the 1950's when they supported the Baath Party takeover.
2) Saddam was supported by the Americans with WMDs and intelligence against their war with Iran.
3) America has a history of supporting and funding dictatorships, such as in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, the Philippines, Indonesia, Congo, and much of Latin America. While we may support democracy and freedom here inside the USA, we have a VERY BAD track record of supporting democracy and freedom in other countries.

In otherwords, America is not a country to be trusted. We're extremely hypocritical. We'll criticize Iranian elections while continuing to support Saudi and Egyptian dictatorships. We'll claim to spread democracy while history shows us overthrowing democracies.

The Middle East just wants America to leave. They don't care how much we claim we can help them. They just want us to get the fuck out and stay far away. We've screwed people over and over again. The vast majority of the people in the Middle East, including the people in nations we consider our allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Pakistan, have overwhelmingly negative views of America. It's no wonder why we support dictators-- if the people in those countries actually had a say, we'd be kicked out of the Middle East faster than you can say Haliburton.

Yet some people still believe the Disneyland fantasy that Iraqis welcomed us with flowers and kisses. Iraqis, no matter how much they hated Saddam Hussein, have more reason to hate America than any country in the world. The food and medicine sanctions we enforced killed 2 million Iraqis over a decade, half of which were children under the age of 5. This was, of course, in our interest because we could get cheap oil through the oil-for-food program. So while Americans lived happily in the 1990's with cheap gas prices, the Iraqi children starved. Fair trade?

Today, an average of two American soldiers die and a dozen are wounded everyday. Many of them are seriously crippled, paralyzed, and blinded. Dozens of Iraqi police are killed and wounded everyday. Dozens of civilians are killed and wounded everyday.

Go to www.icasualties.org and read the names of all the American soldiers who have died. Ask yourself why they died. Can you honestly say it was worth it?

Haliburton and Lockheed Martin think so. While the rest of the American economy struggles, they've been reaping enormous profits.

if you hate America so much why dont you move to Africa or France?

liberalism really is a mental disorder.

Quoted: if you hate America so much why dont you move to Africa or France? liberalism really is a mental disorder.

Not too bright, are you? Do you know what Cartesian logic is? No? Well, I'm about to use it to make you look like a fool.

If your state started up a bill banning guns, would you leave the state? Or would you voice your opinion, contact your representatives, and attempt to fight the anti-gun legislation?

You see, everyone has a say in America. You can try to make America a place where guns are legal. I can try to make America a place where we hold our leaders accountable and have an intelligent foreign policy that promotes freedom and justice and doesn't invade nations unless they pose an ACTUAL threat.

That's right-- in America, we have the freedom of speech. You're allowed to hate Democrats and love Republicans or visa versa.

Now if YOU don't like a country where people are allowed to have opinions other than your own, then YOU should move to a fascist country where different ideas are not tolerated.

There, that wasn't too hard to swallow, was it?

Also, if you noticed from my prior posts, I not a liberal, I'm a conservative. As for you, I really don't know what the hell you are. Apparently you hate freedom of speech, you hate liberals, and you hate anyone who criticizes the government. The only ideology that fits that description is fascism.

Now I'm not sure why you think this way. Maybe it's for religious reasons. Maybe you believe the Republican party has something to do with the South (yet look back in history and you'll see the South used to vote overwhelmingly Democrat). Maybe it's racial. Maybe you just watch too much Fox News. Maybe you think criticizing a war, no matter how retarded the war may be, will make you look gay. Maybe you've somehow been conned into believing that millionare George W. Bush, with his poor mastery of the English language, represents the working folk of rural America. I'm really don't know. It's probably a combination of factors.

Yet obviously, you've been deluded enough to somehow think that I'm a French liberal.

Get educated, bitch.

Quoted: When will the WMD crap ever stop? Saddam destroyed his WMDs after the 1st Gulf War and this was verified by the U.N. with "99% certainty." It was only that 1% that was unaccounted for, but considering how corrupt Saddam's regime was, that shouldn't come as a surprise. They may have been used on the Iranians, they may have been used on the Kurds, or they may have been obliterated in a bunker during the American bombing campaign. Yet some people want to think that Iraq had thousands of tons of WMDs right up until the last second before the American invasion, when suddenly, Saddam moved them all to another country "just to make America look bad." That's hilarious. In otherwords, America, with all of its satellite pictures of WMD storage facilities (supposedly presented to the world by Colin Powell), let Saddam truck out hundreds of tons of WMDs and destroy every trace of those facilities from having ever existed. Do any of you guys actually believe that? If you do, I'd gladly sell you the Golden Gate Bridge.

Most of the facilities were "dual use facilities," meaning they could be used to do multiple things, some of which had a humanitarian necessity.  Also, multiple times in the last year, groups of soldiers, many not US, found weapons of mass destruction, including artillery shells with VX warheads.  Finally, the Iraqi Survey Group, the independent agency charged with finding WMDs, came to the conclusion that Saddam did that very thing.  But because Turkey did not allow the 4th Infantry Division to invade from the north, most were smuggled into Syria.

Don't get me wrong, Saddam was a very bad guy. Yet America is the WRONG country to remove him. Here's a few reasons explaining why: 1) Saddam rose to power with the help of the CIA in the 1950's when they supported the Baath Party takeover. 2) Saddam was supported by the Americans with WMDs and intelligence against their war with Iran. 3) America has a history of supporting and funding dictatorships, such as in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, the Philippines, Indonesia, Congo, and much of Latin America. While we may support democracy and freedom here inside the USA, we have a VERY BAD track record of supporting democracy and freedom in other countries.

So who better to take him out?  To paraphrase Old Yeller: "Let me do it, ma. Yeller's my dog."

In otherwords, America is not a country to be trusted. We're extremely hypocritical. We'll criticize Iranian elections while continuing to support Saudi and Egyptian dictatorships. We'll claim to spread democracy while history shows us overthrowing democracies.

Which democracies have we overthrown?  In the last 20 years, we've overthrown, or been involved with in the overthrowing, of 4 countries: Panama, the Philipines, Afghanistan and Iraq.  All 4 have improved drastically during that time frame.

