Thousands of Iraqis protest U.S. security pact

I agree Chuck.   I would be more in favor of US Imperialism if it benefited America, but this is bringing us down.  We have paid with our treasure, our blood and our standing in the world.  This war was started on a lie and America has simply become the attack dogs of the only state to benefit ........ Israel!

Let's hand them the bill for our services for the last 7 years and vacate the premises.

That's gratitude for ya. We should have left them with Saddam Hussein to deal with.

I don't know if any of you have friends or families in Iraq... I do!  And many of them.  I have found that the ones that has gone back for their 2nd and 3rd terms...have seen a tremendous difference and they agree (along with their comrads) that America did the right thing.

Currently, there are still "bad apples" that are trying to convert people back to the old ways...but the majority actually want to be free...they just need our help.

We pull out...then we are not spreading freedom.  Just like in the U.S.  Love it or Leave it.  The same slogan needs to go to Iraq.  Maybe those need to follow Al Sadr to IRAN!

sounds like pie in the sky MIKE.....

I have talked to someone that has been there and I was told every SINGLE apartment  building in Baghdad is pock marked from weapons. many buildings are completely destroyed.

Mike Kerr-374135

I don't know if any of you have friends or families in Iraq... I do!  And many of them.  I have found that the ones that has gone back for their 2nd and 3rd terms...have seen a tremendous difference and they agree (along with their comrads) that America did the right thing.

Currently, there are still "bad apples" that are trying to convert people back to the old ways...but the majority actually want to be free...they just need our help.

We pull out...then we are not spreading freedom.  Just like in the U.S.  Love it or Leave it.  The same slogan needs to go to Iraq.  Maybe those need to follow Al Sadr to IRAN!

"America did the right thing", are you serious ?? "We are spreading freedom". ??

Are you ignoring the fact we were supposed to find bin Laden there ?

What about the story about the WMD's ?

What about the lie that Saddam was supporting bin Laden ?

What about Bush saying "we are not nation building" ?

What about the FACT most Iraqs do NOT want us there ?

What about the FACT basic services like electricity, water, public safety, schools, health care are WORSE now then under SADDAM ?

What about the FACT that Iraq had no international terrorists there before the war ?

Everything about this ILLEGAL war has been a LIE. Started by George Bush - war criminal. Thanks to Bush, we are more hated than any country in history. If you want to continue the war, buy a ticket and go there. America has seen the truth, finally, and should respect THEIR wishes and leave.

What about the FACT that Iraq had no international terrorists there before the war ?

What? you mean there wasn't 19 Iraqi's on those planes that brought down the trade centers....Sorry our mistake....

Holy-Cow

What about the FACT that Iraq had no international terrorists there before the war ?

What? you mean there wasn't 19 Iraqi's on those planes that brought down the trade centers....Sorry our mistake....

Yep, 17 Saudis, 2 others, ZERO Iraqis.

M White Bear...

Just let me know where you live to send the fight when we pull out and let "terrorists" think they can over run anyone! 

Sometime one must push the opposite direction in order to promote freedom. 

I don't know anything about you...so I am unable to make assumptions.  My family has fought for the American Freedom.  I was brought up to fight and defend.  Therefore, I will continue to defend America from anything that affects America!!!!!!

The way some people write about Iraq you would think we went there on some glorious crusade for freedom. We went there on the pretext of WMD for oil and the belief in some Neocon Domino Theory. We have fractured the country, the relative peace ( Anbar Awakening) came through arming and paying the Sunni sheiks who supported Saddam Hussein ,destroyed ther infrastructure, slaughtered their citizens and put a fundamentalist sect in charge. For this they should be thankful? Most Iraqis were far better off under Saddam Hussein than they are today most of Iraq still only has electricity 4 to 8 hours a day. If someone invades and occupies us for whatever their reasoning I suspect most people would not view the as liberators.

JKHayes

"If the general population of Iraq, a sovereign Nation, want the occupiers, mainly the U.S. to leave thier land, we, the U.S. should adhere to their wishes and get out."

You seem to be under the impression that the protesters represent the majority in that nation.  By your same statement, if the general population of Iraq want us to remain, shouldn't we, the US, adhere to that wish?  It says a lot about Americans and their propensity to look for any excuse to validate their own opinion when they can take something such as a protest of a few thousand people and claim this represents the majority of an entire nation.  I can point out several peace and celebratory marches over the past year alone with greater crowds than this latest protest, a crowd representing those that desire for a continued American presence.  As, overall, only the smallest fraction of the country has ever been surveyed, and the bulk surveyed by US media have been in markedly anti-US territories, it is absolutely impossible to say with even the smallest amount of honesty that you know the majority would prefer that we leave.  We all have our own opinions of the war (though most except those of us who have actually been there don't have a clue about what the war even is.  Heck, I know several people that actually believe we weren't fighting there with the same missions as today before Bush took office, despite the fact that we've been there since 1980 and declare war each time when additional funds or troops are needed, but with little mission change for the tens of thousands of troops already fighting before and after each declared war), but having our own opinions does NOT mean that those opinions represent those of everyone else, especially those in Iraq.  You're entitled to your opinion on the war of course, but you can't honestly tie your opinion to that of those in Iraq, and a few small protests from the smallest of minorities does little to validate your point.

Mike Kerr-374135

M White Bear...

Just let me know where you live to send the fight when we pull out and let "terrorists" think they can over run anyone! 

Sometime one must push the opposite direction in order to promote freedom. 

I don't know anything about you...so I am unable to make assumptions.  My family has fought for the American Freedom.  I was brought up to fight and defend.  Therefore, I will continue to defend America from anything that affects America!!!!!!

You want to fight for freedom, great. But when did Iraq become our enemy ? When did this war become about Iraqi freedom, If you believe in freedom, what about Iraqis' 'freedom' to get their country back, from the 'invaders', namely US. When did Iraq affect our freedom ?? Have you been supporting Bush' policy. It is illegal and immoral, and just as importantly DISCREDITTED.

IRAQ is not our enemy...they are the "terrorists" hiding inside!  They need our help!

My support is get rid of the bullies that occupy and turn people scared!  You definitely need to do your homework.  In fact...I will be more than happy to escort you in Iraq and talk to the majority of people there that indeed what America to stay!  What you read is what the news people want you to read. 

"Good thing Obama swear us He will bring our troops back in the next two weeks after he takes office."

Ummm, he changed that stance months ago, it had just been a couple of emotional speeches used to draw in the anti-war crowd, but he wasn't able to keep going with a lie so impossible.  Now, the official stance is a direct mirror of McCain's.  Military leaders on the ground will decide when and how many troops can come home, the same military leaders on the ground today.  McCain said that we will stay until the leaders on the ground believe we should bring more troops home (obviously not bring them all home, we've been there in the tens of thousands since 1980 and almost three decades and multiple permanent bases can't just disappear overnight).  Obama said that we will come home when the military leaders on the ground and those they are negotiating with give the go-ahead.  So, one says "stay until," and the other says to "come home when."  Difference?  Not in anything but the wording.  Of course, it doesn't really matter what the US President says on that issue anyway, there are certain regulations and procedures that the US President must follow, especially in an issue overseen by the UN.  Authority for more than minor changes must come from multiple sides, while the President has the job of treating every change as his idea and simply being the voice for the decision.  No US President, no matter how determined, would have the authority to simply pack up every troop and position that has been filled since 1980, close every permanent base, and bring the troops home.  Reductions will continue as they already are, and tens of thousands will stay and continue on their missions as they always have after the title of war there is declared over for that time period until more troops and/or funds are needed again.  The strongest difference between McCain and Obama on Iraq would be the publicity received, and little more.

Beckwolf

"If the general population of Iraq, a sovereign Nation, want the occupiers, mainly the U.S. to leave thier land, we, the U.S. should adhere to their wishes and get out."

You seem to be under the impression that the protesters represent the majority in that nation.  By your same statement, if the general population of Iraq want us to remain, shouldn't we, the US, adhere to that wish?  It says a lot about Americans and their propensity to look for any excuse to validate their own opinion when they can take something such as a protest of a few thousand people and claim this represents the majority of an entire nation.  I can point out several peace and celebratory marches over the past year alone with greater crowds than this latest protest, a crowd representing those that desire for a continued American presence.  As, overall, only the smallest fraction of the country has ever been surveyed, and the bulk surveyed by US media have been in markedly anti-US territories, it is absolutely impossible to say with even the smallest amount of honesty that you know the majority would prefer that we leave.  We all have our own opinions of the war (though most except those of us who have actually been there don't have a clue about what the war even is.  Heck, I know several people that actually believe we weren't fighting there with the same missions as today before Bush took office, despite the fact that we've been there since 1980 and declare war each time when additional funds or troops are needed, but with little mission change for the tens of thousands of troops already fighting before and after each declared war), but having our own opinions does NOT mean that those opinions represent those of everyone else, especially those in Iraq.  You're entitled to your opinion on the war of course, but you can't honestly tie your opinion to that of those in Iraq, and a few small protests from the smallest of minorities does little to validate your point.

