Saddam Hussein

[Ishmael]

Fine, I'll just shut up since sense of humor seems to be seized here.

[i k a r i]

I'm not blaming anybody.  If you're going to make a claim like that you should point to the source.

3000 soldiers death, I've just checked a more reliable source, http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/01/02/elmundo/i-01801.htm , "El diario admite que esta escalada en la violencia en Irak se hace sentir más profundamente entre los civiles iraquíes quienes "mueren de a miles"." Here says, that "The Times" "admits" Iraqi civilians are dying by thousands, it cant be compared with the 3000 deaths of the country that started the war.
One of "The Times" Headline was, "3000 thousand deads, countless tears", I cant imagine what an Irak headline should say.

The U.S. President cannot simply start a war.  It must be approved by Congress, the representatives of the people

So you think the president has no control over the congress, or that the congress will act according to what people wants?, do you really are that "innocent"? If Bush wants to go to war, he will end up going, with the last elections he may have lost some power, but at the time he started the war, he could do whatever he wanted, the congress was not at any point "cheated", believing the contrary would be extremely innocent from you.

Yes, you are.  It's ignorant and just plain wrong to generalize or "lump".  By lumping I meant you were taking all (or most) of U.S. citizens and making judgements on them all based on the actions of a few newsmakers.

What can I say,I've never red in a newspaper "USA people is blinded by their patriotism", is just how I see it in many cases with the people that supports Bush, and the war, his re-election is a huge proof of that.

You're generalizing again.  I would trust "my friend" with my life.  He upholds the ideals that I think all US soldiers should have.  He was not a pawn, doesn't lie, and I believe what he says more than any news agency or internet debate.

I'm not saying he has no ideals, or that he is a liar, he WAS a pawn, he was sent there either under orders or under fake reasons. Im not saying your friend is not a person to trust, Im just saying I find impossible to believe Iraqi army could have been capable of killing half of the civilians, no matter what he believes, he can't actually see that to prove it, and count it, so someone told him that. Of course neither you nor I know the facts, so is a matter of "believes".

Where did you see this video?  Al Jazeera?
Please link to some source for all this trickery and hiring of actors you speak of.

I'm afraid this is all I can do for you, www.discoverychannel.com, www.historychannel.com.  sorry.

They are NOT targetting civilians ... for the 10th time.  And I can assure you they DO give a shit about it.  You really need to be more careful with what you say.

I'll try to be more clear, Im saying, that since the moment Bush ("and the congress") took the decision to invade Irak, they knew how many civilians deaths they will cause, in that decision he knew it was unavoidable to target Irak civilians, he started the war anyway. So he (this word may not exist) "indirectly target them", and the army do as they are told.

He cannot be elected to a third term.  So we're ALL lucky in that regard.

I hope you're right, it wouldnt be the first time the constitution is magically altered.

[Darth Mandarb]

3000 soldiers death, I've just checked a more reliable source, http://www.clarin.com/diario/2007/01/02/elmundo/i-01801.htm , "El diario admite que esta escalada en la violencia en Irak se hace sentir más profundamente entre los civiles iraquíes quienes "mueren de a miles"." Here says, that "The Times" "admits" Iraqi civilians are dying by thousands, it cant be compared with the 3000 deaths of the country that started the war.
One of "The Times" Headline was, "3000 thousand deads, countless tears", I cant imagine what an Irak headline should say.

I am beginning to think there's a language barrier here.  Now you're arguing my point?

So you think the president has no control over the congress, or that the congress will act according to what people wants?, do you really are that "innocent"?

I never claimed the president has no control over congress.  You were making comments on how Bush just decided to invade Iraq.  I was pointing out that it's not quite that simple.  That's all.  Again I think maybe you're not understaning what I'm writing.  Or you're putting words in my mouth.  I hope the former is the case here.

If Bush wants to go to war, he will end up going, with the last elections he may have lost some power, but at the time he started the war, he could do whatever he wanted, the congress was not at any point "cheated", believing the contrary would be extremely innocent from you.

I would be curious to know your source of this information.  So you know for a fact that the American congress wasn't "cheated" (I'm assuming you mean they knew all along there were no WMD in Iraq and they just granted the president's wish for war)?  If you do a little reading on the matter you'll see that leading up to the declaration of war congress wasn't buying anything the Bush administration was selling.  They (even the republicans) roundly rejected two claims of "danger" from Iraq as a basis for invasion.  Third time is the charm I guess.  He convinced them (with faulty intelligence) on the WMD.

