UN, US, WTF, ETC...

[makri]

I think the true results of this war start to show couple years from now when counter strikes are ready for execution. If the war had some effect on terrorism  it created a few hundred new terrorists. I wouldn't feel safe living in the US and I hope the rest of my family gets to Canada before things start to blow up. The war strengtened anti US terrorism more than Iraq ever could have done.

[Las Naranjas]

I tend to think Israel is in a more percarious position now. Saddam might have liked to rant on about Israel every so often to get a bit of public support, but there hasn't been a credible threat from a sovereign state for 3 decades. The attacks in 1991 were a political play after all, and one that failed. Then again, '73 was more a political manouever than a serious military campaign (one which paid off at camp David) and it now appears that the posturing in '67 was bluffing which backfired badly.
Instead, the fundamentalism that was always brutally opressed under the old rejime is flourishing in the new Iraq. Ironically that which caused 911 is the main beneficiery of a war that was justified by that act.
There's much more to fear from that fundamentalism than from a dictator who rants a bit to look good domestically.
Afterall, fundamentalists do attack Israel. And now they've been handed an opportunity to thrive in the power vacuum.

[DGMacphee]

Oh boy ... here we go again!!  

The UN did fail.  I didn't say they disappeared.  If a football team loses (fails) they're still a team and move forward.

If they did fail, then why's the US government seeking help from such "failure" now?

I think it's a smart thing to get the UN involved now. Of course the rest of the world will see it as 'crawling back' ... it's typical.

That's because it IS crawling back.

Look at how subtle and low-key Powell is being -- Now he wants on the UN's good side cause they can't handle a widdle war.

It's still pathetic that France didn't help out.

Yeah, it's pathetic they didn't help up in making a fucking mess fo Iraq.

Also, as I stated in another thread, I was against all the 'freedom fries' and boycott on French products ... but of course that didn't get quoted  And I believe it was 'liberty fries'

I never actually said it was you who made those comments -- I said most of the US, which is pretty accurate.

I know there's a lot of US AGSers who'd never jump on the whole "french to freedom" bandwagon, which is why I said "most" and not "all".

In other words, my comment was related but not directed at you.

And DGM - It's Darth MANDARB ... not Mandrub  I hope that wasn't intentional.

No, it's a typo.  

I'm pretty sure that Gore would seem just as silly as bush does in this predicament. It's just easier to place the blame on one person though....

I doubt Gore and Co would propagate a war in Iraq to justify Sept 11.

Now, the budget allocation can change. Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore.

If that's the case, try walking down the streets of Iraq.

Or did you mean an "international threat"?

If that's the case, where are those mysterious WMDs?

Could it be possible they just magically vanished?

And keep in mind that Saddam is still alive.

I don't understand why you people rate the UN so highly. Has the UN solved any serious conflict in all its years of existence? Besides giving humanitarian help here and other, it has done almost nothing of importance.

So why is the US government practically sticking their tongue down the UN's pants right now?


EDIT: I am now scoffing!

I first thought Bush was an idiot -- now I think it's got a mental disability (called 'dickheaditis').

Read this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20030906/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq

The line I like is this:

The president, in a speech in Indianapolis on Friday, acknowledged that continuing military operations in Iraq and in the broader war on terrorism were aggravating the federal budget deficit, which is approaching a record $500 billion.

But he said, "This nation will spend what it takes to win the war on terror and to protect the American people."

"My attitude is, anytime we put our troops in harm's way, they deserve the best pay, the best training and the best possible equipment," he said.

Umm, the American people don't need any more protection from Iraq, Bush, seeing as your army blew up most of the buildings, killed off several people (soldiera and civies), destroyed the power grid and ravaged the hospitals.

You're actually putting Americans as risk by keeping them in Iraq -- And paying them a high wage isn't going to help them once they get shot.

As a minor point, don't forget the $500 billion in the red (And if $500 billion in the red is a minor point, you know for sure it's a fucked up situation).

I'm becoming less cynical of mass media -- I think they just play along with dickhead leaders until several months down the track they fuck up, and the media can see the fucked-up aftermath coming even before the war begins.

Probably makes for more news stories, thus more $$$!

