anyone interested in a war/politic thread?

[tkobo]

Im an american and Im proud Bush is our president.Im damn glad he took the war to the taliban,the terrorists and that he was willing to try and help Irag get its freedom .

The U.N. is baised on almost every issue that goes before it.Thats one of the main reasons its so useless.Its the problem of far too many people representing far too many nations with thier own little agendas,in pursuit of which they couldnt give a damn about the victims.Add in the corruption that always seems to join in, like in the oil for food program ,and you have a huge organization that is cripppled by its own size and mulitple agendas.So it accomplishs next to nothing, and takes forever to do so.

Sudan is a prime example.The U.N. will talk, and talk and talk.They will spend years passing useless statements on useless pieces of paper,while people are slaughtered for no other reason than thier religion or ethnic background.
Just like they did with Irag.Just like they did with Bosnia.Just like they did with Somalia.

What this world really needs is a huge war machine that owes NO country any allegiance what so ever.That will step up the immediate second a nation or its government gets out of line and do what ever is required to put things right.Of course this could never happen,as people are simply too damn flawed, and you'd never be able to round up enough UN-biased people to fill such an organization.


The Bush haters make me laugh (and sometimes cry).If it was thier own personal backside being tortured and killed for some stupid biase they'ed be the first ones screaming at the top of thier lungs " Why didnt America do something ?Damn Bush,he doesnt care about "us" "

As for the peacenicks.I think anytime a situation comes to the point of war,countrys should round up all the peace protesters and send them to whatever location is the trouble atm.Give them 2 months or a certain amount of deaths(say like 5000 people killed by the aggressor) to solve things peacably.
If at this point they fail, either time runs out or far too many people die during thier talking,talking and more talking,than the powers should not only declare war in an attempt to set things right,but those who wasted OUR time and the lives of the victims should face the exact same fate as the victims.

Extremism is NOT limited to those who see war as a posible solution to a bad situation.There is also the extremely vocal,extremely out of touch with reality, peace supporters who dont think war is EVER the answer.Who think people should just stand there and take it.AND just stand back and watch people suffer and die,while they talk to the brick walls doing the killing in an attempt to settle things with words.
These people" the peace extremists" are why things often get so bad in the world before someone steps up to try and fix things.
You can still find people out of touch with reality enough that they STILL claim America should have done everything possible to avoid World war 2.

Lastly, who cares what some so-called scholars wrote .If they had the answers,the problems would already have been solved.These are just opinions of men.Too cling to anything said just becuase of who said it is silly.Think for yourselves.Question everything.

Do NOT believe OR disbelieve anything based solely on who said it.

[iamnick]

well said.

but to make things clear, im not racist, i used to be for the palestinians before i started to study this subject(which was in the last few weeks, so im still new at this) and once looked up the history and other stuff, i started to support israel alot.

[Balthagor]

Well, this thread was sure to get animated. I’ll admit I shuddered the moment I saw the Israel/Palestine comment. It just seemed a ticking time bomb. So far it would seem that things are staying (relatively) calm.

Before I jump in I think that I should make it clear that I am in no way well enough informed to make reliable statements on much of this but am more looking to nudge the direction of the discussion. Iamnick, you mention that you support the Israelis more than the Palestinians after doing some research and you commented

…far more jews have been killed then arabs between 1800's and 1948!

Let’s remember that if there is ever to be peace, both sides need to stop keeping score. I lost my great grandparents to a concentration camp but I recognize we cannot forever lay the sins of the parents on the children. From everything I’ve seen both the Jewish and Palestinian extremists are to blame today.

(sidebar) I know that there is an organization that is working for peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs. Anyone from there have comments on current efforts?

I also was struck by Xeroman’s comment;

… I fear that you are falling victim to Dershowitz's racism!

To me this points to one of the key difficulties when trying to become more educated on an issue. How do you learn from a written resource without being affected by the bias of the author? Xeroman is suggesting that, while iamnick is not racist, he is being influenced by racist comments. Could it even be said that the author may be affected by the bias of the people he meets through research?