Beckwolf

I can point out several peace and celebratory marches over the past year alone with greater crowds than this latest protest, a crowd representing those that desire for a continued American presence.

Where did this information come from - source is what ?? Did you imagine it ??

we've been there since 1980 and declare war each time when additional funds or troops are needed, but with little mission change for the tens of thousands of troops already fighting before and after each declared war),

SOURCE for this statement is where. ??? Are you imagining this stuff. We have NOT been there since 1980, get it.

Nice try,

Beckwolf

"Good thing Obama swear us He will bring our troops back in the next two weeks after he takes office."

Ummm, he changed that stance months ago, it had just been a couple of emotional speeches used to draw in the anti-war crowd, but he wasn't able to keep going with a lie so impossible.  Now, the official stance is a direct mirror of McCain's.  Military leaders on the ground will decide when and how many troops can come home, the same military leaders on the ground today.  McCain said that we will stay until the leaders on the ground believe we should bring more troops home (obviously not bring them all home, we've been there in the tens of thousands since 1980 and almost three decades and multiple permanent bases can't just disappear overnight).  Obama said that we will come home when the military leaders on the ground and those they are negotiating with give the go-ahead.  So, one says "stay until," and the other says to "come home when."  Difference?  Not in anything but the wording.  Of course, it doesn't really matter what the US President says on that issue anyway, there are certain regulations and procedures that the US President must follow, especially in an issue overseen by the UN.  Authority for more than minor changes must come from multiple sides, while the President has the job of treating every change as his idea and simply being the voice for the decision.  No US President, no matter how determined, would have the authority to simply pack up every troop and position that has been filled since 1980, close every permanent base, and bring the troops home.  Reductions will continue as they already are, and tens of thousands will stay and continue on their missions as they always have after the title of war there is declared over for that time period until more troops and/or funds are needed again.  The strongest difference between McCain and Obama on Iraq would be the publicity received, and little more.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along. Nothing you say makes any sense, or even comes close to the truth. You are apparently suffering the BLUES. It makes no sense to continue conversing with you, you have issues.

Still waiting for your sources, if you are receiving your information from subliminal messages, get a tinfoil hat, it will protect your brain matter, wink wink.

Mike Kerr-374135

IRAQ is not our enemy...they are the "terrorists" hiding inside!  They need our help!

My support is get rid of the bullies that occupy and turn people scared!  You definitely need to do your homework.  In fact...I will be more than happy to escort you in Iraq and talk to the majority of people there that indeed what America to stay!  What you read is what the news people want you to read. 

Please explain where these 'terrorists' came from since they were'nt in Iraq until we went there. You patriotism is good, but BLIND patroitism is wrong. Saying America 'right or wrong' should be 'America, when it is right, but never when it is in the wrong'.

tired of liberals-653706

hahaha...more White Bear rhetoric and Anti-America hate mongering...he is a continual hate speech artist, hating everything America stands for...I think he will probably be moving to his favorite place...Cuba, or Russia, or China, or N. Korea...

We ignore you, we know you are a TROLL. what's the matter, couldn't find a blog to write your usual racist trash. Couldn't find a blog to write your usual idiotic comments, so you come here, ha ha. We know you're a right wing wacko. Still suffering the BLUES. Your side lost, get over it. America has rejected you and your fellow minded bigots. Get lost, you're history.

"SOURCE for this statement is where. ??? Are you imagining this stuff. We have NOT been there since 1980, get it."

Are you being serious?  I know history isn't considered much of an important topic in American schools anymore, but seriously, not there since 1980?  Our first base there was completed in 1981 responsible for carrying out talks and missions extending throughout the area.  The Gulf War, or Persian Gulf War depending on where you live and the history book you're reading, began in 1990 and led us to push Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991.  Since that time, we have maintained a continuous presence in Iraq greater than our continued presence in South Korea, including weapons inspectors charged with verifying the destruction of large quantities of chemical WMD materials until they were removed in 1998, while regulating and carrying missions against those within charged no-fly zones (during which time prior to this current title of war I have served as well as lost friends in Iraq).  Of course, there was the large US bombing in Iraq in 1998 in cooperation with the UK as the inspectors left, Operation Southern Focus shortly before the war began, and several dozen smaller operations in the nineties.

As far as your comment about the protests, explain to me the logic in looking at a protest of even a few thousand people and magically tying it to the majority of an entire nation of millions.  You're pushing your own opinion as gospel without any substance to back it up.  It's a rather childish game, you claim that the majority of the people feel as you do because of a protest consisting of a small number of people that doesn't constitute even a single percent of the population.  I call you on it, you don't have a single thing you can use to show that the majority feels as you claim, so you turn it on me by asking me to show proof that the majority disagrees with you.  Of course this is ridiculous, since the whole point made against you is that we CAN'T know that answer, since no survey or study has been conducted to determine the will of the majority.  The most that we have conducted is a survey in a small town (where obviously in a small town most will lean the same way), which has zero ability to show the ideals of any majority.  Turning it around does not change the fact that you are lying when you claim to know which way the majority there leans.  And as far as asking about details on marches in support of the US, open your eyes for a few seconds, read a newspaper from Iraq translated into English (you're on the Internet, it's not hard to actually look things up before making comments).  Iraq being a divided nation of many languages, you can easily (doesn't take more than two minutes tops) find multiple pro-US papers discussing dozens of surveys conducted there that lean pro-US as well as details on pro-US peace marches or soldier appreciation marches, as well as anti-US papers discussing surveys showing people who want the US out, as well as protest marches against the US and, not only Bush, but Clinton when he was President, and Bush Senior before him.

Seriously, claiming our presence there is new despite an easily researched history, claiming that you magically know the will of the majority of an entire nation of people you've never met or heard anything from...maybe you're just too young to have learned the hard way about being logical with your arguments and accusations, or maybe you're just so blinded by your own opinion that you feel you can speak for millions of people whose opinions you do not know as if they must agree with you, despite nothing to show that this is the case.  You can speak for yourself, but to continue claiming that you can speak of the opinions of others when there's no way for you to actually know those opinions, you're either very young or, no serious offense intended, have a drastically inflated view of yourself.

Beckwolf

 I know history isn't considered much of an important topic in American schools anymore, but seriously, not there since 1980?  Our first base there was completed in 1981 responsible for carrying out talks and missions extending throughout the area.

Oh, you must be refering to the 400,000 troops we had there fighting with Iraq against Iran during the Iraq / Iran War.

Dude, just because it is on your video game does NOT make it real.

"Do you make this stuff up as you go along. Nothing you say makes any sense, or even comes close to the truth. You are apparently suffering the BLUES. It makes no sense to continue conversing with you, you have issues."

Last comment because I have a real political debate to head to.  Did you vote without bothering to actually look at the candidate's policies?  I can only assume that you must have, since I see the completely ridiculous comment about Obama bringing the troops home within two weeks after taking office.  Let's say that he was still making that promise (which, again, take two minutes and research before making bogus comments because that was restracted a LONG time ago).  In what government is this possible, in what governmental system is a president given such drastic authority?  I understand people getting so emotional about a candidate that they will hear a promise in one of the dozens of frilly speeches both candidates presented and buy into it.  But to continue to buy into it not only days, but weeks and even months later...come on, frilly speeches do NOT represent the real world.  Look at the basics of how the US is run before saying something blatantly off the wall.  You ask for a source, and here it is, 100% concrete proof of my statement.  Look at Obama's proposal, it's there, public access.  Pop it up, read it, and proof, done, just like that.  Go ahead and look for yourself and read the actual words, and then after than tiny little bit of research that involves actually looking at the policy you claimed to already know, try coming back and tell me that your ridiculous two week comment is still valid. 