What can I say,I've never red in a newspaper "USA people is blinded by their patriotism", is just how I see it in many cases with the people that supports Bush, and the war, his re-election is a huge proof of that.

Bush's re-election is proof that the system is flawed.  Nothing else.  The popular vote wasn't his.  Which means most (majority) of Americans didn't vote for him.  Since you seem to need to generalize about Americans, try using that fact instead.

I'm not saying he has no ideals, or that he is a liar, he WAS a pawn, he was sent there either under orders or under fake reasons.

Let me do you a huge favor ... if you ever have an encounter with an American Marine who served in combat in any theater, do NOT call him a pawn.

Im not saying your friend is not a person to trust, Im just saying I find impossible to believe Iraqi army could have been capable of killing half of the civilians, no matter what he believes, he can't actually see that to prove it, and count it, so someone told him that. Of course neither you nor I know the facts, so is a matter of "believes".

No ... he was there, on the ground, rifle in hand, seeing it with his own eyes.  He's talking from experience in the Iraqi theater.  That's intel I trust FAR more that some reporter sitting in an air-conditioned office in New York reading a report that's gone through 20 censors and copywriters.

I'm afraid this is all I can do for you, www.discoverychannel.com, www.historychannel.com.

If, by these links, you mean you saw these videos on those channels that's pretty weak.  I happen to watch the History channel a LOT and I've seen plenty of film from the front.  I suppose you can believe those are all hired actors if you wish.  Seems more likely it's just a bandwagon thing than any true belief in the idea.  Just my opinion.

I'll try to be more clear, Im saying, that since the moment Bush ("and the congress") took the decision to invade Irak, they knew how many civilians deaths they will cause

They couldn't possibly know that.  They would have known there would be civilian deaths, as there are with any war, but they'd have absolutely no way to know the actual number.  They might speculate on statistics from past wars, but it's just speculation.

in that decision he knew it was unavoidable to target Irak civilians, he started the war anyway. So he (this word may not exist) "indirectly target them", and the army do as they are told.

You REALLY need to stop.  The U.S. MILITARY IS NOT TARGETTING IRAQI CIVILIANS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY!!!  Perhaps you need to look up the definition of targetting?  I'm not denying that Iraqi civilians are being killed, but the U.S. isn't trying to kill them.  It has been the U.S. doctrine for decades to "win the hearts and minds" of the civilian population.  While this has become a bit of a hot term, it's still in practice.  You don't win the hearts and minds by targetting civilians.

It should also be stated that, according to the Geneva Convention, when war is declared soldiers on both sides must wear a distinguishing uniform:

"It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other distinctive signs visible at a distance, and the carrying of weapons openly"

Most of the Iraqis/Insurgents fighting the coalition troops in Iraq are dressed as civilians.  Yes they are carrying guns, but in Iraq, your average civilian is allowed to own AND carry and AK-47 in public.

I hope you're right, it wouldnt be the first time the constitution is magically altered.

The constitution cannot be magically altered.  It can be ammended, sure, but it's not just a simple decision.  Of course, lawyers and presidents can find ways to skirt the constitution, but not "magically alter" it.


We seem to have reached a point where we're just making the same points over and over again.  Bottom line (as I see it) You're making generalized statements about the American people based off the actions of the American government's foreign policy.  This is the igorance that I object to.

In looking at your profie, I see you're from Argentina.  In 1982 the Argentine military kicked off the Falkland Wars with its invasion/occupation of South Geogia.  As I understand it, the Argentine people believe that South Georgia was their land and they were entitled to take it back.  Leading up to this "war" (as war was never officially declared) the country of Argentina was in economic turmoil.  The invasion was a political move, for political reasons.  Hundreds died in the action.  While the conflict was resolved in short-order, I've read that it's still a topic of discussion in Argentina to this day.

Now ... should I assume that you're a nationalistic prideful Argentine that likes invading countries and starting wars simply based off the actions of your government even though I don't have all the facts and have never met you?

You're doing the same thing by assuming all Americans are blindly patriotic and follow their war-crazy President without question.

[i k a r i]

I am beginning to think there's a language barrier here.  Now you're arguing my point?

Im not arguing it, I've just confirmed your point by saying there are indeed 3000 US soldiers dead.
And then I said that was nothing compared to the Irak deaths.