An opinion I do carry, right or wrong, is that the Israelis should get the #^&@ out of Palestinian settlements. While I feel for those Israelis who may become displaced by this sort of action, they have already fallen victim to the politicians how pushed for them to relocate there in the first place. I do believe that some Israeli politicians hope to claim all Palestinian lands; the same that extremist on the Palestinian side will accept nothing but a complete elimination of the Israeli state. I also feel it is our responsibility as outside observers to encourage compromise. This is clearly something that is lacking in the area.

We should also be discussing how you slow the rate of creating “extremists”. Anyone know the average age of vocal anti-Israeli Palestinians? (no, I don’t know…) To my understanding, they are quite young. They have also spent their whole life growing up with people around them saying, “blame the Jews! Blame the Jews!” and I believe in many places you have young Jews being told, “Blame the Palestinians!”

I think that on this issue, the Jews are at an advantage due to their position of power. Since they control the area, they make most decisions. As such, I feel there is a greater responsibility on the Israeli side to try and educate the masses and make them more tolerant. With their history of persecution they should understand that, having won the territory, they are now responsible for larger issues.

On the Bush issue (this should be interesting…) I don’t like him. I don’t hate him, wish him ill or have his picture on my dartboard; I just don’t like him. I am… I guess satisfied is the word… on how things where handled in Afghanistan. I also am of the opinion the US had no business in Iraq. I recognize the “threat” that Saddam represented but feel that Kim Chong-ill (that right?) is at least as big a threat and there are other nations led by such men. Also, it seems that when outside nations become involved in other regions’ problems it never goes well. It seems that the situation in Iraq is now nothing but a big mess. I do however think that, now there, the US is stuck and must stay and that the UN needs to get involved. However, I think this is not likely to create as much of a “hey, thanks guys for freeing Iraq” sentiment as it is a “look at the mess these guys left us!” feeling.

(hey, anyone like watching Daily Show with John Stewart?)

... who cares what some so-called scholars wrote...

I guess I agree with that. I feel that we can analyze past situations forever but we’ll just end of laying blame and pointing fingers. We need to learn to live together. I know, World sized LAN party!!

[XeroMan]

Wow, a lot has been said, and Chris has offered some valuable insights. Let me start off by stating the obvious – that everyone sees the world from their own point of view, which is to say that everyone’s take on the facts is entirely relative.
iamnick – you see Israel as the righteous victim, only doing what it is forced to do to survive while surrounded by enemies.
tkobo – you see Bush as a great leader, standing up for what is right, and those who stand against him are unpatriotic and peacenik’s who hate the military.

If I’m wrong in any of my impressions, let me know.