Wow, not in Iraq prior to Bush (I've got some explaining to do about where I was in the military under the Clinton administration then, not to mention we need to completely rewrite all of the history books where they talk about our presence there and the operations and inspections we were carrying out), Obama will bring the troops home in two weeks after taking office, you magically know the opinions of the majority in Iraq....and you claim that I'm the one not making any sense? 

All that I can say is, since you don't even know anything about our presence there prior to the 21st century you must be just a child and thus still have a long time to grow up and learn that pretending to be able to read the minds of millions and magically know that your opinion represents theirs , well, it only makes you look like a fool.  But at least you're growing up in an age when you can do things like actually read a newspaper from Iraq, translated into English, and see it right on your computer, so eventually if you grow up enough to start looking at the people you claim to be able to read the minds of, you may start actually learning something real.  I suppose though, with so many opinions being freely thrown around on the Internet, for a child it would be easy to be fooled into believing that an opinion, accusation, rumor, or promise, could actually represent fact.  And on that note, I need to start getting ready to leave to hear a town hall speech tonight.  But I do suggest that you take advantage of the Internet and spend at least a bit of time reading history, and checking out a few newspapers from a few of the different cultural hubs throughout Iraq.  You'll find much more in those about the people of Iraq and the effect of the several decades long presence of foreigners and how those foreigners have influenced life and opinions.  Also, you really should at least glance at Obama's proposals.  If you're going to attempt to explain what his proposals are, it's best to actually know what they are first so that you don't make an error such as your previous two weeks to bring them home comment. 

If anything, it will give you more to comment on than "do you make this stuff up," or "nothing you say makes any sense," as a sort of tantrum when someone easily debunks your arguments and comments about being able to read the minds of millions.

"Oh, you must be refering to the 400,000 troops we had there fighting with Iraq against Iran during the Iraq / Iran War"

Ummmm, no, and where you would get that idea is beyond me, especially since we didn't have 400,000 troops there fighting with Iraq against Iran.

Which brings the question of course, if you were just denying our presence there back then, how in this post of yours are you suddenly saying that we had 400,000 troops there in that time?  You've just completely contradicted yourself.  I said we had a presence there since 1980, you said I was making things up.  And then suddenly, you're now claiming that we had hundreds of thousands of troops there?  Come on, really, from no troops and no presence to a presence of hundreds of thousands?  You can't have both, unless you're really just trying to argue anything with anyone as some sort of way to pass the time.  Really, your own giant contradiction proves that you really are not here bringing any level of honesty.  From no troops to hundreds of thousands, you really should try and keep better track of your comments so that you won't get busted so easily.

Following the attempted assassination of Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz (and a few other factors), the Iraqi airforce attacked Iran, followed by ground assaults from the six Iraqi divisions that were involved in the operations.  This turned into Saddam eventually calling for Iran to assist the Palestinians in Lebanon, an attempt to step back as his troops were becoming too demoralized to continue.  If you were trying to refer to those actions, well besides the US not offering a large troop assistance, you're in the entirely wrong country anyway, these events taking place in Iran, not Iraq.

Only later did Iran attack Iraq, five major assaults with little success due to Saddam's rapidly increased army (not due to US involvement).

Now what YOU may be thinking of (very loosely) is UN Security Council Resolution 598, where the US attacked Iranian oil platforms, and offered supplies of weapons, intelligence, economic aid, and help in stabilizing their government after the Six-Day War in 1967.  Yeah, no 400,000 troops, no huge force combining with the Iraqi military against Iran.  We offered money, stability, intelligence, and weapons, as a part of our, yep, continued presence in Iraq since 1980.  Why you tried giving an example that if it were true actually proves what I said about our presence there, while claiming it's proof against my comments, who knows.

hadenough- I totally agree with you this war beside oil it was also to maintain Israel the only super power in the ME in order to continue the ethnic cleasing of Palestinians from their home land unabated

Gee Chuck, I wasn't aware Al Sadr or his followers spoke for the country.  And, it occurs to me that not too long ago, he was ordering his own people (Sunnis and moderate Shiites) killed by his followers and his army financed by Iran.  In fact, I believe that's his new home.  But then, what do I know.  With regard to Obama and his promises, no one with half a brain believed anything he said during his campaign because he never said the same thing twice. 

But Beckwolf, don't be so critical of liberal koolaide drinkers and their complete disregard for reality.  After all, anyone who suggests that we had a greater presence in Iraq than S. Korea since 1991 shouldn't be critical of anyone else's mistaken historical recollection, particularly if you have served there.  Just when was that Beckwolf?  Oh, and those friends of yours you lost.  Did you lose them in the first Gulf war or the second?  Just wondering because there was less than 150 combat deaths in Desert Storm, so you must be star-crossed since there were over half a million troops involved in that altercation.  On the other hand, since the second gulf war began in March 2003 and there have been about 4,000 casualties, losing a friend is still highly unlikely.  Or was that just a metaphor because you believe anyone in the military is your friend? 

The vast majority of Iraqis are Shia who as I am sure you know believe in the supremacy of the Koran in government and the judiciary as the ultimate authority in secular matters. The complete lack of understanding of the Mideast and of the various religious sects at work in Iraq , Iran and Afganistan have contributed mightily to the stew that is the Mideast. We did not go to Iraq to free anyone we went to try to topple the neocon dominos and put the oil supplies of Iraq , Iran ,Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the hands of US supported government in order to assure relatively abundant supplies for the next fifty year. It has never been about freedom,get a grip it has always been about money and an easily manipulated fool with a personal vendetta. There is probably nothing more dangerous than a true believer with the power to start a war.

JKHayes

"Oh, and those friends of yours you lost.  Did you lose them in the first Gulf war or the second?"

Neither, that was my entire point, which I guess you must have missed.  They were lost along with many others that died there during the late nineties during a time when there was no official title of operation or war.  Apparently you missed the entire point of that post, the troops don't just all pack up and abandon the bases.  There was less than 150 combat deaths in Desert Storm, an operation that involved only the specific land and air operation, and NOT the entire conflict which accounted for more deaths, there were still troops dying elsewhere (Desert Storm commonly confused as our entire operation since it received the bulk of the publicity, including a service medal and postage stamp; I can't fault you too much for mixing that up with the actual conflict).  Oh, and the second gulf war began in March 2003 and there have only been about 4,000 casualties, but not a single one of them was a friend,  my service was during the Clinton administration in an area with no titled operation or war.  Every friend I have that was there beginning in 2003 or later is still alive and well, and I currently have no friends serving there in the military, only a few there who are still working as civilians.  No, obviously friend is not a metaphor for anyone in the military, obviously it would be a lot higher than three dead and two injured if it was the metaphor you suggested.  The ones that were lost all died in 1999.  And no, that is not unlikely in the slightest.  For the bulk of military forces in Iraq, they will never see anything resembling "action" (death rate in many troop locations lower than that found in some of the worst US cities).  For others in more volatile areas involved in more dangerous short term missions, there is quite a bit more risk.  Since you might have posted this before reading that my service was in the Navy stationed in Iraq (land not on water), you must have assumed that my position, and that of those closest to me, was one of a soldier.  Not so, we were not there on patrol or a peacekeeping mission, all three were lost in the same week, two deaths and two injuries in one single fight, and the third died the next day in the same location on a return search where he was caught between sides in a continuing rivalry battle that we were trying to shut down.  Before making comments about something being unlikely, it helps to actually know the situation. 

Oh, and we DID have a greater troop presence in Iraq than South Korea.  We maintained a much stronger Navy presence in South Korea, but a significantly smaller, revolving troop presence on the ground in cooperation with the UN as the North and South joined the UN.  Of course, it wasn't until 2004 that we drastically cut the troop presence.  Saying that our presence in Iraq on the ground was greater than in South Korea during that time is factual, stating historical facts gives me plenty of ground to be critical of those who associate opinions with facts and claim to represent millions of people they've never met or heard from.  Yes I lost those friends, it is entirely condescending and pointless to make assumptions stating otherwise, and being highly critical of those stating opinions as facts is not only justified, it's something everyone should be doing more of.  If we shot down people who tried spewing their opinions as gospel, if we looked at policies instead of listening to promises, if we looked at facts instead of simple biased assumptions about what a majority wants, we'd have a much more educated population and a greater chance for an improved society.  Even those who are not versed strongly in history, even those who do not know all the current and past facts...should just as strongly be critical of those who try to create their own facts from opinion and shout it as truth.  Someone who knows nothing still has the power to refuse to accept opinion as truth, to not let himself be pulled into believing that he now knows something because of an opinion without facts or grounding.