I never claimed the president has no control over congress.  You were making comments on how Bush just decided to invade Iraq.  I was pointing out that it's not quite that simple.  That's all.

Is not that simple, I forgot to mention the paper work, and the TV speech. I dont want to sound like a smart ass, Im just saying that if the president (of US) wants to go to war he will get what he wants eventually, so it may not be THAT simple, but is just a matter of time.

I would be curious to know your source of this information.  So you know for a fact that the American congress wasn't "cheated" (I'm assuming you mean they knew all along there were no WMD in Iraq and they just granted the president's wish for war)?  If you do a little reading on the matter you'll see that leading up to the declaration of war congress wasn't buying anything the Bush administration was selling.  They (even the republicans) roundly rejected two claims of "danger" from Iraq as a basis for invasion.  Third time is the charm I guess.  He convinced them (with faulty intelligence) on the WMD.

In my opinion, the congress was not cheated,  you said they rejected the claims of danger twice, and they could not have possibly been cheated by any doubtful intelligence, I think USA congress is smarter than that. They just ended up doing what the president wanted (Or they probably were convinced of the economical advantage of the war).

Bush's re-election is proof that the system is flawed.  Nothing else.  The popular vote wasn't his.  Which means most (majority) of Americans didn't vote for him.  Since you seem to need to generalize about Americans, try using that fact instead.

Well, this may be true, but you cant talk with facts here either. In the other hand if Bush has that kind of influence in his country, I dont think is too crazy to think he can manipulate the congress (and press of course) as he wants.

Let me do you a huge favor ... if you ever have an encounter with an American Marine who served in combat in any theater, do NOT call him a pawn.

Well Im sorry to say this but I just feel that every soldier from every country acts like a brainwashed pawn. I know that sounds rude, and Im sorry, but lets be honest, they always do what they are ordered, they cant judge the morality nor ask the reasons of war (they cant but noone cares). America's citizens should have made Bush go long time ago by force, you have a friend fighting there in Irak, for Bush decision, cheated at the beginning as every citizen, risking his life, Im sure he doesnt want to be there now he knows America is not in danger of a nuclear attack, but he has to stay there, as he is told.

They couldn't possibly know that.  They would have known there would be civilian deaths, as there are with any war, but they'd have absolutely no way to know the actual number.  They might speculate on statistics from past wars, but it's just speculation.

The thing is, they knew many would die. Im not saying they are targeting them,I probably dont understand the real meaning of "targetting", they speculated many would die, and that's what happened.

The constitution cannot be magically altered.  It can be ammended, sure, but it's not just a simple decision.  Of course, lawyers and presidents can find ways to skirt the constitution, but not "magically alter" it.

It was just an expression, let's say they can adapt it.


Ok, wait.
Argentina never occupied the "Islas malvinas", where did you read that, some english web?. Did you see where are the islands?, there were Argentinian people living there long before this war, and they are in the middle of the ocean. We never were a pro-war country, we've always been a mediator, and a provider during war times, we dont have military power, we were not having a good economical time, the english declared war with ridiculous statements and we were obligated to defend what was "ours", we didnt have enough soldiers to do this so our stupid, ignorant sick leader decided to "grab" every 18 years+ young citizen and take it to war without training, and without technology.
They invaded our territory, check a non U.S, Canadian or english history book, and you will se what I mean, you know what they say about war winners writing them.
What the english did was taking what they could of our inmense territory, seeing their country is the size of one of our 24 provinces.

I also agree we are going through the same points over and over again, let me just say I see USA people divided in two, the pro-war part, and the pacifist side, I think there is lot of people there supporting the real war reasons, and i know Im only speculating and talking without facts, but I find it hard to believe that Bush is still president if most USA people is against it. He couldnt live in peace here.
When that happened here in Argentina, we kicked the president out with a massive congregation of citizens, you can read that in this last paragraph.
Im probably wrong, but I would be hypocrite if I lie about the way I see U.S people.

[Darth Mandarb]

Is not that simple, I forgot to mention the paper work, and the TV speech. I dont want to sound like a smart ass, Im just saying that if the president (of US) wants to go to war he will get what he wants eventually, so it may not be THAT simple, but is just a matter of time.

Now we're getting somewhere   Since the start of the War Powers Resolution no president that has requested a war has been denied it.  However, the power is there for Congress to say no should they choose to.