I on the other hand, see that the IDF is the vastly superior force, and they are using that power in a cruel and inhumane fashion. Snipers are killing children, and by a sniper’s very nature the killings can only be considered targeted. Therefore I see any attempt to defend Sharon’s policies as covering for a bloody child murderer. Quoting from Dershowitz, who is clearly a racist bigot, only makes my opinion worse. I’m glad you’ve done some research – and it’s quite clear from your passion that you are new. But as Chris has pointed out, it is very hard to study someone’s work without being influenced by that person’s own bias. It can even be argued that few people will research something that does not mesh with their inherent character, unless of course they are setting out to debunk it. (In other words, when we research something, we look for the material that is going to support our own viewpoint)
Now it’s easy to dismiss scholars, especially when you disagree with them. Admittedly, I dismiss Dershowitz out of hand. That is the nature of humanity I guess. Regardless, scholars spend a great deal of time researching, writing, educating and thinking. Whatever bias they may have aside, they are rightly considered experts at what they do. And what they do is try to explain the facts. There is that old saying “Lies, damned lies, and statistics!” that touches on this. There may be only one fact in a given scenario, but there are many different interpretations as to what that fact means, how that fact impacts or impacted its environment, and how the fact came about in the first place. Now enter extremism on either side of the political spectrum. Like I said, it’s as bad as religion – you can’t argue with someone to make them see God your way, or that there isn’t a God, or whatever. It’s about belief, and people want to believe in something.
tkobo – you see things from a very different perspective than I. You say round up all the peace protestors and send them off to fight. What about all the “hawks” in the administration that are so hot and bothered to send kids off to die? What about them? Cheney was deferred 5 times for ‘Nam. But that’s ok – send the peace protestors! Why do you hate the peaceniks so much? Do you feel they are subordinating the troops? Insulting them somehow? This isn’t the 60’s peace movement – they don’t blame the troops. I won’t argue that there are the extreme “peace at any cost” types, and I won’t argue that they need a serious does of reality. To be honest, they piss me off just as much as the next extremist trying to force their perspective down my throat. I wish they would wake up, that they would realize that the nice suburban life they come from is an aberration in an otherwise horrible world, and that the military plays the biggest part in giving them that life – but to wish for the wholesale slaughter of them so they can learn to appreciate a strong military goes beyond the pale. The military doesn’t exist to support your lifestyle alone – it’s there to protect the United States of America, which just happens to stand for the right to protest, and the right to be a peacenik. Yes, it is a bitter irony.
As for the UN – what do you expect? It’s been long a pawn in an international struggle – it did survive the cold war somehow, with two titans tearing at it. Of course it’s ineffectual – but that paralysis comes from the top, namely the Security Council. I’m afraid your dislike for the UN is rooted in the fact that it does not suit America’s needs. So be it, that is a common sentiment with Americans. Unfortunately, that same attitude, reflected in the Whitehouse, is isolating you on the world stage. The US has withheld membership dues, and various fees that it committed to paying, hurting the UN further. Of course, this is convienent for Washington, for a strong International player would be contrary to the US’s interests. Think of SR2010 – isn’t a piss off that the WM holds so much power??? If the UN is fractured and ineffectual, it’s because the US wanted it that way.
You say that the world needs a strong war machine to right all the wrongs, and obviously you see the US as filling this role. Well, I’m sure that if Germany had won, life would be pretty good for your typical Aryan. Charges of fascism aside, my point is that you cannot bring a just peace at the point of a gun. And lets face it, the US is so corrupt that they aren’t remotely interested in a “humanitarian peace”- they want social stability in order to facilitate their economic agenda. I’m sure you’re reaction is “So what” and I can’t really answer that. You either see injustice for what it is, or you don’t. Period. My best friend is a cut throat capitalist – “If they can’t stand on their own two feet, f**k’em”. I can’t change his mind – he knows the facts, and he chose his own conclusions. So it is with you tkobo, and with you, iamnick. In no way am I questioning your intelligence – however I am forced to question your humanity.
In closing, I agree that there does need to be a strong world body, but the modern US should in no way serve as a model for that body. We are entering uncharted waters in the worlds history - the world is becoming a "global village" to speak. My fear is that we'll need at least one more great struggle before we settle down and start the business of building a "better world". And right now the biggest roadblock to a better world is the United States and it's corporate agenda. That most of all is truly sad.
But then, that is just my viewpoint.

[tkobo]

I love the John stewart show.I watch and laugh even at the bush jibes.

" I know, World sized LAN party!! "

Man, count me in. I love lan parties.Hey has anyone ever organized a "world chat session" ?
That would be kinda interesting.
A huge chat session ,moderated of course ,in which everyone who wanted around the world could log on and give thier views.
A limited form of fact checking could be enforced in which statements that had no known basis in reality would be pointed out, corrected and then eliminated from the discussion.I say limited ,because there would of course be some problems establishing fact in many cases.So the limited part would be becuase it would only be applied to things said that were just so far out that not a single "official" record of any type could lend them wieght.
Oh, and do what ever can be done to keep the politicians,so called "leaders",governement officials, etc... out of it.
A world wide conversation of the people of the world.

As for Irag.George just what would you say to the kurds and other persecuted peoples in Irag during Hussiens rule ?
To me saying 'Well, im sorry your being tortured and killed by the governement of your country, but since it is your country and not mine,well we just shouldnt help you",just doesnt cut it to me.