So true, everything you have said, Chuck.  How sad for America to be known as imperialists and conquerors.  Just before 9/11, European newspapers wrote, that this nation is, "the bully nation", and "Bush the bully president".  I am profoundly ashamed of our aggressive and bullying, dictatorial foreign policies.  I do not like bullies, and I hate that this nation reflects everything that is imperialistic and dictatorial because democracy should be inverse to dictatorial and imperialist foreign policies.  What this nation did to and in Iraq is evil, regardless.

I have been criticized for referring to Bush as this century's Hitler; however, Hitler conducted pre-emptive war all across pre World War2 Europe, and Bush's war was also pre-emptive as Iraq had done nothing to this nation.  As long as Hussein followed this nation's dictates, he was our pal and stood between Iran and Israel.  This nation has an attitude, do it our way or no way.  Why is it the USA possesses this God complex?

Conversely, what ethical God would bomb little children.  One poster said, we have to-date slaughtered one million innocent Iraqis, the majority of whom are women and children.  This nation should have evolved beyond mass murder and mass murderers because we are in a new century and should alienate the centuries old worldview that glorified wars and mass murder.  During WW 1, the top German commandant of all German troops said, "Even if we lose this war, it will be wonderful, glorious."  And, multi-millions of the peasants' sons died because of corrupted egos who glorified and heroized mass murder.  It is time -- we evolved and shed the cloak of the darkness of ignorance that glorified murder, grief, agony and Earthly devastation.

"Wars aren't good for any living thing", circa Viet Nam war, including our Earth.  Evolve.  Our time has come because Europe is now evolving beyond the archaic worldview that lionized and glorified mass murder and mass murders. 

White Trash,

Europe is now evolving beyond the archaic worldview that lionized and glorified mass murder and mass murders.

So your really saying the Europeans have evolved beyond fighting?  Because if that is what you are saying I can tell you have never landed a foot in Europe. 

Europeans are more bigoted than people within the United States when it come to their minority populations. Lets take France for example, next lets talk about the Dutch.. 

Last time I checked both Russia and Georgia are part of Europe.

Romania is the sex traffic capital of Europe.

For Christ sake some Germans still hate Jews because of the war and don't believe the Holocaust even happened.  I know this because I was stationed there for 4 years.

If you think Europe is so great, and your not already there, move there and become part of the culture before you make wide sweeping statements like Europeans have evolved.

I laugh at you statements!!

I agree.  We should never have been there.  They did not ask for our help.  They did not ask us to get rid of their leader.  It was our leader that made this decision and imposed it on the Iraqi people. They did not ask us to come into their country and cause the destruction.  They did not break it.  They should not have to fix it.  Instead the money spent to destroy this country should have been kept here to repair this country.  But that is the ills of imperialism.  The destruction of the occupied country.  Then leave after some have been trained by the oppressor to kill their own.  No one came here to relieve us from our dictator, Bush.

Sorry whitetrash, We carried out a pre -emptive war against Germany during WWII. Japan was the country that attacked the US. Was our involvement imperialistic then? All you leftist absolutely hate this war because it was prosecuted when a Republican was President. For NO other reason. PS- your hippie drivel stinks just as bad today as it did 40 years ago.

You are so right, Right regarding our involvement in Germany, WW2.  WW2 was a continuation of WW1, and the first world war was another unnecessary war that should have never happened.  It evolved because of a tiny piece of land, and the dispute was between Germany and France.  Hitler thought that, because 2 million Germans had died for nothing in WW1, he was going to prove they should die for something, so millions more died -- for nothing.

History proves, over and over, that most wars are unnecessary and avoidable; however, the U.S. still possesses an ancient, archaic and aggressive worldview on warring that arose from nothing more than cavemen groping for a light.  History proves, over and over that warring begets warring, and aggression and bullying causes warring and terrorism and hate.

You can rationalize blood lust and bullying all you want, but my gifted mind will take peace any time.  Now, let's hear from Julius:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged
sword. It both emboldens the blood, just it narrows the mind. And when the
drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and
the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of
the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by
partiotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."--Julius
Caesar.

Cannot call you by your handle.  I don't believe any human is trash and your writings support that.  But you are right.  We were involved in Japan's business that is why they attacked Pearl Harbor.  We interfered in their relationship with Russia.  A little downgraded imperialism.  Caesar was most appropriate.  The real men went off to fight war created by the weak in the senate.  Also a good book that fits this war and any war is John Steinbeck's "The Moon is Down."  Thanks

Beckwolf

"Oh, you must be refering to the 400,000 troops we had there fighting with Iraq against Iran during the Iraq / Iran War"

Ummmm, no, and where you would get that idea is beyond me, especially since we didn't have 400,000 troops there fighting with Iraq against Iran.

Which brings the question of course, if you were just denying our presence there back then, how in this post of yours are you suddenly saying that we had 400,000 troops there in that time?  You've just completely contradicted yourself.  I said we had a presence there since 1980, you said I was making things up.  And then suddenly, you're now claiming that we had hundreds of thousands of troops there?  Come on, really, from no troops and no presence to a presence of hundreds of thousands?  You can't have both, unless you're really just trying to argue anything with anyone as some sort of way to pass the time.  Really, your own giant contradiction proves that you really are not here bringing any level of honesty.  From no troops to hundreds of thousands, you really should try and keep better track of your comments so that you won't get busted so easily.

Following the attempted assassination of Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz (and a few other factors), the Iraqi airforce attacked Iran, followed by ground assaults from the six Iraqi divisions that were involved in the operations.  This turned into Saddam eventually calling for Iran to assist the Palestinians in Lebanon, an attempt to step back as his troops were becoming too demoralized to continue.  If you were trying to refer to those actions, well besides the US not offering a large troop assistance, you're in the entirely wrong country anyway, these events taking place in Iran, not Iraq.

Only later did Iran attack Iraq, five major assaults with little success due to Saddam's rapidly increased army (not due to US involvement).

Now what YOU may be thinking of (very loosely) is UN Security Council Resolution 598, where the US attacked Iranian oil platforms, and offered supplies of weapons, intelligence, economic aid, and help in stabilizing their government after the Six-Day War in 1967.  Yeah, no 400,000 troops, no huge force combining with the Iraqi military against Iran.  We offered money, stability, intelligence, and weapons, as a part of our, yep, continued presence in Iraq since 1980.  Why you tried giving an example that if it were true actually proves what I said about our presence there, while claiming it's proof against my comments, who knows.

Geez guy, can you possibly be that dumb. Don't you know I was teasing you about the 400,000 troops there. YOU are the one that said we had troops there. Let me explain it to you. In 1980 thru 1988 Iraq was at war with Iran. We were NOT there, and we had 0 troops there. I have no idea why you are imaging these things, but they did not happen. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, don't ya think they should be REAL. I am seriously wondering about your need for the tinfoil hat, it is becoming clear, you have waited too long to make one. Try bloging about another subject, you are lost on this one.

time to invade Mexico and steal their Nachos.

I think a better question would be..Why does this surprise us and why are so many of you running to the defense of GWBush? I'm surprised there aren't more W effigy's burning right here in the US! The man should be tried for treason among other offenses to the United States and the American people. Not to mention, the world. Trying him on offenses against intelligience alone would send him up for 20 years. The man is a moron and a disgrace to this country. Regardless of how you view the role of America in relation to the rest of the world, Bush is a disgrace, and it troubles me to see so many defending his absolute ignorance.

ummm..tired...DC does not stand for 'the district of'....I do not live in Washington, DC. And, by the ridiculous nature of your post I dont think it necessary for me to defend my intelligience. You may be 'tired of liberals' but I am just as tired of ignorant idiots who would continue to come to the defense of a man who has done nothing but laugh at the American people, the world, and the constitution of the United States for which he was sworn to defend. The man is a moronic pig.