I'm glad I'm studying journalism -- I'm never going to be out of work as long as there's politicians.c

[taryuu]

what do you mean there hasn't been a credible threat from a sovereign state in 3 decades?  more specifically what do you mean by credible? as in the websters definition "of sufficient capability to be militarily effective" ?  i would say that the iraqi invasion of kuwait was fairly effective.  not mention they were suddenly in possesion of roughly 9% more of the world's TOTAL oil reserves.  

and as far as bluffing in 67, where do you get bluffing?  the removal of un troops from the sinai and the subsequent blockade of israel were bluffing? and what about what followed?

May 15: Three Egyptian army divisions and 600 tanks roll into the Sinai.

May 27: Nasser: "Our basic objection will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

May 30: Nasser : "The armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon are poised on the borders of Israel."

May 31: Iraqi President Rahman Aref announces: "This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map."

June 4: Iraq joins Nasser's military alliance against Israel.

June 5: Six Day War begins: Israeli Airforce attacks airfields in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.

no shit it backfired badly.  but it was substantionally more than "bluffing".  

moving back to the subject, if the US wants more countries to offer up the blood of their country then they should allow for a unified control of combat operations, not just using other soveriegn nation's troops as pawns in their game of terrorist chess.

oh and by the way i wouldn't feel any safer in Canada. the arrest of 21 men possibly invovled in an Al-qaeda sleeper cell, and the recent possibility of 911 anniversary hijackings originating north of the border shouldn't put anyone at ease.  

and DG i think you've lost sight of the fact that the iraqi  men,women, and children are no longer being murdered or tortured.

and if you're thinking of saying something about US bombs or US troop fire, find some evidence about the pre-meditated US torture or execution of  iraqi women and children before you come back with a snide remark.

by the way why are you against the extra pay for soldiers serving in a desert war-zone?  it's recognition that their job is tougher to do than just the reservists sitting in tampa.  

[DGMacphee]

and DG i think you've lost sight of the fact that the iraqi  men,women, and children are no longer being murdered or tortured.

But that wasn't the reason that the US went to war in the first place.

They used (exploited) those people to satify their own agenda.

And sure, those people aren't tortured or murdered anymore, but now they don't have much to return to anyway.

And don't forget the US soldiers being killed off every day by streetfire -- they have families too.

and if you're thinking of saying something about US bombs or US troop fire, find some evidence about the pre-meditated US torture or execution of  iraqi women and children before you come back with a snide remark.

I can come back with a snide remark any time I want to, thank you very much, bucko, cause I certainly don't need your permission!  

Right now, the reported civillian deaths in Iraq is between 6000-8000.

Not only that, I can provide several pictures that show a violation of UN treaties due to the US tying up POWs in the nude and practically embarrassing them.

Oh, wait -- The Iraqi soldeirs tortured American POWs too, like Jessica Lynch.

Even though a) she was injured in a vehicle accident and not Iraqi fire, like the Petagon press office reported b) She was taken to an Iraq hospital for treatment and was quoted as saying the doctors were very kind to her.

But, nooooo -- she's a hero because she survived a POW camp -- that's what Uncle Sam told me, so it MUSt be true.

by the way why are you against the extra pay for soldiers serving in a desert war-zone?  it's recognition that their job is tougher to do than just the reservists sitting in tampa.  

I'm not against it.

But I prefer to pay them less and get them out of Iraq ASAP before another one gets shot.

You can't put a price on people's lives.

Bush is keeping them in there for no reason but to keep a dominant hold (Notice how the current UN resolution states that the US will keep a dominant role in maintaining order in Iraq, while other international forces do their bidding)

Wait, you're probably saying, if you remove the soldiers, Iraq will fall in to anarchy.

There was a simple solution to that -- Don't invade Iraq in the first place (cause they didn't have those mysterious WMDs in the first place).

Iraq was just an excuse to make people feel better about Sept 11 and fulfill the Bush-Cheeny-Runsfeld agenda.

But it's too late now.

[Darth Mandarb]

Is there anybody in these forums who is either from Iraq (or was there during the war or now) or works in the US gvt. and was directly involved in war based decisions?

Everybody (myself included) is making assumptions about what is/has happening/happened over in Iraq (and in the US gvt.) that they have no way of knowing for sure about.

So some of us agree with what's going on and some don't.  Neither side can 100% prove their 'facts'.  It's good that we all feel so strongly in what we believe but in the end, none of knows for sure.

So I'm not going to argue this anymore.

Can't we all just get along?

Peace I'm out!
dm

[Bob The Hun]

Note to all anti-Bush fanatics:

We won the war. Get over it.