In my opinion, the congress was not cheated,  you said they rejected the claims of danger twice, and they could not have possibly been cheated by any doubtful intelligence, I think USA congress is smarter than that. They just ended up doing what the president wanted (Or they probably were convinced of the economical advantage of the war).

I can see what you're saying.  I don't agree with it, but I see it.  In my opinion Congress didn't percieve a threat from Iraq (thus didn't consider there to be a point to an invasion) until they were lied to about WMD.  If I received information that the guy down the street from me was planning to kill me with a powerful weapon I wouldn't sit idly by and do nothing (the fact that there turned out to be no weapons in Iraq isn't the issue here).  Congress has to act on the information they are given.  They don't go to Iraq and check it themselves.  They were told that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (by several intelligence agencies) and that those weapons could potentially be used on the U.S. and they acted upon that information.  Yes, the intelligence was faulty/not accurate, but they couldn't know that at the time.

In the other hand if Bush has that kind of influence in his country, I dont think is too crazy to think he can manipulate the congress (and press of course) as he wants.

I wouldn't argue with that point.  But I imagine some journalists might

The thing is, they knew many would die. Im not saying they are targeting them,I probably dont understand the real meaning of "targetting", they speculated many would die, and that's what happened.

But you have said, on several occasions, that they ARE targetting them.

Civilian casualties have been a fact of war since the first two human tribes took up sticks and went after one another.  There is a difference between collateral damage and deliberate targetting.  That's a cold way of looking at it, but it's true.

Argentina never occupied the "Islas malvinas", where did you read that, some english web?. Did you see where are the islands?, there were Argentinian people living there long before this war, and they are in the middle of the ocean. We never were a pro-war country, we've always been a mediator, and a provider during war times, we dont have military power, we were not having a good economical time, the english declared war with ridiculous statements and we were obligated to defend what was "ours", we didnt have enough soldiers to do this so our stupid, ignorant sick leader decided to "grab" every 18 years+ young citizen and take it to war without training, and without technology.
They invaded our territory, check a non U.S, Canadian or english history book, and you will se what I mean, you know what they say about war winners writing them.
What the english did was taking what they could of our inmense territory, seeing their country is the size of one of our 24 provinces.

Do you see what I did there?  I took that situation and put up an outsider's take on it.  You immdiately jump to the defense to clear it up.  That's all I'm doing here.  People are making assumptions about Americans that I'm trying to prevent.

we didnt have enough soldiers to do this so our stupid, ignorant sick leader decided to "grab" every 18 years+ young citizen and take it to war without training, and without technology.

So would it be fair for non-Argentinians to assume that all Argentine people were the same as this "stupid, ignorant sick" leader?

Im probably wrong, but I would be hypocrite if I lie about the way I see U.S people.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.  I'm just trying to make the point that people shouldn't be casting judgement on other people in this way.

A Hypothetical:

- Imagine I wasn't here telling you that Americans aren't all clones of Bush (who you have a hatred of and wish dead).

- You have a deeply negative opinion of US citizens, the "blindly patriotic" clones.

- Now imagine you become the leader of your nation and you take political actions against the US because of these uninformed opinions you have.  Wars have begun that way.

Ignorance is very dangerous.

I'm not saying I'm the most informed guy on the planet ... but I don't cast judgement on a person/people based solely on some pre-conceived notions and stereo-types.

[LimpingFish]

I think what gets up people's noses is the apparent apathy of a large proportion of the american public towards the actions of it's government. This may be an ill-informed generalization on their part, but when so little is seen to be done about the situation by those who vocally oppose the Bush administration, beyond "Yes, he's an ass.", you can understand how people outside the US could develop such a view.

Of course, it's not as easy as saying "If you disagree with your government, do something about it!", as the issue isn't so black and white.

I can't see how you're surprised, though. Inside america the divide may be more apparent, but from the outside little can be seen to differentiate the Pro from the Anti beyond "Yay Bush!" and "Boo Bush!".

Maybe the generalization of americans angers you so much because the alternative would be to admit that the Pro outnumbers the Anti.

I have no statistics to back this up, nor do I hold it as a statment of fact. It's just a scary thought.

[i k a r i]

Just read what you wrote immediatly after saying this:

Now we're getting somewhere   Since the start of the War Powers Resolution no president that has requested a war has been denied it.  However, the power is there for Congress to say no should they choose to.