The Middle East just wants America to leave. They don't care how much we claim we can help them. They just want us to get the fuck out and stay far away. We've screwed people over and over again. The vast majority of the people in the Middle East, including the people in nations we consider our allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Pakistan, have overwhelmingly negative views of America. It's no wonder why we support dictators-- if the people in those countries actually had a say, we'd be kicked out of the Middle East faster than you can say Haliburton.

They lost their right to kick us out when those countries supported some guys flying a plane into one of our cities.  We had been warning them to clean house and now we are doing it for them.  If they don't like it, they should have worried about that earlier.

Yet some people still believe the Disneyland fantasy that Iraqis welcomed us with flowers and kisses. Iraqis, no matter how much they hated Saddam Hussein, have more reason to hate America than any country in the world. The food and medicine sanctions we enforced killed 2 million Iraqis over a decade, half of which were children under the age of 5. This was, of course, in our interest because we could get cheap oil through the oil-for-food program. So while Americans lived happily in the 1990's with cheap gas prices, the Iraqi children starved. Fair trade?

So not all of them like us there, so we should just leave?  I seem to remember them being very happy when we took Baghdad, to the point of tearing down statues of their benevolent dictator; who by the way was the one that refused to comply with the sanctions and spent all of his oil-for-food money on new palaces.  The 5 million barrels of oil that we received a year was barely a drop in the bucket for what we consume.

Today, an average of two American soldiers die and a dozen are wounded everyday. Many of them are seriously crippled, paralyzed, and blinded. Dozens of Iraqi police are killed and wounded everyday. Dozens of civilians are killed and wounded everyday. Go to www.icasualties.org and read the names of all the American soldiers who have died. Ask yourself why they died. Can you honestly say it was worth it?

Yes, it is worth it.  We removed one of the largest shit-stains in the area, and gave warning to all the other shit-stains that we will not stand for this shit any longer.  Notice that Qadaffi is now toeing the line and behaving.  I don't think that is because he just got tired of hating us.

Haliburton and Lockheed Martin think so. While the rest of the American economy struggles, they've been reaping enormous profits.

Let's see, unemployment: low; stock-market: high; GNP: high; taxes: low.  Yep, terrible economy.

Quoted: Also, if you noticed from my prior posts, I not a liberal, I'm a conservative.

You don't quack like a conservative, nor do you walk like one.

If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck...

Get educated, bitch.

Pot, this is kettle over.

Quoted: Most of the facilities were "dual use facilities," meaning they could be used to do multiple things, some of which had a humanitarian necessity.  Also, multiple times in the last year, groups of soldiers, many not US, found weapons of mass destruction, including artillery shells with VX warheads.  Finally, the Iraqi Survey Group, the independent agency charged with finding WMDs, came to the conclusion that Saddam did that very thing.  But because Turkey did not allow the 4th Infantry Division to invade from the north, most were smuggled into Syria.

The only WMDs I see right now are the lies you're pulling out of your ass. After the invasion, the U.S. survey team determined there were no WMDs in Iraq. Yet you want to believe in the WMD myth. There weren't any in Iraq, yet now you are so sure there are Iraqi WMDs in Syria and nukes in Iran. Uh huh. Sorry, the inspectors were right and the Bush administration was wrong. I'll trust the inspectors.

So who better to take him out?  To paraphrase Old Yeller: "Let me do it, ma. Yeller's my dog."

That's retarded. I tell you what, next time America needs to impeach a president or conduct an electoral recount, let's have the British supervise us. Afterall, by your logic, America is "Britain's bitch."

We had no right to meddle in Iraq in the first place, and we have no right to meddle in Iraq today.

Which democracies have we overthrown?  In the last 20 years, we've overthrown, or been involved with in the overthrowing, of 4 countries: Panama, the Philipines, Afghanistan and Iraq.  All 4 have improved drastically during that time frame.

It's time for another history lesson!

1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator.

1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed.

1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem.

1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia.

September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered.

1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed.

1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die.

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis.

1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties.

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S.

1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait.

1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin.

2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."

They lost their right to kick us out when those countries supported some guys flying a plane into one of our cities.  We had been warning them to clean house and now we are doing it for them.  If they don't like it, they should have worried about that earlier.

Who is "they"? You mean the 9/11 hijackers, right? Because none of them were Iraqi. None of them were Iranian. "They" were part of Al-Qaeda, a small terrorist organization, which doesn't have a country of its own.

So not all of them like us there, so we should just leave?  I seem to remember them being very happy when we took Baghdad, to the point of tearing down statues of their benevolent dictator; who by the way was the one that refused to comply with the sanctions and spent all of his oil-for-food money on new palaces.  The 5 million barrels of oil that we received a year was barely a drop in the bucket for what we consume.

Oh, the statue! I'm so glad you brought that up. See for yourself:

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=641
www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/161032.html

Sorry kid. It was staged. You've been a victim of psych-ops.

Yes, it is worth it.  We removed one of the largest shit-stains in the area, and gave warning to all the other shit-stains that we will not stand for this shit any longer.  Notice that Qadaffi is now toeing the line and behaving.  I don't think that is because he just got tired of hating us.

Yet with your "Old Yeller" example, you just implied that we were responsible for screwing up Iraq in the first place. Oh, the irony. As for Qadaffi, he's always been a two-bit dictator. On the ladder of dictators, he's the geek on the lowest rung. As for the important dictatorships, like in North Korea, well, I guess you're just going to stay silent and pretend like it doesn't exist. Afterall, that's what the Bush administration would do.

Let's see, unemployment: low; stock-market: high; GNP: high; taxes: low.  Yep, terrible economy.

Uh, let's see, largest deficit in history, jobs still haven't recovered to pre-2001 levels, China is floating our currency and the neophyte Euro is stronger than the dollar. You consider that a good economy? You consider that progress? Wow.

You don't quack like a conservative, nor do you walk like one.