I can see that you are one of the 25% that still think that W is some kind of hero, therefore, it would be pointless for me to debate or give you more fodder for your ridiculous rants. I am not of DC but that really doesnt matter now does it? You believe what you wish. Your ignorance shines thru your postings..ignorance and intolerance of other views.

tired of liberals-653706

everybody is dumb and stupid and all kinds of hate to you Bear @!$%#...but we see your anti American attitude and your ignorant psots and comments...to bad the author isn't monitoring the vine because it is very difficult to not use personal attacks against you as you are doing to everyone else...but then again, I don't give a rats...you are an ignorant dem-wit posting some of the stupidest anti merican crap we have seen...no facs, all rhetoric, all parrot talk, 5 year old education and probably a welfare system abuser...people like you are giving your dem-it party a bad name...o...wait, that can't be done any worse...sorry...get a coherent thought together for us so we can issue it the proper amont of laughter and ridicule ...bonehead

Whats the matter, you still crying about the election, poor baby. Just face the facts, you and your racist party LOST, ha ha ha. Say what you want, but remember over and over you LOST. And a lot of the reason you LOST was because of your stupid comments, so I say THANK YOU.

tired of liberals-653706

Black Bear Syte

your boys Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy,your boy Hillary Clinton, and all sorts of your liberal dem-wit party acknowledged well before anything happened that Saddam was a threat to the security of the Middle East as well as the rest of the world...you should have been paying attention ten years ago when the discussions started about the situation regarding him.But then again I am forgetting that you were still young and pooping green ten years ago...I assume that your young noobness is the reason for your totally absurd anti America hate speech and racism..but that is not an excuse for your weak ass liberal public school brainwashing..you should probably file a lawsuit against the morons who taught you to hate America and failed to provide you with an education that would have allowed you to NOT sound like a foolish imbicile...our thoughts are with you as you try to achieve some form of enlightenment!...hahaha

Guess what you LOST, HA HA HA

tired of liberals-653706

sure it does ......nice try.....hahaha...please name what part of the Constitution (which you should be capitalizing comrade) that has been abused...so that we may be enlightened by your vision...really...please name one

Guess what you LOST, HA HA HA

tired of liberals-653706

Marinedork

the Palestinians have never had a "homeland" dumbass...take a history class or 2 and bring yourself out of dumbassville and then carry on a conversation

Guess what you LOST, HA HA HA

Post #1.12...JK Hayes

You are so correct...To Bush and the Christian Right..it was a Modern day Crusade..just

Like Richard the Lion Heart...and we all know how that ended...Bush knew damn well

that the Islamics were NEVER GOING TO become Christian...Why? Because they are

Islamics. That IS why this was total BULLSH*T on Dubyas Part...It is also why the

Troops need to come Home ASAP...This was a Holy War that had NOTHING to DO with

9/11...The Iraqis OWE US NOTHING...They need to Burn Bush for real.

Yes, It's time to get out...Bring Home My Son Now !!

I agree! These people are ungrateful, we should pull out, let them fend for themselves. No assistance.

If they would have protested like this before we freed them they would have all been shot. We gave them a free voice now they are using it to tell us to go home. We should honor that demand.

What does Iraq have to be grateful for, we destroyed their country.  We instigated any civil strife, and mercenaries sabotaged anything and everything they could to escalate the war.

People need to understand that WAR is the most profitable business. And companies like GE (who makes fighter jets and who owns MSNBC) would love to continue making money on death and destruction.

hadenough-345906

What does Iraq have to be grateful for, we destroyed their country.  We instigated any civil strife, and mercenaries sabotaged anything and everything they could to escalate the war.

People need to understand that WAR is the most profitable business. And companies like GE (who makes fighter jets and who owns MSNBC) would love to continue making money on death and destruction.

Some people still think they 'invited' us there. We have given them nothing but death and destruction. We have given Bush, Cheney, and friends like Blackwater, billions of our dollars to stuff their pockets.

That is why they're considered WAR CRIMINALS.  

Send them to The Hague to stand trial, NOW.

White Bear... who considers them war criminals with the exception of the left? I do not consider them war criminals. Congress authorized the use of force... is everyone that voted YES a war criminal also?

jem1024, going to war was based on lies & deception so those who deceived congress (Bush, Cheney, Wolfwitz, Pearl, Rumfeld and their surragtes)  in voting  for the war are criminals and should be charged for war crimes

Marine...

You will fail in this line of argument because certain members of congress get intelligence reports also. Just on the DEM side, 111 voted YES and 147 voted NO. Why did these 147 vote NO? What in the reports did they see that the 111 failed to see? Were they simply smarter? How were they not hoodwinked by Bush. You give Bush a lot of credit by stating he was able to lie to DEMS and they could not see through it. He must be smarter than many people think... look... he was able to outwit even the DEMS.

Now that is smart. Regardless of your position on the war, it is not an illegal action. You can be against it or for it. If congress didn't want it, they could have blocked the use of force. To your point, then there are 111 DEM criminals that voted for the use of force that need to be charged also. No one forced them to vote YES... no one told them they had to... they chose to.

Kat, your son is in my prayers for a safe return to all who love him, and Marine, you shed great lightness on evil.  I, too, think Bush and his evil pals should be tried for war crimes.  I know how Europe feels about Bush's pre-emptive war.  The buck stops at the president's desk, and he deceived America.  On the grand scale of corruption and crime! And thousands of America's kids have died and as many as one million innocent Iraqis, mostly women and children. 

This nation puts to death murderers, murderers who only kill one American.  We gave Bush our trust, and he has murdered almost 5,000 of our children!!!!

jem I agree with you to some extend- yes congress including the 111 Dems were either duped or looked the other way ( actually most of them didn't read the intelligent reports) when the signed the bill authorizing the war. Furthermore, the actual intelligent reports provided to congress were spiced up and distorted (read the Downin street paper) by cheney and company. Also as you well know ( I believe you are political savy) AIPAC and other pro Israel lobby have congress and Senate in their pockets to do bidding which they cowed to them  

Marine... I do agree that there were influences afoot in that vote and would think AIPAC clearly pressured members of congress just as lobbyist do all the time. I also know that it is sad that many members of congress did not read the reports. My only issue is that the blame does not solely rest on Bush... as to the intelligence reports... not so sure... why did 147 DEMS vote NO? What pressure was applied to others that was not applied to them? Why did they not believe Bush? The "war" has been mismanaged... but it is still legal. I would think that a fireman running into a burning house is already thinking about his exit strategy... Bush was no fireman.

JEM1024

White Bear... who considers them war criminals with the exception of the left? I do not consider them war criminals. Congress authorized the use of force... is everyone that voted YES a war criminal also?

Umm, just about every country on the planet.

The intelligience reports (for lack of a better term) were phony documents to fulfill the Bushs' family vendetta against Saddam. Bush and his administration knew they were wrong but presented them as fact as to get the congress to support this outrageous offense against Iraq and the world. The war was wrong, is wrong and will always be wrong. There is not a shred of decent outcome to this bloody political outrage. The only benefit of the doubt that I could give GWBush would be the fact that he is not intelligient enough to have perpetrated this act of treason alone. D Cheney must also share the brunt of the blame and should have an adjacent cell to the one that should have already been reserved for W.

No Jem..those who supported the war were going on intelligience reports that first must go thru the Oval Office before anyone else sees them. They were lies. And even if one could not prove that, the fact remains that even after these reports were found to be flimsey at best, thuis administration continued its policy in that region. The only difference? Suddenly it became not an offensive front to disarm the Iraqi's of WMD's (rolling eyes) but a liberation operation. Please...the administration lied and that is all there is to it. G W Bush is a traitor and should be tried as such.

Marine, I agree with your reasoning, again.  Once USA saddled up with Israel against the world, we also adopted their plethora of enemies.

Years ago, I grew very upset when a popular U.S. news magazine featured a large photo of Israeli soldiers, with USA assault rifles, killing little Palestian boys because -- they had thrown rocks at them.  Rocks against assault rifles.  Adults against little 6 year old boys!  I will carry this image to my grave!

How is it, that all of mankind is in this journey together, sharing a world of travails, joy, love and despair, the human experience, and yet still, there is so much murdering, killing and destruction.  Is this the best mankind can do?  We should be better than this!  

DC... nice conspiracy theory... good luck with that... it still does not explain why 147 DEMS voted NO. How is it that they saw passed the lie? What is your clever answer for that?

White Bear...

The rest of the world can think whatever they want... they still come knocking on our door when they need help. So who cares? Whether the war is legal or illegal is based on US law... not World law... you have no point.

JEM, you really need to do your homework before you approach a keyboard. When the U.S. agrees to international law, it BECOMES U.S. law!

The Iraqis aren't being ungrateful because they never asked us to help them in the first place. They didn't want us there then and they don't want us there now. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Maybe it is fun to live in denial but the reality is that the reasons that we went into Iraq did not exist. There were NO Iraqis on the planes hijacked on 9/11. Those were citizens of our so-called allies!

Is admitting that this whole thing was a huge mistake that difficult? Swallow your pride and face reality.