Saddam murdered over a million people. Even the Clinton administration admitted that Iraq had WMDs. Saddam, despite what some of you say, was quite simply a murderous dictator who was responsible for the deaths of the aforementioned million people.
Now he's gone, thanks to Bush. Get over it.

Before the war, liberals in general said that this was going to be another Vietnam. We won. Months ago. Get over it.

But that wasn't the reason that the US went to war in the first place.

The reason that England declared war on Hitler wasn't because of the the millions he murdered, but I think we can all agree that it would have been good enough reason.
And to those of you who now say, "But that's not the same. Hitler attacked first!"
Remember that Churchill wanted to take all possible action to get rid of Hitler before World War 2 started, but he was ignored, as "Hitler wasn't a threat", and "Hitler isn't going to attack us." Despite all of the regulations enacted after the first world war, Hitler broke them anyway. But they still said that he wasn't going to attack anyone. Chamberlain took the route of:

There was a simple solution to that -- Don't invade Iraq in the first place

Removing Iraq and replacing it with Germany, of course.
And you know how the whole thing turned out.
And don't you tell me the two have nothing in common. You see the parallels, so I'll have none of that "nothing in common" stuff.

So,

We won the war. Get over it.

[Las Naranjas]

Taaryu - The new perception is arising because of the newly released Soviet archives in which it's revealed that as part of global geopolitics they were presurring the Arab states to look big. Their (mistaken) assumption was that neither side would actually go to war.
Part of the crushing victory was due to the fact they were not prepared for war because they were being told  that Israel would back down.
The evidence you provide shows that their bluff was a good one however, but it was fatally miscalculated as, whilst Israel did mistake mistake it for the real thing, the mindset was attack was the best defence.
No wonder Egypt expelled all the Soviets before '73.
And the Kuwait issue was irrelvevant considering I was talking about Sovereign state threat to Israel.


Above all else, history is a comedy of errors. The Franco Prussian war, the first world war and the European war from '39 to '41 were started by fuck up in bluffs as well, as well as countless others. Unless we want to debate geophysics of history which is nearly fruitless.

[taryuu]

I don't recall giving a reason for why bush went to war you added THAT on your own.  

and what was all that about "embarassing POW's"?  were you trying to compare the supposed "UN violation" of the  delousing of pows to the aforementioned UN violations of saddam hussien?  look at the big picture.

and why would paying the troops less make them come home sooner? why would US troops be pulled out sooner simply because their various hazard pays were revoked?  show me the correlation cuz i just don't get it.   bonuses for being in hazardous locations are standard for almost every job, why not for those who face some of the most dangerous working conditions imaginable?

your total of 6,000 to 8,000 is also debatable. the error in reporting both of the figures you quoted is almost as much as the TOTAL the associated press lists.

its 5 week investigation counted civilian casualities at 3240.  part of this death toll can be attributed to iraqi soldiers riding around in amublances,  storing weapons in mosques and schools, exploding ammunition piles that iraqis had stored in residences and iraqi shells aimed at US planes falling back into residential areas.  

I never said anything about lynch, nor did i say anything about the treatement of pows.  what i did say that you seemed to have overlooked was this

moving back to the subject, if the US wants more countries to offer up the blood of their country then they should allow for a unified control of combat operations, not just using other soveriegn nation's troops as pawns in their game of terrorist chess.

you skipped right over that and added this at the end

Bush is keeping them in there for no reason but to keep a dominant hold (Notice how the current UN resolution states that the US will keep a dominant role in maintaining order in Iraq, while other international forces do their bidding)

i'd rather not debate you on every point we differ on, why don't we find some things we agree on?  probably make for a more civil conversation too.  

I'll start,
that jessica lynch is so overblown, she broke her ankle falling off a truck didn't she?  and now she's getting a movie deal?  i bet they gloss right by that part in her book.


EDIT - missed las's post while i was typing.  i don't think that a combined force of 465,000 troops, over 2,880 tanks and 810 aircraft is a bluff.  especially when of 100,000 of those troops were eygyptians mobilized in the sinai after the expulsion of the UN.  tho i guess i can't prove it wasn't a bluff, because i wasn't in NAsser's camp,  tho if it was you're right, it was horribly miscalculated.

[DGMacphee]

We won the war. Get over it.

Despite whether you think you won the war or not, I doubt the ethicality of such a victory.

Hemmingway once said: "Never think for a minute that war, no matter how necessry or how justifiable, is not a crime."