Pro-gun: Conservative
Anti-abortion: Conservative
Pro-death penalty: Conservative
Pro-power with local government: Conservative
Anti-power being usurped by federal government: Conservative
Anti-government tampering with the Constitution: Conservative
Pro-Constitutional rights: Conservative
Pro-Republican party in the 2000 election: Conservative
Anti-George W. Bush, War in Iraq, and Patriot Act: Intelligent

Quoted: Quoted: Most of the facilities were "dual use facilities," meaning they could be used to do multiple things, some of which had a humanitarian necessity.  Also, multiple times in the last year, groups of soldiers, many not US, found weapons of mass destruction, including artillery shells with VX warheads.  Finally, the Iraqi Survey Group, the independent agency charged with finding WMDs, came to the conclusion that Saddam did that very thing.  But because Turkey did not allow the 4th Infantry Division to invade from the north, most were smuggled into Syria. The only WMDs I see right now are the lies you're pulling out of your ass. After the invasion, the U.S. survey team determined there were no WMDs in Iraq. Yet you want to believe in the WMD myth. There weren't any in Iraq, yet now you are so sure there are Iraqi WMDs in Syria and nukes in Iran. Uh huh. Sorry, the inspectors were right and the Bush administration was wrong. I'll trust the inspectors.

Have you met an inspector?  Have you read the reports?  I have done both.  The conclusion was there is nothing here now, but there probably was some in the recent past.  Most of the documents were burned, so there was little to go on but interrogations, which at best are slow to get information  from.

So who better to take him out?  To paraphrase Old Yeller: "Let me do it, ma. Yeller's my dog." That's retarded. I tell you what, next time America needs to impeach a president or conduct an electoral recount, let's have the British supervise us. Afterall, by your logic, America is "Britain's bitch."

But Britain didn't set up a puppet government.  They didn't use proxies and assassinations to set up our government, the way the CIA did in the 60's.

We had no right to meddle in Iraq in the first place, and we have no right to meddle in Iraq today.

You're half right.  We shouldn't have set the Ba'ath party  up in the 50's, but we did.  Now we are fixing our mistakes.

Which democracies have we overthrown?  In the last 20 years, we've overthrown, or been involved with in the overthrowing, of 4 countries: Panama, the Philipines, Afghanistan and Iraq.  All 4 have improved drastically during that time frame.

It's time for another history lesson! 1953: U.S. overthrows Prime Minister Mossadeq of Iran. U.S. installs Shah as dictator. 1954: U.S. overthrows democratically-elected President Arbenz of Guatemala. 200,000 civilians killed. 1963: U.S. backs assassination of South Vietnamese President Diem. 1963-1975: American military kills 4 million civilians in Southeast Asia. September 11, 1973: U.S. stages coup in Chile. Democratically elected president Salvador Allende assassinated. Dictator Augusto Pinochet installed. 5,000 Chileans murdered. 1977: U.S. backs military rulers of El Salvador. 70,000 Salvadorans and four American nuns killed. 1981: Reagan administration trains and funds "contras". 30,000 Nicaraguans die. 1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians. 1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis. 1989: CIA agent Manuel Noriega (also serving as President of Panama) disobeys orders from Washington. U.S. invades Panama and removes Noriega. 3,000 Panamanian civilian casualties. 1990: Iraq invades Kuwait with weapons from U.S. 1991: U.S. enters Iraq. Bush reinstates dictator of Kuwait. 1998: Clinton bombs "weapons factory" in Sudan. Factory turns out to be making aspirin. 2000-01: U.S. gives Taliban-ruled Afghanistan $245 million in "aid."

First the text in red.   I am not disputing the stuff we did in the 60's and 70's.  We are paying for that now.  But I highlighted my previous quote "IN THE LAST 20 YEARS."  Reading is fundamental.

Noriega was a dictator, albeit friendly, but still a dictator.  He didn't want to play ball, so we took him out.  The 3,000 casualties were less than the casualties he inflicted during his drug running days.

Iraq had very few weapons from the US.  Most were of Soviet design, as are their battle tactics.  He did, however, have a significant amount of French, German and British equipment.  In fact, he still had those, up until our invasion.

If the Amir is a dictator, I'd hate to hear what you descibe Hitler as.  Kuwait is one of the most progressive, forward-thinking countries in the shit-hole we call the Middle East, due mostly in part to the hands-off approach of the Amir in regards to the Parlaiment.

The Sudan thing, well I'll agree that was wrong.  That was entirely to alleviate the pressure Clinton was feeling from being impeached.

As far as Afghanistan, that was another thing we set up in our short term view to prevent the Soviets from gaining control there.

They lost their right to kick us out when those countries supported some guys flying a plane into one of our cities.  We had been warning them to clean house and now we are doing it for them.  If they don't like it, they should have worried about that earlier. Who is "they"? You mean the 9/11 hijackers, right? Because none of them were Iraqi. None of them were Iranian. "They" were part of Al-Qaeda, a small terrorist organization, which doesn't have a country of its own.

True, none of the 9/11 highjackers were Iraqi, nor were they Iranian.  But Al-Qaeda does have members from both of those nations.  The "they" I'm referring to is the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Pakistan.

So not all of them like us there, so we should just leave?  I seem to remember them being very happy when we took Baghdad, to the point of tearing down statues of their benevolent dictator; who by the way was the one that refused to comply with the sanctions and spent all of his oil-for-food money on new palaces.  The 5 million barrels of oil that we received a year was barely a drop in the bucket for what we consume. Oh, the statue! I'm so glad you brought that up. See for yourself: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=641 www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/161032.html Sorry kid. It was staged. You've been a victim of psych-ops.

OK, I've been had.  On one incident.  I've met Iraqis.  I've met Arabs.  Most are extraordinarily happy that we took out Saddam.  The entire insurgency is based in a 100 square mile area.  That's about 1% of Iraq.  It's also the 1% of Iraq that prospered under Saddam.  Hmm, I wonder why they are mad?