Sheri... wow... I have done my homework, but I will play out your logic. If in fact international law now prevails in this country, then all members of congress that voted for the use of force have committed a crime. Is that your standing? What I have yet to do, is state the war was not a mistake nor have I stated that it was not mismanaged. What I have stated is that it was not illegal. I have no pride in the war and I do clearly believe that it was mismanaged.

At the same time, I do not beleive that international law trumps soverign US law unless it is in the form of a treaty or other congressionally ratified agreement. I am not aware of such an agreement that precluded the US from attacking Iraq but I am open to hearing from you of this agreement and when congress ratified it.

But, if you tell me the member of congress that voted yes, broke the law, then I will back down as I am sure that you will stand buy that and speak to their acts as those of war criminals.

Yes, the USA needs to get out of there but please explain, using facts, what " the

 payoff" was to Bush and his cronies.

Treason, gimme a break. I agree we need to bring our troops home, but the intel for WMD came from 3 other countries. Bush is not to blame and trying him for treason is wrong. You may want to concentrate a little bit more on the future administration.

The intel our government was giving him didn't serve his needs so he went looking else where.

see my post at 1.1  we are the attack dogs, this war has not benefited us at all.

Susan-430173

Treason, gimme a break. I agree we need to bring our troops home, but the intel for WMD came from 3 other countries. Bush is not to blame and trying him for treason is wrong. You may want to concentrate a little bit more on the future administration.

This stupid lie was discounted years ago, where ya been. OMG, are you one of the 20 % who still support this buffoon ???

White Bear... so I assume you call the 111 DEMS that voted for the use of war criminals also?

I knew, when the first bombs were dropped in Iraq what was going on.  The terrorists on 9/11 were not Iraqis; the majority were Saudis, the big buds of the entire Bush family and their pals.  If Hussein had possessed WMD's, what was he saving em for if not -- when the most powerful war machine on the planet invaded and conquered his nation and persecuted and killed his children?  If Hussein had had WMD's, was he saving them for a July 4th picnic on the beach?  If you have em' and you're being conquered, you use em unless you just enjoy firework celebrations !!!

Hussein didn't even possess fighter jets to defend his own nation and his children.  So, Iraq was going to invade USA?  Yep, with no fighter jets and no nukes, only in your dreams.  Now, exactly what did Iraq do to America?  Wasn't Hussein our big pal and stood between Israel and Iran as long as he marched to our drum music?  The same is also applicable to Bin Laden, who was once this nation's big pal. 

U.S goes to war every few years for this reason and that, and our pals and our warring reasons change with the seasons.  Commies this and Middle-East that, and good guys versus bad guys and evil versus good, and all the reasons and good and bad change with the flip of a nickel.   Yep, just like ole rice farming No. Viet Nam was going to invade the U.S.   Oh, when does it end.  "The answer my friend, it is a blowin in the wind." 

There should be a ticker in the human conscience and consciousness that mass murder is wrong, otherwise, and why weren't Bush and his war-fanatic pals' children over there on the front lines fighting for all his glorious and heroic conquering of Iraq, bringing the mighty and powerful and threatening and dangerous little Iraq to her knees, turning that nation into a hellhole!!!

Sounds like something a Hitler would do, according to my book of ethics and reasoning!

Hussein didn't even possess fighter jets to defend his own nation and his children.

That is because he tried to make a deal with the Iranians to hide them. Iraq flew them there and the Iranians took them.

You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?  This is the second post that has no fact just opinion.

Tired, what I was attempting to articulate is, Iraq was an unnecessary war based upon lies, and the majority of Americans agree with my assessment.  The point was, regardless, did you witness any offensive from Iraq during our invasion and conquering of the mighty, powerful and deadly Iraq war machine?  Was Iran hiding Hussein's nukes, too, and all along I thought Husseins' worst nightmare was Iran.

Gosh, why didn't Iran release the jets while USA, the good guys, were invading, bombing, blowing up and mass murdering all the Iraqis?  "Thou shall not kill" 

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the
citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged
sword. It both emboldens the blood, just it narrows the mind. And when the
drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and
the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of
the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by
partiotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.
How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."--Julius
Caesar.

You still haven't answered my post above in reference to the evolved Europeans.  I don't really have anything else to discuss in reference to your reply here.  I see what you are attempting to say now even if I do not agree with you!

Tired and Tired, I feel sorry for all the brainwashed drones because, they are exhausted from defending Bush and his war based upon lies, subterfuge and corruption. Have you dudes conversed with any Europeans, lately?  They believe this nation is too aggressive, too dictatorial with foreign policies.  In reality, the Europeans hate this nation.  Before 9/11, newspapers reported that Bush is the "bully president", and this nation, the "bully nation".  And, they sure share my worldview, too.  And, they worship the ground Obama walks on.  The just adore him!

Tired, my father was infinitely more intelligent than Bush.  My father was highly gifted according to his IQ test.  Bush never reads, and my father could polish off several books in the evening, reading at the speed of John F. Kennedy.  My father would have whooped Bush's "hog farm" IQ at any time and at any speed.  Great minds, think alike, right, Tired and Tired.  The twin brainwashed drones.  So, exhausted because, the majority of Americans despise the idiot prez and can't wait until he heads back to his hog farm and the wallows, loaded with all the hog dung.  Go, Bush!  Bon Appetite!!       

I am glad I am not your father because I would find you a profound embarrassment and disappointment.  Number one you can't read, and two you should make proofreading your statements a practice.  I have not once tried to insult your ideals or thoughts.  My only insight was to point out your arguments are nothing but opinions without supporting facts.  That is the truth, and should be taken as constructive criticism.

You obviously know very little about Europe because your sweeping statements have been gathered from an armchair in front of the TV.  You haven't answered my earlier post because you haven't the first hand knowledge I do about Europe.  They are as screwed up as us, and trying to say they are "evolved" just shows your ignorance on the subject, and the definition of the word evolved!!

Finally, you may think by coupling me with the other Tired you are insulting me, but I can tell you I would much rather be associated with him/her then share one oxygen molecule with a closed minded buffoon like you!!

You two Tired's, are just that, tired and so deeply entrenched with brainwashing.  You failed to get the big picture.  The one freedom that escapes the American mind is, freedom of thought.  Free-thinking is carefully controlled and programmed in this nation, just like robots are programmed.  Europeans realize, that Americans are the most brainwashed, programmed drones in the world.  The one freedom lost, is free-thinking.

We are programmed and brainwashed to keep the masses quasi comatose, so as not to think and comprehend, the only thing that matters is, the wealthy stay wealthy.  All the rest is mind fertilizer, i.e., cow manure.  Just as long ago, European kings used mind-control and brainwashing to control their slave labor,  their serfs, to do all the slave labor, so they could roll in their gold.  Not much has changed.  Many Americans are merely serfs or slaves, to keep the economy rolling in the clover to keep the wealthy rich.  A few roll in the gold coins while the rest slave their lives away, so the wealthy can control the minds of America with religion and hoooo-rah, rah's.  A wave the flag kinda thing, while they scoop in all the money.  Face it Tireds, you have been duped and scooped!

It has worked for centuries.  The wealthy and those in power and control, brainwash the drones so they keep slaving away because, the economy is all that matters.  They would sell your souls to Satan for the economy.  After all, it is the middle class, serfdom and slave labor that carries the economy for the rich pigs, and they just love mind-control and brainwashing.  Hoooo rah, first dudes.  How does it feel to be a slave, masked in brainwashing and mind control.  No wonder, all you dudes, are exhausted.    

Your needle is stuck in the groove White Trash.  Unlike your consort above I do believe the world is filled with human waste, and unfortunately for me I wasted time in a discussion with a self proclaimed enlightened thinker with a suitable pseudonym.  People can disagree with you without it becoming a personal attack.  That would be the mark of a truly enlightened person.

There are many Americans who choose NOT to live under the thumb of the rich.  I am one of them. Maybe you should try it so you can reduce your anger towards others.  I am a patriot and would wave my country's flag with pride because the American flag represents a long history of trials and tribulations, not just current events.  Events you, and people like you, seem focused on.

Government changes over time through challenges to the system, some are great and some are small.  We just happen to be facing one right now which no one can forecast the direction it will take.  That may scare a reactionary person like you, but I saw this coming and have prepared myself physically, mentally, and emotionally to deal with it.  That is the mark of a mature person with capable intellect!