If you think "you won the war", I question your ethics Bob -- I really do.

And I feel sorry for you.

and what was all that about "embarassing POW's"?  were you trying to compare the supposed "UN violation" of the  delousing of pows to the aforementioned UN violations of saddam hussien?  look at the big picture.

Giving water to a tied-up, unarmed POW while another soldier sticks a gun directly at his head counts as a UN violation in my book.

and why would paying the troops less make them come home sooner? why would US troops be pulled out sooner simply because their various hazard pays were revoked?  show me the correlation cuz i just don't get it.   bonuses for being in hazardous locations are standard for almost every job, why not for those who face some of the most dangerous working conditions imaginable?

You miss my point completely -- I'm saying get them the fuck out of there, instead of keeping them in there and paying them (or their widows) a high salary.

your total of 6,000 to 8,000 is also debatable. the error in reporting both of the figures you quoted is almost as much as the TOTAL the associated press lists.

I said the figure is between those two values -- no one can get an accurate reading.

its 5 week investigation counted civilian casualities at 3240.  part of this death toll can be attributed to iraqi soldiers riding around in amublances,  storing weapons in mosques and schools, exploding ammunition piles that iraqis had stored in residences and iraqi shells aimed at US planes falling back into residential areas.  

This seems highly inaccurate to the numerous body counts I've read.

I never said anything about lynch, nor did i say anything about the treatement of pows.  what i did say that you seemed to have overlooked was this

moving back to the subject, if the US wants more countries to offer up the blood of their country then they should allow for a unified control of combat operations, not just using other soveriegn nation's troops as pawns in their game of terrorist chess.

you skipped right over that and added this at the end

Bush is keeping them in there for no reason but to keep a dominant hold (Notice how the current UN resolution states that the US will keep a dominant role in maintaining order in Iraq, while other international forces do their bidding)

But that's the thing -- I don't even think the UN or any any country should get involved in the mess the coalition created.

The coalition "won" the war as Bob said, so let them clean it up on their own!

[makri]

We won the war. Get over it.

And the US has never been so unsafe place to be. What a great victory.

Probably when couple years from now things start to blow up on US soil people are shocked and puzzled what harm their country has ever done to anyone.

[Barcik]

Now, the budget allocation can change. Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat anymore.

If that's the case, try walking down the streets of Iraq.

Or did you mean an "international threat"?

If that's the case, where are those mysterious WMDs?

Could it be possible they just magically vanished?

And keep in mind that Saddam is still alive.

Do I need to say again that "I" is an egoistic term? If yes, then allow me to rephrase my comment: Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat Israel anymore.

I don't understand why you people rate the UN so highly. Has the UN solved any serious conflict in all its years of existence? Besides giving humanitarian help here and other, it has done almost nothing of importance.

So why is the US government practically sticking their tongue down the UN's pants right now?

I'd like to know that too. The most likely answer is that they want to get rid of the shit they have on their hands and leave all the fun of clearing it to the UN. But there is no way the UN can actually do it, even if they agree.

I tend to think Israel is in a more percarious position now. Saddam might have liked to rant on about Israel every so often to get a bit of public support, but there hasn't been a credible threat from a sovereign state for 3 decades. The attacks in 1991 were a political play after all, and one that failed. Then again, '73 was more a political manouever than a serious military campaign (one which paid off at camp David) and it now appears that the posturing in '67 was bluffing which backfired badly.
Instead, the fundamentalism that was always brutally opressed under the old rejime is flourishing in the new Iraq. Ironically that which caused 911 is the main beneficiery of a war that was justified by that act.
There's much more to fear from that fundamentalism than from a dictator who rants a bit to look good domestically.
Afterall, fundamentalists do attack Israel. And now they've been handed an opportunity to thrive in the power vacuum.

As far as I've noticed, the fundamentalists have not taken charge of the country just yet.

[Hobbes]

DG, I agree with you. Almost completely, that is.

UN involvement is a must. I can see where you're coming from, saying that the coalition should clean up its own mess. Agreed, they f-ed up big time.

However, try telling that to the many refugees who have escaped Iraq over the years and are still in doubt about relatives being alive. Try telling that to the civilians who live in Iraq and had a job, a life, and now find it all in ruins.

If the UN can do anything for those poor souls, then I say: Do it.

[Butcher]

Nice to see people still commenting the war. We shouldn't forget these crimes that the coalition performed in front of our very own eyes. Especially now that they're crawling back for help. Especially now that all their reasons are proven total crap.