Yes, it is worth it.  We removed one of the largest shit-stains in the area, and gave warning to all the other shit-stains that we will not stand for this shit any longer.  Notice that Qadaffi is now toeing the line and behaving.  I don't think that is because he just got tired of hating us. Yet with your "Old Yeller" example, you just implied that we were responsible for screwing up Iraq in the first place. Oh, the irony. As for Qadaffi, he's always been a two-bit dictator. On the ladder of dictators, he's the geek on the lowest rung. As for the important dictatorships, like in North Korea, well, I guess you're just going to stay silent and pretend like it doesn't exist. Afterall, that's what the Bush administration would do.

Yes, with my "Old Yeller" example, I implied that we are responsible for screwing up Iraq (although the British had a much larger hand in it than we did.)  We set someone up to rule a country, and he fucked up.  Now we are fixing it.

How is North Korea more important?  The people are starving, they are entirely insulated and there are absolutely no natural resources.  There is no strategic value whatsoever in North Korea.  The only reason I'm ignoring Kim Il Sung, is he's even more of a 2-bit dictator than Qadaffi.

Let's see, unemployment: low; stock-market: high; GNP: high; taxes: low.  Yep, terrible economy. Uh, let's see, largest deficit in history, jobs still haven't recovered to pre-2001 levels, China is floating our currency and the neophyte Euro is stronger than the dollar. You consider that a good economy? You consider that progress? Wow.

I never said we were progressing.  I merely said that we're doing better than you were making out.  The economy is still recovering from our previous socialist president; our current administration is doing everything they can to stave off a recession.

You don't quack like a conservative, nor do you walk like one. Pro-gun: Conservative Anti-abortion: Conservative Pro-death penalty: Conservative Pro-power with local government: Conservative Anti-power being usurped by federal government: Conservative Anti-government tampering with the Constitution: Conservative Pro-Constitutional rights: Conservative Pro-Republican party in the 2000 election: Conservative Anti-George W. Bush, War in Iraq, and Patriot Act: Intelligent

I'm going to go ahead and apologize for that above comment, I'll even edit it out if you want me to.  But your above postings seemed to come directly from the rantings of Michael Moore, Stuart Smalley (Al Franken), and John Kerry. (no offense)  I don't know you and we are only talking about one small subject in the definition of Liberal Fuck-tards.

Quoted: Have you met an inspector?  Have you read the reports?  I have done both.  The conclusion was there is nothing here now, but there probably was some in the recent past.  Most of the documents were burned, so there was little to go on but interrogations, which at best are slow to get information  from.

Nobody denies Iraq HAD WMDs. Afterall, America had the receipt. However, did Iraq have WMDs at the time of the invasion? No.

UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter’s assessment (published in the Boston Globe in July 2002) ascertained “a 90 to 95 percent level of verified disarmament” and that “with the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within 5 years… The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture.” Hans Blix, who spent years searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, believes that Iraq “destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991.”

But Britain didn't set up a puppet government.  They didn't use proxies and assassinations to set up our government, the way the CIA did in the 60's. We shouldn't have set the Ba'ath party  up in the 50's, but we did.  Now we are fixing our mistakes.

The first mistake was meddling in Iraq in the 1950's. The second mistake was supporting Saddam in the 1980's. The third mistake is meddling in Iraq today with a prolonged occupation.

America is a large part of the problem, and continuing to meddle in Iraq is only making it worse.

If the Amir is a dictator, I'd hate to hear what you descibe Hitler as.  Kuwait is one of the most progressive, forward-thinking countries in the shit-hole we call the Middle East, due mostly in part to the hands-off approach of the Amir in regards to the Parlaiment.

Hitler is one of the worst dictators of history. Just because the Amir isn't Hitler doesn't mean the Amir's government suddenly promotes democracy. It is still a dictatorships. There are worse dictatorships out there, true, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a dictatorship.

As for Iran, it's a democracy. It's certainly not the best democracy out there and it still has a lot of unresolved issues, but it is a democracy no less. What angers the Bush administration is that it is a democracy that doesn't like America. They'd rather make oil deals with China and India than America. Of course, the anti-American feelings can be explained by history. America really screwed the Iranians over in the past.

They lost their right to kick us out when those countries supported some guys flying a plane into one of our cities.  We had been warning them to clean house and now we are doing it for them.  If they don't like it, they should have worried about that earlier. Who is "they"? You mean the 9/11 hijackers, right? Because none of them were Iraqi. None of them were Iranian. "They" were part of Al-Qaeda, a small terrorist organization, which doesn't have a country of its own. True, none of the 9/11 highjackers were Iraqi, nor were they Iranian.  But Al-Qaeda does have members from both of those nations.  The "they" I'm referring to is the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Pakistan.

So you're saying that because terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Pakistan, we should go and invade those countries? Or support their oppressive dictatorships? I don't understand how that would help, but if we follow that logic, then we should also invade Britain and Jamaica (Richard Reid is British Jamaican).

I've met Iraqis.  I've met Arabs.  Most are extraordinarily happy that we took out Saddam.

Absolutely. But they are also extraordinarily angry at the occupation. We've overextended our stay. We need to leave. Now.

But I don't think we will, and the reason is that we want to "manage" Iraq's democracy to be more pro-American. Already, the Iraqi government has forged strong relations with Iran. Considering much of Iraq is Shia, that should come as no surprise. But that sort of democracy isn't in America's interest.

The entire insurgency is based in a 100 square mile area.  That's about 1% of Iraq.  It's also the 1% of Iraq that prospered under Saddam.  Hmm, I wonder why they are mad?

Not true. Insurgents are active in Mosul (in the Kurdish North), Basra (in the Shia South), as well as central Iraq. In fact, there are daily attacks all over the country. While in the initial part of the war most of our trouble was with pro-Saddam towns (such as Tikrit), the current fighting has nothing to do with Saddam. For example, Fallujah has been historically a very anti-Saddam city, yet America has had an awful lot of fighting there.

The situation in Iraq has gotten a lot worse. In the beginning of the occupation, journalists roamed the country looking for stories. Now none of them leave the Green Zone in Baghdad. It's way too dangerous.

How is North Korea more important?  The people are starving, they are entirely insulated and there are absolutely no natural resources.  There is no strategic value whatsoever in North Korea.  The only reason I'm ignoring Kim Il Sung, is he's even more of a 2-bit dictator than Qadaffi.