I can see what you're saying.  I don't agree with it, but I see it.  In my opinion Congress didn't percieve a threat from Iraq (thus didn't consider there to be a point to an invasion) until they were lied to about WMD.  If I received information that the guy down the street from me was planning to kill me with a powerful weapon I wouldn't sit idly by and do nothing (the fact that there turned out to be no weapons in Iraq isn't the issue here).  Congress has to act on the information they are given.  They don't go to Iraq and check it themselves.  They were told that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (by several intelligence agencies) and that those weapons could potentially be used on the U.S. and they acted upon that information.  Yes, the intelligence was faulty/not accurate, but they couldn't know that at the time.

You call that power?, they are either easily manipulated, or just "filling required spaces" (in this kind of decision).

I wouldn't argue with that point.  But I imagine some journalists might

And luckily they are entitled to do it.

I wouldn't argue with that point.  But I imagine some journalists might

It was just a retoric use of language, let's forget about it.

Do you see what I did there?  I took that situation and put up an outsider's take on it.  You immdiately jump to the defense to clear it up.  That's all I'm doing here.  People are making assumptions about Americans that I'm trying to prevent.

So would it be fair for non-Argentinians to assume that all Argentine people were the same as this "stupid, ignorant sick" leader?`

No, it wouldnt be fair, but what Im saying is that I dont see US citizens doing something about it, that's what makes me think there are lots of US people supporting Bush war actions. Without counting the fact he was re-elected, because I took your word when you said it was a corrupted election.

In that hypothetical case, I wouldnt start a war just because I think US is a violent nation, war would be my last choice to solve any problem, sometimes war is (sadly) neccesary, but only when people like Bush or Saddam Hussein have the kind of power they do. I would only respond to attacks, from other nations before is too late, the excuse Bush used to get oil.

I'm not saying I'm the most informed guy on the planet ... but I don't cast judgement on a person/people based solely on some pre-conceived notions and stereo-types.

Every time a leader the people didnt want to have appeared here, we kicked him out, and this happened in many countries, this is what makes me doubt.


I think LimpingFish makes it more clear than I could.

[ManicMatt]

No, it wouldnt be fair, but what Im saying is that I dont see US citizens doing something about it, that's what makes me think there are lots of US people supporting Bush war actions.

What about this leader of your country? May I ask, what have you done about them?

[i k a r i]

Why would we do something about this president? 
He hasnt done anything wrong yet.

[Darth Mandarb]

Maybe the generalization of americans angers you so much because the alternative would be to admit that the Pro outnumbers the Anti.

No.  Generalizing is ignorant.  That's what bothers me.

Just read what you wrote immediatly after saying this:
...You call that power?, they are either easily manipulated, or just "filling required spaces" (in this kind of decision).

I don't see any confusion with my two statements.  Congress does have the authority to stop it.  But when given information that Saddam was developing WMD, they acted.  Bush tried to give them two other excuses for his invasion and they rejected those.  He gave them WMD and the took the bait.

So would it be fair for non-Argentinians to assume that all Argentine people were the same as this "stupid, ignorant sick" leader?`

No, it wouldnt be fair, but what Im saying is that I dont see US citizens doing something about it, that's what makes me think there are lots of US people supporting Bush war actions.

AND

I think what gets up people's noses is the apparent apathy of a large proportion of the american public towards the actions of it's government. This may be an ill-informed generalization on their part, but when so little is seen to be done about the situation by those who vocally oppose the Bush administration, beyond "Yes, he's an ass.", you can understand how people outside the US could develop such a view.

That is exactly my point right there.

You don't see US people doing anything about it???

They're doing everything they can short of taking up arms over this situation.  Lodging protests, sit-ins, peace demonstrations, there are literally MILLIONS of anti-bush websites, voting the dems back into control of both houses ... we ARE taking action.  The problem is the mass-media (not just the US media) only shows the sensational "if it bleeds it leads" stories so you don't see a lot of the protesting that's going on here.  All you see is the War in Iraq and other war-like foreign policies.

Can you not see the hypocrisy that would arise should the citizens of the U.S. go to war over this?  We're going about it the right way I think ... I just hope it's not too late in two years.

Believe me when I say there is a LOT of tension floating in the air about this President.