DG thanks for bringing the subject back.

Bob congrats for winning your war. I seriously doubt that most American people in this board would agree with you on that victory. I can't ever possibly understand your way of thinking so I'm not even going to try and debate.

[Matt Brown]

havent more american soldeirs died after "combat" was over then when it was going on??

sounds a bit like a crappy victory then.

When Iraq elects their own leader, and when our troops (and everybody elses) leave, then, I think we can safely say, we won. until that happens, a conflict is still going on.

[DGMacphee]

Do I need to say again that "I" is an egoistic term? If yes, then allow me to rephrase my comment: Iraq, as a sovereign state, does not pose a major threat Israel anymore.

I don't see what a great threat Iraq was to Israel.

Israel had way more firepower than Iraq.

Once again, the absence of WMDs makes me think that Iraq was just a puppy compared to the pitbull the US spin doctors made it out to be.

Yeah, yeah, Saddam was a maniac, etc, etc -- but he was a maniac in charge of a very resource-poor country.



Panda:
Aye, I heard the same thing.

[Barcik]

And yet, the budget the Ministry of Defense allocated to the Iraqi threat was second only to the one within our borders. In fact, the whole money flaw of the army is about to go through an overhawl because of the fall of Saddam.

Although there were no real signs to imply on a sudden massive attack, Israel is not a state that can take such risks. Syria has, as a state done nothing bad recently, and yet they still pose a potent and serious threat.

Do the attempts of Iran to acquite nuclear power necesserily mean that they will launch a rocket on Tel-Aviv the first change they get? Most likely not, but they are another enemy state which cannot be ignored.

With a lack of a peace treaty (not that I trust those) with many of the countries that surround us, they are all enemies and potential threats. The fall of one of them makes me feel safer.

[|Alky|]

Now they need the UN's help.
Nope. They want it. They 'needed',apparently, the UN's help to take over in the first place ...or not. The UN support will give legitimacy to the new government. They asked France and Russia, who said they would now help keep order, but they need a resolution, to make it seem like they haven't changed their mind and decided that this isn't the sequel to Vietnam.


Anyhow, the UN is the biggest P-O-S ever. Why?
Because it doesn't work. It's like a bottle of mineral water that's empty, and has a message inside saying 'just ad water'. It consists of nothing, and this sadly suits the fat ass nations. We have some great and mighty organization that's based around a couple of pieces of paper. This great idea of 'international cooperation' is really not that new - groups of Amerindians in North America, the Greek Nation-States and the Polynesian Islanders all banded together to fight under one flag, but spent much more of the time squabbling among each other.

Now don't get me wrong, I love the idea, but it's just not working. It might work if people were to give the UN some real power to regulate human rights laws, trading between nations (A multinational embargo is the only one which works, if any) and disband the security council. Also, the idea of having countries represented is pointless if the people aren't represented. The whole thing is basically wrecked anyhow, and while I could explain how, that's irrelivant.

Anyhow, as regards to the Iraq war, I'm kinda in favor of it. The reasons aren't necessarily Mister Dubya's though.
1) Iraq's Government - Iraq's government was not only tyranical, it was disfunctional. Control was kept by fear and brainwashing and a mafia-style organization. Saddam Hussein was only part of it - the way that the Ba'ath mafia worked meant that Iraq would never be prosporous, partially because of the corruption and terror, and partially because it was seen as 'criminal', by, well, pretty much everyone. Of course, countries were still doing business with it, but then again politicians take kickbacks.
2) Iraq's motivation - I didn't really see any, except that of the first word of their council's name - 'Revolutionary.' What were they doing? Trying to make a stable government for their people? Oh please. To keep up the godfather-government analogy, people who stay loyal to the government will be rewarded. Places like Tikrit got new hospitals and such, but many of the other improvements were self serving- the palaces, the TV stations, the schools, the Universities... everything.
3) The Middle Eastern situation. - Currently, you have Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey as its main neighbours.
In the 'sit on our ass' scenario favoured by you guys, Saddam Hussein would have died(or become a giant robot). The Shi'ite folks would have loved to peace out with their Iranian buddies, and in their spare time not spent getting nukes from Pakistan, they would have beat the crap out of the Sunni minority, and quite possibly moved on Saudi Arabia, and even Palastine. And while the Shi'ites may still recieve orders from Tehran, they won't be able to waste the Kurds and Sunnis with a US supported constitution in place. This way, people will be able to live in harmony (corny but true), with a secular state that allows religion, and quite probably become even richer than Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, due to the fact that American companies will invest in the country (Did it hurt West Germany??) and there will be no royal family to take it.