And yes,there are more than a few countries that are as bad as or worse than Iraq was under Saddam.But the simple fact is,not every situation can be fixed at any point in time.The key is to fix the ones you can when you can.

[XeroMan]

Hey, the majority of Iraqi's would have given the US a fair shake if the US had been able to provide security. Iraq is worse off than it was under Who'sane. He at least kept order, and kept electricity working. Yeah, he was a thug, just like so many other dictators, but if his country hadn't of been crippled by the UN sanctions, then the people would have been better off (and yes, Saddam would have had a real military). He tortured citizens that he considered a threat – the US tortured those related to people that they considered a threat. Hell, if Hersh is right, they raped young boys! I'm sorry, the US doesn't have a moral leg to stand on - they've turned Iraq into a playground for America corporations, and the people of Iraq are still suffering, in fact it can be argued that they are worse off. Either the US doesn't care, or it's incredibly incompetent (the administration that is, NOT the troops).

[Balthagor]

Snipers are killing children, and by a sniper’s very nature the killings can only be considered targeted.

This is one I’d like some background on. I would expect (speaking with no data) that these would be Palestinian children that have been brought up in the mob mentality I described earlier and may have been directly attacking Israeli forces. Now don’t get me wrong, I fully believe there are IDF members who are as bad as any Palestinian extremist, and you may be quoting such a case. Drop me a link so I can check it out?

The wall is an issue I have not fully researched but my instinct would be to say “what’s the harm?” What %age of Palestinians within the walled area need to cross (legally) the wall for work or other needs? Which settlements do the walls encompass? If it’s Gaza or the West Bank, are the sides that border Jordan/Egypt walled? As I said, I’ve not looked into it. Besides, others may read this and have as little info.

Do you support giving the Palestinians West Bank and the Gaza Strip and calling it at that? What territorial divisions do you think would be fair?

On the issue of Iraq, one minor hope I have is that the current resistance will piss off enough common Iraqis that they loose too much support and can no longer operate effectively. That may be the only way peace will be restored.

George just what would you say to the kurds and other persecuted peoples in Irag during Hussiens rule?

I think this is directed at me… (Balthagor = Chris, GGG = George)

What would I say? I really don’t know. What would you say to the family of a servicemen who thought they had completed there tour in Iraq, where sent back and got killed? Or to the family of these Kurds, what would you say to the fact that at the time the US was supporting Saddam in the Iraq/Iran war? Sometimes there are no good answers.

However, the fact remains that gassing Kurds wasn’t enough to get the administration to move forward, only badly verified facts where enough to convince them. I do not think that Bush is evil or a power hungry ruler, I believe he BELIEVED that attacking Iraq was the right thing to do, and this is why I don’t like having him in power of a very powerful nation.

Let me through a question back at you, is marching in the troops the only way to “fix things”? I’ll really challenge you… since you think they SHOULD have gone in, I’d like to hear what you think could have been done to help the region if they had not gone in…

[XeroMan]

Well, here is a recent article on the subject, from a British newspaper. No point in quoting Aljazeerah, or the various human rights groups... for the same reason it's pointless to quote Dershowitz...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,36 ... 51,00.html

The facts at the most basic seem to be this:
- The IDF is the vastly superior force
- 3 times as many Palestinians have been killed than Israeli's since the start of the present intifada.
- A significant portion of the dead are children
- The world (with the notable exception of the US) has condemned Israel

After that, it's all up to interpretation

[XeroMan]

This cartoon puts things in perspective. Granted it does not do the whole situation justice, but it addresses the glaring fallacy present in the Western media.
It does not show suicide bombers, nor does it show Sharon - it merely shows the disparity between the two opponents military power.