North Korea DOES have nukes and they've threatened to use them time and time again.

I'm going to go ahead and apologize for that above comment, I'll even edit it out if you want me to.  But your above postings seemed to come directly from the rantings of Michael Moore, Stuart Smalley (Al Franken), and John Kerry.he

Thank you. Apology accepted. No need to edit it, in fact, I really don't care and I wasn't offended. We're just having a discussion. Each of us clearly have opposing points of view with regards to Iraq and naturally we both want to convince each other to see it the other way.

I just want to say that blind patriotism doesn't help this country. Just because George W. Bush does something doesn't mean it's right. I believe that after 9/11 the Republican party was hijacked by the Bush administration. They preyed upon the fear and anger of people in this country to convince them that invading Iraq was the American thing to do. I believe that invading Iraq did NOT make America safer. In fact, we're probably even more likely to face an attack now than ever before. Meanwhile, the Bush administration and their cronies have been stuffing their pockets full of cash, and Bin Laden is still out there giving orders to Al Qaeda.

Quoted: In otherwords, America is not a country to be trusted. We're extremely hypocritical. We have another flag waving patriot. You claim to be a conservative then make a statement like this. Take a flying leap to france you spineless hippy. Go to www.icasualties.org and read the names of all the American soldiers who have died. Ask yourself why they died. Can you honestly say it was worth it? Can you say it's not? Haliburton and Lockheed Martin think so. While the rest of the American economy struggles, they've been reaping enormous profits.

Where have you been, the depression is over and the economy keeps steamrolling along.

Quoted: You see, everyone has a say in America. You can try to make America a place where guns are legal. I can try to make America a place where we hold our leaders accountable and have an intelligent foreign policy that promotes freedom and justice and doesn't invade nations unless they pose an ACTUAL threat. WMD this, WMD that, what does pose a threat? I guess you were privvy to info before we invaded Iraq that said there wasn't any WMD's in Iraq. Come on Mister Patriot tell us what you knew. You are nothing but a second guesser with hindsight being your only weapon. I'm sure you and Kerry would have never voted for the war knowing what you know now. Also, if you noticed from my prior posts, I not a liberal, I'm a conservative. As for you, I really don't know what the hell you are. Apparently you hate freedom of speech, you hate liberals, and you hate anyone who criticizes the government. The only ideology that fits that description is fascism. Yes I'm sure everybody hung on the edge of their seats waiting for your wonderful words of wisdom on your conservative nature in a whole 25 posts. Now I'm not sure why you think this way. Maybe it's for religious reasons. Maybe you believe the Republican party has something to do with the South (yet look back in history and you'll see the South used to vote overwhelmingly Democrat). Maybe it's racial. Maybe you just watch too much Fox News. Maybe you think criticizing a war, no matter how retarded the war may be, will make you look gay. Maybe you've somehow been conned into believing that millionare George W. Bush, with his poor mastery of the English language, represents the working folk of rural America. I'm really don't know. It's probably a combination of factors. Yet obviously, you've been deluded enough to somehow think that I'm a French liberal. Well it's already been mentioned, if it quacks like a duck, but you get the picture. Funny how your the one trying to convince everybody else how conservative you are. Get educated, bitch. If "get educated bitch" doesn't scream french liberal I don't know what does.[:o)]

Quoted: Quoted: Have you met an inspector?  Have you read the reports?  I have done both.  The conclusion was there is nothing here now, but there probably was some in the recent past.  Most of the documents were burned, so there was little to go on but interrogations, which at best are slow to get information  from. Nobody denies Iraq HAD WMDs. Afterall, America had the receipt. However, did Iraq have WMDs at the time of the invasion? No. UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter’s assessment (published in the Boston Globe in July 2002) ascertained “a 90 to 95 percent level of verified disarmament” and that “with the exception of mustard agent, all chemical agent produced by Iraq prior to 1990 would have degraded within 5 years… The same holds true for biological agent, which would have been neutralized through natural processes within three years of manufacture.” Hans Blix, who spent years searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, believes that Iraq “destroyed almost all of what they had in the summer of 1991.”

The Inspectors I've spoken with, entirely disagree with both of those assessments.  I know them personally and will take their word.

But Britain didn't set up a puppet government.  They didn't use proxies and assassinations to set up our government, the way the CIA did in the 60's. We shouldn't have set the Ba'ath party  up in the 50's, but we did.  Now we are fixing our mistakes. The first mistake was meddling in Iraq in the 1950's. The second mistake was supporting Saddam in the 1980's. The third mistake is meddling in Iraq today with a prolonged occupation. America is a large part of the problem, and continuing to meddle in Iraq is only making it worse.

I agree that we started the problem, but we need to fix it.

If the Amir is a dictator, I'd hate to hear what you descibe Hitler as.  Kuwait is one of the most progressive, forward-thinking countries in the shit-hole we call the Middle East, due mostly in part to the hands-off approach of the Amir in regards to the Parlaiment. Hitler is one of the worst dictators of history. Just because the Amir isn't Hitler doesn't mean the Amir's government suddenly promotes democracy. It is still a dictatorships. There are worse dictatorships out there, true, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a dictatorship. As for Iran, it's a democracy. It's certainly not the best democracy out there and it still has a lot of unresolved issues, but it is a democracy no less. What angers the Bush administration is that it is a democracy that doesn't like America. They'd rather make oil deals with China and India than America. Of course, the anti-American feelings can be explained by history. America really screwed the Iranians over in the past.

If we're going to call Kuwait a dictatorship, then Britain is one also.  It is a very similar set-up.
True, Iran can be called a democracy; but it is more of a theocracy.  The Ayatollah has ultimate power over there.  They also support terrorism.  And we did screw them.  They have the right to dislike us, but not the right to use innocent civilians in Israel to make their point.