Every time a leader the people didnt want to have appeared here, we kicked him out, and this happened in many countries, this is what makes me doubt

And the majority of us tried that with the last election and he still managed to worm his way in.  The only bright spot I can see is that in 2 years he's out whether he wants it or not.  If he tries to abolish the 22nd amendment I'm leaving the country.  I hear Argentina is nice ...

[Alynn]

I really tried to avoid this thread, I really really did.

First off, the US military isn't a bunch of pawns. We as soldiers have the right to refuse any unlawful order given to us. Ã, What does this mean, it means that if given the order to fire on unarmed civilians, the individual soldier can refuse to do so, and do so without punitive action against them. However this only applies to unlawful orders.

We are not mindless drones that follow orders without any moral compass to guide us. We are all individuals, we are all granted certain rights as individuals.


Next, I was there, I know what was going down on the ground. If you just watch the news and things like that, sure you will have a biased opinion of what is happening there. After all, the news is a business, the business of information, it just so happens that people are more interested in the bad than the good, therefore the bad news wins out.

Things the news doesn't show, and the things I know are happening, because I've taken part in them:

Building and rebuilding of infrastructure (I took part in a school, however, powerstations, bridges and others have been rebuilt).
Taking food and clothing into local villiages and distributed among the villiagers there.
Hiring Iraqis to work on the bases, paying them VERY good money compared to the national average, I've seen those we hired go from having not much more than the clothes on their back, to having new clothes, and enough money to support multiple wives (technically, I can only truely vouch for the clothing, they just like to tell us when they get married, and how many wives they have).
Long conversations with Iraqi civilians, ones that wish the insurgency would end, they like the fact that Saddam isn't threatening them anymore, but as Haki (our translator) once said "[The insurgents] are so stupid. They keep saying America go home, as they fire their guns at them. They don't realize that if they just stop shooting and let the government be created, you will go home."
Soldiers avoiding contact in populated areas, to the point of taking casulties themselves, unless you can see, identify, and verify it is a legitimate target, you don't fire.

this is really just the tip of the iceberg...

Now, for those that have never been in a combat situation I would like to tell you a few things. First off, it's chaos, when the bullets are flying around you, the human animal natually goes into fight or flight mode, only tons of training helps keep the flight mode from taking over and causing panic... But it is highly stressful, and many things are happening at once. Because of these two factors, mistakes happen. If an unarmed civilian pops their head up in a firefight, there is a high chance they will be shot, especially in the heat of battle. They aren't intentional, but when 17 people are poping up firing a weapon at you and it's your life on the line, you can't always have the luxury of the time needed to verify that a target is indeed legitimate. It's the nature of things.


Bottom line, the average Iraqi isn't an extremist, they are just people that want to get up, go to work, make some money, and go home to their families, most that I talked to DO want a democratic government, or at least, not a dictatorship. They want our help, and the government, which the Iraqi people elected, wants us there, because they know without our presence, they are sitting ducks for a coup, an insurgant uprising, or even the possibility of an invasion.

I honestly believe we are doing more good there than harm, because without us there, that coutry would be in worse chaos than it already is.


So, all in all, since I am an Iraqi War veteran, let me say this. I don't believe we were intentionally lied to, I believe that the intel community looked at what evidence they had, and then presented that evidence to the Congress and Bush. Congress decided to allow Bush to declare war believing that Saddam, with access to these sorts of weapons, and the current terrorist climate, could easily sell these arms to these groups. Negotiations with Saddam have failed over and over again, so violent politics was used. Even though there were plenty of mobile weapons vans found, no actual WMD's were discovered. But here is the thing, because of the stability in the regon is vital to the US because of oil, it is in the best interest of the country for us to continue to be there, to stabilize the region. I believe we did a good thing by getting Saddam out of power, I believe we are continuing doing a good thing by training Iraqi soldiers the disipline and training needed to be an army, I believe we are doing good things by helping the country rebuild.

To be honest, this is just what I think, formed by my experiences in that country. Is it possible that Bush orchastrated the whole thing including the world trade center... Sure, he could have, he could also secret run around the white house in the middle of the night wearing his wife's underwear. But nobody really knows for sure (except maybe his wife), and to say that "He knew exactly what he was doing when he invaded," is pure speculation, and shouldn't be stated as fact.

So anyway there it is. Say what you will, as I said, I've been avoiding posting in this topic for quite some time, but I just had to speak up.