[iamnick]

Hey, the majority of Iraqi's would have given the US a fair shake if the US had been able to provide security. Iraq is worse off than it was under Who'sane. He at least kept order, and kept electricity working. Yeah, he was a thug, just like so many other dictators, but if his country hadn't of been crippled by the UN sanctions, then the people would have been better off (and yes, Saddam would have had a real military). He tortured citizens that he considered a threat – the US tortured those related to people that they considered a threat. Hell, if Hersh is right, they raped young boys! I'm sorry, the US doesn't have a moral leg to stand on - they've turned Iraq into a playground for America corporations, and the people of Iraq are still suffering, in fact it can be argued that they are worse off. Either the US doesn't care, or it's incredibly incompetent (the administration that is, NOT the troops).

saddam killed thousands a year and 60,000 more starved a year. we've brought food and medicine to those starving, yes about 10,000 iraqi's have died, but it could be far worse if saddam was left in power for the next few years. they are far better off now without thousands being tortured a year, they can say what they want withotu having their tongues cut off, they got alot of food and medicine, lots of newspapers have sprungup in the last year. i know some people in iraq(soldiers, and i dont really "know" them, but have talked to them about this) and the've seen the good in iraq. now women can go to school, and they dont have schools filled with guns and bombs. so all in all lives were saved.

and its not just about saving the lives, saddam was a direct threat to us with his support/funding/hiding/training terrorist.

too often we overlook teh good thats going on in iraq, yes i know lots of bad things have happend, but alot of good has happend too.

http://www.centcom.mil/CentcomNews/Stories/06_04/7.htm

http://www.centcom.mil/centcomnews/News ... 040636.txt

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/reynolds.asp

http://www.operationiraqichildren.org/stories.asp

http://www.brookesnews.com/031512iraqtruth.html

now some pictures

http://www.glennbeck.com/picsfromiraq/05182004.shtml


http://www.glennbeck.com/picsfromiraq/07132004.shtml

http://www.glennbeck.com/picsfromiraq/06212004.shtml

http://www.glennbeck.com/picsfromiraq/06092004.shtml

http://www.glennbeck.com/picsfromiraq/05192004.shtml

[iamnick]

This cartoon puts things in perspective. Granted it does not do the whole situation justice, but it addresses the glaring fallacy present in the Western media.
It does not show suicide bombers, nor does it show Sharon - it merely shows the disparity between the two opponents military power.

you forgot the cartoon where it has the 8 yr old boy with a bomb vest being made to walk towards the israeli soldier by terrorist holding the detonater, then you forgot to add the soldier having ot shoot the boy because he is trying to walk towards them, then you forgot to put the victim part over the boy and the agressor over the soldier.

[XeroMan]

saddam killed thousands a year and 60,000 more starved a year. we've brought food and medicine to those starving, yes about 10,000 iraqi's have died, but it could be far worse if saddam was left in power for the next few years. they are far better off now without thousands being tortured a year, they can say what they want withotu having their tongues cut off, they got alot of food and medicine, lots of newspapers have sprungup in the last year. i know some people in iraq(soldiers, and i dont really "know" them, but have talked to them about this) and the've seen the good in iraq. now women can go to school, and they dont have schools filled with guns and bombs. so all in all lives were saved.

and its not just about saving the lives, saddam was a direct threat to us with his support/funding/hiding/training terrorist.

too often we overlook teh good thats going on in iraq, yes i know lots of bad things have happend, but alot of good has happend too.

Nick, it's estimated that 500,000 people died as a direct result of the sanctions on Iraq. Saddam didn't kill them, the lack of clean drinking water did. Sure, Saddam lived in luxury while his people suffered, so do the majority of dictators in the third world. I don't hear any rallying cry against them.
The people in Iraq are not better off, and the troops are not as in control as CentCom would like the world to believe. Fallujah has been overrun by insurgents since the Marines aborted their seige of that city. 120 people died in Iraq yesterday alone... the country is in chaos. Given the amount of money that is being poured into the reconstruction, the Iraqi's should be living a better life than I am for pity's sake! Too bad the administrations cronies are skimming off the top. Let's face it, those stories you linked to are propaganda, pure and simple. I agree with the purpose of it though - the military is obligated to put a positive spin on the situation for the troops. But look at the other side - look at all the troops who are in despair because the occupation was mismanaged, and they are the ones who have to bear the brunt of it. Fighting an insurgency is probably the worst kind of war a regular soldier could face.
And if you're so concerned about the rights of women, then why the hell aren't you talking about Afghanistan? The US came in, ousted the Taliban, and the media turned towards Iraq. Well, it turns out that Afghanistan is backsliding. The administration is not interested in women's rights, unless it's looking for one more reason to attack another country. It's so hypocritical it's pathetic.
Sadly, with your statement that Saddam was a direct threat to the US, you place yourself in the camp of Fox-News viewers who were mislead about the war. Fox played up that line of bulls**t, even though it's widely accepted that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorists.
Nick, google some of the issues, and look at those websites that you would normally dismiss out of hand. If you won't do that, at least realize that the majority of your information comes from some very limited sources...