They lost their right to kick us out when those countries supported some guys flying a plane into one of our cities.  We had been warning them to clean house and now we are doing it for them.  If they don't like it, they should have worried about that earlier. Who is "they"? You mean the 9/11 hijackers, right? Because none of them were Iraqi. None of them were Iranian. "They" were part of Al-Qaeda, a small terrorist organization, which doesn't have a country of its own. True, none of the 9/11 highjackers were Iraqi, nor were they Iranian.  But Al-Qaeda does have members from both of those nations.  The "they" I'm referring to is the Middle East, specifically Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Pakistan. So you're saying that because terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, and Pakistan, we should go and invade those countries? Or support their oppressive dictatorships? I don't understand how that would help, but if we follow that logic, then we should also invade Britain and Jamaica (Richard Reid is British Jamaican).

I've already given my opinion on Kuwait (I spent some time there and really liked it, so I'm slightly biased.)  Egypt is also making much needed reforms; specifically, they are allowing opposition parties in their elections.

We should invade Saudi and Pakistan.  They are the worst breeding grounds for terrorists in the world.  But that would have gone over like a lead balloon.  We needed someone to make an example of, so we chose Saddam's little empire.

I've met Iraqis.  I've met Arabs.  Most are extraordinarily happy that we took out Saddam. Absolutely. But they are also extraordinarily angry at the occupation. We've overextended our stay. We need to leave. Now. But I don't think we will, and the reason is that we want to "manage" Iraq's democracy to be more pro-American. Already, the Iraqi government has forged strong relations with Iran. Considering much of Iraq is Shia, that should come as no surprise. But that sort of democracy isn't in America's interest.

I can't agree.  If we leave now, then the insurgents have won.  

The entire insurgency is based in a 100 square mile area.  That's about 1% of Iraq.  It's also the 1% of Iraq that prospered under Saddam.  Hmm, I wonder why they are mad? Not true. Insurgents are active in Mosul (in the Kurdish North), Basra (in the Shia South), as well as central Iraq. In fact, there are daily attacks all over the country. While in the initial part of the war most of our trouble was with pro-Saddam towns (such as Tikrit), the current fighting has nothing to do with Saddam. For example, Fallujah has been historically a very anti-Saddam city, yet America has had an awful lot of fighting there. The situation in Iraq has gotten a lot worse. In the beginning of the occupation, journalists roamed the country looking for stories. Now none of them leave the Green Zone in Baghdad. It's way too dangerous.

I try to keep up with this as much as I can, but I'm not getting the good quality news I used to.  But you must remember that both Mosul and Basrah were heavily populated by Saddam loyalists, in order to keep the peace.  Also, we are the "Great Satan" to most of the Muslim world.  Is it entirely beyond belief that many of these attacks are carried out by foreign nationals.
Turkey screwed us big time.

How is North Korea more important?  The people are starving, they are entirely insulated and there are absolutely no natural resources.  There is no strategic value whatsoever in North Korea.  The only reason I'm ignoring Kim Il Sung, is he's even more of a 2-bit dictator than Qadaffi. North Korea DOES have nukes and they've threatened to use them time and time again.

Rantings of a certifiable loon (talk to someone with expertise on the Kim family.  I don't think that Kim was both the first man to fly and the first man in space.)  I know that makes him more dangerous, but we also have China to figure in.  China is not ready for a US involved war in that region.  They will keep N. Korea in check.

I'm going to go ahead and apologize for that above comment, I'll even edit it out if you want me to.  But your above postings seemed to come directly from the rantings of Michael Moore, Stuart Smalley (Al Franken), and John Kerry. (no offense)  I don't know you and we are only talking about one small subject in the definition of Liberal Fuck-tards. Thank you. Apology accepted. No need to edit it, in fact, I really don't care and I wasn't offended. We're just having a discussion. Each of us clearly have opposing points of view with regards to Iraq and naturally we both want to convince each other to see it the other way. I just want to say that blind patriotism doesn't help this country. Just because George W. Bush does something doesn't mean it's right. I believe that after 9/11 the Republican party was hijacked by the Bush administration. They preyed upon the fear and anger of people in this country to convince them that invading Iraq was the American thing to do. I believe that invading Iraq did NOT make America safer. In fact, we're probably even more likely to face an attack now than ever before. Meanwhile, the Bush administration and their cronies have been stuffing their pockets full of cash, and Bin Laden is still out there giving orders to Al Qaeda.

I agree that blind patriotism doesn't help our country at all.  I don't agree with everything that Jorge W. Bush does.
I think that the invasion of Iraq had a twofold purpose.  First, he was fixing things that we should have done a long time ago.  His father should have gone in with the coalition backing him.  Barring that, we should have gone in in '99 when he moved soldiers to the border.

ETA: And I wasted post 223 on an argument with a DU Kool-aid Drinker.  

Quick question here? I am not taking sides here but I have heard this before and I am trying to figure it out. "The insurgency is based in a 100 square mile area"? which 100 would that be?-is it where most of the population is? (there are about 26 million Iraqis. I have heard and was told while over there that only about 5-7% of the population supports it actively but they did not give numbers, but I happened to have a calculator 5%=about 1.3 million people, I guess you could break it down into demographics if you wanted to-with more information).
Or is it the 100 square miles around the Baghdad-Samarra area (the Sunni Triangle)? I guess that Kirkuk, Mosul, the areas around the Iranian and Syrian Borders don't count. Baghdad itself takes up about 40 square miles-It took about 1.5 hours to drive through it the 4 times I have done so. Now most action is in the above mentioned areas but there are cells all over. If I remember right most of the population is along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers not many in the south or western areas.

I also remember an AP history teacher once told me that only 5-7% of Americans were involved in the American Revolution (he could have been incorrect though.). I am not a big fan of such broad statements.

I am not saying anyone is right or wrong in this argument I am just curious, where that statement came fom and how it is quantified/qualified?

Damn the statistics!!

honestly what I've found is that the people who complain the most about the situation in Iraq havent even been there and do nothing but quote op/ed columns and michael moore films.  

and for the record, I am not anti 1st amendment, I am in fact against self proclaimed experts spewing crap that they have no first hand knowedge of.  go to Iraq, look around, see how the people are doing and then decide if the bullshit you are spewing now is justified.  I have been there, I've seen first hand how the people are living better lives and are thankful for us overthrowing the Baath party.  