I'm not going to say much about WMD, since it doesn't apply much to my reasons for supporting the Iraq war. I think that  they could have been removed due to the works of diplomats, but at about 1/4 of the speed they could be made. And please don't tell me that Saddam just destroyed the WMDs. He sold, them as CJ said, to the highest bidder, but has been doing so for years. (As Russia does, but whatchagonnado) That's another reason to take out the Iraqi mafia, right?

Funny how the coalition destroyed most of the hospitals and schools in Iraq, but left the oilfields.

Funny? Try Irrelevant. The coalition did not destroy most of the hospitals and schools. Some were destroyed, but I should think the Iraqi ammunition stacked next to them would have had something to do with it. I'm not going to say that no public services were hit, but likewise its foolish to say all or lots were. And in Kuwait, your buddy Saddam wasted not only the oilfields, schools and hospitals, but he went around personally smashing up cars with baseball bats. Okay, he didn't, but cars were smashed up. Likewise, the USATCO wasn't directly responsible for all of the decay of all of the schools.

I'm pretty sure that Gore would seem just as silly as bush does in this predicament. It's just easier to place the blame on one person though....

You're totally right. And maybe, as Archy said, we wouldn't have a problem, but then again we might have an undefeated Afghanistan, no Israel, or any number of possible scenarios. And remember, folks, that a lot of major democrats supported the war, as did the British conservative party. They raise questions now, but if they were put in control, they would have to answer a whole new set of them.

And now it's an even poorer country.

Hmm. The USA wasn't exactly doing brilliant economy wise in 1777.

we have produced a hundred thousand new terrorists, who in about 10 years will be wreaking havoc on the Western world.

The rioters in the streets of Bagdad are no more likely to become terrorists than the average tax-hating American is to open fire on the IRS lackeys. In fact, if you gave the crowds at an average Inter-European soccer game the kind of armaments civilians were allowed to stockpile in Saddam Hussein's reign, you'd get a similar bodycount to this whole war, I'd bet.

You miss my point completely -- I'm saying get them the fuck out of there, instead of keeping them in there and paying them (or their widows) a high salary.

I believe that's what happened in Afghanistan... Now, Heroin dealers are out in force, Karzai carries a sidearm, and the 3 different forces in there have to flip a coin in order to decide what to do.

Sexing-up" my bollacks! "Lying and pissfarting" more like it!

I saw posters, shouting out thousands of reasons that the masses are meant to digest without thought. I met talented spin doctors who used surgical precision. I saw people on TV shows, making fun of the opposition. All of those bore the little green anti-war sign. People appealed to vegitarian, liberal non-intellectuals, just as the Republicans used 'If you didn't like terrorists, you'll HATE these guys' tactics. Both of them are pretty despicable. But is it the politicians fault that people are stupid? Nope.

[Andail]

I'm not gonna gett involved too much in these discussions again, just gonna give my two cents

1. Good post, DG
2. USA failed; there is no safety in Iraq now, no democracy, no bloody nothing, just a big vast desert of misery and abuse...they're doing the right thing to ask UN for help, if it's not too late
3. France shouldn't have to take all this shit just for having the opinion that there existed other alternatives for the war...I'm with you, France

that's just my opinion, but I have this little hunch that I will somehow get involved in this thread later, and that I'm gonna get pissed of....so I guess I'll just have to look away and pretend this thread didn't exist...it's not worth it

Thanks DG, Butcher and Naranjas and all those who try to clarify things...don't think it will help, though

[Darth Mandarb]

I agree with Rebel, and Bob, and Barcik.  Just as Andail agrees with DG, Butcher and Naranjas.

Neither side is right or wrong.  (Though each side feels strongly that they are right)

Andail said, "Thanks DG, Butcher and Naranjas and all those who try to clarify things...don't think it will help, though."  Which is a good statement because he agrees with them.

I could say, "Thanks Bob, Rebel, and Barcik" for the same thing.  It's all perspective depending on which side you take.

I don't see a resolution to this debate.

I'm not going to argue my views in this thread (Lord knows I did enough of that in the famous War Unleashed thread) ... I'm just going to enjoy reading everybody's rants!

cheers,
dm