[XeroMan]

you forgot the cartoon where it has the 8 yr old boy with a bomb vest being made to walk towards the israeli soldier by terrorist holding the detonater, then you forgot to add the soldier having ot shoot the boy because he is trying to walk towards them, then you forgot to put the victim part over the boy and the agressor over the soldier.

Did you read the article linked above? Seriously, do you think it's right to shoot children?

[tkobo]

damn forum timer just took away my reply to XeroMans constant inaccuries on what I said.

It will be forthcoming,again.

To Balthagor-
I would tell those who have sacrificed in any form in the Iraq conflict, sometimes as unfortunate as it is, good people need to make sacrifices for the sake of others.Its simply the reality of this world.
That the very country they live in,in the case of the US, only exists becuase others before them risked and made the same sacrifices being asked of them.Again, often for others.America itself might NOT exist if people from other nations had not come to our aid at the very time of the birthing of our nation.
I would tell them for over a decade the nations of the world have stood idly by ,or even worse helped saddam,while other people of the world,people just as deserving of life were killed by saddam and his government for the most absurd of reasons.

I would tell them it okays to question why they had to make the sacrifices, but NOT to let thier loss cloud thier judgement on the need for said sacrifices.

I would also ask them to question why the issue had sat unattended for so long at the cost of so many lives.I would ask them to research why this occurred and be vigilent about NOT letting such things go on so long in the future IF they can be stopped in the present.

I would point out that many nations in the world today are depriving their own legal citizens of the basic rights of life.I would point out that the need for sacrifices on the part of those who can help such people may never pass from this earth.
BUT that they should do what they can to try and make it so pass, for the sake of future generations.

Chris:"Let me through a question back at you, is marching in the troops the only way to “fix things”? I’ll really challenge you… since you think they SHOULD have gone in, I’d like to hear what you think could have been done to help the region if they had not gone in"

Me:First off, i got the name right this time .
No, I dont believe force is the only way to fix everything.I cant say that strongly enough.
It is however important to look at the other extreme also.Which is peaceful means are not the only way to fix everything either.To each thing its proper solution.
The peaceful way is almost always the first tried.The talking begins way before the assassinations ,murders,rapes,etc... of those opposed to the one who would take away the rights of others.
Dont you think talking was tried with Hitler ?Years went by and all the talking accomplished was the allowing of the situation to grow worse.
The same can be said for Saddam.Although not quite the crisis posed by Hitler,he was without doubt one of the top bad situations in the world at his time.
And again all the talking,resolutions,sanctions,etc.. did was allow the time for the situation to grow worse.Allow more victims of his regime to accumulate.

Was there a peaceful solution to the Iraq/Saddam issue?
I cant think of one.Sanctions hurt the citizens of Iraq,but never really affected Saddam or his government at the levels they would have had to .

Saddam was offered exile,in and by Arab nations.This would have peacable removed his governement BUT not guareentied a peaceful transition.He of course turned this down.

If left in power I have no doubt that things would have even gotten worse when Saddams sons took over.Amazingly they seemed to have even less restraint than thier father.