[Helm]

Alynn said:

and enough money to support multiple wives

I enjoy this combination.

[EagerMind]

I dont see US citizens doing something about it, that's what makes me think there are lots of US people supporting Bush war actions.

Every time a leader the people didnt want to have appeared here, we kicked him out

America's citizens should have made Bush go long time ago by force

so little is seen to be done about the situation by those who vocally oppose the Bush administration

Ah, I get it now. Overthrow our government, perhaps a nice little military coup? Flush over 200 years of established, stable government down the toilet? Anarchy in the streets, stock market crash sort of thing with the potential to cause worldwide economic chaos and instability? Yes, I suppose that's one way to deal with a president who, unpopular as he may be, was twice elected into office.

Here's another solution: let the mechanisms of government and the rule of law run their course. A free and open press continue to unearth government scandal, editorialize about those aspects of the administration they disagree with, and otherwise push for transparency in the government. Low approval ratings, opinion polls, and organized protests will continue to influence government decision-making. Where Bush has abused his powers as president, the courts have already ruled against him several times, and I'm sure they will continue to do so. Elections have just given control of Congress to the opposition party resulting in the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief architects of the Iraq invasion. The Iraq Study Group has recently released their recommendations calling for a new course of action in Iraq. And, as I already mentioned, in two years Bush himself will be out of the presidency.

I don't know if I'd call that "doing nothing," but I suppose if you compare it to taking to the streets and overthrowing the government, it may look pretty tame.

it wouldnt be the first time the constitution is magically altered.

Hmm, yes. Well ... speechless really.

It's pretty clear to me that you really don't know a whole lot about our country, its history, or our system of government. That's ok though, because I myself really don't know anything about Argentina. However I'm not going to sit here and tell you what's really going on in your president's head or lecture you about how your country really operates. Of course you're entitled to your opinion about us, but as Darth already mentioned, grounding it in impassioned ignorance instead of level-headed fact can be very dangerous and really piss people off.

[ManicMatt]

Why would we do something about this president? 
He hasnt done anything wrong yet.

Maybe you were talking about a previous president, the "stupid and sick" one. I don't know.

Nevermind then.

[LimpingFish]

You're f*cked both ways.

If he got into office unfairly, twice, as Darth suggests, it means your whole electorial system is corruptable.

If he was voted in by the people, also twice, as EagerMind suggests, then this supposed unfair generalization by non-americans isn't actually so unfair, based on over 51% (aka The Majority) of the voting american public supporting the Bush administration.

It sucks, sure, but...

[i k a r i]

I don't see any confusion with my two statements.  Congress does have the authority to stop it.  But when given information that Saddam was developing WMD, they acted.  Bush tried to give them two other excuses for his invasion and they rejected those.  He gave them WMD and they took the bait.

Im saying they have no power if Bush can use fault intelligence in order to manipulate them, the president will get what he wants sooner or later.

To EagerMind and Darth Mandarb:

Going back to Argentina (<-link for Darth Mandarb if Bush is re-re-elected, come  ), we also did a pacific protest, it was called "cacerolazo" (as simple as hitting casseroles with spoons xd) and we gathered so many people in front of the pink house (yes pink), that the president had no choice but to leave, all around the country people were protesting simultaneously, it ended up with fights against the police, sadly, and with some deaths, but the president was out that same day, and the system did not change at all, ok, we had the guiness record for most presidents in a week xD, but now the country is going up with much more honest leaders, and in democracy.
You can check some links if you're interested 
Cacerolazo
RIOTS 2001
The kind of rage we felt for the corruption made us act, I couldnt imagine what would happen if a president send compatriots to die in a war he created to get oil.
EagerMind, at first in USA, re-election did not exist, a president altered it to be re-elected, what makes you think Bush cant altere that again, I think people's rage would be too much there.

grounding it in impassioned ignorance instead of level-headed fact can be very dangerous and really piss people off.

I've talked without facts, yes, and Im sorry, but sometimes you cant have the facts, and I gave my opinion, and I still think there are many people supporting Bush in USA, as big part of the world thinks, I also think there are many against Bush luckily.

Alynn I meant no offense to you, that kind of decision a soldier can take is not the one I was talking about, if you're sent to war you have to go, no matter what you think about the reasons of the war, or if you're lied.
I think is logic that you're with the iraqis supporting the war causes and the American invasion, US put them to work in their bases and payed them money, and they are taking Oil out ir Irak, I think there are millions against it that are not working for US, that have familiars/friends death, that had their busines, their peacefuls lifes, etc.