If you continue to place faith in the presumed enlightenment of the European way of life it will only lead you to disappointment.  Europeans are only human after all and are capable of the same follies we all are.

White Trash you need to adjust your tinfoil hat for better reception here on planet earth! Let me conclude my discussion with you by quoting from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: Scene 8!

"Je pète dans votre direction générale!"

white trash... is it really your position that anyone who holds a viewpoint opposite of yours is simply brainwashed? You always to come to that point in every chain when people confront you, you always find refuge in stating the opposition is brainwashed. Are you not intelligent enough to at least come up with something new to say once in a while? Clearly, based on your rants, you have no facts to argue with. Come up with a new line... maybe try that old one about drinking the Kool-Aid... you know... mix it up some.

Cassandra, I agree.

It's greed!

I totally feel lied to.

Lets give Bush to the Iraqi people after January 20th. He started he illegal war. Why not let them decide his fate.

Minan59

Lets give Bush to the Iraqi people after January 20th. He started he illegal war. Why not let them decide his fate.

You bet cha

"Let's face it this is just Bush Cheney extending the war so their friends and in Cheney's case himself can bring in more millions of dollars. Its an outrage and we should be out of Iraq now. ( Disclaimer: I have a son who was injured in an IED attack in Iraq)."

I served during the Clinton administration, losing three friends to the war in Iraq in the nineties and seeing two injured despite the fact that at that point in time we didn't have the official title of war.  It still amazes me to this day that so many people actually believe we only went to war in Iraq after Bush came in and gave the title.  War is declared in most cases to provide additional funds and troops for actions already occurring.  In this case, we've been there for just shy of three decades, troops since that time never dropping below the tens of thousands (this isn't our first war there and the troops remained and continued to fight after the previous wars up until they have continued to fight in this one).  When more is needed, war is declared and it is the job of the President to come up with excuses to rally support for those funds and troops being sent. 

Bush failed in his presentation, much more than in the war itself.  He attempted to take so much credit for the war that he made it feel as if our presence and actions there were something new, despite the fact that we were already fighting there and thousands had already died.  He made excuses, he took credit for actions completely unrelated to him.  And then he let the publicity go bad, even though we had seen a chemical WMD used in Iraq against its own people and found multiple sites with chemical traces leading off in the desert, he kept everything so close to his chest people began to believe that the WMD statement was a lie, even though we saw the ditch site (many of us personally) where the hundreds of thousands killed by the WMD were dumped.  He exaggerated the threat level, he made it seem as if more was being developed (that being the true exaggeration), but of course that exaggeration turned into an accusation of a complete lie (incorrectly) by the people, simply due to how poorly Bush presented himself and how much he exaggerated the truth to bring in more publicity.  No, the existance of WMD's was not a lie, the mass grave site is more than ample proof.  Yes, we were fighting there LONG before Bush came into office.  No, Cheney is not profiting millions of dollars personally from the war, I haven't heard a single valid explanation for where that profit would be coming from.  However, Bush showed extremely poor leadership in the presentation of granting the title of war to assist the troops already fighting there (one of my friends that died only did so because Clinton refused to grant the title of war and the funds that come with it, this being during a time when the funds were greatly needed and soldiers and sailors in certain posts were not provided with proper body armor.  He was given no vest due to major budget cutbacks, along with our 30% cut in pay and benefits that the administration brought us, and a small caliber bullet that an average vest would have easily stopped caused him to bleed out before help could arrive).  That title of war was not only necessary, it should have begun before Bush ever even took office.  People died BECAUSE the previous administration failed to provide the title when it was so strongly needed.  The title of war to bring in the funds we needed was absolutely necessary, and that title would have been granted regardless of who became President after Clinton.  The failure was in the presentation and subsequent publicity.  Bush took too much credit for actions already undergoing, for actions he had no involvement in, for specific missions that had already begun years prior, and he failed in adequately presenting to the public what this war really is, a title granted to provide those additional troops and deperately needed funds for long standing missions that began well prior to his time in office.  The title will end, and same as our previous wars in Iraq, tens of thousands of troops will remain in the multiple permanent bases we have there, and we will continue with many of the long standing missions we are carrying out, and eventually if more funds and troops are needed again, whoever is President at that time will be tasked with making excuses to the people to grant the title yet again.  The only thing that actually changed with Bush taking office over his opponent was the publicity and the presentation.

Beckwolf

Can you be that uninformed, or are you possibly that dumb. America has NOT been in Iraq since 1980. If they were in Iraq since 1980, please explain what in the world were they doing since Iraq was at war with Iran from 1980 until 1988.

Once again, SOURCE PLEASE.

"If they were in Iraq since 1980, please explain what in the world were they doing since Iraq was at war with Iran from 1980 until 1988."

Well, you just claimed in a comment above that we had 400,000 troops there in 1980 assisting the Iraqis against Iran.  So which is it, were we not there in 1980 or did we have a troop presence of 400,000 strong?  You've now said both on the same forum.  Of course, we were there but we didn't have 400,000 troops assisting the Iraqis against Iran, both of your comments are wrong.  But you're drastically contradicting yourself on the same forum for all to see.  You ask for my source while claiming that we had no troops there and yet 400,000 troops there at the EXACT same time?  Source, a history book, not hard to read.  Once again, I've given an answer on the source.  Saying "source please" doesn't help your argument when the source is given to you over and over and over and you simply choose to ignore it.  Oh, and you really shouldn't call someone dumb in the same post that directly contradicts your previous post.  No troops and hundreds of thousands at the same time...wow, not a bright move saying both in the same place, especially when you're trying to insult someone else.

Cassandra, I'm so deeply sorry to hear that your son was injured; he will be in my prayers.  The older I have become, the more of a peace-nik, I've become.  To use an old quote from, "Gone Wth the Wind", and when Ashley was in the library before the Civil War he said,

"Most of the miseries of the world are caused by wars, and after they are over, everyone forgets all the whys."

Something like that anyway, [Forgot the entire quote!!!  lol]

Beckwolf, I am sorry you lost good friends because of a flawed and archaic worldview.  American women cannot breed fast enough to furnish cannon fodder for all the wars this nation believes are reasons to hemorrhage each new generation of Americans.  If this nation were committed to mitigating atrocities, we would have been warring in Africa for years. 

Before this nation invaded and conquered Iraq in a pre-emptive war, Hussein was not even listed in the top 5 most heinous dictators on the planet.  We cannot control all the horrors of this planet because if we attempted to do just that, we would cease to exist.  We can all extrapolate how much the Iraq War has cost America -- financially, emotionally and cost us in the global world of public opinion.  Let's give America and our populace a time out and not hemorrhage more and more Americans.  We must take care of America first...because -- no one out there, is looking out for us and America!  

Israel has reap the seed that it sow

Great thinking, Frank.  I agree.  In my opinion, your thinking is right on.

I was thinking the same thing.

I love that picture of Al-Sadr they added to the article.  I would have but a bulls-eye on his forehead then posted the picture.  It looks like he is pointing right where the world wants to put a bullet. 

If anyone does it let me know I would like a copy for the firing range.

Uber Alles, dude!!!

California Uber Alles!

Islam isn't the enemy it's the extremists  that take it too far.

Uh yeah Dew....Try to justify that one. Islam is a violent religion no matter which way you look at it.

read the talmud for yourself you might get a different perspective on what's going on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5QymNCltYs

Puck2u

Uh yeah Dew....Try to justify that one. Islam is a violent religion no matter which way you look at it.

Here we go,  Puck2u  the troll is on line, get your boots on.

Oh boy M. White Bear seems to have an attitude. He must know everything....NOT...What a moron. Ban Islam. And while you are at it ban ALL organized religions. It has been the souce of conflict since the beginning of..er ...time? WOW!!! That is like FOREVER!!!

Boo...I would dare say that probably as many or more people have fought and died under a Christian "flag", so that pretty much puts them on the same level as Islam doesn't it? However, this isn't the forum for that, but point made anyway.

Why would I have to edit these comments they are the truth?

You are not allowed to say anything against those two or their wars. I can atest to that.  I have spoken out from the beginning.  I have had the FBI after me for doing so.  I have had my mail tampered with and phone tapped.  So I thought I should give them something to listen to.  They cut in on a friend's phone that I was speaking to and let him know that they were parked outside in a van.  If I really said something against the war then my mail would come torn open.  I had military helicopters hover over my house.  It has not made either of us stop.  That is why the suggestion came to edit the comment.

Is there a Paraguay - Iraq connection the rest of us are missing???