Could it have been resolved without outside forces invading Iraq.I believe it could have.Clinton was presented by such an opportunity during his term.Leading Iraqi generals had offered to rebel against Saddam IF they could at the very least be sure the US would not intervene on saddams part and would act to prevent action on Irans part.
Now this is not as absurd as it sounds as some CIA agents were themselves convinced that the US would support Saddam in such a case to prevent Iran from becoming the biggest dog.
The plan,nick named "BoB",after the name of one of the CIA agents known to the Iraqis planning the rebellion.It was put forth,ie started some time in 1991 under the first Bush presidency.But was killed by Clinton in circa 1995 with a single 3 point mesasage to the rebel leaders.
1.Your operation has been penetrated and there is a risk of failure.2.If you proceede it will be without U.S.support or involvement.3.There is only one place for contact between Iran and the United States- and it is not in northern Iraq.

Number Three was critical.In the "bob" plan cia agents and US government officials had meet with leaders from Iran and arranged Iranian forces to move to, but not cross the Iraqi border.This was to tie up iraqi forces who choose to fight on saddams side and to get some assurance iran wouldnt take advantage of the situation.
What Number three told the Iraqi rebel leaders was that they could no longer count on the US to try and prevent Iran from becoming involved.
This pretty much killed "bob" on the spot.The Kurds who had til this point been united and fully onbaord now re-fractured and withdrew thier support for fear of what Iran might do.

So to sum up.I dont believe Saddam could have been removed(this includes his government and sons) or reformed peaceably.Over 10 years were spent trying to do so.In that time nothing was accomplished ,except the allowance of Saddam to grow even worse.There simply was no way to protect Iraqi citizens form thier own government without removing it.
And that governement had spent over a decade showing it would not leave.

Now the US and other foreign nations did not have to commit thier own troops.I believe "bob" could have worked.The "bob" plan if successful would have helped the region,ie improved the situation by removing saddams governement.
But even then it was likely that some outside force would have been requested and indeed needed to try and prevent extremists from derailing the transition to a new benign governement for Iraq.

[tkobo]

Okay, to xeroman.

First Im going to list the inaccuracies in what you claim i said or think AND list some inaccuraies (and omissions)of and in what you claim.

1)tkobo – you see Bush as a great leader, standing up for what is right, and those who stand
against him are unpatriotic and peacenik’s who hate the military

2)In other words, when we research something, we look for the material that is going to support
our own viewpoint


3)Now it’s easy to dismiss scholars, especially when you disagree with them.


4)You say round up all the peace protestors and send them off to fight.


5)What about all the “hawks” in the administration that are so hot and bothered to send kids
off to die? What about them? Cheney wasdeferred 5 times for ‘Nam. But that’s ok –
send the peace protestors!


6)Why do you hate the peaceniks so much?


7) but to wish for the wholesale slaughter of them so they can learn to appreciate
a strong military goes beyond the pale


8)The military doesn’t exist to support your lifestyle alone – it’s there to protect
the United States of America,which just happens to stand for the right to protest,
and the right to be a peacenik


9)I’m afraid your dislike for the UN is rooted in the fact that it does not suit America’s
needs.
So be it, that is a common sentiment with Americans.



10)Unfortunately, that same attitude, reflected in the Whitehouse,
is isolating you on the world stage.


11)The US has withheld membership dues, and various fees that it committed to paying,
hurting the UN further. Of course, this is convienent for Washington,
for a strong International player would be contrary to the US’s interests.


12)If the UN is fractured and ineffectual, it’s because the US wanted it that way.


13)You say that the world needs a strong war machine to right all the wrongs,
and obviously you see the US as filling this role.

14)And lets face it, the US is so corrupt that they aren’t remotely interested in a
“humanitarian peace”- they want social stability in order to facilitate their economic agenda.


15)I’m sure you’re reaction is “So what” and I can’t really answer that.


16) In no way am I questioning your intelligence – however I am forced to question your humanity.


17)And right now the biggest roadblock to a better world is the United States and
it's corporate agenda.

18)That most of all is truly sad.
But then, that is just my viewpoint.


end of part one.In part two i will correct you misquotes,your misconceptions about my thoughts
and the inaccuracies and one sidedness of many of the things you say.