I can't believe I fed the trolls.

"honestly what I've found is that the people who complain the most about the situation in Iraq havent even been there and do nothing but quote op/ed columns and michael moore films."

I cant agree with you more on this buddy.  Im a former marine and have been a place or two that might draw ill faded critisism.  And some of the people who are bitching about this and these issues in MY post are right there along side the wanna be's and never beens.  so I for one say " HOW A BOUT A BIGG FUCKKIN THANK YOU TO THOSE OF US WHO SERVED" by not bitchin so much.

Im not a tactical operator, i was a jet mec on FA18's and endured long hard trips away from home in numerous countries.  Some of my best friends and brothers were in recon out of pendelton, at santa margarita.  Oh the nights at delmar e-club chasing the"west-pac widows!  We all endure hardship and for you people, the civilian.  If you dont want honor our brothers who have fallen and will fall or stand up for you in forien lands, by not bitching, and getting with the program,  then  I VOTE TO PEE ON YOUR LEG!

Now one or some of you might spout some bullshit and flame me, or liken my number of posts to a special elete internet geek squad whom I dont give a shit about, but I am proud to say to you....You're welcome.  For the very breath you and your's take.  People like me ,the enlisted guy, need your support. And critisizing the Men we honor and follow only makes it harder for them to bring us home safely.  They have families too.  I've seen a C.O. cry like a baby when I shouldnt have, when he was writing a letter to a fallen marines wife.  Over a flightline accident in Japan.  How much harder would it be from a violent deth over "there".  Get over your selves with all of this bickering bullshit.  If you all have that much passion and brain power, use it to ease the stress on my brothers and sister who are now in harms way.  SELFISH MOTHER FUCKERS.  

Get from behind the keyboard and GET ONBOARD with a support program for wounded vets like WWW.IMPACTAHERO.COM  

Bottom line of my rant is this.....This world is what it is, and young impressionable people fight and die for you, YES YOU!  Tearing down the people who lead us into battle only weakens our resolve and makes us second guess a master plan.  It is your war to fight but we do it for you. Down to the lowly cook in the air force.  GET OVER YOURSELVES.

FOKKER OUT.


HEY MOD, KILL THIS POSTING WOULD YA, IT MAKES ME SICK, IF NOT BETTER EDUCATED.

btt

Where have you been, the depression is over and the economy keeps steamrolling along.

What did I say? I said the American economy is struggling. I didn't say that America is suffering from a depression. It certainly isn't 1930. But it certainly isn't 1995 either. We've still got a major budget deficit, China is floating the American dollar, jobs haven't reached pre-9/11 levels, and American coorporations are taking their buisness overseas. That's not good, no matter which way you look at it.

Yes I'm sure everybody hung on the edge of their seats waiting for your wonderful words of wisdom on your conservative nature in a whole 25 posts.

If you had read my earlier post, you would have noticed my political ideology:

Pro-gun: Conservative
Anti-abortion: Conservative
Pro-death penalty: Conservative
Pro-power with local government: Conservative
Anti-power being usurped by federal government: Conservative
Anti-government tampering with the Constitution: Conservative
Pro-Constitutional rights: Conservative
Pro-Republican party in the 2000 election: Conservative
Anti-George W. Bush, War in Iraq, and Patriot Act: Intelligent

I'm a conservative. The Bush administration isn't conservative, it's neo-conservative.

If "get educated bitch" doesn't scream french liberal I don't know what does.

What are you implying? That "true conservatives" are uneducated? What ever happened to the good old Virginian wit? See, that's the difference between you and I.

I'm a conservative. You're a neo-conservative. I support the Constitution and want a foreign policy of justice and freedom. You support "Project for a New American Century" and want to jump-start armegeddon in the Middle East.

The Inspectors I've spoken with, entirely disagree with both of those assessments. I know them personally and will take their word.

That's nice. Blix and Ritter were right, and the "inspectors" you know were wrong. But hey, that won't stop you from believing America must invade Iran and Syria.

If we're going to call Kuwait a dictatorship, then Britain is one also. It is a very similar set-up.

Do you believe that for a moment? Do you even read what you write? We're not talking about 18th century Britain. We're talking about modern Britain. Tony Blair is the leader, not the Queen. Man, go read about the Kuwaiti government.

Egypt is also making much needed reforms; specifically, they are allowing opposition parties in their elections.

Don't make me laugh. Mubarak owns the ballot boxes. The opposition (which has to be "approved" by Mubarak) has a better chance of winning in an election run by Joseph Stalin.

We should invade Saudi and Pakistan.

Wow. You're in quite a hurry to start World War III... with our allies.

Turkey screwed us big time.

Yeah, so did France, and Germany, and yada yada yada. Cry me a river. Or better yet, rename french fries to "Freedom Fries." That'll show them.

Rantings of a certifiable loon (talk to someone with expertise on the Kim family. I don't think that Kim was both the first man to fly and the first man in space.) I know that makes him more dangerous, but we also have China to figure in. China is not ready for a US involved war in that region. They will keep N. Korea in check.

Wow, that's quite a relief. The North Korean dictator is insane and the only country keeping him in check is China, which fought alongside North Korea against America in the Korean War. Talk about a stacked deck...

I have been there, I've seen first hand how the people are living better lives and are thankful for us overthrowing the Baath party.

Define better? Less electricity than under Saddam, more people dying than under Saddam, higher infant mortality rate than under Saddam... How is that better?

Quoted: Oh, the statue! I'm so glad you brought that up. See for yourself: www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=641 www.wjla.com/news/stories/0704/161032.html Sorry kid. It was staged. You've been a victim of psych-ops.

It was staged!!!