Think Nazi.

Give me a break.. If you mean the Al Qaeda's Neo-Nazi Connection touted by Free Republic?  The relationship between Iran, Russia, and Venezuela poses a bigger threat to the U.S. then this drivel!!

You would have gone far in the McCain cabinet.. "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb... Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran"

Sorry I couldn't resist..

Puck2u: I didn't realize that the Iraqi citizens were our enemy. I thought we were going there to help them, or so Bush would have us believe. Do you also promote bombing or shooting into protest crowds here in the States? Your statement goes against all that we as a people believe in ... and is borderline imperialistic. We are not their masters, and they have the right, under the democracy that we allegedly helped provide to them, to protest our presence there. We should never have gone there in the first place, as I've said from the very beginning of this war. Is it so surprising that they want us out of THEIR country? Would we want someone to occupy this country? Iraq is part of the Islamic holy land. They do not like infadels on their land, and it is their right as citizens of an allegedly sovereign nation to want us gone and protest our presence.

That said, I do find it troubling that they burned an effigy of our President. I don't like Bush, and disagree with most of his policies, but I also don't like seeing this. It is disturbing, and is a call to action to all Muslims to come running to Iraq to help fight our presence there. We need to get out, and get out now.

That said, I do find it troubling that they burned an effigy of our President. I don't like Bush, and disagree with most of his policies, but I also don't like seeing this.

Why they can do what they want they are a separate and independent nation.  I don't even care if they burn our flag!!  They are not Americans, and have no idea what it stands for.

What bothers me is the useless whiners in this country who feel they can burn the flag under the First Amendment.  Its one thing to burn a picture or representation of a totally useless person, but our flag is the soul of the people in our beautiful country. 

Presidents come and go but our flag is a symbol of who we are as a nation through time.  I mean if you hate our country so much that you can burn your own flag, I think its time you moved to a country which represents your ideals better.

I am sure Jane Fonda can make the appropriate contacts for you!!

The way I see things actually. If you are not an American you are, oh yes I am going to say it, a potential/likely enemy. End of story. Get over this globalization crap and lets get America back on track. Take care of our problems decisively and be done with it once and for all. And actually, the entire world would benefit. Wow, now there is an idea nobody has tried.

Get over this globalization crap and lets get America back on track.

There is nothing wrong with globalization as long as it is not at the cost of American jobs.

Take care of our problems decisively and be done with it once and for all. And actually, the entire world would benefit. Wow, now there is an idea nobody has tried.

Actually it has been tried by Adolf Hitler.  I am sure the German people were convinced that their ideals were the right ones for the world.  There is really no difference in dropping bombs to take care of a problem as opposed to using a gas chamber.

I guess the only difference is I am taking care of people who don't like us. I am not killing just to kill because I don't like them ethnic-wise. You are either with us or against us. Survival of the fittest. When it comes right down to it that is the way things work. Don't like it? Oh well. Now lets get back to ridding the world of our enemies.

Germany did not attack all the countries around it out of ethnic spite.  It was trying to conquer those people who did not like them or their ideals, as well as, perform ethnic cleansing on the Jews.

If you are not an American you are, oh yes I am going to say it, a potential/likely enemy.

Yes, but where do you start, and where do you end?  Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Gaza Strip, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Singapore, Philippians .. etc..

There are people who don't like us all over the world. Most are Muslim radicals but not all.

I am not killing just to kill because I don't like them ethnic-wise.

Even if you are not fighting them because of their ethnicity, they are fighting you because of it.  So when they don't stop attacking will you say the same thing?

Start with your enemies and end when they are all defeated. That is how it works. I will have no problems with anyone if they have no problems with me. And that is how that works as welll.

ummm ungreatful? lets see did they invited us or did we attacked, invaded and destroyed their infrastructure. Yes they are ungreatful bunch, just like we were liked in Nam of which I served 13 months

Marine, would you stop calling yourself a grunt while, all the time, you are brilliant!  Though you may have been in Viet Nam, you still have a solid grasp on your thinking and reasoning mind.  Take care,  I'm your age.  Great minds think alike, right! 

I disagree.. If they could find him they would have taken him out..  It would have been the best PR for the Republican party and a "real justification" in their eyes that they are the ones who can provide U.S. security best.

I am not saying I agree with this but you can bet they would have milked it for all it was worth during the election.  Bin Laden is one hemorrhoid on the whole @$$, which the Middle East.

Al-Sadr needs to take a good hard look at his own religion.

Balanced message, but I don't think Al-Sadr cares.  His is playing the perception game right now.  His followers were the ones beheading people at the beginning of the war.  He may have denounced this, but I am sure this is just for public perception.  I would be very wary if he came to power in Iraq.

I agree.

Too many lives lost and money spent.  What a waste. 

Focusing on our borders here is a good idea, IMO.

Mick

I don't like Bush either, but saying we should have killed him is wrong. We should never have elected him and handed over our country to him. He should have been impeached, but since we can't really do that anymore, he should now be tried and convicted of war crimes, and tossed into the deepest, dankest jail cell we can find. I also think, since he doesn't believe it's torture, that waterboarding might be in order. See if we can get the truth out of him about the 50 or so scandals that have surrounded his administration.... But killing him? No. We are a nation of laws, or at least we were before this corruption of a man got into office. Only 1 more month, and he'll be gone and the last 8 years of hell can fade into our collective memories, much like a nightmare.

The Iraqi people will have much more respect for America and its citizens once George Bush is out of the picture.

I disagree.. Their perception of Americans will not change unless their religious leaders tell them it has changed.  And they will not as long as we have a presence in the Middle East and are friends with the Jews.

He posed no threat to us and he was a force who kept Syria and Iran under control.

I do agree he posed no immediate threat to the U.S., but Saddam keeping Iran under control.... please..... Iraq had no power over these two countries!!! The only think which kept them from going to war with each other was an uneasy balance of power.  Do you know how many time Iran has screwed Iraq and vice-versa.

"And they will not as long as we have a presence in the Middle East and are friends with the Jews."

The United States does not need to have a presence in the Middle East. However, the United States will never abandon Israel. Israel has shown that it is capable of living in peace with its Arab and Persian neighbors if only the Arab and Persian neighbors abandon their mantra of destroying Israel. Egypt and Jordan are two prime examples. I think we will soon see peace between Israel and Syria. The biggest obstacle to peace in the Middle East and better relations between the Jewish people and Muslims, and subsequently between the Muslims and America, is the destructive attitude of the terrorist political party Hamas.

"The only think (sic) which kept them from going to war with each other was an uneasy balance of power."

Yes, I agree, and that is how Iraq kept Iran and Syria under control. Keeping your enemies under control is not the same as keeping them under your thumb. 

Then you would not disagree to the statement that Iran and Syria has kept Iraq under control?

I would not disagree.

Then we agree!

TiredOfPolitics, I think if you were able to read many of my other comments in the various discussion groups you would find that you and I agree on a substantive number of things.

Ok..regardless of this mutual admiration society meeting here, the fact is..The only reason we hold a presence in the middle east is OIL. Plain and simple. The state of affairs in that region is vital to the flow of oil. And, the link to Israel? To have an alli in the region to help see to it that the OIL KEEPS FLOWING. If there were no black gold in that region, or if we had done the right thing years ago and developed renewable sources of energy right here at home after the last gas crunch (early 70's), we would have no interest in who kills who in the middle east. The logical argument against any defense in terms of 'humanitarian reasons' is the fact that people all over the world (africa comes to mind) are constantly being slaughtered yet we do nothing . Why? BECAUSE THERE IS NO OIL THERE.

War on terror? Please. If that were the case we wouild have had much more troop presence in Afghanistan all along.

Ok..regardless of this mutual admiration society meeting here, the fact is..

What do you have a problem when two adults actually have a discussion and come to an agreement on something??  So much for you being a liberal! Hahaha.. What a lark.

The only reason we hold a presence in the middle east is OIL. Plain and simple.

Oil is the main motivating factor for us being there.  The discussion had nothing to do with why we were over there??  Any dribbling buffoon knows why we are over there..

Did you even bother reading what we were discussing before you decided to try and rub two of your ill begotten braincells together to muster your rhetoric??

War on terror? Please. If that were the case we wouild have had much more troop presence in Afghanistan all along.

Are you sure you even posted to the right conversation?  "War on terror" who the hell said that???  If I may make a suggestion for your further posts maybe you should quote those parts of the conversation you are addressing.  It will help others follow your ranting..