I think I must stop talking about what I dont know, I think you all know my opinion by now, I meant no offense with mi "anger talking". It just I cant shut up with a person like Bush alive 

[Alynn]

Just to follow up on your post  Ikari...

The thing is, every one of us in the US military signed a contract knowing that exact fact, that if we are ordered into war, we will go, regardless of our personal feelings on the matter. So even if we don't agree with the reasoning, we do agree to follow what the government says. It's a volunteer army, everyone in the US military chose to be there.

So if a soldier complains about not agreeing with the war and therefore they shouldn't have to go, I have a simple answer.

You never should have signed up.

I'm sure there are millions that are against it, just like there are millions for it, after all, estimated 26,783,383 people in the country in 2006 (source: 2006 estimate/United States Census International Programs) it's easy to have millions on both sides of the issue.

[i k a r i]

The thing is, every one of us in the US military signed a contract knowing that exact fact, that if we are ordered into war, we will go, regardless of our personal feelings on the matter. So even if we don't agree with the reasoning, we do agree to follow what the government says. It's a volunteer army, everyone in the US military chose to be there.

Im going to go back a little in something I said, I know soldiers are not brainwashed people without ideas, but since the moment they signed the contract, they will have to act like it, just following orders and doing as they are told, like pawns for the goverment. Yes, that was their decisions, and they did it in order to defend their country, but do you really feel that's what your president sent you to do there?. Well my opinion is, no.

I'm sure there are millions that are against it, just like there are millions for it, after all, estimated 26,783,383 people in the country in 2006 (source: 2006 estimate/United States Census International Programs) it's easy to have millions on both sides of the issue.

Yes, is normal. Im just afraid to think how many people out there could be pro-Bush.

I dont want to start another topic, hopefully this war never happen, but Iran is saying they have nuclear power now, and that they are succesfully developing this technology, and that they will keep on doing it no matter the threats they get. I think that's scary.

[shitar]

So you're generalizing that I, as an American, must be war happy?Ã,  It's interesting that the entire point of my posts in this thread keeps being proven over and over again in this thread ...

Yes. Why? Because your public is ready to fight the "nuclear threats" in Iran and North Korea. Ready to invade Cuba (once Castro dies) and invade Venezuala to remove the "evil" regimes. Its imperialism. Some of us just want to try to live our lifes and run our small countries without USA's prying fingers in every aspect of our lifes. I felt more secure in this world when the Soviet Union was around then now when there is only one hungry world power. Isolationalism > Internationalism

Im pretty disgusted with how many people viewed Sadaam's execution video. How fucked up do you have to be in the head as a nation to WANT to see a human being be killed. Im done with this thread, it makes me to angry.

[Darth Mandarb]

Yes. Why?

Because making generalizations like that is ignorant.  So is not reading the rest of this thread and then picking out bits and pieces to make rude comments that are clearly just meant to be inflamatory.

Because your public is ready to fight the "nuclear threats" in Iran and North Korea. Ready to invade Cuba (once Castro dies) and invade Venezuala to remove the "evil" regimes. Its imperialism.

Yet another brilliant generalization about the people of the U.S. based off of Bush's foreign policies.

I hope there are others reading this thread who appreciate the irony that my rant about "lumping" and "generalizing" keeps being proven.  I couldn't have asked for better proof.

Some of us just want to try to live our lifes and run our small countries without USA's prying fingers in every aspect of our lifes.

Then why does your government allow the U.S. their "prying fingers"?  Why don't the people of your country stop this?  I suppose I could generalize and say that you're all a bunch of puppets who give in to whatever the U.S. wants?  It's not always so easy is it?

I felt more secure in this world when the Soviet Union was around then now when there is only one hungry world power. Isolationalism > Internationalism

I'm going to assume you're profile age is inaccurate then ... because the Soviet Union collapsed before you were born!  You must have a REALLY remarkable memory indeed.

Im pretty disgusted with how many people viewed Sadaam's execution video. How fucked up do you have to be in the head as a nation to WANT to see a human being be killed. Im done with this thread, it makes me to angry.

I, too, saw the same statistic you must be speaking of. The one that shows that ONLY people from the U.S. watched that video filmed by an Iraqi and released to the public by an Iraqi.