Quoted: Where have you been, the depression is over and the economy keeps steamrolling along. What did I say? I said the American economy is struggling. I didn't say that America is suffering from a depression. It certainly isn't 1930. But it certainly isn't 1995 either. We've still got a major budget deficit, China is floating the American dollar, jobs haven't reached pre-9/11 levels, and American coorporations are taking their buisness overseas. That's not good, no matter which way you look at it. And will probably have a budget deficit when were all dead, so whats your point? An American dollar is only redeemable in one country. Unemployement is at the same level as Clinton's best years. The stock market is kicking ass again. American corporations have been taking business overseas for 20 years. Let me guess the glass is only half full. Yes I'm sure everybody hung on the edge of their seats waiting for your wonderful words of wisdom on your conservative nature in a whole 25 posts. If you had read my earlier post, you would have noticed my political ideology: Pro-gun: Conservative Anti-abortion: Conservative Pro-death penalty: Conservative Pro-power with local government: Conservative Anti-power being usurped by federal government: Conservative Anti-government tampering with the Constitution: Conservative Pro-Constitutional rights: Conservative Pro-Republican party in the 2000 election: Conservative Anti-George W. Bush, War in Iraq, and Patriot Act: Intelligent I'm a conservative. The Bush administration isn't conservative, it's neo-conservative. Quack, quack, quack. The Bush administration is far from being neo-conservative, but it's nice to see you've got your moveon.org talking points correct. If "get educated bitch" doesn't scream french liberal I don't know what does. What are you implying? That "true conservatives" are uneducated? What ever happened to the good old Virginian wit? See, that's the difference between you and I. It's pretty self explanatory, but I will explain it to you again. If "get educated bitch" doesn't scream french liberal I don't know what does. The difference between you and I is I support our troops no matter what. I don't second guess what they are doing or why they are doing it. You've obviously never been deployed to a combat zone and can't understand how saying things like you say undermines the morale of our troops. You just keep fooling yourself into thinking you can support our troops out of one corner of your mouth while you second guess their mission out of the other corner of your mouth. Say all you want after the mission is accomplished and they are all home. Yeah I know your a thinker and your not hurting our troops with your second guessing, well your wrong. Your one of the worst kinds. Oh I support our troops, but here's 13 reason's why they shouldn't be there. That's not support, but you wouldn't understand. At least they know where Jane Fonda stands.

And will probably have a budget deficit when were all dead, so whats your point? An American dollar is only redeemable in one country. Unemployement is at the same level as Clinton's best years. The stock market is kicking ass again. American corporations have been taking business overseas for 20 years. Let me guess the glass is only half full. Quack, quack, quack. The Bush administration is far from being neo-conservative, but it's nice to see you've got your moveon.org talking points correct. It's pretty self explanatory, but I will explain it to you again. If "get educated bitch" doesn't scream french liberal I don't know what does.

Well this has gone from a debate of facts to a rant of opinions.

You think the economy is doing well? I disagree, and I think we have yet to the the long-term implications.

You think the Bush administration is "far from being neo-conservative," but I absolutely disagree. The Bush administration essentially invented neo-conservatism. For example, Paul Wolfowitz proposed drastically increasing the defense budget and adopting a policy of preemptive attacks back in 1992. It was known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine. It later became enshrined by the think tank Project for a New American Century which many key members of the Bush administration were a part of.

You don't think I'm a conservative, and even go so far as to call me a French liberal. Well, I don't care what the hell YOU think I believe. But if you want to play that game, I think you're a fascist, bandwagon patriot posing as a conservative. With regards to balancing the budget, you are actually a liberal who shirks fiscal responsibility.

The difference between you and I is I support our troops no matter what.

Did you support them at the My Lai massacre? How about the troops responsible for the Abu Ghraib scandal? Blind support doesn't get this country anywhere. Support the principle and support what is in America's interest. And you know what's in the troops' interest? Bringing them home, ALIVE. But I guess you'd rather have them die for Haliburton.

I don't second guess what they are doing or why they are doing it.

Oh, you're a smart one. With that kind of brilliance, we'd still be in Vietnam. Yeah, don't ask questions of our government. Let them have free reign to fuck this country over and send thousands of troops to die without purpose. You're the kind of patriot Haliburton loves.

You've obviously never been deployed to a combat zone and can't understand how saying things like you say undermines the morale of our troops.

I may hurt their morale by calling for them to return home, but your calling for them to stay is getting them killed.

Look at Vietnam. Is it better to lie to the troops and keep telling them "just a few more years," or was pulling out of that pointless war the right thing to do? I think lying to our troops and keeping them in a pointless war does a lot more damage to their morale than calling for them to come home.

By calling for their safe return, it shows the troops that people like myself care about THEM. By calling for them to stay indefinitely in a quagmire, it shows that people like yourself care more about pride and America potentially losing face.

But hey, considering Bush, Cheney, Rove, and Wolfowitz were never "deployed to a combat zone," their willingness to see American lives sacrificed for their own fanatical goals (whether they be corporate profits, religious prophecies, or a new era of aggressive militarism) should be expected.

You just keep fooling yourself into thinking you can support our troops out of one corner of your mouth while you second guess their mission out of the other corner of your mouth.

You keep fooling yourself that having our troops die in Iraq is somehow a good thing for them.

Say all you want after the mission is accomplished and they are all home.

What mission? Didn't Bush already declare "Mission Accomplished," or was he wrong? Dare you question the words of the fuhrer? Clearly, we haven't "accomplished" whatever the hell the "mission" is and you need to understand that like Vietnam, we may NEVER acheive victory over the enemy. This war may be incapable of being won and it could go on forever. Or even worse, it may actually do more harm than good by creating MORE terrorists to attack the USA (which many analysts believe is already happening).

Yeah I know your a thinker and your not hurting our troops with your second guessing, well your wrong. Your one of the worst kinds. Oh I support our troops, but here's 13 reason's why they shouldn't be there. That's not support, but you wouldn't understand. At least they know where Jane Fonda stands.

I think you're the worst kind. You and George W. Bush. Support the troops while resting comfortably at home. Yeah, that's real support. Let them die, it's no skin off your back.

Orignally posted by Skypirate7: The Inspectors I've spoken with, entirely disagree with both of those assessments. I know them personally and will take their word. That's nice. Blix and Ritter were right, and the "inspectors" you know were wrong. But hey, that won't stop you from believing America must invade Iran and Syria.

The UN doesn't agree

Per request of the thread originator